Free Speech

All Speech Should Be Free

The more speech that is blocked, the less we learn.

|

I now make my living by releasing short videos on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

I assumed you who subscribed to my feed or became Facebook "friends" would receive that video every Tuesday.

Wrong! Turns out social media companies send our posts to only some of our friends. (That's why I ask for your email address. Then they can't cut us off.)

Why might they cut us off?

One reason is that we'd drown in a fire hose of information if they showed us everything. The companies' algorithms cleverly just send us what the computer determines we'll like.

Another reason may be that the companies are biased against conservative ideas.

They deny that. But look at their actions. Social media companies say they forbid posts that "promote violence," including ones that encourage violence offline.

But antifa groups that promote violence still have accounts. The Twitter account of the group in Portland, Oregon, that recently beat up journalist Andy Ngo, leaving him with brain damage, is still up.

"In Austin, they were calling for a paramilitary operation!" says Glenn Beck. That antifa group's Facebook account is also still up, even though it links to a manifesto calling for opponents to be "beaten bloody."

In my newest video, Beck, who runs a big media operation called The Blaze, says social media companies push a leftist agenda.

"They manipulate algorithms to reshape our world."

Beck himself hasn't been banned, but he says Facebook limits his reach, putting him in a "digital ghetto."

"They're shaping you," he warns.

Is it true?

Although I'm not a conservative, sometimes I do notice odd things happening with my posts.

On average, my videos get more than a million views. But when I did one that criticized Facebook, that video got half as many views.

Because Facebook didn't show it to many people?

I can't know. Facebook won't say.

Today, social media companies are pressured to cut off anyone spreading hate. In response, YouTube and Facebook say they now even demote content that almost violates policies.

But those antifa accounts are still up.

By contrast, Beck says, conservative accounts are censored merely for making fun of Democrats.

"Remember the person who slowed down (a video of House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi?" he asked.

The video made Pelosi sound drunk. It went viral, but once Facebook got complaints, the company announced it "dramatically reduced its distribution."

When Facebook did that, notes Beck, "The person in charge happened to be one of the leaders in Nancy Pelosi's office who had just left to go to work for Facebook."

I told Beck that Facebook hires some Republicans. "They do," he replied, "but only about 20 percent, and not in top level positions."

The site Spinquark did the research Beck cites, finding dozens of Democratic campaign workers who now work for social media companies.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg once invited Beck and some others to come to his offices to talk about bias.

"I sat with him and he said, 'Why would we do that?' And I said, 'I want to believe you, but your actions don't match.'"

Beck was also unhappy with conservatives at that meeting. "Some said, 'Mark, solve this by having affirmative action…. For every liberal you hire, hire a conservative.'"

"I don't want that!" Beck said. "We don't need more regulation!"

We don't.

But it's human nature, when people see a problem, to demand government do something.

Beck himself fell prey to that when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed she saw border guards telling migrants to drink water from toilets. On his radio show, Beck said government should "prosecute anyone making outrageous charges like this!"

I gave him a hard time about that. "You want prosecution of members of Congress who say nonsense?!"

Beck laughed and quickly walked his statement back. "John, I speak five hours off script every day…. There's a lot that I vomit out."

The solution?

"No censorship," says Beck.

"Publish everything?" I asked.

"Yes!" answered Beck. "We can handle it. Stop treating us like children."

I agree. On at least some platforms, all speech should be free. The more that is blocked, the less we learn.

COPYRIGHT 2019 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: Everyone Dares Call It Treason

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I like that Stossel is showing Ngo getting assaulted, but is leaving out when he was involved in a mob instigating violence against Antifa that ended with a woman getting paralyzed and then two of the anti-Antifa guys being convicted for the assault. It’s almost like he has an agenda!

      1. Here’s the video before the fight, Andy is with them as they’re planning to attack. The full video including the violence is on there, you can see the woman get crippled. Also, Ngo had a history of lying in his reporting. He didn’t get attacked out of the blue because he had conservative opinions, as I had originally thought. He lied about a number of things and deceptively edited his “news” pieces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awN9J88j4mA&feature=youtu.be

        1. Now please explain / excuse this one away, if you can…

          https://reason.com/2018/08/21/antifa-portland-evan-welch-violence/
          This Liberal Carried an American Flag to Protest Fascism in Portland. Antifa Cracked His Head Open With a Bat.
          Masked Antifa agitators told Welch, a Hillary voter, to hand over the flag. He resisted. They attacked.

