Vox's Scorched Earth Plan WORKED Mass Censorship Hits Youtube In Wake Of The Vox Steven Crowder Battle
UPDATE: The Mass Censorship has dramatically escalated after the publishing of this video. Stay Tuned For An Update at Youtube.com/Timcastnews at 6pmMass Censorship Hits Youtube In Wake Of The Vox Steven Crowder Battle. Following Youtube's defense of Steven Crowder they announced a mass purge of content as well as the restriction of 'borderline' content that doesn't break any rules.Following the campaign by Vox and Carlos Maza we are now learning that Youtube will be restricintg content but promoting 'top news channels' which I would assume includes Vox. Youtube has bent the knee to far left agitators and social justice zealots. Though Steven Crowder is going to be permitted to stay it seems that most of us are close to the end of our days on Youtube.Following the recording of this video I saw many youtubers axed from the partner program but who broke no rules. It seems like this will be a major victory for massive corporations.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The battle is over, but the war is just beginning.
We're now seeing the reaction.
Numerous digital outlets are talking about whether this is good or bad.
They're mostly siding with Carlos Maza.
Shocked.
Now the BBC does have an article that does present the alternative, that there's a free speech issue here, and that's fine, but following this debacle, we are now seeing sweeping censorship that is going to affect YouTube.
YouTube is now announcing that they're going to be getting rid of content that promotes the supremacy of one group over another for the purpose of exclusion or segregation.
As well as reducing borderline content and raising up authoritative voices.
Quite literally, that means top news channels.
So expect YouTubes are promoting CNN, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New York Times, etc.
and Vox of all companies.
I have to wonder what the reason for Carlos Maza's campaign was.
And a day after we hear That Crowder is going to be allowed to remain.
We're hearing that the top news channels will be allowed.
In the end, I think what we'll end up seeing is Vox is going to get promoted heavily and conservative and independent creators will be deranked or just not recommended.
And we have some testimony from some creators to discuss this.
So the first thing we should do I don't necessarily want to go over everything pertaining to the Carlos Maza saga, but we will talk a little bit about it.
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is like and comment on the video or share the link.
That's the best thing.
And subscribe if you haven't already.
But for those that are unfamiliar, Carlos Maza has been on a campaign to rally a bunch of creators to go up against YouTube because YouTube will not ban conservative comedian Steven Crowder.
Crowder has repeatedly made videos debunking strikethrough, Carlos' show on Vox, where he also imitates and mocks him and calls him things based on his identity.
Naturally, I'm more on the side of Crowder should absolutely not be banned or punished in any way, because late-night hosts do this all the time.
In fact, Crowder made several good points, in my opinion, about several things said by Stephen Colbert, by Samantha Bee, by Trevor Noah.
Trevor Noah even mocking the race and the accents of certain groups of people.
In which case, you can't get mad at Crowder for the same behavior.
Conveniently, however, following this, YouTube is now taking action, and they're doing a few things.
As I mentioned earlier, they say that they're going to be removing violative content, raising up authoritative content, reducing the spread of borderline content, and rewarding trusted creators.
They're going to remove... Let's see exactly what they say.
say, YouTube has always had rules of the road, including a longstanding
policy against hate speech.
In 2017, we introduced a tougher stance towards videos with supremacist content, including
limiting recommendations and features like comments and the ability to share video.
I completely disagree with what YouTube is doing, and I will explain that after this
paragraph.
This step dramatically reduced views.
Does that mean if someone says the people who support pineapple on pizza are inferior, they will ban that group?
Actually, I don't necessarily disagree with that, with limitations.
They say, today we're taking another step in our policy by specifically prohibiting videos
alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination.
That is insanely vague.
Does that mean if someone says the people who support pineapple on pizza are inferior,
they will ban that group? Of course it doesn't.
This is a vague rule on purpose to give YouTube discretion in getting rid of whoever they want.
Uh, they say segregation or inclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, orientation, or veteran status, so obviously I'm being hyperbolic with the pineapple thing.
The point is, it's vague on purpose.
This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify a certain German World War II ideology, which is inherently discriminatory.
Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented events like...
World War II era things or Sandy Hook Elementary took place.
Yes, because of YouTube's rules, you understand how I have to try and communicate these ideas.
Criticize me all day you want for it, but I'm not going to sacrifice my ability to get the message out simply because there are arbitrary rules on YouTube.
I'm going to try and work within that system.
We recognize some of this content has value to researchers and NGOs looking to understand the content in order to combat it, and we are exploring options to make it available to them in the future.
And as always, context matters, so some videos could remain up because they discuss topics like pending legislation, aim to condemn or expose these groups, or provide analysis of current events.
We will begin enforcing this updated policy today.
However, it will take time for our system to fully ramp up, and we'll be gradually expanding coverage over the next several months.
I completely disagree with banning it.
However, I don't disagree with the limiting of recommendations.
YouTube is under no obligation to promote your video to anyone.
But, restricting the content in such that it can't be found, searched for, Or it can't be subscribed to, I think is very dangerous.
Banning the content is dangerous because, here's the thing, you ban these people, who I think we can all agree are very bad people, right?
They have, I shouldn't say necessarily bad people, absolutely misguided, some of them are very bad, violent people, but they have a terrifyingly bad ideology.
And it's not just them, it's whatever group that wants to engage in extremist acts.
When you ban them, They end up on platforms that allow it.
Then what happens is somebody gets banned for something inane.
They say a stupid joke and they get banned.
That person has no option but to go to the same platform where you are putting... It's the best explanation I've heard for it.
Came from... I think this was Joey Salads who said this.
You're taking somebody who got busted for pot and putting them in prison with a bunch of gang leaders.
What do you think that's going to do to these low-level people?
So it's a bad, bad idea.
Furthermore, You want people on YouTube to be exposed to other ideas.
In fact, Twitter is actually researching whether or not this will have a positive impact.
So I think it's dangerous that YouTube is going to start outright banning certain content, because I guarantee you, you will then push people who are not that bad, but get banned for simple things.
Let's say this.
You've got the leader of a particular group on a certain platform saying crazy things.
Then you've got a dude who made an off-color joke and got banned for it.
You put them both together, congratulations, you made the problem worse.
But of course, in my opinion, YouTube is more concerned about protecting the brand as any business would be, that I can understand.
Interestingly enough, That is not just my opinion.
Over at the GamerGazi subreddit, which is, they self-identify as SJWs, they basically say that.
It's just, they call it, it's just PR blah blah.
They say that YouTube doesn't care about damage control, they just want to do, they want to put out PR BS.
That's the point.
So it is the belief, at least of just these random commenters on this one forum, I'm just trying to find some comments from people identify as SJWs, facetiously, but still in that camp, explaining that they feel this censorship is meant to placate them.
I completely agree and think it is.
Now, YouTube has said this was, they were planning this for months, and that may be true.
It may be unfortunate timing, but I do think I'm not going to.
What's the simple solution?
