YouTube yanks Carhart video

When writing Monday on the puff piece Newsweek just published on late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart, I posted a YouTube video shot August 14 of a worker at Carhart’s mill – who professed to be a satanist, btw – verbally abusing a pro-life protester in front of the mill.
or youtube.jpgOperation Rescue reports this afternoon that YouTube has yanked the video, sending this notice:

Youtube is not a venue for things like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts or to violate the Terms of Use. If you continue to post such content, you may have your account permanently suspended.

OR’s response, via Cheryl Sullenger

I completely resent the outrageous and false notion that the video was in anyway abusive on our part. The threats and intimidation shown in this video were made by the Carhart employee against the pro-life photographer, Larry Donlan. I posted the video with his permission so that the world could see the truth about the abuse and threats that pro-lifers are forced to endure. I have asked YouTube to immediately restore the video and remove the flag from my account.
This video showed the abortion industry in its true light, and it isn’t a pretty sight. The pro-aborts who reported the video as abuse will go to any lengths to cover up the truth about this ugly side of the abortion business and the threats and intimidation inflicted on pro-lifers.

Operation Rescue has reposted the video.

20 thoughts on “YouTube yanks Carhart video”

  1. “The pro-aborts who reported the video as abuse will go to any lengths to cover up the truth ”
    Pro-aborts don’t KNOW the true meaning of abuse.
    For them, it’s just “CHOICE”.
    ABortion: The Ultimate Child ABUSE.

  2. I was very, VERY upset when this video was yanked. I was in the middle of a debate with a pro-choicer in the comments, and I believe that person reported the video because they were losing the debate.
    It really made me angry.

  3. First the person accused “Christian Taliban”, then quoted the inflated and false numbers of women who died in illegal abortions. I then corrected the person on both counts, they accused me of lying, I quoted Dr. Nathanson admitting that the numbers were inflated lies, then shortly after, the video was taken down.

  4. Come to think about it, first comments were disabled for the video, then a day or so after that it was taken down completely.

  5. What puzzles me is why prolifers continue to post anything on UTube, when there are other video websites available. Does anyone not know yet how radically proabort UTube is?

  6. “Good point Doyle, can you tell us what is a good alternative to Youtube?”
    GodTube comes to mind although I’m not really familiar with it.

  7. So it’s ok for pro-choicers to record pro-life clinic protestors and sidewalk counselors, but conservative pro-lifers do the same and are censored? Seems like a double standard. Also, YouTube’s Terms of Use are broadly defined and may be interepreted loosely by and allows for political or personal bias on the part of moderators.

  8. If you think about it also, all it takes is for a video to be flagged often enough to be taken down and all that takes is a group of individuals deciding they don’t like the political message being presented and for them each to flag the video and fabricate a violation of Terms of Use. This is another flaw of YouTube’s reporting and review system.

  9. Maybe YouTube should consider following Religious Tolerance website’s lead and have a panel of moderators representing a wide spectrum of views and consider adding a clause on censorship to the Terms of Use to protect against abuse of the reporting system.

  10. Jasper,
    Sorry, I forgot to post the only alternative I’m familiar with: “” I’m not sure if we’re allowed to post links yet, so just copy and paste that into your browser’s address box.

  11. My only problem with this is that the people on YouTube are the ones who really NEED to hear what we have to say.

  12. Ugh. Clicking around the Tube I find yet ANOTHER profile for a pro-abortion teacher…no wonder people have grown to view such things as acceptable.

  13. I saw part of the video before it was yanked (I was so appalled by the “satanist’s” language I didn’t feel like listening to the last half or so). I didn’t see where YouTube figured that the PL demonstrator was “stalking”, “threatening”, “harassing”, or “inciting” the man. In fact I believe the protestor warned the man that the video was going on the Internet, and the man said he didn’t care (with much gutter-language peppered throughout). But I am not surprised that YouTube, as pro-“choice” as they are, yanked it. Of course they didn’t like the content, it showed the true colors of the type of louts who work in the abortion industry and made their darling Carhart look bad. And at such a bad time, too, with him trying to reopen a mill in Kansas right now.
    By the way, GodTube is now called Tangle, for those interested.

  14. Boy, “GOD”, you sure seem to think a lot of yourself. Unfortunately for you, you’re the only one who does.
    I’m sorry, but a lone insane man off of his meds is responsible for the murder of Dr. Tiller. He’s in custody, too, pending trial. Wait-what-you mean other anti-abortion activists are going to visit another even after he does something wrong, succumbs to sickness, and gets in trouble? The fiends!
    Would you just have him “aborted”? That seems to be the thing to do for you guys when people become too much of a burden and make themselves “unwanted”. Sorry, we don’t operate like that.

  15. Even though Cheryl is a convicted felon and did conspire to blow up the abortion clinic, she had nothing to do with the murder of Dr. Tiller. She paid for her crime by spending 2 years in federal prison and has since become a good Christian. The fact that she did supply the murderer with information is true, but she did not in fact pull the trigger.

  16. Shouldn’t someone who performs an act of terroism, as Cheryl admitted to, lose some of their credibility? As a firm believer that abortions should be illegal I still have a problem having Cheryl Sullenger as a spokesperson for the right to life movement. I’m sorry, but she just kind of makes my skin crawl.

  17. Cheryl is not a “spokesperson” for the right to life movement. In fact, as a movement, we have no “spokespersons”.
    She is also not a “terrorist”, as she did not do anything with the intention of hurting anyone. At most, she is a convicted property vandal.
    And she has certainly EARNED her crdibility in the prolife community by her life long dedication to the work of several prolife organizations. She needs to make no apology or explanation to you or anyone else, regardless of your claim to be “a firm believer that abortions should be illegal”.
    Ever try to add anything positive to the abortion debate?

Comments are closed.