YouTube’s Glaring Double Standard

Christian and Prager U videos targeted for removal, but David Duke's hateful, anti-Semitic video gets a pass.

By Michael Brown Published on March 19, 2017

In the last two years, YouTube, which is owned by Google, removed the trailer for a Christian movie about homosexuality, removed a video about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, and removed some Prager University videos about Islam (while restricting access to some of their other videos). Yet when David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, released a virulently anti-Semitic video, YouTube found nothing wrong with it. For good reason, even political leaders are outraged over the double standard.

Before we get to the David Duke video, let’s look at these other examples of YouTube censorship.

The Audacity of Pulling Audacity

In July, 2015, the trailer for a Ray Comfort-produced movie called Audacity was removed from YouTube after quickly receiving 130,000 views. On what basis? “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.”

In reality, neither the trailer nor the movie contained any spam, scams, or commercially deceptive content — not a hint or trace of any such thing — and the most likely reason it was pulled was because a number of viewers protested the content of the video. Heaven forbid you share a biblical view of homosexuality on YouTube!

For the record, anyone watching the movie — let alone the trailer — would know there was not an ounce of hateful or disparaging or deceptive content in the video, which made this act of censorship all the more bizarre.

Thankfully, after vigorous protests, the video was restored, but it should never have been removed in the first place.

Christian Persecution Video Pulled

In February, 2016, TheBlaze carried a headline which announced, “Christian Filmmakers Ask if YouTube Is Targeting Their Worldview After Their Video Was Pulled and Branded ‘Inappropriate’.”

The video in question “included no nudity, profanity or explicit onscreen violence,” yet it “was removed by YouTube, which called the film ‘inappropriate’ and in violation of YouTube’s Community Guidelines.

“The video presents the scenario of what it might look like were the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere to arrive in the U.S., including scenes that hinted of the Islamic State group. The film does, however, include several Bible verses being read.”

Within minutes of the video going public, Josh Troester, the director and producer of the movie Chased, states that “we received notice that our video was ‘flagged for inappropriate content.’ YouTube’s notice stated that ‘after reviewing the content, we’ve determined that the videos violate our Community Guidelines.’”

The article also notes that, “Other video producers working to educate the West about violence and incitement in the Middle East have experienced YouTube removing their videos or shutting down their channels, including the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and Palestinian Media Watch. Both groups translate the Arabic-language videos of jihadist leaders and others as an educational service.”

Prager U Censored

Despite all this, however, it was still quite a shock when some of the Prager U videos were put on restricted access and others were removed.

Videos on this YouTube channel are professionally done, fairly presented (with some of the lecturers including respected professors and Pulitzer Prize winners), and are viewed by millions. Yet in October, 2016, YouTube removed or restricted access to 16 videos on the site (originally it was 21). On what basis?

In a petition that was launched to protest YouTube’s actions, “PragerU claims that YouTube has entirely removed PragerU’s new video with Kasim Hafeez, a British Muslim who is a pro-Israel activist.” In the video, Hafeez explains how he overcame the anti-Semitic indoctrination that radicalized him from an early age.
“Within hours of the video’s release Monday morning, YouTube flagged it for ‘hate speech’ and took it down.”

This is utterly outrageous, and the petition caught fire for good reason.

It is against this backdrop that YouTube’s latest actions are completely indefensible.

But David Duke’s Anti-Semitic Rage Stays

The David Duke video is titled “Jews admit organizing White Genocide,” yet YouTube claims it does not contain “hate speech,” despite ridiculous and incendiary statements like, “the Zionists have already ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, why not do the same thing to Europeans and Americans?”

Duke refers to the “Zionist racist” state of Israel and claims that “comparing Israel to apartheid is like comparing an atomic bomb to a bee-bee gun,” adding, “Unlike Israel, South Africa never dropped tens of thousands of bombs that have burnt children alive while they slept in their beds.”

No, there’s nothing hateful about this content at all, nothing that violates YouTube’s community guidelines, nothing worthy of removal from their site. Right. Yet the video of a pro-Israel, British Muslims explaining “how he overcame the anti-Semitic indoctrination that radicalized him from an early age” violates YouTube’s standards and must be removed.