The simple solution is that YouTube has been railed for the past week with people demanding the banning of Steven Crowder, targeting advertisers now, and it's only escalating.
And then all of a sudden, YouTube comes out and says, hey, guys, we're going to give you more censorship.
How does that sound?
Convenient?
Coincidental?
Whatever you want to call it, I'm not- I look for the simple solution.
The simple solution is Vox, a major NBC-backed company, targeted an independent creator, and now YouTube is saying straight up they are going to be promoting top news channels, which we know means major corporations like NBC.
Coincidence?
Personally, I don't believe it's a coincidence when it literally follows suit.
I'm not one to believe in conspiracies, but I don't think it's a conspiracy.
I think Vox is powerful, put pressure on YouTube, all of these people including Hank Green and other personalities put pressure on YouTube, and YouTube said, fine, we're going to promote top channels.
But this means bad news for independents, because we've seen the criticism coming from quite a few people.
They say, reducing borderline content.
Things that almost break the rules.
But I ask you, what does borderline content mean?
Who almost breaks the rules?
I do not believe I have been negatively impacted by any algorithmic changes, for the most part, because my channels are doing better and better every single day.
So, there's an important point to be brought up about whether or not someone is actually being censored, or just making bad content.
It's a really hard line It's hard to figure out specifically.
But we do have some testimony, at least from Lauren Chan, Roaming Millennial, which I'll get to.
They want to reward trusted creators.
I don't necessarily know what that means, but I will also add I definitely view myself as a trusted creator for whatever reason.
I have a YouTube partner manager.
They've helped me out with creating new channels and monetization, something that even other channels don't have access to.
I'm not entirely sure why, but I will say this.
I produce a ton of content on YouTube.
I am dedicated to expanding and producing more channels.
I rarely, if ever, swear.
I don't insult people.
And I, you know, I don't, I typically stay more towards higher level politics and ideas and less towards individuals.
And I definitely avoid anything you consider to be punching down, meaning targeting private individuals that aren't newsworthy.
I'm not perfect.
I'm not saying I get it right all the time, but I think these may be contributing factors why YouTube actually likes my channel.
Lauren Southern, I'm sorry, Lauren Chen, not Southern, tweeted this.
I've spoken to other conservative commentators, and they all confirm the same thing.
Since January, YouTube has refused to show our videos in recommends and searches.
They want to stop the spread of our ideas.
This isn't a conspiracy.
YouTube openly admits it's their policy.
And she links to this, reducing borderline content, which we just went through.
They say, in January, we piloted an update of our systems in the U.S.
to limit recommendations of borderline content and harmful misinformation, such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness or claiming the earth is flat.
We're looking to bring this updated system to more countries by the end of 2019.
Thanks to this change, the number of views this type of content gets for recommendations has dropped by over 50% in the U.S.
They specifically refer to miracle cures and Flat Earth, so I don't know if they're actually targeting you, Lauren.
But she did say, YouTube is free to curate content for its views based on ideology, of course, but if that's the case, they can no longer claim to be a platform.
They are a publisher and should be held legally accountable as such.
I completely disagree.
However, we'll get to my statements on YouTube in a second.
This person responded saying, my recommendations used to be 100% your videos, Crowders, Ben Shapiro destroys, Sargon, etc.
Now the only politics that show up is Timcast, who I guess they don't fear as much.
Lauren responded by saying, our analytics show that recommends are down to just 16% of what they used to be.
I do have some theories on this.
So here's what we're gonna do first.
This is Lauren Chen's YouTube channel, and we can see that her views are down by 0.7.
Her subs are down by 84.8.
I mean this in no way to be at all, no way disrespectful in any way to Lauren.
And this doesn't necessarily reflect on anything having to do with recommendations.
I get this.
But we can see that in January, when they enacted the policy, Lauren Chen has gone down a little bit.
Not too much, but down a little bit.
Her subs have gone down and up and down.
I don't think this is necessarily indicative of anything, but I want to highlight that Lauren is looking at a loss of recommendations.
Simultaneously, YouTube says they're launching this program.
And we know that there's been some reporting to suggest that Lauren was actually labeled a troll, I believe, by Facebook.
I want to take a look at Dave Rubin because Dave Rubin has been very concerned about similar issues.
We can see that Dave's views are down, subscribers are down, and he's losing subscribers.
So I can't necessarily explain.
We can see that in January, Dave's views took a huge dive.
Look at this.
Before January, Dave's views are up, down, up, down a little bit, but then January hits and his views kind of drop a lot.
Monthly subs did as well.
So we have two channels that have been concerned about a loss of viewership.
Simultaneously, YouTube saying they're going to be getting rid of borderline content.
Now, I do not believe necessarily this is evidence of anything.
I want to be fair to Dave and Lauren.
I looked at Steven Crowder's numbers, and Steven's actually were pretty solid in January, went up, they've gone down a little bit.
But viewership does decline in summer months.
So this is also not evidence of anything else.
And my channels have been doing consistently well.
So I can't say there's evidence.
It's entirely possible that certain channels are targeted and others aren't.
So I don't want to make it seem like there's a conspiracy, but I always want to stress YouTube changes their algorithm, and it doesn't necessarily target individuals.
The changes could result in people losing viewership.
Now again, it could be entirely possible this is them de-ranking and restricting viewership to these channels, but again, it could also just be that people's content isn't up to par, or more importantly, and I want to stress this point, In the early days of YouTube, there were very few good creators.
It was a lot of low-quality webcam stuff.
But it got a ton of views because what else was there?
Vice got their start on YouTube doing really, really well.
Millions, tens of millions of views.
They don't get nearly as many views on their documentaries as they do anymore.
Why?
Because there are now way more channels, substantially more channels, way more options, and market saturation reduces viewership for a lot of people because people now have a choice.
We are all on YouTube running on a treadmill that keeps speeding up.
I am well aware of this.
I have talked about this time and time again, and that's why I run full speed until my toes are bleeding, and I produce six to seven videos per day.
I recognize that we are running on a treadmill, and I'm going to run faster than everybody else.
Which is why I think it's not surprising someone mentioned they only get me in recommendations.
I'm certainly not doing this to hurt anybody or anything like that.
I'm just trying to do my best to succeed.
Admittedly, this may result in my channel being recommended way more.
If you don't produce consistent content, as many of these creators do, YouTube will absolutely derank your content and you will appear less.
And then because people click your videos less, you get recommended less, you get less viewers, you get less subscribers, and things go down from there.
It's why many channels have a- many companies have abandoned their channels outright with hundreds of thousands of subscribers.
They get caught in a downward spiral.
It is a- it is a- it is a dangerous and difficult game.
So I want to make sure I stress this point, because I do not have evidence to suggest that anyone is being censored or deranked, but there is some circumstantial evidence to show it literally does happen, YouTube admits it happens, and it's possible it does impact people like Dave and Lauren, although I'm not entirely convinced.
