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.
Of course this would be a better world if "people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart” were the only ones printing, or even speaking.Just as this would be a better world if "people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart” were the only ones to be armed. Just who do you think will decide who is, and who is not, "people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart?”
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)