thats racist, nigga

And?

That means you aint better than the SJWs who hate white people

Do I seem like a person that cares about that?

You dont seem like a person at all XD

Exactly

How many? And like, right now?

Yeah I do hate whites too btw

Because cucks

@Ruggwain https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1027899286586109955

o o f

can we copystrike Erdogan?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/199126650317832192/477459809889943562/unknown.png

https://twitter.com/tictoc/status/1027902754822475776

**Totally Human Thing#2674** was cleansed from the server.

You know I think Alex Jones got banned for libel against Mueller if anything

He did essentialyl call him a mass rapist with no evidence.

If that was why they did it, I'll side with Youtube, but they should have said that. Not the other sites though, they banned him for doing stuff off site which is dumb.

libel is a legal term, which needs to be proved in a court of law - if youtube wants to avoid the mantle of a public utility then banning people for 'libel' would be a terrible move

I agree

but libel is against their rules.

then they'd have to prove it

or more specifically, Mueller would have to sue AJ

Like I can't think of a time Alex was harassing people for their gender or sexuality, but he did throw out all sorts of shit on people.

Well the thing in their TOS is "Libellious"

I think they can use that term without actually invoking Libel law itself.

although as a related aside, apparently defamation on the internet still isn't entirely clear-cut

```"Is defamation on the internet libel or slander?"

It is unclear at this point whether the transmittal of defamatory statement over the internet constitutes libel or slander. This may not seem like an important distinction but it is important, especially as to the awarding of damages. Some cases throughout the U.S. court system have tried to answer the question.

In Varian v. Deflino & Day two former employees had libeled Varian executives by posting more than 14,000 defamatory messages on over 100 different websites. The jury found that the defendants liable for defamation as well as misappropriation of the executives names.

In 2006 a Florida court awarded a plaintiff $11.3 million dollars when the defendant posted numerous comments on message boards defaming the plaintiff and her business reputation. The court did not specify whether the cause of action was based on libel or slander.

Due to the courts unwillingness to specify a specific form of defamation associated with internet use it can be perceived that the court system has not yet determined how to deal with the matter. Cyberlaw is a new and important field of law and as more cases come to trial stage the answer to this question may come with it.```

Like how legal treason isn't the same as the dictionary definition of treason which isn't the same as the US constitution's definition fo treason.

Hmm. Yeah that could be a problem.

What I mean though is that doing things that could be construed as libel is against YouTube the rules.

So if he got banned for the Mueller rapist comments or something, then I can understand.

I still think it's a bad move though.

But it does fit their actual rules, rather than banning people for fake rules or demonteizing/deleting videos for selective political interpretations of their rules.

Youtube would have it's hands full if it went around banning people for people talking shit on other people 🤣

Yeah definitely, but as usual only high profile people get hit

``` In a libel action, unless the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, the plaintiff does not need to prove financial damages.```


```A slander action is different. The threat of a single publication through a medium incapable of mass dissemination, longevity, or permanence shall is not considered to be as grave as that of a libelous publication. Therefore the common law requires that the plaintiff prove, not only damage to his/her reputation, but also financial damage. ```

Wel regardless of the legality, it's still something that they believe is against the Youtube rules.

Granted I do think the first two strikes on Alex Jone's youtube channel were pretty stupid too so it's a bit unfair regardless.

I find the whole thing dumb, tbh