New Stanek WND column, “YouTube serially aborts pro-life videos”
By now you’re likely one of 1.5 million people who have seen the graphic video of Neda Soltan dying after being shot in the chest on June 20, 2009, during protests in Iran following the presidential election.
The video shows Neda collapsing into the arms of 2 men, who try to stop her bleeding with their bare hands. Suddenly, Neda’s eyes roll up and to the right, almost as if they are looking at the cell phone video camera chronicling her death. Blood begins pouring from her mouth and nose, into one eye and down her face. Cries erupt from the crowd, and you know Neda is dead.
I don’t know how the tragic video of Neda’s death is any less graphic than a video by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform showing the tragic, graphic deaths of children by abortion, but it is according to YouTube, which removed this video.
There’s something about showing abortion that sets it apart from all other videos in the Big Brother eyes of YouTube.
YouTube allows almost any surgery video imaginable, like gastric bypass, gallbladder removal, toe amputation, appendectomy and brain tumor removal, and gross-out body parts videos like a buttock fecal fistula or peritoneal cancer – but not abortion.
Neither does YouTube have a problem with videos pertaining to the female anatomy like mastectomies, breast augmentations, hysterectomies or even baby deliveries – but not abortion, unless it is in the form of bloodless illustrations.
YouTube also seems to go out of its way to protect the abortion industry, particularly Planned Parenthood.
To date, YouTube has removed 8 videos posted by Lila Rose and Live Action Films shot undercover at PPs in several states….
But it’s not only PP YouTube protects. It also provides cover-up for run-of-the-abortion-mill skanks….
Continue reading my column today, “YouTube serially aborts pro-life videos,” at WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
You Tube seems to be on a mission of political correctness these days. This is not the first that I have heard of this type of video censorship. It’s funny that so much of the inappropriate content that they allow is ok while content that brings to light an issue such as the horror of abortion is not ok.
What do you expect from a company now owned by Google, run by a couple of guys who look like they’re cutting their Biology 101 class? Google has never claimed to be fair or balanced.
Aren’t there other places which can host these videos? You tube can’t be the only place, though it was the first and is probably the most popular, usually hundreds of sites pop up in response to the need.
We shouldn’t have to deal with modern day discrimination and segregation though. Although now the criteria seems not to be the color of one’s skin, but state (red or blue), and it isn’t water fountains, but media for which we will be forced to seek an alternate source. In the meantime, we need to focus our efforts to decide upon ONE alternative source, and make that a little more inclusive to people with diverging religions and politics which don’t fit EXACTLY in line with the religious conservative.
I normally wouldn’t advocate a ditching of religion and choking down one’s ideals, but this is the internet. It’s a little different here, and these reasons are why YouTUBE is so successful (and why they don’t like us there). The only way the internets work is through near total chaos and utter abandon, so if you really want to get your message through, which the core is anti-abortion, to be sure, you’re going to have to ditch the other stuff and go with that. Srsly.
YouTube also pulled Chad Koppie’s commercial when he was running for US Senate this last election. It contained a 4D ultrasound image of a baby in the womb, some facts on fetal development, and a few graphic photos of aborted babies. The commercial ran on FOX and NBC affiliates during primetime, but was pulled by YouTube. If major television networks will run a video, what’s wrong with YouTube?
GodTube also refused to post it–so much for “Christian” alternatives.
Vimeo was where it ended up. They had no problem showing the truth.
So perhaps if a flood of complaints has no effect on YouTube, I’d recommend Vimeo as a plausible alternative.
I know someone had the contact information for YouTube before on another thread…could we get it posted up here? I think that’s something we should repost every now and again just to keep the complaints coming in. YouTube shouldn’t be allowed to get a pass on this just because they are difficult to contact.
I tried to post a link to prolifetube.com the other day, but links are a no-no. They are an alternative to YouTube.
Youtube is a private company apparently owned by Google (see http://www.crunchbase.com/company/youtube), not “social engineers” as you wrongly characterize it.
Why don’t you raise money and create your own web site where you can show all the graphic abortion videos you want?
We still live in a free country, and one man’s treasure is another’s garbage. That’s the way it should be.
As for conservative Christian propaganda and anti-abortion pieces, there are plenty on Youtube. If you can’t find any, you are not looking very hard. Here are a few for your edification:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg3v-fsY7B0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8rjALTRjuU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4SSaEbUODM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4B3O9uUc-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9duXeLahkV4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPA1CxcOQJ4
That is weird that they banned the video- perhaps they don’t like graphic things that have the unfortunate tag of “politics” weighing them down? They take most of the videos that I’ve seen down due to copyright infringement- maybe there was a legal dispute somewhere. The people who decide to remove videos or not must certainly be concerned with inappropriate images, though there are images of Darfur (at least some people are permitted to be helped…). They removed a Sigur Ros (Icelandic rock!) video because it features a lot of nudity, so perhaps they’re concerned for younger viewers?
I won’t jump to conclusions that they’re biased, but this does make me curious and a little distressed.
Doyle,
Links aren’t a no-no, but they are usually sent to the spam folder by our program. Just let us know when you post a link (this goes for anyone) and we’ll fish it out of the spam folder for you.
Justyouwait:
Don’t you think Lila would be in prison right now if everything or anything you accused her of was true?
Thanks for admitting YouTube is biased though. It makes it that much more special coming from you. *hearts*
Vannah: You don’t need to jump to a conclusion to know that YouTube is biased to the proabort side, just open your eyes, and come out of denial.
Bobby: Okay, here’s another try at the link to ProLife Tube:
http://prolifetube.ning.com/
I wonder how many abortions the administrators of YouTube have had?
It must be a tad uncomfortable watching all this stuff knowing you’ve participated in the deaths of babies.
You can contact YouTube at the address below.
YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
USA
Phone: +1 650-253-0000
Fax: +1 650-253-0001
Thank you, Mary! :D