I'm not trying to say they make bad content, quite the contrary, they make fabulous content, but I am saying it's possible the algorithm has deranked them because they're not playing the game as the algorithm wants.
Not their fault, literally what YouTube does, and I think it's a huge problem.
But, moving on from this complete and total censorship, I want to just make sure we wrap up the final thought.
YouTube absolutely is launching sweeping censorship.
They're going to be deranking people.
They're going to be propping up top news.
It's entirely possible the reason Lauren's views are down is because CNN is now getting those recommendations.
I did a search for a breaking news story to try and see what was going on with this deranking, and sure enough, I can't remember what story it was, there was like CNN, there was, you know, BBC or something, a bunch of these traditional news outlets.
My videos were appearing, but nobody else's.
I was like number seven.
So I think YouTube must like me for some reason?
Admittedly, YouTube has liked me for a really long time.
YouTube sent me a free iPod years ago, I've consulted them on numerous occasions, So, I may actually have some kind of special shield, which is why people see my recommendations and others have been deranked.
My channel is doing well.
Admittedly, Crowder seems to be doing very well.
He is the top 2000th channel on YouTube out of something like, what, 50 million YouTubers.
So he's doing well as well.
But again, it's hard to know exactly what's going on.
But I want to make one more point on this matter from Oliver Darcy.
He says that YouTube tells Donnie, at Donnie, who is a CNN reporter, the company will remove hundreds of thousands of videos as a result of its new ban on supremacist content it announced today.
There is more news going on here, but I want to throw in a comment on the controversy before we move into a different story that is relevant.
Michael Tracy said the contemporary online media proves every single day that they're completely unmoored to any recognizable ethical journalistic principles and as such 100% deserve to be hated by the wider American public.
That is a very, very bold and direct statement from Michael Tracy, but I gotta say Michael Tracy and Glenn Greenwald, two people on the left, have been absolutely, um...
Amazing in this regard.
I agree with them.
You know, these journalists who are targeting the system in this way to prop themselves up, I believe, full stop, it is a business tactic.
And I believe YouTube is doing this to bend over backwards to a dying media that hates them.
But YouTube's gonna promote him anyway.
That's the mistake on YouTube's part.
I wanna end by talking about some serious issues as it pertains to the fringe of the far right.
This charges against alleged white supremacists tossed by judge.
Judge Cormac J Carney ruled that the three men's actions amounted to constitutionally protected speech.
I'm not going to read too much into this, but I want to highlight this in that these men were absolutely advocating for physical conflict and confrontation.
And that's what, and then they went to a riot and actually engaged in it.
But a court has ruled advocating for it when there's no imminent event is protected speech, which to me is really, really
interesting because they are certainly dancing on the razor's edge. This was just a quick side
note that I want to bring up because I wanted to mention that a court has defended the
right to advocate violence in private, or no, not even in private, just the general
idea. So arguably, that would mean Carlos Maza, who has called for milkshaking and other
people calling for milkshakings, is protected speech.
Advocating for the use of violence is not the same as directly inciting it, which is surprising.
And I think, ultimately, it'll come down to a case-by-case basis.
So I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
Do you feel like this is all part of, you know, YouTube spending over backwards?
They're scared of the controversy.
I don't want to necessarily... I'll clarify this.
I don't want to say that, you know, Vox is twirling their mustache like, now we're gonna make money.
The point I want to make is they see no risk here.
It is a net gain.
So Vox is sitting back saying, oh no, YouTube, what are you doing?
You better prop up, you know, more traditional and top-ranked news channels like us.
Ultimately, this will be a massive net gain for Vox and other channels like them, whether it's intentional or not.
Somebody, Carlos Maza, who already gets millions, a million plus views on his videos, is now going to be benefited following the campaign he pushed for.
Steven Crowder will not be banned, but there's still going to be a victory for Vox and the corporate media.
NBC News backed Vox will benefit from this, as will NBC.
So let's cut the crap, huh?
Let me know what you think.
Stick around, more segments to come.
Next video starting at 6pm, youtube.com slash timcastnews.
For those on the podcast, these have a different arrangement, so I will see you in the next segment.
This is an addendum update on the last video from my main channel.
We are now seeing a mass purge on YouTube, and I gotta admit, this is really scary stuff.
A bunch of creators, including legitimate journalists, have been removed from the Partner Program.
Steven Crowder has been removed from the Partner Program.
They say, update on our continued review, we have suspended this channel's monetization.
We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies.
Essentially what they're saying is that what Crowder did is against the Partner Program, but not YouTube as a whole.
They're now going to be enforcing a new set of rules.
So they announced this.
Actually, this is an old creator blog.
But they highlight this in their tweet, talking about how they could punish you and your monetization.
So yes, it's hitting everybody.
Sinatra Says has been demonetized.
Ford Fisher, a journalist, demonetized.
Dan Dix, journalist, demonetized.
Martin Zellner, Identitarian in Europe.
We have James Alsup, who I believe is an Identitarian, I don't want to mislabel him, but of course I'll get flak for however I describe the guy, I don't know.
Drunken peasants have been given a strike, or I believe, over a four-year-old video And surprise, surprise, Carlos Maza is not satisfied and continues to call for more censorship.
But it gets crazier than that.
So here's what I'm going to do.
Guys, normally I do a promo shoutout, but I've got to stress, I don't know who else will be removed, because Crowder is going to have an update soon, and this has been going on for a while, YouTube doing a hard review of many channels.
I don't know what constitutes acceptable at this point.
YouTube is purging tons of channels.
I'm hoping I will be safe.
I might not be.
I will add though, a part of me, fingers crossed, for a complete purge, just ban everything that I have, please, get rid of my Facebook, my Twitter, my YouTube, and I will get in my newly christened van, it's almost done, and I will drive to the beach, and I will go skateboarding, and I will draw pictures for the rest of my life.
Right?
That sounds very comfortable.
But admittedly, no, I don't want that to happen, we're doing a ton of awesome things with Subverse, we want to expand and do more news, that's why TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
If I end up getting demonetized, that is going to basically end, I don't know, a decent amount of my content.
I am running full speed till my feet bleed to make this happen.
So, there are the options.
I don't even know what to say at this point.
It was reported by the independent YouTube to delete thousands of accounts after it banned supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and other harmful users.
And now we're seeing it.
When I recorded my main video, I uploaded it, and then right after, I started seeing all of this news break.
Crowder got demonetized.
There is some interesting news, though.
First, I want to say this.
Carlos Maza of Vox, and with Vox and other corporate media behind him, have gone full scorched earth.
On all of YouTube, right?
Sinatra says, what the hell, Team YouTube?
A day after you confirm three of my videos are advertiser-friendly, I get completely demonetized.
This has to be some kind of mistake.
He says, uh, be care- Sinatra says, to me, be careful talking about the Vox guy.
Man, I'll talk about whatever I want.
I appre- I- I'm not saying that to you, Sinatra, but to- to whoever.
