This article by Dennis Prager is a screed against freedom of the press.What! He’s complaining about censorship of conservative videos by YouTube - and I am calling that "a screed against freedom of the press?!!!” What is wrong with this picture? I shall explain.
I am posting this reply on FreeRepublic.com, a web site which I do not own - just as Dennis Prager does not own YouTube. The consequence for me is that if Jim Robinson, who does own FR, is not willing that my post should remain up on his site, it will be gone - and I have no recourse.
And I am good with that. First, because without moderation there would be porn plastered all over this site by libs, in order to repel conservatives from the site. Second, I freely admit that, as little influence as my posts here may have, I am not ambitious enough, and capable enough, to create my own web site which would give my posts even that modicum of influence. So, I choose to post on FR, to contribute financially to FR, and to hope that its influence increases.
Dennis Prager has an organization. He is well able, I presume, to establish and sustain his own web site and his own capability to host his own videos. Thinking that he can, rightfully even if he had the power, force another organization to do it for him is just fuzzy thinking.
Ping.
You make a number of valid points. However, there remain a few things to consider.
When an entity advocates for evil but pretends to objectivity or neutrality, seeking to deceive private citizens, I think it should be exposed for what it is and does.
Perhaps we lack the confidence in our own understanding of right and wrong that we would need to silence such entities, and therefore find ourselves allowing, and even protecting, evil itself. Still, making public the wrongful conduct of such entities should fall within the purview of even such delicate snowflakes as we have become.
There is no other YouTube. There are sites that can be said to compete with FR where one could go to post, but YouTube stands alone. Unfortunately, with the spread of functional illiteracy, YouTube has influence beyond that of a site like FR, which requires one not only to read and write, but to think. When, therefore, YouTube acts as an agent of influence for the forces of evil, oportet allatrare canes. (“It behooves watchdogs to bark,” attributed to an unnamed but great Spanish Bishop.)
As another FR poster wrote, “Evil in any of its manifestations should never be allowed to masquerade as a ‘responsible opposing viewpoint’ to good.”
Is Prager really trying to force YouTube to host things they would rather not, or is he rather attempting to expose the masquerade?
The people who run YouTube are evil scum, and should be exposed as such. YouTube should not be allowed to masquerade as objective, neutral, or even honest.
IMV, freedom of the press should only apply to people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart. As even people who should know better balk at that principle, I think we should at least publicize the bias of the evil.
Facebook and Youtube purport to be neutral carriers not imposing censorship on political views (that do not espouse violence or racism).
Try flagging Islamist videos or BLM videos and see if they get removed.
Facebook has ignored every “report” I’ve filed no matter how “anti” or “violent” the poster is.
Michelle Malkin also had her videos moved to 18+ or deleted.