Uploaded August 2007 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Dendrophilian made two videos supporting pedophilia. This is his first video. It has been deleted by Youtube:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5744936649457718420
And here is his second video in which he explains his actual views on pedophilia.
youtube.com/watch?v=wbbBfHRsMBw
While I support his right to make a video explaining why the laws should be changed to legalize pedophiles, I find what he advocates very disgusting. Of course, popular speech needs no First Amendment protection. It is only unpopular ideas that need protection.
I forgot to mention in the video that though I support his right to make a pro-pedophilia video, I also recognize that Google/Youtube is a private corporation and they have the right to remove any video for any reason. I might not agree with their decision, but they pay for the servers that enable us to use this site, so they should get the final say as to what is allowed on their site.
Dendrophilian argued that we should allow pedophilia because pedophilia has been observed in apes. Well, infanticide and cannibalism has been observed in chimpanzees, as can be seen if you follow the next two links:
springerlink.com/content/t147m48115l14601
springerlink.com/content/47218p5171q35g16
Should we use primate behavior as a basis for our system of morality?
I encourage you to watch the following two videos.
This video is by melsbasketcase:
youtube.com/watch?v=81Uirzk0iXc
And here is a video by pdoeman that is well worth watching:
youtube.com/watch?v=-0SZldPBNqg
Dendrophilian made two videos supporting pedophilia. This is his first video. It has been deleted by Youtube:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5744936649457718420
And here is his second video in which he explains his actual views on pedophilia.
youtube.com/watch?v=wbbBfHRsMBw
While I support his right to make a video explaining why the laws should be changed to legalize pedophiles, I find what he advocates very disgusting. Of course, popular speech needs no First Amendment protection. It is only unpopular ideas that need protection.
I forgot to mention in the video that though I support his right to make a pro-pedophilia video, I also recognize that Google/Youtube is a private corporation and they have the right to remove any video for any reason. I might not agree with their decision, but they pay for the servers that enable us to use this site, so they should get the final say as to what is allowed on their site.
Dendrophilian argued that we should allow pedophilia because pedophilia has been observed in apes. Well, infanticide and cannibalism has been observed in chimpanzees, as can be seen if you follow the next two links:
springerlink.com/content/t147m48115l14601
springerlink.com/content/47218p5171q35g16
Should we use primate behavior as a basis for our system of morality?
I encourage you to watch the following two videos.
This video is by melsbasketcase:
youtube.com/watch?v=81Uirzk0iXc
And here is a video by pdoeman that is well worth watching:
youtube.com/watch?v=-0SZldPBNqg



![Blunty3000, Utubedrama, and Censorship: Part 1
This video provides a detailed response to Blunty3000 and his support of the censorship of haters. The issue is not as simple as Blunty suggests, and legitimate free speech could be the inadvertent casualty of an anti-hater campaign. Such a campaign could also backfire and severely hurt Youtube.
Here is a link to Blunty3000s video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWG-zgaXH40
Bluntys blog where he discusses haters in general and Trevor Rieger in specific:
http://www.bluntmation.com/content/
Utubedramaqueens video, where Trevor describes why he thinks Youtube censored him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEojLdCxDQo
Information about Richard Nixons enemies list:
http://www.answers.com/topic/nixon-s-enemies-list
Michelle Malkins First They Came video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOb6Vh3qaAY
New York Times v. Sullivan—The seminal libel law case.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
The original passage from NYT v. Sullivan that I bent to fit this situation:
A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount leads to a comparable self-censorship. Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. [note 19] Even courts accepting this defense as an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true in all its factual particulars. See, e.g., Post Publishing Co. v. Hallam, 59 F. 530, 540 (C.A. 6th Cir. 1893); see also Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 892 (1949). Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which steer far wider of the unlawful zone. Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S. at 526. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
My video discussing the Nick Gisburne affair. Nick was originally told by Youtube that he was being censored for inappropriate content. Youtube later told him that he was being banned forever because of copyright infringement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By6aqz_79Uc
Youtubes bungling of the Gisburne affair earned it some really bad press. Watch Michelle Malkins video and pay close attention to the comments underneath it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/21/banned-by-youtube-iii/
This video by Ron, the Washington, D.C. copyright lawyer, discusses the Tur v. Youtube lawsuit. It is absolutely essential to watch this video for people to understand why Youtube should be careful not to get a reputation for censorship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9SQ4qkMMk
Update: Trevors Utubedramaqueen account has been banished and he is now posting as Utubedramaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUUEczUFCsg Blunty3000, Utubedrama, and Censorship: Part 1](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/eaB-boF_lMs/mqdefault.jpg)