          1. An American flag, Antifa said, was a “fascist symbol”. I have been disappointed in the liberal media focusing on Ngo’s supposed conservatism… “He asked for it” is the narrative… And ignoring the case cited above.

            1. Look into Ngo’s reporting, if you’re so sure. Check it out.

              You won’t.

              1. “Look into Ngo’s reporting, if you’re so sure. Check it out.”

                So you have nothing.

                1. No I actually explained it, it’s not hard. Well it might be for YOU, but look up his reporting about Antifa attacking a Proud Buys bus with a hammer, and then see what he left out. It’s fun and easy!

                  1. Surely, neither Ngo nor Stossel would dare to defend the “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in our nation’s leading criminal “parody” case. This fact alone suffices to reveal the emptiness and, indeed, hypocrisy of Stossel’s claim that “all” speech should be “free.” Stossel cannot be entirely ignorant of the legal methods we have developed here at NYU in collaboration with New York prosecutors. Therefore, he knows full well that some forms of “speech” are so inappropriate that they are not only unworthy of “constitutional” protection, but must be considered crimes punishable by hard time in prison, pure and simple. See the documentation at:

                    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

            2. Perhaps the liberal media agrees that the flag represents fascism. So nothing to report there.

          2. Bet you didn’t watch the video did you? Of course not, you have your narrative. Oh yeah, and also did I say Antifa was a bunch of good guys? No I didn’t. But Ngo isn’t either. See how easy that is?

            But you won’t get that from Stossel.

            1. And because YOU have YOUR narrative, you’re not going to read the below. So we’re even. (PS, I have already read about Ngo several times. Especially since liberal-biased media covers him FAR more than EVER even thinking about mentioning the below).

              https://reason.com/2018/08/21/antifa-portland-evan-welch-violence/
              This Liberal Carried an American Flag to Protest Fascism in Portland. Antifa Cracked His Head Open With a Bat.

              1. Read it, so what, I never said that Antifa was all a bunch of good guys, genius. Where did you get me praising Antifa? I was shit talking Ngo, not the same thing.

                Come on, your a libertarian, I know you’re certain you’re smarter than everyone else. Use that brain!

                1. OK, then, now move on and deny that this here Reason article is WRONG when Reason says this: There is a HUGE double standard in the mainstream media (Google and Facebook etc. included) when they ban the likes of Proud Boys, and do NOT ban the likes of Antifa… Both bless the use of violence.

                  Picking on the Ngo case’s supposed “weaknesses”, and NOT covering the case I cite above, is more evidence of the media bias. And you’re helping the biased-media side! THAT is what I am saying!

                  1. You know the mainstream media doesn’t much report on Antifa OR Proud Boys? Fox talks about Antifa a lot, never mentions Prouds (wonder why). Not sure if I’ve heard either mentioned on other channels. Oh but look, quick search for that story no one reported but Reason?

                    https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-violence-portland-bernie-sanders-video-1082072

                    1. I would hardly call that link reporting on Antifa violence.

              2. Too bad there wasn’t a friend standing by who could put 7 rounds of .45ACP into the thug with the bat.

        2. so it’s okay to beat up a journalist if they’re biased? there won’t be many journalists left if that’s the case.

    1. Ngo films group that supposedly commits violence off camera=bad

      CNN films groups that commits violence on camera=good

      yeah okay pal.

      1. Oh sure, that’s exactly what I said. Also, “supposedly?” Here he is with the Proud Boys on that riot day. I know you hadn’t heard of any of this because Reason and conservatives don’t want you to know and I’m sure you don’t do much real reading elsewhere. Ngo also had a history of deceptively editing his stories, you can look that up if you’d like., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awN9J88j4mA&feature=youtu.be

        1. Reason and conservatives don’t want you to know

          HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

        2. He was with the Proud Boys, and he was with Antifa. Journalists are supposed to talk to both sides, aren’t they?

          1. He was never with Antifa. And that still doesn’t explain how he misrepresents facts in his reporting. What about that my friend?