I'm gonna talk about what I want to talk about, and- and- and please.
By all means.
You know, if you don't like it, then well, I'll- I'll leave.
Whatever.
He said, found that a significant portion of your channel is not in line with our YouTube partner program policies.
He says, illiterally 85% of my videos were approved upon review.
I have to wonder why there's no warning.
Hey, these videos are not in compliance with new rules.
Why is YouTube enforcing rules retroactively?
If you enforce a new rule right now, and I've got videos going back years, what am I supposed to do?
Tell me and I'll get rid of them or you get rid of them.
Seriously, I assure you everyone would want to comply.
Now, this is the biggest and most egregious violation.
Shame!
Shame on Vox!
Shame on Carlos Maza!
Horrible, horrible, awful people, okay?
I'm not usually so mean, but Ford Fisher is a journalist who is not particularly left or right, who goes on the ground and covers the news.
Him and as well as other journalists, Going on the ground, filming things, and he licenses the footage.
And now he has been stripped because of their scorched earth campaign.
They're literally walking around with flamethrowers, destroying everything in their path because they don't like one guy.
And guess what?
Crowder has millions of fans.
He's going to survive, no problem.
He might lose some money.
He was already demonetized for the most part anyway.
So his ad revenue was probably miniscule.
He gets a lot of views.
But complete demonetization?
He'll lose some money.
But Crowder is still famous and successful.
He still has the Mug Club.
And he probably will be just fine.
Ford Fisher is an independent journalist who is now going to lose access to his revenue stream, to one of them.
And that means way more for smaller creators.
The same is true for Dan Dix.
Admittedly, Dan, I'm not super familiar with the kind of videos you put out, so...
I know I can speak directly to Ford's content because Subverse has licensed from Ford excellent on-the-ground reporting.
I don't mean that to disrespect Dan in any way, but it's easier for me when I actually watch and know Ford more.
But Dan is also a guy who goes on the ground.
So I can say the exact same thing.
These are smaller channels.
These are people who don't have the ability to make the money that someone like Crowder does.
Crowder's getting hurt, for sure.
But he still has the Mug Club.
And with all those fans, he can rally support to keep his business going.
I'm not going to say anything about Martin Sellner because I don't know much about him other than he's an identitarian.
So he's getting removed, not as part of the...
Like, purge of harmful content or questionable stuff, they've actually directly targeted him and James Elsa.
But let's talk about Drunken Peasants!
This is a video from four years ago, where we mocked a conspiracy theorist that we called Kinky Joe for claiming... I'm gonna avoid saying his words.
It's a four-year-old video where they tried to debunk and mock conspiracy theories.
Today, YouTube decided to first disable comments on it, and later remove it.
How was it not clear that we were condemning these beliefs?
All of this, hitting these creators, and I want to stress that to someone like Ford getting stripped is absolutely insane, and it is, my god, Vox, how disgusting, how absolutely absurd, and you know what makes it worse?
All Crowder has to do is get rid of a link to his t-shirts.
Are you kidding me?
Team YouTube tweeted to clarify, in order to reinstate monetization on his channel, he will need to remove the link to his t-shirts.
That's it.
Vox went scorched earth destroying the monetization of small creators and independent journalists and commentators to remove Crowder.
They were willing to destroy everything around them and hurt people.
They're not journalists.
They're fascistic authoritarian monsters who are targeting the little guy.
They're going to destroy the little guy to hurt Crowder.
And all that happens in the end His Crowder can't sell his t-shirts anymore.
That's it.
Was it worth it?
Was it absolutely worth it?
And of course, Keemstar tweets, Of course!
Ha ha ha ha dude got another channel fully demonetized for saying mean things to him and he's still not happy of
course Quite literally nothing you can do
There's nothing you can do Carlos Maza's strategy isn't to stop mean behavior or harassment.
His strategy is to destroy anyone he doesn't like.
Carlos Maza is as close as you can get to a fascist, but I'm sure he's not a nationalist, so I wouldn't call him one.
But he's a damn authoritarian who's advocated physical violence, deplatforming censorship, and he's hurting little people, like the smaller channels.
So let's make that absolutely clear.
By the time you're watching this, there's probably been more demonetizations.
I've been scouring, you know, pulling all these things up, and I waited to the last minute to record this.
He says demonetizing doesn't work.
Abusers use it as proof they're being discriminated against.
Then they make millions off selling merch, doing speaking gigs, and getting their followers to support them on Patreon.
The ad revenue isn't the problem, it's the platform.
He's not satisfied.
He wants to burn it all down. Why? The corporate media that backs Vox, that backs BuzzFeed and other companies,
are being hurt by independent creators. Market saturation.
Listen, I work for these companies.
I will tell you exactly what's going on. When someone like Ford Fisher goes out with his camera
and films an event and uses social media to sell it, he has displaced the news agencies.
When someone like Sinatra says goes on YouTube and makes commentary, all that's required is him to record on the microphone.
It displaces these media companies and their editorial section.
Vox has to pay a salary to get that content.
But many independent creators make the content for free.
If they can remove the saturated market, they win.
And YouTube is bending the knee.
The worst part about it.
Is that it's all just over a t-shirt.
It's over a stupid joke t-shirt that other people, you know, I'm not gonna act in defense of many of the people getting stripped of demonetization.
I will stress, monetization and recommendations are a privilege in my opinion.
YouTube shouldn't ban people for their speech, but promoting the content and selling ads against it, totally different.
You have no right to an advertising agency.
You have no right to a promotional system that, you know, shows your videos to people.
So that's the issue.
But many of these people have done nothing wrong.
They should absolutely stay in the privileged section of YouTube where they will promote your content because you didn't break any rules.
But what we're seeing is YouTube retroactively enforcing rules.
We're seeing independent journalists being stripped of monetization.
Because Carlos was mad at Crowder.
Crowder, a commentator, comedian, and pundit, political personality, etc., said some nasty things, said some mean things.
I do not agree with what he says, and I've said this repeatedly.
I said it on his show.
I disagree with the mockery, but I understand you're a comedian, and we've seen a bunch of comedians use this kind of language.
Colbert, for instance, Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, etc.
Are they going to be stripped of monetization as well?
Well, here's the thing.
Crowder is getting stripped because of his t-shirts.
So the answer for them is no, and that's at least consistent.
But why target the little guys?
And you know what?
Does Vox care?
Of course they don't.
They want more.
They hurt small creators, and they don't care.
They're evil.
This is evil.
This is fascistic, authoritarian, and it's nightmarish.
I'm gonna stop there.
My throat's, man, I'm wiped out.
I got a couple more videos coming up for you.
Stick around, and it will hopefully be about something else.
Three men announced plans to hold a straight pride parade in Boston and for some reason, it's news, for some reason activists are outraged that three random dudes wanted to have a straight pride parade for the three random dudes.
Why do I care?
I don't care if you wanna have a pride parade for literally anything.
You wanna go out and march around and talk about what you think?
