User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:49:22 AM EDT
Though his channel remains public, Pastor James David Manning has been restricted from posting new material on YouTube for “hate speech”, simply for stating his religious views. I warned you this was coming. In some parts of Europe, you can now be arrested for simply stating what the Bible says about homosexuality. Though it hasn’t come to that yet in America, you better believe it is coming soon, friends. With the passage of the new “hate crimes” bill, this opens up the door for an all out assault on religion and free speech. Of course, we should all be against real crimes of hate. Of course, it should be a crime to physically assault someone because of their race, sexual orientation, or nationality- and verbal threats against someone should also be taken seriously and dealt with. But should Americans fear being arrested or silenced for simply stating their religious beliefs? Will the same standard apply to Muslims or is this directed only towards Christians? After all- they, too believe homosexuality is a sin. As were most Christians, I was taught to “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” I treat gay people no different than anyone else. I have family members who are openly gay. I may disagree with their lifestyle, but I love them just the same as if they were straight and they know that. Of course there are a few radicals who I consider ignorant and misinformed, such as the Westboro Baptist Church crowd- they don’t represent 99% of us in the Christian community. I’m telling you, America- be careful here. Liberals, are you sure you want to walk down this line? Whatever happened to the good liberals who might disagree with you, but would fight to defend your right to say it? I’ve reported several times over the last week that the most popular YouTube channel dedicated to Michael Savage has been repeatedly banned from YouTube over the last few days. Who will be next? Thomas Jefferson once said “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Well, people are now starting to fear their government. Of course it is true that YouTube, which is owned by Google, is a privately owned company- and is free to restrict whatever they want to on their site.. but who is really behind all this? We already know that Andrew McLaughlin, a top Google executive, has joined the Obama administration as the “Deputy Chief Technology Officer”. I have no idea what a Deputy Chief Technology Officer does, but I’m pretty sure it’s not a good thing that the Internet’s most popular search engine, a place where millions of people turn to each day for information has a “friend” in the White House. Google employees contributed just about $500,000 to Obama versus a little over $20,000 for McCain. No, they’re not biased at all! I use Google everyday, and obviously I’m a fan of You Tube.. but just how much of this censorship will I put up with before I decide to close up shop and take my message elsewhere?? I guess the REAL question is- will YouTube wait for me to make that decision, or will they save me the trouble and shut me down first? The good news is- you can still watch Pastor Manning’s videos. He now hosts his own video content on the ATLAH ministries website and has been posting several messages each day. To view and comment on Pastor Manning’s new videos, visit the ATLAH Media Network at http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/ Conservatives and Independents should know that there are other online outlets for getting their message out to the public. One of my favorite new media sites is NMATV, founded by conservatives Bob Parks and Gary Schneider of Heritage New Media Partners, INC. At NMATV, not only can you upload videos just like on YouTube, but there is also the ability to broadcast a show live via webcam. NMATV is a safehaven not only for Conservatives, but Independents and free thinking Democrats who have yet to drink the Kool-Aid and like to hear alternative points of view. I encourage everyone who is concerned by the recent banning of Conservatives on YouTube to sign up for an account at http://www.nmatv.com. While you are there, subscribe to my channel at http://www.nmatv.com/users/JoeSeales Don’t Know How Long It Will Be Up! God Bless, Joe Seales  http://www.joeseales.com/?p=64 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:52:00 AM EDT
[#1]
He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases.
Youtube's site, their rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:52:21 AM EDT
[#2]
I'm calling bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:52:27 AM EDT
[#3]
You understand the concept of a private entity, right?
Youtube can ban anyone they want. You think you can post anything you want here, for instance, Bubbles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:54:01 AM EDT
[#4]
That's gay.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:54:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. How about that federal hate crimes legislation that just got signed? It's now a more serious crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a white, heterosexual male. Canada has hate speech legislation that allows arrest for saying things that aren't nice about minorities. We're on that same route and traveling at a nice clip. ETA: 2_of_5's right, though, YouTube can do what they want. To me, it's just a sign of the way we're heading, and the .gov has already started down the path. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:54:57 AM EDT
[#6]
The statutes he is claiming will be passed here would be unconstitutional. Get a server and set up your own website if youtube won't let you post it, simple answer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:55:19 AM EDT
[#7]
Long-Legged Mack daddy......just a guess...Obama?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:56:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Um, no, beat up a white straight guy because he is white and/or straight and face the same penalty (I am betting, have not read the statute yet).Quoted: He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. How about that federal hate crimes legislation that just got signed? It's now a more serious crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a white, heterosexual male. Canada has hate speech legislation that allows arrest for saying things that aren't nice about minorities. We're on that same route and traveling at a nice clip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:58:14 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Um, no, beat up a white straight guy because he is white and/or straight and face the same penalty (I am betting, have not read the statute yet).
