YouTube Censors Senate Floor Speech With Whistleblower's Name

[DEAD7]

YouTube Censors Senate Floor Speech With Whistleblower's Name


YouTube has removed a video from its platform that shows Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) stating on the Senate floor the name of a person who conservative media have suggested is the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. The company, home to millions of hours of video content, said in a statement on Thursday that "videos, comments, and other forms of content that mention the leaked whistleblower's name" violate its community guidelines and will be removed from the site. "We've removed hundreds of videos and over ten thousand comments that contained the name. Video uploaders have the option to edit their videos to exclude the name and reupload," Ivy Choi, a spokesperson, said in the statement, which was first reported by Politico.

The video clip removed by YouTube comes from the Senate impeachment trial, when Paul mentioned a name that has circulated in conservative media as the whistleblower. Paul did so after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a question he submitted including that person's name. Paul says he does not know if the name he said on the Senate floor is the whistleblower's or not, but he said it was wrong for his speech to be censored. "It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure speech," he said in a statement. "Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people. This is dangerous and politically biased. Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistleblower, nor do I know the whistleblower's identity."

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Someone exerts their right to speech in order to expose criminal behavior by the president of the USA.

Conservative fringe media actively starts a campaign, potentially a disinformation campaign, that has a high likelihood of resulting in dramatically bad intentions for someone's life.

In fact, many of them actively want terrible things to happen to that person, SO THAT PEOPLE LIKE HIM DON'T SPEAK UP.


And I'm supposed to be upset that a massive campaign designed to shut up whistelblowers isn't getting aided by the mainstream media?


They want us to believe that going through proper channels to make a complaint against the president is now such dastardly speech it deserves a massive doxxing campaign, but the actual doxxing campaign should be protected.

 

[DEAD7]

Someone exerts their right to speech in order to expose criminal behavior by the president of the USA.

Conservative fringe media actively starts a campaign, potentially a disinformation campaign, that has a high likelihood of resulting in dramatically bad intentions for someone's life.

In fact, many of them actively want terrible things to happen to that person, SO THAT PEOPLE LIKE HIM DON'T SPEAK UP.


And I'm supposed to be upset that a massive campaign designed to shut up whistelblowers isn't getting aided by the mainstream media?


They want us to believe that going through proper channels to make a complaint against the president is now such dastardly speech it deserves a massive doxxing campaign, but the actual doxxing campaign should be protected.

I go back and forth on this... on one hand it puts him in danger, but on the other hand I believe everyone should be able to face their accuser.

That said, Rand exposed him and he's fine, and Trump was acquitted....

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I go back and forth on this... on one hand it puts him in danger, but on the other hand I believe everyone should be able to face their accuser.

That said, Rand exposed him and he's fine, and Trump was acquitted....

But he's not the accuser. He's just the guy who hit the button to get the process rolling. The actual witnesses either testified or were blocked from testifying by the accused himself.

If someone finds out about a crime that went down in the hood, he can call the cops anonymously, and if the police come and find out who the actual victims and witnesses were then they don't need to know the ID of the guy who made the anonymous call. The anonymous caller doesn't have to testify and any attempts to expose that guy would definitely be retributive.


I mean fukk, isn't Nixon the best precedent for this whole thing? We didn't find out who Deep Throat was until like 40 years after he died. Or the Freedom Summer murders - we didn't find out about the cop who blew the whistle on that until like 50 years later. Do you really believe that someone should have exposed that cop for leaking on of the most disgusting state-sponsored terrorist actions of the entire CRM, just so the racists who orchestrated that shyt could "face their accuser"?

 

[DEAD7]

But he's not the accuser. He's just the guy who hit the button to get the process rolling. The actual witnesses either testified or were blocked from testifying by the accused himself.

If someone finds out about a crime that went down in the hood, he can call the cops anonymously, and if the police come and find out who the actual victims and witnesses were. They don't need to know the ID of the guy who made the anonymous call, and any attempts to expose that guy would definitely be retributive.

He filed the complaint no? That makes him the accuser or complainant from what I understand...and he should, i feel, be available for cross examination if that's the case.

Even when dropping anonymous tips you may be called on to testify In criminal prosecutions, because the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him….


