YouTube CEO apologizes for company's handling of anti-gay comments (Crowder)

The Hill ^ | 06/11/19 | Rachel Frazin

[yesthatjallen]

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki apologized to the LGBT community Monday for how the video-streaming site has handled anti-gay comments.

“I know that the decisions we made was very hurtful to the LGBTQ community and that wasn’t our intention at all,” Wojcicki said during a tech industry conference in Arizona, according to USA Today.

She was particularly referring to a recent controversy over comments made by conservative commentator Steven Crowder about Vox journalist Carlos Maza.

Maza accused the conservative of inciting harassment and making derogatory comments about his ethnicity and sexuality.

YouTube decided to demonetize Crowder's videos, but has refused to take them down. The move has garnered criticism, but Wojcicki justified it on Monday.

“It’s just from a policy standpoint we need to be consistent — if we took down that content, there would be so much other content that we need to take down,” she said, according to the newspaper.

Wojcicki also called it a "hard decision."

“YouTube has always been a home of so many LGBTQ creators, and that’s why it was so emotional," Wojcicki said. "Even though it was a hard decision, it was harder that it came from us — because it was such an important home. And even though we made this decision, we have so many people from the LGBTQ community. As a company we really want to support this community."

YouTube last week also updated its hate speech and harassment policies last week.

"In the coming months, we will be taking a hard look at our harassment policies with an aim to update them — just as we have to so many policies over the years — in consultation with experts, creators, journalists and those who have, themselves, been victims of harassment. We are determined to evolve our policies, and continue to hold our creators and ourselves to a higher standard," the company said in a blog post.

[gibsonguy]

I’m sick to death of all of the pandering to these sick bastards.

[faucetman]

What’s wrong with anti-gay comments?

I’m anti-gay. I’m anti-abortion. I’m anti-liberal. I’m anti-crime. I’m anti-Communist. I’m anti-Democrats. I’m anti-perversion. I’m anti-Islam. I’m anti-KKK. I’m anti-RINO. I’m anti-gun control. I’m anti-Socialism. I’m anti-FAKE NEWS. I’m anti-open borders. I’m anti-Ebola. I’m anti-social justice. I’m anti-ANTIFA. I’m anti-many more things...

I have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to be all those things.

I have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak out on ALL of these things just as those who have the opposite views on these things do.

Without being able to hold and/or articulate opposing points of view, America is not FREE.

[Heartlander]

There is no constitutional exception for so-called hate speech. The First Amendment fully protects speech that some may find offensive, unpopular, or even racist. The First Amendment allows you to wear a jacket that says “F**k the Draft” in a public building (see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15), yell “We’ll take the f**king street later!” during a protest (see Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105), burn the American flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 and United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310), and even give a racially charged speech to a restless crowd (see Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1). You can even, consistent with the First Amendment, call for the overthrow of the United States government (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444). This is not a recent development in constitutional law—these cases date back to 1949.<

The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech quite well in Texas v. Johnson, when it held:

The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

Federal courts have consistently followed this holding when applying the First Amendment to public universities. While invalidating sanctions placed on a fraternity for holding an “ugly woman contest,” a federal district court in Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University, 993 F.2d 386, held:

The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane.

- There is No Such Thing as ‘Hate Speech’

[DiogenesLamp]

Big Tech is abusing the Constitutional rights of conservatives and the GOP could not care less. THAT is the big story here.

In some people's opinion, this massively used *PUBLIC* communications system belongs to a *PRIVATE* corporation, so they have a right to *DICTATE* what *PUBLIC* speech is permitted.

Ain't that right Semimojo?

As for me, i'm ready to smash all private "property" rights when it comes to mass communications. Those "rights" to control public communications are deadly to our nation.

So far as i'm concerned, if you are in the communications business, you *WILL* comply with Constitutional law regarding freedom of speech.

[semimojo]

In some people's opinion, this massively used *PUBLIC* communications system belongs to a *PRIVATE* corporation, so they have a right to *DICTATE* what *PUBLIC* speech is permitted.

Ain't that right Semimojo?

On their privately-owned platforms? Of course it's right.

As for me, i'm ready to smash all private "property" rights when it comes to mass communications.

We know.

..if you are in the communications business, you *WILL* comply with Constitutional law regarding freedom of speech.

No argument from me.

[DiogenesLamp]

On their privately-owned platforms? Of course it's right.

Not any more. I reject that claim. It can be their "private" property, only so long as significant portions of the public do not use it.

They want to keep control? Do not carry public traffic. *NOBODY* has a right to censor the public, and I don't care if they own the equipment or not.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks so much for your support to this point... I personally apprecaite it...
FReepers, it's far beyond time to wrap up this FReep-a-thon.  Lets do it today.  Please chip in.

President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America
President Donald J. Trump's address to the United Nations on 09/19/2017.

Ramirez political cartoon:  Trump's Latest Tariff Suggestion (fictitious) LARGE VERSION 06/09/2019: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).
Garrison political cartoon:  Garrison's Take on Joe Biden LARGE VERSION 06/2019: LINK  LINK (scroll down) to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).

FReepers, 94.732% of the Second Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $236.00 dollars to 95.00%

[DakotaGator]

Indeed!

[DakotaGator]

Thanks!