Quoted:
He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. How about that federal hate crimes legislation that just got signed? It's now a more serious crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a white, heterosexual male. Canada has hate speech legislation that allows arrest for saying things that aren't nice about minorities. We're on that same route and traveling at a nice clip. Um, yes. If you beat up a straight white guy and call him a faggot, it's just smack talk during an assault. If you beat up a homosexual white guy and call him a faggot, it's now a hate crime. ETA: Anyone know if anyone has ever been charged of a hate crime against a white male heterosexual? Not saying there hasn't been, just would like to know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:58:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Rev. Manning is good folk.
I'd have him over 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:01:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Um, no, beat up a white straight guy because he is white and/or straight and face the same penalty (I am betting, have not read the statute yet).
Quoted:
He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. How about that federal hate crimes legislation that just got signed? It's now a more serious crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a white, heterosexual male. Canada has hate speech legislation that allows arrest for saying things that aren't nice about minorities. We're on that same route and traveling at a nice clip. no, white is not a protected class. It is impossible to commit a hate crime against a white person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:01:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: I'd have to look it up, but I bet you could be charged with a hate crime if you beat up a white man who you mistakenly assumed was gay. Yes people have been charged with hate crimes for assaulting whites.Quoted: Quoted: Um, no, beat up a white straight guy because he is white and/or straight and face the same penalty (I am betting, have not read the statute yet).Quoted: He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. How about that federal hate crimes legislation that just got signed? It's now a more serious crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a white, heterosexual male. Canada has hate speech legislation that allows arrest for saying things that aren't nice about minorities. We're on that same route and traveling at a nice clip. Um, yes. If you beat up a straight white guy and call him a faggot, it's just smack talk during an assault. If you beat up a homosexual white guy and call him a faggot, it's now a hate crime. ETA: Anyone know if anyone has ever been charged of a hate crime against a white male heterosexual? Not saying there hasn't been, just would like to know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:02:51 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Um, no, beat up a white straight guy because he is white and/or straight and face the same penalty (I am betting, have not read the statute yet).Quoted: He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. How about that federal hate crimes legislation that just got signed? It's now a more serious crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a white, heterosexual male. Canada has hate speech legislation that allows arrest for saying things that aren't nice about minorities. We're on that same route and traveling at a nice clip. no, white is not a protected class. It is impossible to commit a hate crime against a white person. Waah! and you are incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:04:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Speaking of assaulting homosexuals
Two drunks decided to attack two guys in drag, turns out the two guys in drag were cage fighters  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8297219.stm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:06:38 AM EDT
[#15]
in the last days Good shall be called evil and evil should be called good
those days have come |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:13:04 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd have to look it up, but I bet you could be charged with a hate crime if you beat up a white man who you mistakenly assumed was gay. Yes people have been charged with hate crimes for assaulting whites.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Um, no, beat up a white straight guy because he is white and/or straight and face the same penalty (I am betting, have not read the statute yet).
