Conservative Lee Stranahan Has YouTube Account Taken Down for DISCUSSING Radical Islam

[goldenequity]

He was intensively promoting #firemcmaster and was 'mentioned' by Jake Trapper a few days ago.



https://www.therussophile.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/www.activistpost.comyoutube-remove-6b84bb2eb5d84103076bf1ab53367fae919871e6.jpg

Conservative Lee Stranahan Has YouTube Account Taken Down for DISCUSSING Radical Islam (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/conservative-lee-stranahan-youtube-account-taken-discussing-radical-islam/)
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/conservative-lee-stranahan-youtube-account-taken-discussing-radical-islam/

http://cdn.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/stranahan.jpg

This morning Lee Stranahan had his YouTube Channel taken down for his videos discussing radical Islam.
Lee had over 1,000 videos posted over the last 10 years.

Lee Stranahan is an American journalist and talk radio host.
Lee has a long history of reporting in depth investigations on subjects
like the violent #Occupy movement, immigration and radical Islam for Breitbart.com and Sputnik News.

He previously wrote for Huffington Post and Daily Kos.

[goldenequity]

more...




When I was the lead investigative journalist at Breitbart News,
I did a series of stories that exposed the danger of the explosion in Sunni extremism around the world.
Part of that exposure included showing scenes from the recruitment videos
that groups like Al-Shabaab are using in American cities.

These terrorist recruitment videos are frightening in their bluntness and expose the lie –
currently being perpetuated by people like National Security Advisor HR McMaster –
that terrorism is somehow an aberration from Islam.

The words of the terrorists themselves make it clear that they are the devoutist of the devout
and that they see this is a battle against Western civilization.

In order to let people see this for themselves,
I used short excerpts from some of these videos in various Breitbart News stories.

None of these clips contained graphic violence

but simply the terrorists speaking in their own words,
in videos that were being distributed on an underground network of terror recruitment
operating in the United States.

As a result of posting these frightening clips
that challenge the establishment media narrative about the nature of Islam,
I was given three “Community Guideline” strikes
that have now caused YouTube to remove all of my videos: nearly 1000 videos that I’ve created over the past 10 years.

Despite the fact that the videos exposing the danger of terrorist recruitment
were posted for a journalistic purpose,
published on one of the most trafficked new sites in the country,
and clearly serve the public good by allowing citizens to see the danger they face,

they were used as a means to take down all of my videos.

My appeal to Google was denied.

[Ender]

more...


As a result of posting these frightening clips
that challenge the establishment media narrative about the nature of Islam,
I was given three “Community Guideline” strikes
that have now caused YouTube to remove all of my videos: nearly 1000 videos that I’ve created over the past 10 years.

Haven't seen his vids, but-

Not sure what that paragraph means, but it looks like he has been promoting the "evils of Islam" and not particularly just terrorists, which is a contradiction since that is also what the "establishment media narrative" is about.

And, I don't trust Breitbart anymore than the MSM.

[orafi]

Mainstream Islam has nothing to do with the Islam found in the Quran. Let alone the "radical" version of what is already retrograde.

I recommend this video:

The Qur'an alone without Traditionalist Islam?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zZtcIwMlURk

In summary, the Islam today cannot be found inside the Quran. Instead it is found in the Hadith and sunnah al nabi, which were written two hundred years after Prophet Mohammad's death.

Peace

[oyarde]

I try not to discuss mainstream or radical islam publicly at all .

[enhanced_deficit]

Youtube seems to have a conditional free speech policy.

This forum in contrast is different, have frequently seen here discussions about "founding father of radical Islam (ISIS)". But to be fair hard to not discuss the founding father of radical Islam when he has become the "gift that keeps on giving". He just called for "introspection (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513990-Charlottesville-Antifa-Steamrolled-By-Car&p=6511091&viewfull=1#post6511091)" today, and now there will be more discussion.

[goldenequity]

Haven't seen his vids, but-

Not sure what that paragraph means, but it looks like he has been promoting the "evils of Islam" and not particularly just terrorists, which is a contradiction since that is also what the "establishment media narrative" is about.

And, I don't trust Breitbart anymore than the MSM.

I'm familiar with his work and videos.
To be clear...
his focus was primarily on domestic politics and current events not Islam.
He's freelance. He and his sons are very active in developing/teaching a 'grassroots' school of investigative journalism.

These were 3 'cherry picked' videos by Youtube.
You'd have to search far and wide within his archive to find ANYTHING (else) on Islam.

[goldenequity]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppBXqO6ObQ8

[goldenequity]

Youtube seems to have a conditional free speech policy.