            1. He got close enough for them to beat him into brain damage, that wasn’t “with” enough for you?

              1. That doesn’t mean he was “with” them, idiot. It means he was in the area where protesting was happening.

                Watch the video where he’s hanging out with the Proud Boys and going along with them planning to attack Antifa, where they’re just hanging out for ten minutes planning, and then he walks with them to the fight (where a woman was crippled). That’s WITH people.

                I know thinking is hard, but try harder.

                1. so you’re still excusing physical assault and battery for what someone wrote?

                  1. No, dum dum. Find where I did and quote it.

                    1. Huh, no follow up from CE. Strange!

    2. I like that Stossel is showing Ngo getting assaulted, but is leaving out when he was involved in a mob instigating violence against Antifa that ended with a woman getting paralyzed and then two of the anti-Antifa guys being convicted for the assault. It’s almost like he has an agenda!

      This doesn’t change things that much (or necessarily at all, really). It’s been documented repeatedly that there are numerous “journalists” affiliated with Antifa, some even openly supportive of, and they don’t get assaulted. Additionally, it extends beyond “journalists”. Frequently, students, counter protesters, and passersby get assaulted by Antifa events instigated, organized, or even supported by, e.g., university employees and faculty who suffer no apparent consequences for their actions.

      Ngo may be crooked as fuck but he’s far from the only one and he’s among the few in a selectively skewed distribution who’ve been assaulted.

      1. He is, but again, Stossel has his little narrative and talking real about Ngo fucks it up. Also, the funny thing is, some of those other people Antifa seems to randomly attck, when you see more video, it’s not random. There was one of them attacking a car and I was like wow, what a bunch of animals. But you see more stuff and you see the car tried to run a few of them down before they attacked it.

        1. Unless he threw the first punch I don’t see how he “fucked up” anything.

          The Antifa seem to think disagreeing with them is adequate cause for a beatdown. How are you not endorsing that position?

          1. Well, trying to hit someone with a car is like a punch, but with 2,000 pounds behind it.

            Fuck, you’re dumb.

    3. “but is leaving out when he was involved in a mob instigating violence against Antifa”

      You mean the video where he was looking at his phone the whole time and they were discussing self-defense?

      THAT video?

      And why, precisely, would it matter? Did ANDY assault them? No? Then GFY.

  2. Last month I have made Dollar19365 by working online from home in my part time.I have made this income in my very first month of joining and that was awesome.I am a college student and doing this job in only my part time.I want you also to join this and start earning online right now by follow details on this link… http://earny.xyz/0lU1xKW32s

  3. Its called tolerance. The tolerant left will report anything they feel to be intolerant, because tolerant people don’t tolerate intolerance.
    So intolerant posts by non-leftists result in a flood of complaints, whereas tolerant calls for violence against intolerant non-leftists do not get as many complaints because intolerant non-leftists don’t report every little thing that might offend them.

    1. Life ain’t fair, sarc. Where have I heard that before?

  4. When people refuse to accept the truth of logic and science, their ability to recognize and differentiate reality from delusion is lost.

    Those with the resources, lobby groups, money to manipulate our dialogue by censorship can control our perceptions of reality, brainwash us, to act in their best interests and not our own.

    This has always been how the weak elite exercise control over the more numerous masses. The widespread persecution based on the nefarious definition of “hate speech” is only the latest method.

    What is really the definition of hate speech?

    Our first line of defence is to demand this clarity and then challenge the constitutionality of it.

    1. “When people refuse to accept the truth of logic and science…”

      Whose “truth” here? Like yours, where a fertilized human egg has rights, and a fertilized chimp egg doesn’t? Where do you get your “truths”?

      We live in a murky world. Butt-loads of things are matters of taste, not of truth. Chocolate tastes better than vanilla. True or false?