What hypocrisy.

Trends like this are deeply disturbing and deserve our attention and our action, and while Google-YouTube can run its company however it pleases, it must be called to account for its double standards.

Please write to me if you feel you were the victim of unfair treatment on YouTube (thus far, my own experience with YouTube has been fair), and let’s redouble our efforts to get the truth out — as long as we have the opportunity.

This is how we keep our freedoms intact.

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.
  • Autrey Windle

    I am surprised yet not surprised. I have completely eliminated all association with Facebook, Google and anyone even remotely part of their group-think and the appearance of collusion with government directed censorship and liberal societal agendas. I can’t believe I missed knowing about youtube, but then I only go there to look at how to fix my car. I won’t be going there anymore. This falls under the category of ‘there are actually a few things I believe I can’t do anything about eliminating from our culture’ except through a miracle of God’s making. If He gives a darn about youtube, I hope He destroys their power grid. If He allows it without challenge, I guess He figures His children are smart enough to just let the heathens have it. Too bad! Maybe Bing will start their own answer to the tube so I can still figure out how to fix my car.

    • Nunyadambizness

      While I don’t disagree with your sentiments, Bing is Microsoft, and they are not a company I trust either. Frankly, the list is getting smaller, and all tech companies seem to be in the same boat. Maybe it’s time to disconnect entirely… (just a thought).

      • Autrey Windle

        I like Gary’s idea about the Stream expanding a bit in this direction.

    • A Cater

      This is the condition of the End Time age that Bible believers are to expect. Please note my comments on here

      • Autrey Windle

        I do agree and it is bittersweet to see the falling as the rising up comes quickly ever nearer.

  • fights

    We need to be in constant prayer and for God to thwart all evil plans of censorship, persecution, false narratives, etc.

  • Gary

    Why don’t Christians start their own website that will have videos like the ones YouTube refused? Is there a reason why The Stream can’t get into this and have a channel for videos? You can’t expect the enemies of God to not act like the enemies of God. We all know what Google is. Why can’t there be a Christian alternative?

  • John Doe

    Liberal, sexually deviant, hate filled, race baiters have infilthtrated social media.

  • Patmos

    If Satan can enter in to one of the 12 disciples, he can certainly enter in to Google execs, Facebook execs, etc. And he is.

  • Christian Cowboy

    Don’t do Facebook or Utube. My wife will read me some of what friends and family might post – some of which I would not say or share in private much less on the Internet. I don’t feel deprived one bit.

  • ryker

    Add Wikipedia to the list. It’s biased too in relation to articles it has on people of interest.

  • A Cater

    We should not be surprised at this as God’s Word plainly teaches us that Satan is in control of the kingdoms of this world and that the whole ” world lieth in wickedness”. 2 Timothy chapter 3 details the Apostasy that will exist at the endtime ” Evil men will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” One wonders how much more of this will God tolerate before His wrath is poured out.

  • Ray

    Has anyone noticed anything with face book?

  • Brendan Tnias

    I recall reading some years ago that David Duke’s youtube channel was censored by youtube but I infer he must have just opened another one. Personally I am against censorship; the free market of public interest can guide what is valued and not. Your above article started out as if concerned with Christian matters but ended clearly concerned with jewish matters. I am not familiar with Prager U. though the name seems familiar. Rather than vilifying it would make more sense to argue the fact that
    there are many voices with many truths and narratives to tell and when they deal with political power and abuse of power there are conflicting views. Let everyone proffer their truths and let not google be the judge of what political or other information people may hear. So I agree with this author and would be more emphatic: FREE SPEECH IS ESSENTIAL FOR A FREE PEOPLE TO REMAIN FREE. There is a plausible caveat; advocating violence against people or a person would seem to be
    a legitimate cause for youtube/google to not wish to be party to as it may be illegal.

‘I Will Love Them Freely’
Charles Spurgeon
More from The Stream
Connect with Us