Not content to trample on Americans’ Second Amendment rights, the gun control crowd is fixing to similarly trample on their First Amendment rights as well.
In the latest move of it’s kind, popular Youtube personality Hickok45 had his account suspended by Google for allegedly violating it’s terms of service. Needless to say, Hickok45 was shocked by the suspension. He never posted anything objectionable, so why should Google ban his account?
See, Hickok45’s channel featured videos of him handling and talking about firearms. He had made a name for himself as a gun enthusiast, with over 1.7 million Youtube users subscribing to his channel. But that all changed this Wednesday when his most recent video was automatically posted to Google+.
Shortly after the video was posted on the site, Hickok45 was informed that his account had been suspended without any actual explanation. He took to Facebook to express his confusion, writing, “Apparently, Google + is more sensitive about firearms related postings and such. I never use Google+ and did not even realize the videos were being posted over there, I guess.”
See more about this story on the next page:
This is old news and he’s back on
Oh but yet You-Tube keeps world star hip hop where it shows people acting like fools and literally beating the$#%&!@*out of others…. something wrong here, conquer and divide, history repeats itself
Actually it will go 2nd then 5th then 1st. Gun confiscation is a violation of the 2nd and 5th.
Except YouTube doesn’t explicitly bar ‘gun videos,’ evidenced by the thousands of other, similar channels.
My guess is some SJW was looking for something to be offended by and found what they wanted on his channel.
Brett Fisher Yes. People forget that Amendment I starts: “Congress shall make no laws…” not “Private companies must respect what I say”. If the government were suspending/blocking the channel we’d have a different situation here.
Semper Fi.
Glenn Curtis absolutely it is their right to curtail any speech they deem necessary. Amendment I does not prevent private entities from having to allow or support free speech.
Gary Ramsey, they can restrict people’s speech because they manage the content. This is in their terms of service, which is a contract that all users agree to by using the site.
And the cake bakers case is not the same. If someone demanded a cake with a gun on it, a baker could say no. You have no right to a cake with a gun, and therefore there is not a civil rights violation. The issue at hand with the cakes were that people were denied services at a “publicly accessible” business.
Now if youtube disallowed handicapped people from being able to post videos, or access the site based on that reason alone- yes they will have a problem.
I forget, when did Congress make a law against his youtube video? Or when a government actor restricted his right to free speech?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Figured some should read this to actually know what it contains. Freedom of speech does not prevent youtube from restricting content as they decide.
Bull$#%&!@*i just watch this