Quoted:
He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. How about that federal hate crimes legislation that just got signed? It's now a more serious crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a white, heterosexual male. Canada has hate speech legislation that allows arrest for saying things that aren't nice about minorities. We're on that same route and traveling at a nice clip. Um, yes. If you beat up a straight white guy and call him a faggot, it's just smack talk during an assault. If you beat up a homosexual white guy and call him a faggot, it's now a hate crime. ETA: Anyone know if anyone has ever been charged of a hate crime against a white male heterosexual? Not saying there hasn't been, just would like to know. That may be true, and it wouldn't surprise me. What I find offensive is the idea that it is now codified that personal opinions can now be prosecuted as aggravating circumstances in a criminal proceeding. That's a half-step away from a thought crime. Consider a conservative, Southern Baptist preacher who gets up Sunday morning and preaches from Genesis and Leviticus that homosexuality is a sin. A congregant, who has always hated homosexuals anyway and whose opinion was not changed by the pastor, and who has a history of getting in trouble, goes out to a nearby gay club and beats the crap out of a gay man as he walks to his car across the street. That is now a hate crime, and the assailant's opinion and personal belief system is now a factor in his prosecution and will add to the severity of his sentence. Meanwhile, can the pastor who preached the sermon be held as an accomplice who incited this man to action with hate speech? Can he be prosecuted for that? I don't think he can as it stands now. Then again, not having your seat belt fastened was only ticketable if you got pulled for something else. It was never going to be something that an officer could pull you over for. Guess how that works now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:19:01 AM EDT
[#17]
This whole 'Hate Crime' pile of bullshit is going to severely bite us all in our collective asses .
These gestapo-type tactics that are quickly becoming the norm in our rapidly changing society are corroding our stability. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:20:10 AM EDT
[#18]
SEC. 4710. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
construed to allow a court, in any criminal trial for an offense described under this division or an amendment made by this division, in the absence of a stipulation by the parties, to admit evidence of speech, beliefs, association, group membership, or expressive conduct unless that evidence is relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this division is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.
motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of a victim. (3) CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. From the hate crimes bill in question |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:20:45 AM EDT
[#19]
Wow, all the shit that's posted there and they ban him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:29:25 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
SEC. 4710. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
(3) CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION- Nothing in thisdivision, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed orapplied in a manner that infringes any rights under the first amendmentto the Constitution of the United States.
From the hate crimes bill in question Thanks for posting that. I still wonder if the pastor in my previous example could get into trouble, though. If I'm a statist prosecutor, I'm just going to argue that this is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In this case, what the pastor preached led the assailant to assault the gay man in the parking lot. Since his hate speech caused someone to perpetrate a violent act, he should be held accountable. Furthermore, it would not surprise me at all if a jury bought that argument. Who was that Nazi guy who never actually committed crimes, but instigated them by filling his skinheads full of his ideas? Wasn't that Tom Metzger? IIRC, he got slammed with a humongous judgment for inciting the killing of an African man. Also, Charles Manson didn't harm a hair on a single person. He wasn't even present at the Tate murders, but he is still guilty. I don't know what all of the circumstances in either of these cases were, but it just seems that it's not so hard to imagine my hypothetical preacher getting canned for teaching Biblical principles in his church. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:38:04 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Wow, all the shit that's posted there and they ban him. Yeah................shows where their priorities lie . 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:41:25 AM EDT
[#22]
My humble understanding of the hate speak issue is that if you say something that latter motivates a hate crime you can be charged with the crime. Say I say God wills all males with names starting with H to die - and someone hears that and it motivates him to Kill a man named "Henry" then I would be an accomplice. That said, I keep hearing cases where just expressing dislike would be illegal.
Problem is there are always whacked out crazy people who will do stupid stuff, then the prosecution only needs to look for links. –––– Youtube might have the right, and he has the right to go elsewhere. But if the search engines ignore him, he will effectively disappear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:45:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd have to look it up, but I bet you could be charged with a hate crime if you beat up a white man who you mistakenly assumed was gay. Yes people have been charged with hate crimes for assaulting whites.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Um, no, beat up a white straight guy because he is white and/or straight and face the same penalty (I am betting, have not read the statute yet).
Quoted:
He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. How about that federal hate crimes legislation that just got signed? It's now a more serious crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a white, heterosexual male. Canada has hate speech legislation that allows arrest for saying things that aren't nice about minorities. We're on that same route and traveling at a nice clip. Um, yes. If you beat up a straight white guy and call him a faggot, it's just smack talk during an assault. If you beat up a homosexual white guy and call him a faggot, it's now a hate crime. ETA: Anyone know if anyone has ever been charged of a hate crime against a white male heterosexual? Not saying there hasn't been, just would like to know. name 5. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:45:49 AM EDT
[#24]
YouTube is a private entity, and they are just covering their asses. Most likely, someone decided that they stood to lose more $ from letting him hang around than running him off.
