Threatened by YouTube Censorship, I Go Into the T-Shirt Business


By Kevin Barrett, VT Editor

What do you do when an internet oligarch destroys everything you’ve been working for, obliterates more than a decade of your hard work, and deprives you of the ability to make a living—all because that oligarch disapproves of your free political speech that is explicitly protected in all public places, including today’s digital town square, by the First Amendment?

Obviously that oligarch deserves to be executed for treason. The First Amendment is the heart of our Constitution, and traitors to the Bill of Rights are the worst treasonous scum imaginable.

But since I am a nonviolent person, and would never dream of prosecuting and executing a poor cuddly little internet oligarch, I have decided to forget about alternative journalism and instead open up a T-Shirt business. Below are just a few of the communications from YouTube that gave me this million-dollar idea, along with pictures of my latest merchandise.

Hi Kevin Barrett,
Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our harassment, threats and cyberbullying policy. We’ve removed the following content from YouTube:
Video: Jim Fetzer on Charlottesville: “2 cars + 2 drivers + 2 takes = totally fake”
We know that this might be disappointing, but it’s important to us that YouTube is a safe place for all. If content breaks our rules, we remove it. If you think we’ve made a mistake, you can appeal and we’ll take another look. Keep reading for more details.
How your content violated the policy
YouTubers share their opinions on a wide range of different topics. However, there’s a fine line between passionate debate and personal attacks. Content that contains targeted harassment including, but not limited to, stalking, threats, bullying, or intimidation is not allowed on YouTube. We remove content where the main aim is to maliciously attack another person or deliberately humiliate them. We also escalate cases to the appropriate authorities when warranted. If you’re not sure whether or not your content crosses the line, we ask that you not post it.

We review educational, documentary, artistic, and scientific content on a case-by-case basis. Limited exceptions are made for content with sufficient and appropriate context and where the purpose of posting is clear.

How this affects your channel
Because it’s the first time, this is just a warning. If it happens again, your channel will get a strike and you won’t be able to do things like upload, post, or live stream for 1 week.
What to do next
We want to help you stay on YouTube, so please:
Make sure you understand YouTube’s Community Guidelinesand strikes basics.
Review your content with our policies in mind. If after reviewing your content you think we made a mistake, let us know. You can appeal this decision here.
The YouTube Team
YouTube Twitter
You have received this email to update you on actions related to your YouTube account.

Hi noliesradio,

Your video False Flag Weekly News 03/22/2019–New Zealand False Flag? was flagged to us by the YouTube community. Upon review, we have placed restrictions on how the video will be shown. Please note that your video will continue to be available on YouTube.

Video content restrictions

We believe in free expression, even when that expression is unpopular or potentially offensive to some viewers. In some cases, flagged videos that do not clearly breach the Community Guidelines but whose content is potentially controversial or offensive may remain up, but with some features disabled. This includes videos denying that a well-documented, violent event took place.

Your video will be shown after a warning message. In addition, certain features such as comments, sharing, thumbs up, and suggested videos have been disabled. Your video is also ineligible for monetization.

For more information, please visit our Help Center.

How you can respond

While this is not a strike on your account, we still want to hear from you if you believe this was a mistake. If you would like to appeal this decision, please submit this form. You can also appeal directly from Video Manager. Our team will thoroughly review your appeal and will contact you again soon.

– The YouTube Team

Help centerEmail options• Report spam
©2019 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA



We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.


  1. Your argument would only make sense if YouTube did not use any public communications infrastructure in its business.

  2. Take notice that the way the First Amendment is worded does not enumerate freedom of speech, assembly, press or religion as positive rights that people possess, but rather as activities the national legislature may not infringe upon. Notice also that no such stricture applies to either the Executive or the Judicial branches, or to any state or local government, or to any non-governmental entity.

    If Bill of Rights author James Madison had meant to stipulate them as positive “rights” all he had to do was write it that way, but he did not. Since anti-federalists flatly refused to ratify the Constitution unless it guaranteed something, Madison had to come up with something resembling guarantees. In fact Federalists did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary, or even good idea, with Alexander Hamilton arguing a Bill of Rights would even be “dangerous.” Originally, 125 proposed amendments were presented to the First Congress to enumerate the rights of the new republic’s citizens; only the ten we are familiar with were passed on to the states to approve. The record of the contentious debates in Congress on these measures is recommended reading for an understanding of what ideas and ideals these men really held.

  3. A website is a publisher. It is morally and legally responsible for every word it publishes. It can publish or withhold anything it chooses. It doesn’t have to even allow readers to comment.

    A platform like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. is not a publisher. It is a de facto monopoly and a digital town square, open to anyone. It exercises no publishers’ oversight over what users post. The users are the publishers, and they are the ones legally responsible for what they post. If they violate the law, sue or prosecute them. Otherwise leave them alone. Their political speech is protected under the First Amendment.

    Censorship of the digital town square by internet oligarchs is the worst crime against the Constitution, the worst act of high treason, in all of American history.

Comments are closed.