Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right?

From 2015-2018, the youtuber known as Walt Bismarck created alt-right song parodies of Disney classics. His original username was Uncuck The Right, and he aligned himself with white nationalist and neonazi organizations across the web. Most prominently, he appeared on Episode 35 of Fash the Nation. Thankfully, youtube deleted him. But he's planning to come back. It could be a month, it could be a year, who knows. Let this video serve as a record of who he is. There will be no rebranding, not until he's held responsible for the things he's said.

Was Youtube Right To Ban Him?

 

Each situation would need to be examined individually as a lot would depend on the content. Things that aren't advocating violence or other illegal activity would probably need to remain.

But then again, social media is under no obligation to host your content in the first place. Maybe we should stop expecting that private companies have to follow the 1st amendment that really only applies to the government.

 

youtube is a private company they can do whatever they want. i think it's stupid to ban them but not wrong.. and then of course it depends on who you are claiming is alt right?

 

You've asked two entirely different questions here. On the specific channels mentioned in the video, with a brief scan though the video it seems fairly clear that it breached the rules of YouTube and so it was perfectly reasonable for them to close the channels.

On YouTube "banning the Alt Right", you'd first have to identify the actual rules and policies you're talking about. There is no flat ban on "the Alt Right", not least because the term isn't really well defined enough. There are certainly lots of people deemed "Alt Right" (by themselves or others) who will routinely break the general rules on sides like YouTube and therefore can and will be banned. I've no doubt that there are plenty of others who work within the rules (or fly under the radar) who don't.

 

[

If they want to censor, they are a publisher not a neutral public forum, and should have no protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .

 

There are civil implications.
Neutral public forums have protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content.

Censoring content makes FB a publisher, not a neutral public forum.
Publishers have no civil protection under section 230

 

So you agree, FB is not a neutral public forum, and has no legal obligation to be neutral

 

Neutral on what scale? The only distinction here is between users who follow the rules and users who don't follow the rules.

They've no legal obligation to be politically neutral but that doesn't mean they're not (or at least don't try to). It's no different to the moderation on this forum, which also gets occasionally accused of being biased in some manner by people picked up on breaking the rules.

 

They have a moral obligation to be honest about it though. They should be requires to say " we are leftists and we want the right silenced" which is the truth.

 

I didn't answered because it depend of the channels, but for a lot it isn't.

 

Well one would think that any real liberal would advocate free speech.

 

Censoring content makes them a publisher not neutral public forum

 

YouTube doesn't claim to be a public forum but a private forum (just like this one).

Regardless of whether it is public, private or publisher though, it could still be (or try to be) a politically neutral one, even with rules and restrictions on the nature of the content permitted. Even government-run platforms have such rules and restrictions (often stricter ones) and they are legally required to be politically neutral.

 

The only thing that should never be tolerated is the intolerant. They fail the tolerance test. Bigly.

 

Why on earth would you think liberals are for free speech? Liberals are for getting their way no matter what. Remember the 1980s then liberals like Al and Tipper Gore formed the PMRC in order to silence the free speech of rock musicians?

I recommend going to you tube and listening to the Gores cross examine Dee Snyder of Twisted Sister, who by the way it much more intelligent than mr gore.

 

I'm sorry but public broadcasting is very very very far from neutral.

 

I take the view of the state of commiefornia where Youtube & Facebook have their corp offices. That view in Robins v Pruneyard is that if you want to own the sidewalk and the soapbox that you've become a public place, and the free-speech and petition provisions of the California Constitution grant mall visitors a constitutional right to free speech that outweighs the private-property interests of mall owners, and the same should apply to these web sites.

 

Who gets to decide what should be banned or not? How about this, since I have not bought in to the climate change hysteria can I be in charge of deciding which you tube posts about that get shown or not?

 

People who practice censorship of almost ANY kind are the worst kinds of tyrannical, self-righteous, dangerous bastards in the world!

Yeah, sure, nobody should be able to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but outside of extraordinary things like that, NOBODY should ever have to be rolled under the dictates of others who claim the right to censor what another person says. That's true for EVERYBODY -- right-wing, left-wing, or no wings at all....

 

they have a TOS, just like this site, if people follow the rules they are fine, if they follow the rules and still banned from YouTube, then that would be wrong

 

just like a private members only business, by your logic Costco should have to allow anyone to sell their products there

 

What's my logic?

 

Did you even read?
It has nothing to do with free speech, a private company or its ability to publish or not publish anything according to it's own discretion.

It is a civil matter. They can freely choose to seek civil protection under section 203 of the Communications Decency Act, or not.

 

they are open to any member to post anything they want... as long as they follow the sites TOS

 

Yes, a publisher