This forum in contrast is different, have frequently seen here discussions about "founding father of radical Islam (ISIS)". But to be fair hard to not discuss the founding father of radical Islam when he has become the "gift that keeps on giving". He just called for "introspection (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513990-Charlottesville-Antifa-Steamrolled-By-Car&p=6511091&viewfull=1#post6511091)" today, and now there will be more discussion.

imo... there WILL and should be a lawsuit on Youtube's 'Terms of Service'.
The basis will be a violation of the 1st (speech) 4th (seizure) and 5th (due process).

Think Landlord v Tenant 'rights'.
It's 'property'...
Youtube can refuse to 'host' (eviction) based on breach of contract.
but
sufficient PUBLIC 'constructive notice' must be afforded (let's say 30 days)
to allow (at least) the personal property to be redeemed by the owner (OR THE PUBLIC)
who can then find another 'residence'.

If I was an attorney I'd take the case. :)

You can email Lee
Email : Lee@Stranahan.com

[jmdrake]

more...
When I was the lead investigative journalist at Breitbart News,
I did a series of stories that exposed the danger of the explosion in Sunni extremism around the world.
Part of that exposure included showing scenes from the recruitment videos
that groups like Al-Shabaab are using in American cities.

These terrorist recruitment videos are frightening in their bluntness and expose the lie –
currently being perpetuated by people like National Security Advisor HR McMaster –
that terrorism is somehow an aberration from Islam.

The words of the terrorists themselves make it clear that they are the devoutist of the devout
and that they see this is a battle against Western civilization.

In order to let people see this for themselves,
I used short excerpts from some of these videos in various Breitbart News stories.

None of these clips contained graphic violence

but simply the terrorists speaking in their own words,
in videos that were being distributed on an underground network of terror recruitment
operating in the United States.

As a result of posting these frightening clips
that challenge the establishment media narrative about the nature of Islam,
I was given three “Community Guideline” strikes
that have now caused YouTube to remove all of my videos: nearly 1000 videos that I’ve created over the past 10 years.

Despite the fact that the videos exposing the danger of terrorist recruitment
were posted for a journalistic purpose,
published on one of the most trafficked new sites in the country,
and clearly serve the public good by allowing citizens to see the danger they face,

they were used as a means to take down all of my videos.

My appeal to Google was denied.



I disagree with Google censorship, but this dude's "scholarship" is...well...retarded. So you find clips of people claiming to be Christians and that's proof of what Christianity is all about? Because, to be fair, that's what he is doing with Islam. So Westboro Baptist now represents all of Christianity? How about the white supremacist "Christian Identity" movement? Does that represent all of Christianity? Hell, even John Hagee with his "Jesus didn't come to be the messiah" nonsense doesn't represent Christianity as I know it.

[goldenequity]

The jurisdiction on the lawsuit may be State (as well as Federal?)

I see it as property rights (which vary State to State).
Hell... file in both jurisdictions.

[goldenequity]

I disagree with Google censorship, but this dude's "scholarship" is...well...retarded. So you find clips of people claiming to be Christians and that's proof of what Christianity is all about? Because, to be fair, that's what he is doing with Islam. So Westboro Baptist now represents all of Christianity? How about the white supremacist "Christian Identity" movement? Does that represent all of Christianity? Hell, even John Hagee with his "Jesus didn't come to be the messiah" nonsense doesn't represent Christianity as I know it.

You have a point.
That's why I wouldn't argue 'content'.
It's a property rights issue.

[jmdrake]

The jurisdiction on the lawsuit may be State (as well as Federal?)

I see it as property rights (which vary State to State).
Hell... file in both jurisdictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_jurisdiction

[goldenequity]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_jurisdiction

nice. thnx.
also the 'jurisdiction' brings to mind another point to argue:
Has the property taken on the quality
of being BOTH a 'public' property (aka 'historical'/National 'treasure' etc.)
as well as 'private' property?

[goldenequity]

one more thing...
the 'property' would NOT 'just' be the video itself.
The 'property' extends to all the feedback and comments/links & contacts that the video generated.
(this precludes a Youtube 'defense' that it is the owner's 'obligation' to retain a copy before posting.)

