YouTube has issued a warning to users who attempt to watch Paul Joseph Watson’s latest video, in which he talks about the left-wing political undertones of Childish Gambino’s music video for “This Is America.”
Viewers who attempt to watch the video are greeted with a notice from YouTube which reads: “The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.”
Users then have to accept the warning before they can watch the video, while YouTube also disabled comments, sharing, likes, and recommended videos on the page.
In the video, Watson criticized the music video and claimed that it promoted a “social justice narrative,” which acts as the “antidote to everything Kanye has been saying for the past few weeks.”
It is worth noting that the actual music video from Childish Gambino does not have a content warning and currently has over 128 Million views on the site.
HI @YouTube – can you tell me why you don't even have an age restriction on a video which depicts someone being shot in the head, and yet have censored my video which contains nothing but political commentary? 🤔 https://t.co/FyEXGw7rMM pic.twitter.com/jKO4HEuyt1
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 16, 2018
Also, I love how the original video (which literally shows people being gunned down in cold blood) is considered "advertiser friendly" by Google, while me talking about gun crime statistics cannot even be allowed, never mind monetized.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 16, 2018
Watson has been highly critical of YouTube for censoring conservatives in the past.
“We’re facing the regressive left which is openly applauding, celebrating, and popping champagne corks over free speech being dismantled,” Watson proclaimed. “They can’t compete with us, so they have to shut us down.”
Don’t forget to Subscribe for Updates. Also, Follow Us at Society-Reviews, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Odysee, Twitch, & Letterboxd
25 thoughts on “YouTube Restricts Paul Joseph Watson’s Rebuttal Video on ‘This Is America’”
Well then start your own streaming network and you can block/edit/censor whatever you want. Otherwise, stop the whining. No one is required to grant you, me, or anyone else a platform. DEAL WITH IT.
BTW moron, “free speech” doesn’t mean you can go around posting whatever you want to whomever’s website or service you want. It means that the government cannot come arrest you for what you say UNLESS you are inciting violence or making a threat. Stop twisting the First Amendment.
“We’re facing the regressive left which is openly applauding, celebrating, and popping champagne corks over free speech being dismantled, They can’t compete with us, so they have to shut us down”
And I don’t know about you, but in my region the trending page is filled with multiple Childish Gambino vids ranging from multiple analysis, multiple Donald Glover interviews to the video itself. It’s weird how YouTube is really pushing this guy on all fronts. Now I thought the song was harmless and held a lot of interesting artistic merit, but that doesn’t make it invincible from criticism.
It’s weird how out of all the discussions, PJW who edited the video to remove violence got censored while everyone else with the ‘right opinion’ was left alone.
He has his own platform…and they still try to censor him.
YouTube is not HIS platform. It is a privately owned company and they can do whatever they please. If he doesn’t like it then he can host his videos somewhere else or on his own server. This isn’t that difficult. You can’t claim to be a conservative and to believe that corporations should be granted the power to do as they please while simultaneously expecting them to cater to you personally and provide you an outlet for your opinions.
YouTube considers itself a neutral platform not a liberal one. So under the Communications Defense Act which protects “freedom of expression and innovation on the internet,” it is in violation as a ‘neutral’ site. So YouTube can “do whatever it wants” than it does NOT get granted federal legal protection under the law. So no, you can’t censor whoever you want because YOU are the one in control unless you want to open yourself up to Anti-Trust lawsuits. BTW how do you feel about Christian Bakers?
Yeah it’s just funny how they manage to always find the conservative voices to go against the guidelines.
YouTube requires you to agree to a Terms of Service agreement to use their service. If you violate the terms of service, you can be banned from the site or your content can be censored. You are not paying for the service, it is supported by advertisers, and as such if they feel that certain content may be offensive and/or cause them to lose advertisers they have every right to enforce restrictions. I’m not aware of any terms of service agreement that a customer must sign when walking into a bakery, but feel free to correct me if I am mistaken on that. In addition, you are paying the baker for his or her services. Your comparison is logically unsound. The two scenarios are not the same.
And don’t even get me started on protecting “freedom of expression and innovation on the internet” since I’m sure you don’t support net neutrality….
Wow, how can you be against “Net Neutrality” when such free speech and liberty minded companies such as Google, Facebook, and YOUTUBE support it….
So how did he violate the terms or service with his video? His video has less violence than the original which is completely uncensored. Your only grounds for censorship is that he’s a conservative so he needs to leave and find his own site which again is illegal for a site claiming to be neutral. Also the baker comparison is exactly what you said, a private business can reject anyone they want on any grounds and you are not a customer until you pay for the service. It’s customer vs consumer 101.
