GOP Rep. Levels Grave Warning at YouTube After 'Hate Speech' Purge


The great YouTube purge has begun.

Recently, the Google-owned video company made massive waves in the political community by taking drastic action against content that it deemed “hateful” and “harmful misinformation.”

According to Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari, YouTube’s purge has also demonetized “independent journalist Ford Fischer, libertarian anti-globalist news channel Press For Truth, SJW critic Sinatra_Says, and conservative comedian Steven Crowder.”

A blog post by YouTube attempted to explain their position:

“In 2017, we introduced a tougher stance towards videos with supremacist content, including limiting recommendations and features like comments and the ability to share the video. This step dramatically reduced views to these videos (on average 80%).

Joe Biden Reportedly Terrified of What's to Come in Hunter's Trial, Causing Staffers to Worry About Psychological Damage

“Today, we’re taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory. Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.”

If you aren’t convinced that YouTube is treating users fairly and deserves greater scrutiny, you aren’t the only one.

House Minority Leader, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, sent an ominous warning to YouTube via Twitter.

Do you think YouTube has too much power over which voices are heard on its platform?

“YouTube seems to be more concerned w being a publisher than a platform,” McCarthy tweeted.

The distinction between a platform and a publisher is not lost on the black suits in the boardroom of YouTube.

The short answer is that there is currently a government-enforced shield protecting YouTube — and Facebook and Google and Twitter — from civil liability over removing content as long as the company is a platform rather than a publisher.

If you are wondering about how free speech for private entities fits in here, I’ll try to explain. Congress enacted Section 230, a regulation that says platforms cannot be held liable as publishers of content and also says that a platform cannot be held liable for removing content that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”

Watch: Biden Press Secretary Proves Trump Was Correct - Trial Is Connected to 2024 Election

The Electronic Frontier Foundation specifically notes, “CDA 230 makes the U.S. a safe haven for websites that want to provide a platform for controversial or political speech and a legal environment favorable to free expression.”

Youtube and other “big tech” companies want to lean on Section 230 as a get out jail free card while they demonetize and de-platform their users. (Youtube demonetized The Western Journal’s YouTube account almost two years ago and has rejected every appeal since.)

The problem with that approach is that the purpose of Section 230 is not to restrict, but to expand the content available on the internet. It’s clear from a reading of the regulation that the drafters valued the internet as “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”

Section 230 actually lists under the “policy” section that the United States seeks “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet.”

So when anti-free speech leftists try to use Section 230 as a justification for broad censorship, they are simply incorrect.

The heads of YouTube know it, and now they know that Kevin McCarthy knows it, too.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, ,
G.S. Hair is the former executive editor of The Western Journal.
G.S. Hair is the former executive editor of The Western Journal and vice president of digital content of Liftable Media.

After graduating law school from the Cecil C. Humphries School of Law, Mr. Hair spent a decade as an attorney practicing at the trial and appellate level in Arkansas and Tennessee. He represented clients in civil litigation, contractual disputes, criminal defense and domestic matters. He spent a significant amount of time representing indigent clients who could not afford private counsel in civil or criminal matters. A desire for justice and fairness was a driving force in Mr. Hair's philosophy of representation. Inspired by Christ’s role as an advocate on our behalf before God, he often represented clients who had no one else to fight on their behalf.

Mr. Hair has been a consultant for Republican political candidates and has crafted grassroots campaign strategies to help mobilize voters in staunchly Democrat regions of the Eastern United States.

In early 2015, he began writing for Conservative Tribune. After the site was acquired by Liftable Media, he shut down his law practice, moved to Arizona and transitioned into the position of site director. He then transitioned to vice president of content. In 2018, after Liftable Media folded all its brands into The Western Journal, he was named executive editor. His mission is to advance conservative principles and be a positive and truthful voice in the media.

He is married and has four children. He resides in Phoenix, Arizona.
South Carolina
Homeschooled (and proud of it); B.A. Mississippi College; J.D. University Of Memphis
Phoenix, Arizona
Languages Spoken
Topics of Expertise
Culture, Faith, Politics