Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate (bloomberg.com)
YouTube has quietly introduced tighter restrictions on videos involving weapons, becoming the latest battleground in the U.S. gun-control debate. "YouTube will ban videos that promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories, including bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic rifle to fire faster," reports Bloomberg. "Additionally, YouTube said it will prohibit videos with instructions on how to assemble firearms." From the report: "We routinely make updates and adjustments to our enforcement guidelines across all of our policies," a YouTube spokeswoman said in a statement. "While we've long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or manufacture of firearms and their accessories." The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry lobbying group, called YouTube's new policy "worrisome." "We suspect it will be interpreted to block much more content than the stated goal of firearms and certain accessory sales," the foundation said in a statement. "We see the real potential for the blocking of educational content that serves instructional, skill-building and even safety purposes. Much like Facebook, YouTube now acts as a virtual public square. The exercise of what amounts to censorship, then, can legitimately be viewed as the stifling of commercial free speech."
The new YouTube policies will be enforced starting in April, but at least two video bloggers have already been affected. Spike's Tactical, a firearms company, said in a post on Facebook that it was suspended from YouTube due to "repeated or severe violations" of the video platform's guidelines.
The new YouTube policies will be enforced starting in April, but at least two video bloggers have already been affected. Spike's Tactical, a firearms company, said in a post on Facebook that it was suspended from YouTube due to "repeated or severe violations" of the video platform's guidelines.
Jesus fucking Christ people. Free speech only keeps the government from impeding your speech.
Incorrect.
There are 3 aspects which you are conflating: Free speech, censorship, and the First Amendment. Only the last is limited to the United States government.
"Free speech" is a concept--a recognized human right in more countries than just the United States. Free speech can be constrained by anyone from a government down to a bully with a baseball bat and an a violent agenda.
"Censorship" can be--and IS-- practiced by governments, employers, media outlets, schools, and more.
"The First Amendment" is a specific part of the US Constitution which constrains the US government from impeding your human right of Free Speech.
Gun nuts will start bleating about the Constitution. Guess what, you AREN'T part of a well regulated militia.
First.... This isn't a constitutional issue at all, not even the first amendment is involved. U-Tube can refuse to host any material they find objectionable. I don't agree that such videos are objectionable, but I'm not going to complain they don't have the right to refuse them.
Second... the "Well Regulated Militia" phrase has not been interpreted by the courts as you'd like. The Right to bear arms is an "individual right" as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which means it is a right enjoyed by the individual and doesn't require you to be a member of any group or engage in any specific activity. One gets to bear arms (i.e. own and carry firearms) and this right cannot be infringed by the 2nd amendment.
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
YouTube never made the claim that they would publish everything. Their community guidelines have always imposed limits on what can be posted.
According to the US Constitution, American citizens can be trusted with weapons. There is no — and there can not be — any higher authority deciding, whether to allow a particular person to exercise their right and any law to the contrary is just that, unconstitutional.
BTW, no one seeks to "arm people" — just allow people to arm themselves.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.