Honestly, I have no problem with the bakery turning away gay customers, so long as they make it clear that is their policy. If they place a sign in the window saying something to the effect of “We don’t serve gays here”, that gives not only gay people but their allies such as myself and others the opportunity to select another business to patronize. The free market, which conservatives and myself applaud, will decide whether their decision is a wise one with regard to business. As to YouTube, it is not up to you or me to decide what content is considered offensive. It is up to the people that run the service. If their censorship becomes bothersome to enough people, then the free market will again take over and people will stop using the service. Conservatives only want regulations and anti-trust lawsuits when said things benefit THEM. Stop being disingenuous. As advertised, there is a free market solution to everything.
“Conservatives only want regulations and anti-trust lawsuits when said things benefit THEM.”
Well, they the act of censorship and silencing opinion are vast majorly targeted against conservatives “See my story on Jawbreakers”…there is a reason. The only thing disingenuous is companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter claiming to be neutral sites for all users when it’s time to run to Congress and get special protections from government but then censors right wing (the left wing is EVER censored) and say “Well private company…we can do what we want”
There are plenty of right-wing affiliated sites and services for you and others to use. See FOX NEWS, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit, Gab, r/The_Donald, etc ad infinitum. Perhaps you should spend more time driving your audience to those sites and less time insisting that private companies over whom you can exert no control offer you equal coverage. It was conservatives that gutted the Fairness Doctrine, which ironically did exactly what you propose: it required that divergent points of view be presented. It was the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine that allowed the very things you are criticizing to happen. You can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth by claiming that all regulations are government overreach while simultaneously wishing to implement regulations that disproportionately benefit you.
And for a 500th and (hopefully) final time: The Patriot Act was not patriotic. The Affordable Care Act was not affordable. The Fair Doctrine was not fair, I wonder what #NetNeutrality isn’t?
What you are suggesting makes about as much sense as if I were to start picketing FOX NEWS because their coverage is so obviously biased towards the right wing. I can always just not watch it instead of expecting them to cater to my every whim. Funny how that works.
And FOX NEWS also claims to be “FAIR AND BALANCED”. LMAO!
CNN claims to be “the most trusted name in news”. You are getting off-topic and upset.
Anyone who gets their news from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or (God forbid) TWITTER or FACEBOOK or YOUTUBE deserves to be as uninformed as they inarguably are. I am not sure what your expectations are here. No one is required to provide you coverage. It’s just as simple as that. If you want to chase after Twitter or Facebook or YouTube for claiming to be “neutral”, then you also have to go after FOX for claiming to be “FAIR AND BALANCED” and CNN for claiming to be “THE MOST TRUSTED” and so on and so forth. Isn’t this just another form of censorship, only with a different motive? Should the state be in charge of determining what news networks, social networks, etc can say and do? How will you feel about that when someone like Donald Trump is no longer in charge? Might such a proclamation seem a little shortsighted? I am far from upset. I simply think your expectations are unreasonable. If Paul Watson or whoever wants to put something on the internet, he or she has every right to do so. They do not, however, have the right to coerce ANYONE into presenting their point of view FOR THEM. Simple.
So to recap, Paul posted a video that was censored and you responded by getting upset at Paul for expecting his video NOT to get censored on the sole reason for his political ideology. Somewhere along the way, we ended up talking about Fox News who as I recall, aren’t censoring anyone’s views.
If Paul Watson had posted his video on his own site that uses his own hosting service(s) and 1) ISP’s (who control access to the internet, after all, YouTube does not control anything other than access to their own services) then slowed or blocked access to it making it inaccessible to all users OR 2) the government forced him to take it down, THAT would be censorship. YouTube putting what amounts to a parental guidance sticker on it isn’t censorship in any way. Explain to me how YouTube is REQUIRED to allow anyone to post anything. You haven’t done that. YouTube is not a public service. It is not a utility. Those are the facts. Not only can YouTube remove whatever content they desire, they do not even have to provide a reason for doing so. The same applies to NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, whoever. It sounds as if you want the government to step in and require YouTube to promote your point of view. That is in no way a conservative position. That is why I am no longer a conservative. “Modern” conservatism (i.e. Trumpism) is chock full of self-contradictions, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness, not unlike modern liberalism. There is no room for moderates in such a toxic political environment.
In other words…we need a segregated internet…
We already have a segregated internet. It’s quite simple for anyone, conservative or liberal, to find and inhabit their own echo chamber on the internet. While FOX NEWS may not censor per se, they certainly lie by omission and misrepresent, as do CNN, MSNBC, and all the others. As each side has come to view the other as the ENEMY, this situation will only become worse.