      1. You think chimpanzees have the same unalienable rights as humans. Sounds about right.

        1. “unalienable rights” are a religious / sociopolitical construction. My rights are “unalienable rights” only if I have enough force and violence, or threats of force and violence, to prevent others form “aliening” (stealing) my rights. As soon as chimp fertilized eggs arm themselves enough to protect themselves, they will have “unalienable rights”.

          But NOOO!!! Chimp eggs don’t even get off of their lazy asses to get a job and earn some money to buy some guns with, to defend themselves! If THEY won’t do it, why should I care?

          (Chimp eggs and human eggs are VERY similar, you know!)

          1. We get it you think chimpanzees are the same as humans.

            1. Thank you VERY much for your detailed facts and logic! But we can’t assimilate ANY of your facts and logic, since you have greasy hair, and haven’t brushed your teeth thoroughly enough, recently enough.

          2. It sounds like you advocate civil war to solve the abortion question as it would any chimp problem, as it did the lesser crime of slavery.

            1. As soon as fertilized chimp eggs earned their OWN damned money (NOT my tax money!) to buy their guns and other weapons with, I say, bring it ON!!! I am armed, locked, and loaded for the Zombie Army, so no stinkin’ little fartilized chimp-egg cells can stand a single tiny CHANCE against me!

              1. I’ll take that as a YES.

        2. “You think chimpanzees have the same unalienable rights as humans. Sounds about right.”

          Well chimps are closer to him intellectually than humans, as a general rule.

          I mean, there are some REALLY dumb chimps he might outshine.

        3. He talked about a pertilized egg, not a live, born chimp and a human.

          1. …and?

            Do chimps at any stage of development have inalienable rights?

            1. You tell us! Using “science and logic”, as Rob Misek says!

              1. No. They do not.

                I figured you’d know this, but I frequently over-estimate people.

                Now cut it out. It’s embarrassing and people are starting to pity you.

      2. Whose truth? Yours, mine everyone’s. Truth is defined as “REALITY”. Do you think reality is in conflict with itself? If you do, the murkiness of your perception is on you.

        Don’t confuse laws with truth. While justice demands that laws support truth, we don’t live in a just society yet.

        When you take the ambiguity out of your chocolate question by adding “to whom” there is only one truthful answer, reality.

        Is abortion murder to the baby?

        1. “Is abortion murder to the baby?”

          Brushing my teeth is murder to millions and millions of bacteria. Your “logic” is, in many cases, simply emotions, preferences, tastes, and “value judgments”. We have to share this world with other who disagree with us… And not going and punishing people who steal an acorn, the same as we punish people who steal a full-grown oak tree, is a GOOD idea!

          SOME people… I won’t name them here… Get off on ego trips about punishing everyone who disagrees with them. Even if there are simple, workable compromises at hand. They LOVE punishment… But only for the WRONG people! And they know EXACTLY who the WRONG people are!

          1. Sqrsly thinks bacteria have unalienable rights now as well. Sounds about right.

            1. I’m glad that you agree with me!

              I hope you never lose your sense of PROPORTIONATE JUSTICE, and go exacting “capital punishment” on all those dastardly bastards who DARE to brush their teeth, thereby engaging in mass murder!

              Small sins should be super-easily forgiven… LARGE sins should NOT be so easily forgiven! And self-righteousness is one of THE largest sins!

              1. Ugh, so I guess we have a nice 19 year old libertarian. Don’t worry bud, you’ll grow out of it, or become like most libertarians I know and join the military and get a nice government check paid for with stolen tax money.

            2. “Sqrsly thinks bacteria have unalienable rights now as well. Sounds about right.”

              So, SQRSLY is saying he commits mass murder of bacteria et al on a regular basis?

              Shouldn’t he be in jail or something? Using his “logic”?

          2. Be careful what you wish for. If we allow IQ to be the prerequisite for the legal human right to life, you’re fucked.

            The recognition and acceptance of the truth, demonstrated by the evidence of logic and science is required for the designation of intelligence and rationality not humanity.

      3. “”“When people refuse to accept the truth of logic and science…”””

        “Chocolate tastes better than vanilla. True or false?”

        Logic and science knows you are asking for a subjective opinion.