Why would I be bothered by that?
Like, if the straight people were going around and ranting things that were, like, against the law, I suppose, like, hey, you shouldn't give them a permit, they're breaking the law.
But if you want to walk around and talk about the nutritional value of bananas, or why you're proud to be straight, I honestly do not care.
Yet for some reason, we are seeing CBS report on this, we're seeing people on social media talk about it, and of course you're getting the left-wing outrage.
So let's figure out, what is the straight pride parade, and why should we apparently care?
Because now you've got me making a video about it.
Admittedly, I do think it's a funny story.
So, we will look at this, we'll look at some of the left-wing criticism, but before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate.
If you want to support my work, there are many ways.
You can support me PayPal, cryptocurrency, physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, like and comment, share the video and subscribe because the engagement says, hey, YouTube, this video rocks and we engaged with it.
Let's read the news!
June is LGBTQ Pride Month, and cities all over the world are hosting rainbow festivities, festivals, and parades to celebrate the community.
However, a group led by three men is trying to champion a different community, and says they are planning their own parade in Boston to celebrate straight pride.
The organization Super Happy Fun America, which claims to advocate on behalf of the straight community in order to foster respect and awareness with people from all walks of life, is planning the event according to its website.
The parade appeared to be a reaction to the city's rejection of the group's application to raise its straight pride flag at Boston City Hall earlier this spring.
We are disappointed that the Walsh administration has chosen hate and discrimination, a blog post on the site from April 23rds.
Therefore, we have decided to launch a campaign to educate the public, politicians, and civil servants about the straight community and the unique problems we face.
We have determined that a parade would be the best way to promote our community and its diverse history, culture, and identity.
We anticipate that the city will eventually choose to embrace tolerance and inclusivity.
So the question I have, because invariably there's going to be some left-wing outrage, is why is this worthy of attack?
I would like to have a legitimate explanation as to why these guys, who have said nothing but positive things, whether it's in jest or not, are worthy of being attacked, insulted, derided, and, you know, I don't want to go as far as to say harassment, but certainly the left would if it was inverted.
If somebody wants to put on an event where they're like, hey, we've done good things, I'll be like, okay.
I will just be at home playing video games.
I'm not going to get bent out of shape because someone wants to walk around waving a flag.
It doesn't affect me in any way.
So why the outrage?
Why would anyone be concerned about this?
Why is CBS writing about this?
And I guess the only reason I'm doing a video on it is because I think it's stupid that the news is covering it.
The group said proposed one day event will consist of a parade and ceremony during which the straight pride flag will be raised over Boston City Hall.
The flag raising will be followed by speeches and outreach to the community.
According to its site, we invite Mayor Martin J. Walsh to participate and express the city's support for the straight community, reads the event page.
And here we have, this is the straight pride flag, and it shows the female and male symbols on a blue and pink background.
I think they're trolling you.
I think these guys are just poking some fun.
And of course, the trolling is working.
The site claims the parade will be free and open to the public.
All are welcome, reads the event description.
Antifa, short for anti-fun, is not welcome because they oppose happiness and fun.
Clearly meant to be a joke, to troll people, and it worked.
Well, that's my opinion.
That it's a joke.
The group said it's requesting the same parade route as June's Boston Pride Parade, as well as the same accommodations afforded at the annual event, including street closings and the inclusion of vehicles and floats.
The organization is led by three men and helmed by President John Hugo.
According to its website, Hugo ran for U.S.
Congress in 2018 as a Republican, but was defeated by Democrat incumbent Catherine Clark.
Vice President Mark Sahadi posted a link to the group's website and the proposed parade route on his personal Facebook late last month, writing, It looks like the Boston Straight Pride parade will happen.
He claims the group filed a discrimination complaint, and the city, quote, understands they would lose in litigation.
You're damn right they would!
Equality means equality for everybody.
So it's fascinating to me that there are people who would oppose these guys having their parade.
If straight white dudes want to have a parade, I don't see a problem, because it's not a negative thing.
If a bunch of dudes wanted to have an anti-LGBTQ event, that would be more disconcerting, but they still have free speech, not a discrimination issue.
If white dudes want to put on an event, you can't tell them no if you grant the same thing to other people.
That's called civil rights and equality.
But of course, many of these people, they don't like equality.
They don't.
He says the tentative date is August 31st.
Well, too bad, because we're doing an event in the Philly area on August 31st, so don't go there.
Come to our event.
It's at irl.minds.com.
I mean that seriously.
Come to our event.
Sahadi is a member of the right-wing group Resist Marxism, according to the Massachusetts outlet MassLive.
The date has not been set on the group's site.
As it says, request is pending approval from the city of Boston.
City officials said the group has been in contact with the city, But, uh, but hasn't received permits, according to CBS Boston.
So, let's, let's see if he's, um... This is our chance.
Oh, okay, so... Mark Zahedi.
It looks like he didn't say anything negative.
The third leadership role is afforded to Chris Bartley, listed as the group's gay ambassador.
He became involved in the Straight Pride movement after being ostracized from established advocacy groups for merely suggesting that straight people be afforded equal rights, according to his biography.
The city's Pride President Linda DeMarco said in a Tuesday statement that straight allies of the LGBTQ community are among the thousands who come out every year to march and celebrate, reports CBS Boston.
Mayor Walsh didn't mention the straight pride parade in a statement Tuesday, but the Democrats said this week's scheduled Pride events are about Boston's values of love and inclusion, which are unwavering.
Well, of course, BuzzFeed has popped up.
The group's application to actually hold the parade has not yet been approved, they say.
Now, I think BuzzFeed, for the most part, isn't going to personally get very negative or anything like that, right?
But they're definitely going to include a bunch of the left-wing anger and outrage from- look at all this stuff from Twitter, who cares?
Who cares?
But we're gonna do it!
We're gonna read and look at why they're so upset that three dudes are gonna have their little three dude march.
Look, if a million people came out and marched for Straight Pride, I honestly still would not care.
They're not coming out saying negative things, saying positive things, right?
This person tweeted, Straight Pride parade planned in Boston with floats.
Yes, maybe, it's three dudes.
The Volleyball Mermaid, the Straight Pride Parade will be mostly men because very few women will get to come.
That- Oh, haha.
You know, you wanna make a joke, that's fine.
I got no problem with that.
I think it's kind of funny, but I don't know if it actually works.
Look at this!
Even the band Smash Mouth got involved.
Straight Pride Parade, question mark, question mark, question mark, question mark, question mark, F off, and I'm not gonna- and a series of exclamation points.
Why?
Why F off?
Why can't people just march around and talk about themselves being happy?
Soon everyone began to wonder what a Straight Pride Parade would look like exactly.
Boston Straight Pride Parade.
You have to come in costume as your favorite Mark Wahlberg character.
Everyone walks around ordering a cranberry juice at a bar and saying, how do you like them apples madness?
I don't, I don't understand who cares, right?
