YouTube Restricts Video of Man Assaulting Irish Pro-lifer as He Posts a #SaveThe8th Sign

Video merely showed a man pushing another man over.

By Rachel Alexander Published on May 15, 2018

YouTube is developing a reputation for censoring or restricting conservative videos. Videos exposing assaults on conservatives, for instance, may be censored for “violence.”

On May 25, voters in Ireland will decide whether to legalize abortion. Those who want the law to protect the unborn formed an opposition campaign called “Save the 8th,” referring to the Eighth Amendment which bans abortion. They are facing censorship by the big tech companies. Google has banned all ads related to the referendum. Facebook banned groups outside of Ireland from running referendum ads. 

Then, on May 3, a campaigner with Save the 8th was assaulted by an opponent. The entire confrontation was caught on video. The campaigner tries to use a ladder to put a sign on a pole. The opponent starts swearing at him profusely. He tells him he will not let him mount the sign. Finally, the opponent shoves the ladder, knocking the campaigner down flat on his back.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

The video was uploaded to YouTube on May 4. However, YouTube slapped a restricted content label on it. This prohibits those under age 18 from viewing it, and everyone else must login using a Google account. 

Since children are often involved in pro-life demonstrations, shouldn’t they be allowed to see what is happening? There is violence portrayed every evening on the nightly news. YouTube’s policy states, “It’s not okay to post violent or gory content that’s primarily intended to be shocking, sensational, or gratuitous.” The video doesn’t fit that description. It is meant to be educational and to create awareness about the hate on the side that supports abortion. It is news. The man was caught on video committing a misdemeanor.  

Warning: profane language

 


Follow Rachel on Twitter at Rach_IC

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Tim Pan

    All this to murder unborn babies.

    • JTLiuzza

      The “right” to unfettered sex with zero responsibility demands that they be able to murder babies. They are barbarians, just like this toad in the video.

      Now if the pro life guy would have hauled off and slugged the foul mouth baby killer (which is what should have happened), youtube would have censored nothing.

  • Peter

    The protester sounds American. Leads me to believe that outside agitators are the impetus for this pro-abortion movement.

  • Sylvain_A

    How many pro-lifers were ever killed by pro-choices? Zero

    Pro-lifers have no qualms killing doctors and fathers.

    • J_Bob

      How many lives were snuffed out by Pro-Choicers? Millions

    • VisPacem

      Have any objective statistics to support your absurd assertions?

      • Sylvain_A

        You can search for in Google:

        ”A Brief History of Deadly Attacks on Abortion Providers”

        I don’t have any example on the other direction.

        • VisPacem

          Given the possibly exaggerated claim that 300 acts of violence, which include those that resulted in the death of a certain number of abortion providers, all of which were perpetrated likely by imbalanced individuals who do not represent at all the behavior of the vast numbers of ‘pro-lifers’ at all, contrary to what you imply …

          … and given the fact, as noted by J_Bob below that quite a few million infants have violently been torn to shreds or chemically destroyed ‘in utero,’ who is it who really should ‘have qualms’?

          • Sylvain_A

            1) An infant cannot be aborted since it is born and alive.

            2) Abortion is not murder. To murder someone it has to have been born and be able to take a breath on its own.

            3) That a foetus is a person is your belief, not a fact. And very convenient for male to control women.

          • VisPacem

            ‘Infant’ in its etymology literally means “quasi impos fandi,” as not having the faculty of speech. And this goes back to the Theodosian Legal Codes, supposedly.

            Your contorted reasoning implies the following: that a pregnant feline is not with kittens as soon as it is pregnant; nor a mare with a foal at that instant; nor a female dog with pups at that instant.

            The instant there is a fertilized egg that is capable of development ‘in utero’, one has a person whose human nature is in the process of developing, for a human being only begets human beings; and all human beings, even those who by genetic flaws or extrinsic agencies that fail to fully develop their powers, are nonetheless persons.

            This is why we refer to those who lack fully their cognitive powers as persons, for they are human beings.

            Women should have control over themselves, something you do not advocate at all.

            Rather, you advocate a total lack of self-control and then trying to force others not only to condone an action that is reprehensible, but even to support it financially.

            As for your second assertion, it flies in the face of long-established realistic legal acknowledgment that a child ‘in utero’ can be heir of its parent’s estate, should they die and that child live.

            Your stance contradicts experience and is utterly incoherent, and this is why you have to contrive such distorted lines of thinking and abuses of language to rationalize how absurd your position is, and the evil it implies.

            And objectively speaking, since human pregnancy necessarily involves a developing person, that person being innocent, should not be intentionally killed.

  • Bob C

    Aww, the kind, compassionate, tolerant left strikes again.

Inspiration
The Sound of Freedom
Al Perrotta
More from The Stream
Connect with Us