Michelle Malkin
One of the many maddening
takeaways from the London Bridge jihad attack is this: If you post videos on
YouTube radicalizing Muslim viewers to kill innocent people, YouTube will leave
you alone.
But if you post a video on
YouTube honoring innocent people murdered by barbaric jihadists, your video
will get banned.
I know. It happened to me in
2006. Eleven years later, the selective censors at Google-YouTube still can’t
competently distinguish terrorist hate speech from political free speech.
Islamic hate preachers such as Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose bloodthirsty rants
against non-Muslims reportedly inspired the London Bridge ringleader, have
flourished.
Meanwhile, other anti-jihad
and conservative content creators have been throttled, flagged, demonetized and
kicked off the site since the P.C. hammer first came down on me.
My two-minute clip, which I
titled “First, They Came,” spotlighted authors, editors, politicians, and other
targets of Islamic intolerance and violence. Among those featured in the video
on radical Islam’s war on Western free speech: Theo van Gogh, the Dutch
filmmaker murdered by jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri for his outspoken criticism of
Muslim misogyny; Salman Rushdie, whom the Ayatollah Khomeini cast a fatwa upon
after he published the “blasphemous” “The Satanic Verses”; Oriana Fallaci, the
fiery journalist put on trial in Italy for “defaming Islam;” and the editors of
the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper, who faced death threats for publishing
cartoons of Mohammed, which prompted violent riots and terror plots around the
world.
I contrasted the plight of
those killed with the hordes of Muslim protesters in London’s safe spaces
fearlessly waving their signs demanding that the faithful “Behead all those who
insult Islam” and “Exterminate those who slander Islam.”
Several months later, YouTube
yanked the innocuous, harmless, nonviolent, nonprofane, nonhateful, and
nonthreatening mini-film. The company informed me that the video contained
“inappropriate content.” I complained across social media — posting additional
YouTube videos calling attention to the ban. But “First, They Came” stayed
deep-sixed on my YouTube channel. Other bloggers and video consumers tried to
subvert the censors by posting the clip on their sites; it became a game of
whack-a-mole as the YouTube police hunted it down.
Counterjihad activists
nicknamed YouTube “JihadTube” or “Dhimmitube” to mock the censors’ acquiescence
to Islamist restrictions on acceptable speech by infidels — as Islamic
radicalization videos festered on the site.
Three pieces in The New York
Times covered my skirmish over the little video. Reporter Tom Zeller Jr.
reported that YouTube had emailed him a statement suggesting that my video
“violated the company’s terms of service.” YouTube also told the newspaper,
“Our customer support team reviews all flagged videos before removing them.”
The statement “specifically
referred to the part of the YouTube user agreement that forbids users from
submitting material that is ‘unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening,
pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or
encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to
civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate.'”
George Washington University law
professor Jeffrey Rosen wrote in a New York Times magazine article on “Google’s
Gatekeepers” that he “watched the ‘First, They Came’ video, which struck me as
powerful political commentary that contains neither hate speech nor graphic
violence, and I asked why it was taken down. According to a YouTube spokesman,
the takedown was a routine one that hadn’t been reviewed by higher-ups.”
Only after receiving fair
exposure in The New York Times (my, how times and the Times have changed) did
the video magically reappear on my channel.
Now, contrast Google/YouTube’s
ridiculous stifling of “First, They Came” with its hands-off treatment of
murder-inciting videos of hate imams Ahmad Musa Jibril and Abu Haleema.
Their rancid rants encouraging
jihad by the sword and murder of non-Muslims have racked up millions of views
over the past five years. Millions. Counterterrorism officials in multiple
countries have tied their social media poison to jihad plots. The company told
Conservative Review’s Jordan Schachtel that it had reviewed the hate imams’
channels and “found that they do not violate YouTube’s guidelines on extremist
or hateful content.”
The enlightened peace-and-love
progressives of Silicon Valley don’t just have egg on their faces. They have
blood on their hands.
Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on
CRTV.com. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com. To find out more about
Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
GOPUSA,
June 7, 2017
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não publicamos comentários de anônimos/desconhecidos.
Por favor, se optar por "Anônimo", escreva o seu nome no final do comentário.
Não use CAIXA ALTA, (Não grite!), isto é, não escreva tudo em maiúsculas, escreva normalmente. Obrigado pela sua participação!
Volte sempre!
Abraços./-