The Straight Pride Parade is every weekend when you see four dudes in polos walking back to their campus at 2 a.m.
looking very bummed they didn't get laid.
But why be mean to people?
I always wonder this.
To my understanding, the Straight Pride Parade is just the checkout line at Costco.
Ha ha ha.
I'd imagine a Straight Pride Parade to be something like this, but in the worst way.
It's a guy in a hot dog costume.
And then, um, this is one just says they're all named Sean.
It's rather tepid criticism.
Oh, here we go.
A straight pride parade would look exactly like this, and it's a pile of garbage.
How funny.
And some said it didn't even make sense.
You can't have a straight pride parade.
Parades are inherently gay.
Embrace it.
I like that.
That's a funny joke.
That's a funny joke.
This one says, the heteros are upseteros.
Three guys!
Three people, BuzzFeed!
Found this in an FB thread where some guy is talking about organizing a straight pride parade.
Hilarious and accurate.
According to the city, Super Happy Fun America's application has not been approved.
Sahadi directed BuzzFeed News' request for comment to a group email address from which there was no response.
In response to the social media outcry, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh released a statement to BuzzFeed News about the city's planned Pride events.
And then he goes into the same thing we read already.
So here's what I think we see.
It's three dudes who are obviously making a dumb joke.
Maybe that's unfair, but I really think it's a dumb joke.
And a bunch of people who are pretending to be angry for no reason.
Because I don't see why you would scream F off at somebody.
It literally makes no sense.
And then a bunch of people jump in, and why?
You know, I'll ask you this for you guys in the comments, people reading.
Who cares?
Like, quite literally, if you want to go to the event, you're free to do it.
If you don't want to, why, you know?
I wonder why it is that it's always some kind of, like, you're pursuing, you know, your cherish of your identity is a negative towards ours.
That's how it always is.
Because people can't understand that maybe other people can do whatever they want and mind their own goddamn business.
It's like, if you go out and say something, then it must be a negative towards another group.
That's how it's viewed.
It's kind of like a tit-for-tat.
If you support yourself, you're against us.
That's literally what they do.
And that's why I think they call quite literally everybody alt-right.
Because in their minds, if you do not bend the knee to them, you must be the only logical thing, the alt-right.
And that's literally the game they play.
When in reality, most people just don't care and they're in the middle.
And I assure you, 99.9% of people are gonna be like, Oh, they're doing that thing? That's weird.
And they're gonna walk away.
I'll leave it there, stick around, I got more segments coming up shortly.
Next one will be on the main channel, youtube.com slash timcast at 4pm.
So I will see you there.
There's still breaking news surrounding the Steven Crowder issue.
issues so I may have a live stream up tonight on my main channel.
We'll see what happens.
But I thought this story was very pertinent, considering Carlos Maza, who has triggered the scorched-earth Vox Adpocalypse, getting tons of smaller craters purged, has advocated for assault against individuals.
And we saw it happen.
A man in the UK was hit with a milkshake, shoved around, pushed.
More than one person.
This story from the Daily Mail.
Shocking new video shows mob attacking another Trump fan.
This time, an elderly man who they say assault and push to the ground in Parliament Square.
This is the result of advocacy for physical conflict from people like Carlos Maza.
He's mad that Crowder has said mean things.
He says saying mean things results in an escalation.
Well, saying mean things kind of can, but now we see what actually happens when you directly call for people to commit acts of physical violence.
Did Crowder ever do that?
He didn't.
But we see this story.
They say, actually, let's play a bit of the video.
Here you can see the old man is being shoved and grabbed by people and then they throw him to the ground.
So for those that are listening, an older man surrounded by protesters thrown to the ground.
The story reads, this is the horrifying moment an elderly fan of the president was assaulted and knocked to the ground during a horrifying scuffle at yesterday's anti-Trump rally in London.
A mob in Parliament Square rounded on the man and violently pushed him to the ground while yelling Donald Trump not welcome here.
It happened at the poorly attended demonstration where Jeremy Corbyn gave a firebrand speech railing against President Trump and lecturing the crowd about creating a better world.
The video emerged after another Trump supporter was attacked with a milkshake by a mob chanting Nancy's scum at the same protest.
That was attended by only around 10,000 people.
Only around 10,000 people!
That's a lot of people.
I want to stop here and say, if you haven't already, go to TimCast.com slash donate.
With all the news about deplatforming and demonetization, I can seriously use your guys' support.
When you donate, you're essentially creating a safety net for me in the event I get censored.
But of course the best thing you can do, like, comment, hopefully that works.
I do have another story to talk about, you know, Antifa trying to attack some conservatives, but let's read on.
When I was in San Jose in 2016, I watched a crowd of people knock an elderly couple to the ground, take their hats off their heads, and light them on fire while they were sitting there terrified.
up by members of the crowd and one can be heard saying have some respect he is
a senior citizen. When I was in San Jose in 2016 I watched a crowd of people
knock an elderly couple to the ground take their hats off their heads and
light them on fire while they were sitting there terrified.
It was one of the craziest things I've ever seen. One young man who was
actually on the side of the protesters got punched in the mouth.
It was chaos, pure chaos.
And this is what they encourage people like Carlos Maza over at Vox.
They say, another said, when you act like that, you act like Donald Trump, so don't.
The man is then lifted off the floor with many asking him if he's alright.
The chanting then dies down as many look on horrified.
We've got several pictures here showing what happened.
Now I will spare nothing and say, you know, nobody gets any excuses.
Do not steal someone's property because you disagree with them.
Do not destroy their balloons.
Excuse me.
Do not steal their signs.
You will get arrested.
to his chest as he appeared to be walking away from the aggressive crowd.
Now I will spare nothing and say, you know, nobody gets any excuses. Do not
steal someone's property because you disagree with them. Do not destroy their
balloons, excuse me. Do not steal their signs. You will get arrested. It is a
crime. But do not physically assault them.
So they were grabbing him, it looks like, probably because he did take their sign.
So we got a lot of people in this situation.
Nobody's innocent.
But look, if it comes down to someone taking your sign, I'd recommend, you know what?
It's a crime.
It's wrong for them to do.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Don't knock him to the ground.
Don't shove him.
Call some authorities.
Stop.
Get the sign back.
Figure it out.
They say it comes after another elderly man had a milkshake thrown at him yesterday during the demonstrations while a group of protesters yelled, Nazi scum.
So we'll play a little bit of this video.
Now, interestingly, I'm going to pause it.
This is a video from yesterday.
OK, I guess I can't.
But there's a woman screaming.
In his face.
And she actually apologized.
So now the man has been hit by a milkshake.
He throws it back.
But then they begin shoving him.
Now, this woman with the blonde hair has actually apologized.
And I absolutely will accept the apology.
And I think other people should as well.
She recognized what she did was wrong.
And you have to give people a chance.
Otherwise, they will only double down.
If we really want to solve these problems, let them apologize for their bad behavior.
But this is all... We have another story here.