        1. Does chocolate or vanilla taste better to you right now?

          Assuming you’re honest, you will have only one answer and it will be the truth that we all can reasonably share.

          1. “…it will be the truth that we all can reasonably share.”

            “Reasonable” as in “common-sense balanced, peace-seeking people” will reasonably share that some of us have different tastes than others, yes.

            But we do live on a planet with 7.8 billion people, so there are all kinds out there! (Notice I don’t say, “it TAKES all kinds”, because there are clearly many-many kinds we could be better off without. Like self-righteous war-mongering assholes, for example).

            I would bet that among the 7.8 billion, there are those ready to condemn chocolate-likers or vanilla-likers. “Oh, chocolate is FAR more destructive to the environment; artificial vanilla flavor for all, all around, unless you hate the future of the planet, in which case we must PUNISH you!”

            And the emphasis is on PUNISH and POWER, not the common good! That is the “hidden agenda” of power pigs all around! They LOVE to punish! If they can’t find something to get self-righteous and holier-than-thou about, and fight about, and PUNISH people for, they will MAKE SOMETHING UP!

            Like baking cakes for gay marriages… Super-easy, simple solution is at hand: For progress towards a peaceful society, incremental, no huge changes… Leave non-biased “access” laws to hotels, eateries, emergency rooms, same as they are now. Carve out an exception for “creative, expressive” arts, to include services for gay marriages. Problem solved! No muss, no fuss! Fighting is over! No need to fight, or punish!

            But the problem is with those with a hidden agenda, who LOVE to fight, and LOVE to punish others! Just because they are evil! And I don’t see how “logic and science” is gonna help solve that… Unless maybe we develop and refine brain scans to accurately ID evil and assholeishness and self-righteousness among people, perhaps? If we had such a test, I would DEMAND to know the results for any given politician, before I’d vote for him or her!

            1. ““Reasonable” as in “common-sense balanced, peace-seeking people” will reasonably share that some of us have different tastes than others, yes.”

              You can’t even comprehend a simple question. I CLEARLY asked for his preference alone, NOT everyone’s.

              Can you not share the truth that trick prefers one over the other?

              The truth, reality is that our preferences are different. That’s ok.

              Fortunately laws are for all citizens and are therefore not based on someone’s individual preference.

              1. Do you deny that democracy has put in place (or allowed to stay in place) some very evil and unjust laws?

                Do you deny that SOME people make choices and value preferences that are based on hidden agendas?

                Do you deny that hidden agendas can include power-lusting, and enjoying inflicting punishment on others, even when there’s no really substantial reasons for the accumulation of power, and of punishment?

                If you don’t deny any of the above, then our disagreements aren’t all that overwhelming, frankly…

                1. Except you advocate murder.

                  That’s a big disagreement.

                  1. Except you argue for the cold-blooded murder of abortion doctors. Yes, there is that. So we do disagree on some important things, yes. I imagine that you would also mete out the same punishment for a person who steals an acorn off of your property, as one who cuts down a mature oak, whose wood is worth thousands and thousands of dollars, sometimes. “Let the punishment fit the crime”, to you, means that you jerk off to meting out as much punishment as is possible.

                    1. In your own words, “Let the punishment fit the crime”.

                      The crime of abortion is murder.

                    2. “The crime of abortion is murder.”

                      So you say… But only of a HUMAN fertilized egg! Not a chimp egg! Explain that, using only your “science and logic”!

                    3. Because HUMAN rights are laws of our civilization. They are there to protect ALL humans regardless of age, sex, race etc. from criminals who would benefit at their expense.

                      They don’t apply to non human plants and animals that we must kill to survive.

                      Maybe you belong in a shithole nation whose laws don’t include human rights.

    2. Rob Misek
      October.2.2019 at 7:53 am
      “When people refuse to accept the truth of logic and science…”

      It’s the jooze, right, you scumbag bigot?

      1. This has always been how the weak elite exercise control over the more numerous masses.

        Pretty sure that’s who he’s talking about. Not to mention implying that hate speech shouldn’t be constitutional (he also thinks lying shouldn’t, and compelled speech should be)

        1. If the shoe fits.

          Hatred in speech is always based on lying and the purpose of lies are to coerce people to make decisions they wouldn’t if they knew the truth. With this logic, libertarians all want lying to be illegal.

