Michelle Malkin: YouTube Goes Dhimmi

I'm late in covering this, but it's a must see. What happens if YouTube, essentially TV for the people and by the people, starts banning content despite no law having been infringed? If they ban content on religious grounds then what stops them banning on political grounds? How can YouTube be TV for the people and by the people if it starts banning content that infringes no law?

If YouTube bans legal content based on user complaints or internal policy bias then it's no longer for and by the people. It becomes for and by some of the people and discriminatory against those that support free speech. Why? Because those that support free speech won't expect legal content they disagree with to be banned but those that don't support free speech, but only their own singular opinion (in other words, the bigots) will complain about everything they object to thus resulting in a ban. Freedom of speech is therefore attacked, weakened and eventually killed. And victory handed to the extremists and bigots that cannot tolerate being challenged with alternate views.

Well done YouTube - you've joined the list of appeasers sacrificing freedom of speech to those that oppose freedom.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.