From today, actually.
It looks like this morning.
Antifa member arrested for trying to imprison Republican students in the classroom.
So the reason I'm highlighting these stories is YouTube is taking action against many creators.
That's the video I just, uh, many of the videos I've covered today.
This context is extremely important because people like Carlos Maza have routinely advocated
for violence against conservatives and those who disagree with him.
Even independence moderates and moderate liberals are being threatened.
They spray paint things on the wall like liberals get the bullet too.
And this is what you see.
You see two instances of senior citizens being physically attacked, shoved to the ground,
hit with milkshakes.
Being hit with a milkshake is exactly what Carlos Maza has advocated for.
I wonder why Twitter hasn't banned him for this.
But then there was a meeting.
This story from My Northwest.
An alleged member of a local Antifa group was arrested Tuesday evening for attempting, and very badly failing, to chain the doors locking conservative students in a University of Washington classroom.
The final meeting of the UW College Republicans, held in Thompson Hall, featured two guest speakers from a local YouTube channel, Operation Cold Front.
The meeting caught the attention of Emerald City Antifa.
On their Facebook page, the group encouraged members to show up to disrupt the event.
One person did show up, though it's unclear if he's directly connected with the Facebook page, but he didn't try to simply disrupt the event.
He tried to lock the students in the hall with a chain and lock.
Here's a quote.
I saw a guy in black approach the door, but there had been no protest outside or anything, so Antifa wasn't necessarily on my radar.
He crouched down and immediately slapped his chain around the door.
The chaining didn't work, it made a lot of noise, as chains against the doors tend to do, and it immediately alerted the students inside, one already standing guard.
We heard the rattling from outside, UWCR President Chevy Swanson told Rantz.
We looked to see through the window and see that someone was messing with the door.
And it's very clearly a chain being attached.
So personally...
I ran up to the door and opened it on him.
The chain fell to the ground and he ran off, which is good because I much prefer not to be chained in a room with 30 other people indefinitely.
I do believe, personally, they could have broken the door.
They had a lot of guys storm through the door.
But this is just an example of kind of the extreme behavior these people are taking against moderate conservative types.
They are out of their minds.
The entire incident was caught on video by Operation Cold Front.
The suspect, who covered his face in a black cloth until cops removed it, is seen on camera saying, Find the law that it is illegal to dangle a chain over a door.
Then, as seen in the edited footage, he's handcuffed and taken away.
Swanson says he recognizes a suspect from other recent UWCR events, though this is the first time he's been disruptive.
UW police haven't publicly identified the suspect, but confirmed he's an 18-year-old who attends a special high school class on campus.
One of the other attendees of the event caught up to him.
and called the police and the police end up coming and arresting him. UW police confirm the suspect
was interviewed and released and will be charged through investigation for misdemeanor disorderly
conduct. Because the attempt failed so miserably, many of the student attendees thought it was funny
after they got over the shock of the failed imprisonment.
Okay, he failed.
But I do want to stress, if this guy chained them in this room, that is a serious threat to people's safety, and you have to consider there's a reason why most fire codes require two points, you know, an entrance and a point of egress, so there needs to be ways people can escape in the event of a fire.
Locking someone in a room can be extremely dangerous, and you have to wonder what his intentions were with doing it, because they certainly could have broken the chain, unless something more egregious was planned following the chaining.
They say the UWCRs have been behind a number of events campus progressives deemed offensive.
Last month, they hosted an affirmative action bake sale to point out the unfairness of affirmative action.
It was a contentious event that led to a lot of shouting and one arrest.
Afterwards, UW President Anna Marie Koss condemned the event and declared war on free speech.
Really?
Here, Koss has not yet responded to request for comment.
So there is a video of it.
I'm not super concerned with playing the video, but we can see here in this photo up top, this young man was arrested.
I don't want to act like trying to chain a door is the worst possible thing, but it is extremely questionable as to why he would want to do it.
But I will absolutely make sure we hammer on this point.
Excuse me.
Of these people, we can see photos of the man being shoved to the ground, being grabbed, pushed, etc.
And this isn't the first time.
There was also an instance around the same event where a woman had to be protected by police because these crowds are getting out of hand.
So I ask you, When have you seen the conservatives doing the same thing, you know, back?
When have you seen the conservatives surrounding people, beating them, throwing them to the ground?
The woman who popped the Trump balloon?
These things do happen.
She was wrong to do it.
But we see time and time again, it's corporate media, corporate journalists, and the left physically assaulting other people.
I'm going to leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up shortly, and I will see you soon.
Men are suing women who accuse them of harassment.
Will it stop others from speaking out?
I believe this is an opinion piece, though it isn't labeled as such, but I thought it was interesting to read along with you, and it was kind of a break from the craziness of what's happening on YouTube and the deplatforming and the aye-yai-yai.
So let's read about this and talk about the idea.
Now, before we start getting into what's going on specifically, I will point out that you may have followed many stories in the past where a woman accuses a man and the man says it's defamation.
So I believe there's something going on with Johnny Depp.
You can't just accuse somebody without evidence, because if you do, and you can't be proven, then you could be sued.
So I think the question is fair.
But I also think it's fair to point out we want to protect all of the innocent, be it the falsely accused or the actual victims.
So, well, let's just jump right in.
They say a series of high-profile defamation cases have been brought against women in response to the outpouring of misconduct allegations in the wake of Me Too, and women's rights activists say they could have a chilling effect on the movement's future.
Last week, Sandra Muller, the woman who started France's version of Me Too, appeared in a Paris court where she faced a defamation lawsuit brought by the man she accused of making lewd comments about her.
In October 2017, just days before the MeToo hashtag went viral in the wake of allegations made against disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein, Muller, a French journalist, shared her own story on Twitter using the hashtag, which roughly translates to, Muller alleged that Eric Brien, a senior French television producer, had humiliated her by saying, You have big breasts, you are my type of woman, I will make you orgasm all night.
Her story soon inspired thousands of others to share their experiences of harassment and assault, catapulting France's national discourse on, uh, basically into the Me Too direction.
I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna editorialize that comment.
In a public apology published by the French daily Le Monde in December 2017, Brienne admitted he had made those comments to Mueller, saying that he had made inappropriate remarks to her very late at night during a drink-fueled cocktail party evening, but I did it only once.
I believe that officially qualifies not as harassment.
It has to be more than once.
In court last Wednesday, Brian once again admitted that he had sent those words to Mueller, adding that he had sent her an apology text message but didn't get an answer the following day.
He added that Mueller's violence against me has never stopped, the violence of people hiding behind their phones.
While he has said that he regretted his words, Brian noted in LeMond that he would have rather been tried in a court of justice than in the court of social media.
And that's exactly what he's done.
CNN adds a gray zone.
In January 2018, Breon announced he would sue Mueller for defamation, asking for €50,000 in damages and $10,000 in legal fees.