          You lied. I have never advocated “compelled speech”. Show us all where you suggest I have.

        2. Yom Kippur, the “holiest” Jewish day of the year is in a few days.

          All Jews will be chanting the Kol Nidre.

          Here is the Kol Nidre text.

          “All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas [curses]which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect: they shall not bind us nor have any power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligations; nor the oaths be oaths.”

          Only Jews pray their plans to lie to God and everyone else.

  5. Get it in while you can Stossel, this place is about to go full libtard

    1. This lost is pretty funny following up on Steven Crowders posts from last week. They have proof that searches to his channel are being knocked down where searches of Crowders name put hisnchannel a few pages back in the results. They also saw this was the case for other conservatives but not channels like The Young Turks. This following the Vox attempts to ban multiple conservative channels. Now youtube is implementing shadow bans and manipulated searches to lower traffic. Crowder announced he was about to initiate a lawsuit.

      Of course idiots like Jeffrey dont care about this while yelling “but private company!!!”. They feel it is perfectly okay for companies to hide behind and abuse contracts at their whims. If YouTube was open and honest about their actions it would be fine, but they claim to be a neutral network. Instead they arbitrarily enforce and change rules they’ve set up on whims against the contracts signed by their content creators. No other entity is allowed to abuse their contracts like these social media companies have been allowed to do. Changing terms on the fly and utilizing vague clauses to do essentially whatever they want. Then hiding behind section 230 when the contract is challenged in court.

      1. I put in Crowder’s name and his channel popped right up. You don’t think Crowder could possibly be bullshitting you could he, no way, not Crowder, he’s an honest guy.

        1. His lawyer ran the same test. As did numerous others. And he said his CHANNEL popped up. His videos did not.

          Search for “Steven Crowder Change My Mind” and his videos started PAGES down on the list.

          1. Just tried it. First two were Crowder’s videos. Then a bunch of The Blaze which he’s in, so it’s still hitting Crowder’s videos just not on his channel, and Blaze is a more “legit” channel so that actually makes some sense. Then a few assorted things talking about Crowder, then more Crowder’s videos. So for the most part the results seem fine to me.

            Doesn’t Youtube use past search results and what you watch as markers for searches? Cause if Crowder watches a lot of videos ABOUT him, and I bet he does, that would probably skew things to show videos about him, and not of him. I don’t know if this is the case, just throwing it out there.

            1. His lawyer had his colleagues do the same. Sent screen shots and everything. And given that Crowder is the one guy they demonetized ENTIRELY even though he — according to YouTube — didn’t violate any rules.

              Yeah, they’re making it up. Sure.

              1. Just telling you what happened to me, chump.

                1. “Just telling you what happened to me, chump.”

                  So you got nothing, scumbag.

                  1. Well, except for my results which I reported to you here, in which case Crowder’s videos came up.

        2. I put in Crowder’s name and his channel popped right up.

          Either you really don’t understand the issue or you’re willfully misinterpreting it in favor of Youtube.

          So, unwittingly stupid or willfully stupid, your choice.

          1. The funniest part about libertarians is how they’re so sure they’re the only smart ones in the room. If you’re so smart maybe one day you’ll get a candidate who doesn’t seem like a non-socilized weirdo and maybe get up to 3% of the vote!

          2. Either you really don’t understand the issue or you’re willfully misinterpreting it in favor of Youtube.

            If JesseAz wasn’t saying that the problem was that he was being biased against in search results, what was this supposed to mean?

            They have proof that searches to his channel are being knocked down where searches of Crowders name put hisnchannel a few pages back in the results.

      2. Did a search in an incognito window (so isolated from my own search history, cookies, etc.).

        First hit is his channel. then there’s a sub-section “Latest from StevenCrowder” showing two videos from him personally. There’s a button for more from him personally.

        Only after giving his channel and his latest videos do I start to get videos from other people where he either guest-starred, or folks talking about him (“Steven Crowder Destroys Veganism” on “Earthling Ed vs Steven Crowder” and “Tucker defends Steven Crowder in spat with YouTube”).