People being able to make accusations and file complaints against others from the shadows with animity is problematic to me... and not something I think should be allowed to become the norm.

 

[nyknick]

He filed the complaint no? That makes him the accuser or complainant from what I understand...and he should, i feel, be available for cross examination if that's the case.

Even when dropping anonymous tips you may be called on to testify In criminal prosecutions, because the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him….


People being able to make accusations and file complaints against others from the shadows with animity is problematic to me... and not something I think should be allowed to become the norm.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

He filed the complaint no? That makes him the accuser or complainant from what I understand...and he should, i feel, be available for cross examination if that's the case.

Even when dropping anonymous tips you may be called on to testify In criminal prosecutions, because the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him….


People being able to make accusations and file complaints against others from the shadows with animity is problematic to me... and not something I think should be allowed to become the norm.

All he did was highlight other people's accusations and get them to the light of day. Nothing relied on his testimony at all except the need for an investigation.

Do you believe that the cop who blew the whistle on the Freedom Summer murders should have been forced to reveal himself and appear in court? If so, you're not only guaranteeing that those 20+ racists who killed those men get away with it, but that no racist cops will EVER be turned in by a fellow cop. In fact, what's the whole point of having a process for an anonymous whistleblower if you're only going to assure they are forced to reveal themselves and getted ratfukked by the system they are blowing the whistle on?

 

[Geek Nasty]

Dude is such a clown. Like a fukking libertarian troll bot trying to walk the ignore/ban line with enough platitudes he thinks he’ll get away with it.

 

[88m3]

negged

 

[5n0man]

He filed the complaint no? That makes him the accuser or complainant from what I understand...and he should, i feel, be available for cross examination if that's the case.

Even when dropping anonymous tips you may be called on to testify In criminal prosecutions, because the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him….


People being able to make accusations and file complaints against others from the shadows with animity is problematic to me... and not something I think should be allowed to become the norm.

This is such a bullshyt take.

If I notice my neighbor has random horrified children going in and out of his house at midnight, and I call the cops on him and they find a human trafficking ring going on, I shouldn't be forced to expose myself to a dangerous criminal organization.


This is especially true when exposing corruption in the government.

 

[Geek Nasty]

This is such a bullshyt take.

If I notice my neighbor has random horrified children going in and out of his house at midnight, and I call the cops on him and they find a human trafficking ring going on, I shouldn't be forced to expose myself to a dangerous criminal organization.


This is especially true when exposing corruption in the government.

Anybody trying to sell Trump arguments for exposing whistleblowers is an agent. The rationale for protecting their identities is well understood and LAW. I promise you the Trumptard/Libertarian clown army had been out collecting dirt on the whistleblower and were just chomping at the bit to ruin his life as soon as the media exposed him. But, thankfully they didnt take the bait.

If Trump can get any of his shytheads to take the heat for the leak, I’m sure he’ll go after the whistleblower like he went after Vindman and Sondland.

 

[5n0man]

Anybody trying to sell Trump arguments for exposing whistleblowers is an agent. The rationale for protecting their identities is well understood and LAW. I promise you the Trumptard/Libertarian clown army had been out collecting dirt on the whistleblower and were just chomping at the bit to ruin his life as soon as the media exposed him. But, thankfully they didnt take the bait.

If Trump can get any of his shytheads to take the heat for the leak, I’m sure he’ll go after the whistleblower like he went after Vindman and Sondland.

Anyone following the story knew that everyone on the right wanted his identity so they could publicly humiliate him and attack his character. It had nothing to do with "facing the accuser" cause if it did, they would have let those accusers testify at the court proceedings.

 

[DEAD7]

All he did was highlight other people's accusations and get them to the light of day. Nothing relied on his testimony at all except the need for an investigation.

I see... I misinterpreted his complaint filing as him accusing Trump.

 

[DEAD7]

@ nikkas getting angry in this thread.
HL liberals hate civil discourse.

...and his identity has been leaked already. My issue was with people being able to make accusation from the shadows, to throwing stones and hiding hands, that isn't the case here.

 

[StatUS]

Looks like Right Wing media has muddied the waters enough that people think a whistleblower is the same as an accuser.