When Breon admitted he had made inappropriate comments to Mueller, his lawyer Marie Berguburu told CNN the reason they filed the defamation suit was because Mueller had accused him of harassment at work on Twitter.
This is defamatory because we can't blame a man for making himself guilty of an offense when that's absolutely not the case.
Muller, who had recently been honored as a silence breaker and person of the year by Time Magazine, said at the time she was surprised by Brand's change of strategy.
Writing on her Facebook page, she said, The balanced on pork movement has inspired victims to speak out and has shed light on a real social problem that is still such a taboo.
With this summons, however, they want to force me to shut up.
Vowing to fight this until the end, Mueller said that she had hoped that the trial will be an opportunity to hold a real debate on the ways to combat harassment.
But Céline Pique, spokesperson for the French Feminist Association, Ose La Feminisme, Dare Feminism, told CNN that the trial is absurd and one that amplifies a culture in which the courts are trying to make us believe there is a grey zone between harassment and seduction.
There is.
Full stop.
Especially in the United States.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
Seriously.
A man or woman is allowed to flirt and hit on and ask somebody out until they are told to stop.
Seriously.
When it comes to harassment, if a guy comes up to a woman in the workplace and says something evocative or even offensive, the first response is to say officially, you can't do that anymore, don't do it again.
If they continue, you now are in harassment territory.
That's the U.S.
This is France, so I understand this difference.
I think it's important to point this out.
Because you have to understand, human beings are attracted to each other.
Mostly men and women to each other, but often, yes, there's men and men, women and women, etc.
Which means, regardless of what the gender is, you will find yourself in a situation where someone will be attracted to you and will act upon it.
I personally find that completely okay.
Seriously, if there's a woman at the workplace who is wearing beautiful clothing and she's very attractive and a man walks up to her and he says something to her that may be inappropriate, he deserves a warning first.
The reason for this is that some people do like the attention.
So we can't do a blanket sweep of you just can't talk about it because human beings behave in certain ways.
While I certainly believe there's a line between appropriate and inappropriate, and you could definitely cross a line where you probably shouldn't say something, Like, talking about her breasts and making her orgasm, I can understand why that's going way too far, but it's still not harassment.
He should not have said it, but he deserves a warning, that was inappropriate, don't say that again.
If he said something like, you're beautiful and I'd like to take you to dinner and go on a date with you, he deserves a lick, she rejected you, don't ask her out again.
Everybody deserves a warning, for the most part, unless you actually commit a crime.
I think then you actually get some punitive response.
You'll get arrested.
You may get a light sentence.
But, you know, unless you're actually breaking the law and doing something egregious, I don't think we should destroy someone's life over this stuff.
I think that's absolutely absurd.
France is way to the left of the United States.
out against harassment and gender-based violence for several reasons," Peake added.
Including the fear of losing their job or other forms of retaliation.
The threat of defamation only compounds that fear.
France's judicial system already doesn't respond to the testimonies of women, Peake said.
That's, I think that's absolutely absurd.
France is way to the left of the United States.
But again, I don't, I'm not from there, so I don't know.
Adding that even in the wake of Me Too, only a fraction of women
who have been raped brought their cases to police.
The largest available figures from the French Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, and Women's Rights show an average of 84,000 women become victims every year or attempts, victims of assault or attempts.
Less than 40% of estimated violence cases were registered with police from November 2014 to October 2015, with only 771 people convicted There's a problem with how these numbers work in that people often say, if it wasn't reported, how do you know it actually happened?
And how many that are claimed were fake?
It's hard to know.
It's a challenge.
French journalist Lauren Bastide, and spokesperson for the feminist movement Prénoms La Une, let's take the front page, told CNN that societal norms still inform the judicial process in France.
Women are asked how they were dressed before the accused gets asked any questions, she said.
And I think that's absolutely wrong.
Explaining that critics of the feminist movement are dangerously conflating assault with the French tradition of flirting or seduction.
Justice is sexist in the image of society.
Peak added.
She attributes backlash against the MeToo movement to men who are not ready to give up their privileges.
Oh, please.
Let's just stop.
That's not an argument.
Absolutely not an argument.
We want justice.
I don't know how the French system works, but we need to protect people from false accusations as well as the victims of actual crimes.
It's a challenge, but we must do it.
Bastide also said the economic factors play a role in assault cases, with women from working class or poor backgrounds less likely to report their abuser because they can be sued.
Fortunately, there are spaces where you can express yourself, but it's extremely paradoxical.
Twitter is a wonderful tool, but it is also the most violent tool that can turn against us.
This seems to be the sentiment of so many of these people, that words and speech are violence.
I'm sorry, can we just stop now?
We can't, because these people are nuts.
Much sure.
A precision strike.
Brianne, however, seems to believe he is a casualty of the MeToo movement, saying in court last Wednesday that he is a victim of a precision strike by Mueller.
In suing her for defamation, Brianne joins a growing list of wealthy men in powerful positions who have taken legal action against their accusers.
Last month, Geoffrey Rush was awarded 2.9 million Australian dollars after winning his defamation case against a journalist and Sydney newspaper, The Daily Telegraph.
The Australian newspaper reported that Rush had inappropriately touched his King Lear co-star Erin Jean Norville on her breasts and back, followed her into a bathroom, and sent her an inappropriate text message during the show's production in Sydney.
Rush denied all accusations.
So we get it.
Let's just wrap up because we get it.
They basically go through a bunch of high-profile instances.
They show Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, etc.
So I kind of want to get their take on the conclusion here.
They say, In February, the French prosecutor's office, uh, Dutch, uh, let's go back a little bit.
Dutch actress Sand van Rooij, who accused French film director Luc Besson of assault at her hotel and of repeated non-consensual relations, some of which were violent, had come to the court to support Muller.
In February, the French prosecutor's office dropped her case, saying there was not enough evidence to support the charge.
Besson denied the allegations.
In a statement to CNN, Luc Besson's lawyer, Thierry Marembert, said Besson regrets that some people prematurely condemned him and thanks others for their consistent support that helped him to face these complicated months.
Van Rooij told CNN she believes there is a culture everywhere that is nourished by culture, parents, school, one is conditioned to judge women.
Women are afraid to speak out, you said, because they know that they can lose everything as I did.
But we're stronger than this, and we're going to keep fighting.
So they don't really answer their own question, they ask.
But I will say, if you lie about someone, you will be sued.
So it's not surprising that we're seeing this story of many, many instances where people are filing suits against those who have accused them when they allege it was false.
They go on to say that people from underprivileged backgrounds are less likely to report the assault because They can't handle a lawsuit.
I would also contend that individuals who are falsely accused don't have the ability to fight back, to defend themselves.
It is a complicated process.
How we protect the innocent is a challenge we're trying to overcome.
We're doing a pretty good job.
Not perfect.
We can do better.
But let's recognize that.
I'm going to leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More videos to come tomorrow at 10 a.m.
on this channel.
Follow us on the podcast every day starting at actually about 6.30 p.m.