        So, uh, he got top-billing. Twice. With links for more by him directly. Not sure what else you want.

    2. When I see someone say libtard, I know they’re pretty much a stipid person. Libtard is even a really lame insult, that’s the worst part…it’s an insult only a lame conservative would make. Like, conservatard actually makes sense, because you replace “tive” with “tard.” So it sounds similar. But “libtard?” Just weak and sad.

      1. Kinda like Dotard.

        1. I guess but it’s really stretching, and just like a child’s insult.

          1. I agree it’s like a child’s insult.

            Don’t use those terms myself.

      1. joeyb
        October.2.2019 at 10:36 am
        “Libertardians.”

        “…and just like a child’s insult.”

        1. I know this makes you angry Sevo, with your reasoned thinking, but that was a joke. See, Todd Phillips was right, you can’t make a joke without the whine police coming at you.

  6. More govt regulation of industry!

    Yup, the perfect position for conservatives and libertarians.

    What a joke you guys are.

    1. We don’t need more govt regulations. That’s not good enough. We need a Ministry of Truth!

      1. I think you mean a Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda).

        We already have one; it’s called Fox News.

        1. How much Fox news do you watch?

        2. “We already have one; it’s called Fox News.”

          You misspelled CNN.

          1. I see what you did there, very clever! A true smarter than everyone else person, very wise!

  7. Sad that the only regular libertarian output is by somebody who states, openly, his living isn’t made by being here at all.

    1. at least they still run his articles

  8. Steven Crowder has been going off about Youtube’s censorship for the past few days.

    S.C. on Youtube search results

  9. No, John. Only my speech should be free.

    1. If by free, you mean subsidized by a corporation that makes money off of ads and is trying to protect that cash, then yes.

      You wanna be a libertarian, get your own website and put up whatever you want on it, don’t expect a free lunch to be paid for by Youtube and then expect ad money and then they have no say in anything. In what world does that business model exist?

    2. I’m glad you put that out there.

      I thought I was going to have to pay a subscription to you for the privilege of reading your opinions.

      1. Nah – I outsourced that part to Reason – – – – – –

  10. Here’s another one: in what world does the business model exist that you get to upload whatever you want to, on someone else’s dime, and have to invest no money in the infrastructure, and THEN expect to make money off of ads, and then expect that hosting company to have no say about how things are run? Sounds like a nice fantasy land, too bad it’s not capitalism.

  11. I agree with Stossel’s point that all speech should be free.
    In regards to youtube though, video hosting isn’t free. In fact, it is so expensive youtube operates on a loss and has Alphabet Inc’s other properties cover it. That’s why youtube can’t be beat. You would have to launch a company that can’t turn a profit just to compete.
    If advertisers don’t want their content shown with LGBT content then that’s their right. However, those videos then become dead weight to youtube. Same with every other topic that advertisers don’t want to be associated with. As a result they throw what makes them money at you.
    I don’t have a youtube account so I’m not sure how the algorithms differ for those that do, but I used to be able to watch a video by someone like Tim Pool, have it autoplay another video by him, and keep that ride going. Now, in the past so many months it instantly plays a Fox News video every time. With that said, I can’t claim that they’re silencing conservative voices if they instantly throw the most-funded advertiser-friendly one directly in my face.
    Here is the kicker:
    Tim Pool isn’t a conservative. Youtube just considers him one and gives me conservative content I don’t want. The content I watch is stuff like Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and other liberals. They insist on giving me conservative content.
    Keep in mind I don’t have cookies saved and I don’t have a watch history or subscribed channels to feed the algorithm.
    I could make the claim that youtube is trying to steer me away from liberal content to conservative content from my experience.

    1. That’s my take on it. Basically everything is getting demonitized because advertisers don’t want their stuff showing up on political videos. If Reason thinks only conservatives are taking the hits, they should go around to the lefty channels and see them complaining about lost revenue from the same thing.

      I’d disagree that Peterson’s a liberal though dude. The guy’s pretty much a traditional Christian conservative in a lot of ways. Rogan’s a liberal. Harris is liberal with some weird-ass views. But I think a LOT of Peterson and Harris’ fans are not liberal and Youtube is following that chain.