On "hate crime" legislation - in principle, it's thought policing, and antagonistic to Liberty. In practice, the aggrieved victim classes in the US will use it to punish the object of their ire, which is straight, white, men (for now, in time it'll be turned against the very people who champion it). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:48:26 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
The statutes he is claiming will be passed here would be unconstitutional. Get a server and set up your own website if youtube won't let you post it, simple answer. Since when did that ever stop Washington? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:51:18 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
YouTube is a private entity, and they are just covering their asses. Most likely, someone decided that they stood to lose more $ from letting him hang around than running him off. On "hate crime" legislation - in principle, it's thought policing, and antagonistic to Liberty. In practice, the aggrieved victim classes in the US will use it to punish the object of their ire, which is straight, white, men (for now, in time it'll be turned against the very people who champion it). True, true. I would add, though, that YouTube is owned by Google, isn't it? That would explain to me why this guy's out while mountains of other vitriol are allowed to stay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:56:38 AM EDT
[#27]
who cares ? lets call him an attention whore and get back to the important issues, you tube owns it they can do whatever they want
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:57:37 AM EDT
[#28]
Youtube is legally allowed to ban anyone they want.
This move does speak to the general moral bankruptcy of the people that run Youtube / Google, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:59:49 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: in the last days Good shall be called evil and evil should be called good those days have come Well quoted and said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:00:52 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
in the last days Good shall be called evil and evil should be called good those days have come +1 it has begun 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:13:42 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
The statutes he is claiming will be passed here would be unconstitutional. Get a server and set up your own website if youtube won't let you post it, simple answer. so? The hate crime law already referred to cannot in any way be argued by anyone that isn't delusional or illiterate to not contradict the equal protection clause. Totally ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:21:29 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, all the shit that's posted there and they ban him. Yeah................shows where their priorities lie . Yep, you nailed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:24:39 AM EDT
[#33]
Mr. Manning doesn't seem to have any problem posting videos on his own Web site.
YouTube is not a free-speech zone. Its owners can pick and choose what kind of content is permitted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:26:55 AM EDT
[#34]
Obamanation
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:34:04 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: name 5. 5? Try hundreds every year. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_32 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:35:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: The statutes he is claiming will be passed here would be unconstitutional. Get a server and set up your own website if youtube won't let you post it, simple answer. so? The hate crime law already referred to cannot in any way be argued by anyone that isn't delusional or illiterate to not contradict the equal protection clause. Totally ridiculous. How in heaven's name does it violate the equal protection clause? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:37:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Long-Legged Mack daddy......just a guess...Obama? Yes,you win the prize. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:37:53 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
That's gay. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 6:44:59 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: YouTube is a private entity, and they are just covering their asses. Most likely, someone decided that they stood to lose more $ from letting him hang around than running him off. On "hate crime" legislation - in principle, it's thought policing, and antagonistic to Liberty. In practice, the aggrieved victim classes in the US will use it to punish the object of their ire, which is straight, white, men (for now, in time it'll be turned against the very people who champion it). True, true. I would add, though, that YouTube is owned by Google, isn't it? That would explain to me why this guy's out while mountains of other vitriol are allowed to stay. They have indeed demonstrated that proclivity in the past, remember how they went after Michele Malkin a couple years back? I've started using other search engines now. I haven't cut Google off completely, but I do use them less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:00:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
name 5. 5? Try hundreds every year. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_32 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf Good info. Thanks for posting. Interesting to note that there are also a few anti-heterosexual crimes listed, something one doesn't normally think about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:08:37 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The statutes he is claiming will be passed here would be unconstitutional. Get a server and set up your own website if youtube won't let you post it, simple answer. Since when did that ever stop Washington? Bingo. They prosecute anyway, and cover it all up with some hand-wringing about hate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:10:34 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: The statutes he is claiming will be passed here would be unconstitutional. Get a server and set up your own website if youtube won't let you post it, simple answer. Since when did that ever stop Washington? Point! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:23:22 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. First reply was the winner. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:35:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's free to put up his own video website and post whatever he pleases. Youtube's site, their rules. First reply was the winner. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:37:32 AM EDT
[#45]
Un-American, but not the first time this has happened. IIRC, they help with China's censorship and have altered, edited, censored many others with political ideas that threatened the mainstream
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