      1. “I’d disagree that Peterson’s a liberal though dude. The guy’s pretty much a traditional Christian conservative in a lot of ways.”

        So you’ve never listened to him. Got it.

        1. Yeah I have. I know you gloss over his thought experiments and shit but plu-leeze.

      2. As Tim has explained, they are propping up legacy media on YouTube. You will gt CNN. FNC. and MSNBC content thrust in your face but not independent content.

    2. “If advertisers don’t want their content shown with LGBT content then that’s their right. However, those videos then become dead weight to youtube. ”

      If you’re unable to monetize content, then you are, to be gentle, a fucking moron.

      They cannot FIND advertisers to advertise on LGBT content? It’s THAT hated that NOBODY wants their name attached?

      Crowder has pointed out he could get advertisers for his show — NRA, etc — but YouTube won’t allow it. They also ASKED him to join, OFFERED him a cut of ad revenue, and then took it away while saying he didn’t do anything wrong.

      1. Well why the fuck doesn’t he start his own site and get those advertisers? Why does he want to use Youtube’s free infrastructure? Why does he want to glom onto other’s hard work? Shit motherfucker, sign onto the NRA site, they had a tv show until they realized without a free infrastructure they couldn’t get it to work for them.

        He can do WHATEVER he wants. Why do you hate the free fucking market?

  12. On at least some platforms, all speech should be free.

    As a theory? Sure.

    But if you’re not willing to use government to guarantee that, then you’ve gotta start a competitor.

    So get to it.

  13. But antifa groups that promote violence still have accounts. The Twitter account of the group in Portland, Oregon, that recently beat up journalist Andy Ngo, leaving him with brain damage, is still up

    And he made a miraculous recovery from his brain damage and concrete milk shakes. Wow!

  14. Is all this talk about free speech being shut down what they refer to as a “moral panic”? Life is hard enough without having to worry about things that don’t affect me.

  15. All free speech should be banned, or at least approved by the prudent and kind Thought Police.
    Successful socialist states like Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China and Castro’s Cuba do not have free speech and just look at what wonderful paradigms of paradises they (were) are.

    1. I had a response but the good people are Reason “moderated” it out of existence. I guess this is a Cancel Culture site. Enjoy!

      1. Yet you are still hear posting. So no.

        I would be curious what got moderated. Hihn shits all over the threads sometimes and that doesn’t get moderated.

      2. Also I would like to point out that PutinTrump LoveChild RussiaBot posts are not getting moderated. I have a hard time believing you did worse.

        1. I did refer to niggers.

  16. Leaving aside the rights of right wing extremists who killed 58 last year, while Antifa has killed over the years……..no one, my question is this: if you were in Germany in the early 30’s would you defend the right of Hitler to his hate speech?
    Hate speech, which is NOT speech I hate, but speech that promotes discrimination, harm to the rights of others, or violence…based on collective libel (“Those caravans (of asylum seekers) are invaders….” wham, bam 3 mass murders follow with the murders justifying their killing because of the “invaders”).

    Historically, hate speech has led to genocide, in earlier US (natives were savages, Africans slaves were sub-human pieces of property, etc), Rwanda, Ukraine, Nazi Germany and elsewhere.
    Hate speech is always the justification for and prelude to hate crimes, from lynchings to genocide.

    That is a fact. Now, would you defend Hitler’s right to demonize Jews and leftists as “free speech” or would you understand that when hate speech is tolerated, free speech is crushed?

  17. So when will Fox, the Bernie Madoff of media, News, Sinclair Media, AM Radio, ThirdReichBart, The Dailyliar(s), WorldNutDaily, etc. be giving Liberals, Progressives, and other Moderates access to their platforms?

    Or is “Socialism” and censorship only good if Conservatives are on the receiving end of the redistribution?

  18. Well free speech is fine however the News media purposely lying about things full well knowing that it is a lie in order to discredit a president or any other person is just plain dishonest and wrong. There needs to be accountability and punishment for this kind of reporting.

Please to post comments