[goldenequity]

Fighting Back Against CNN


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9D9bPMte3B4/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEWCMQBEG5IWvKriqkDCQgBFQAAiEIYAQ==&rs=AOn4CLASd2AWfnQ-dfyvk4r7ChiIx3eRZg
Day 296.1. Fighting Back Against CNN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D9bPMte3B4



https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0JJjUFvy1vM/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEWCMQBEG5IWvKriqkDCQgBFQAAiEIYAQ==&rs=AOn4CLDGYElLous5R1UV0pDtKmntem6tTA
Day 296.2. Giving Donny O'Sullivan a Chance To Know Me Before I Met Him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JJjUFvy1vM



https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pYgiVCNR6rc/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEWCMQBEG5IWvKriqkDCQgBFQAAiEIYAQ==&rs=AOn4CLCFEYuJtuXg6tXA53hWdJ-5qchQnw
Day 296.3 Making My Way To CNN Through By Way of Harlem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYgiVCNR6rc



https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IsVmp9ohJ64/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEWCMQBEG5IWvKriqkDCQgBFQAAiEIYAQ==&rs=AOn4CLACOwXUHvbaLEMWjt7jzFuoMRXYBQ
Day 296.5. At Time Warner - Home of CNN Money and Donny O'Sullivan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsVmp9ohJ64

[Jamesiv1]

imo... there WILL and should be a lawsuit on Youtube's 'Terms of Service'.
The basis will be a violation of the 1st (speech) 4th (seizure) and 5th (due process).

Think Landlord v Tenant 'rights'.
It's 'property'...
Youtube can refuse to 'host' (eviction) based on breach of contract.
but
sufficient PUBLIC 'constructive notice' must be afforded (let's say 30 days)
to allow (at least) the personal property to be redeemed by the owner (OR THE PUBLIC)
who can then find another 'residence'.

If I was an attorney I'd take the case. :)

You can email Lee
Email : Lee@Stranahan.com
I disagree.

If you believe a cake shop can refuse to bake a cake, then you should allow a video-hosting site to refuse hosting a video.

Because Property rights.

YouTube is not infringing on his 1st amend rights. He can put up his own website and post any videos he wants to post.

But if you want to host a video on *my* site, you play by my rules.

[Swordsmyth]

I disagree.

If you believe a cake shop can refuse to bake a cake, then you should allow a video-hosting site to refuse hosting a video.

Because Property rights.

YouTube is not infringing on his 1st amend rights. He can put up his own website and post any videos he wants to post.

But if you want to host a video on *my* site, you play by my rules.

He did say that.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by goldenequity http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6511428#post6511428)


Youtube can refuse to 'host' (eviction) based on breach of contract.

[Madison320]

I disagree.

If you believe a cake shop can refuse to bake a cake, then you should allow a video-hosting site to refuse hosting a video.

Because Property rights.

YouTube is not infringing on his 1st amend rights. He can put up his own website and post any videos he wants to post.

But if you want to host a video on *my* site, you play by my rules.

100% agree. It's a no brainer. Free speech means the government can't infringe your speech, not private citizens.

[Jamesiv1]

He did say that.

Youtube can refuse to 'host' (eviction) based on breach of contract.
yeah.... ok. "breach of contract" for a free youtube account? I think it is going to be Terms and Conditions rather than breaching a contract.

And I imagine the T&C fine print includes something along the lines of "We can shut you down anytime we feel like it. Without notice."

You get what you pay for.

bottom line: I advise not spending more than about .50 cents suing YouTube for breach of contract lol

[goldenequity]

yeah.... ok. "breach of contract" for a free youtube account? I think it is going to be Terms and Conditions rather than breaching a contract.

And I imagine the T&C fine print includes something along the lines of "We can shut you down anytime we feel like it. Without notice."

You get what you pay for.

bottom line: I advise not spending more than about .50 cents suing YouTube for breach of contract lol

First: It is a contract.

At bottom, many of these terms are no different from those seen in the brick and mortar world,
and thus the basic legal landscape for enforcement is not much different.
Indeed, Internet commerce “has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract.”
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/communications_lawyer/2015/january/click_here.html

The legal elements of an implied-in-fact contract are the same as an express contract:
offer and acceptance, consideration and mutuality of intent.

These agreements govern a variety of terms,
including software licensing,
terms of use for utilizing a website,
privacy policies,
terms of sale,
subscriber agreements,
and credit card applications.

The agreements have real ramifications because they can dictate a variety of terms critical both to users and website owners.
Among other things, the agreements may govern where a lawsuit can be adjudicated,
whether arbitration will be mandatory,
whether a prohibition on copying a website’s content will be enforceable,
and whether a provision limiting use of the website for noncommercial purposes will be enforceable.



2nd: You wouldn't be suing for breach of contract.

You would be suing that the contract is unenforceable (as written)
and violates certain elements of property law (chattel).

I'm using real estate contract analogy because that is what I'm familiar with.
I held a broker license for 20 yrs.
You can't 'fine print' your way into making a party to an agreement 'give up' certain property and protection rights.
(landlords would love it. so would car dealers. so would banks.)
It renders the 'agreement' (or at least that 'challenged' part) as unenforceable.




100% agree. It's a no brainer. Free speech means the government can't infringe your speech, not private citizens.

Forget about all elements of 'content'/censorship/free speech etc. 1st/4th & 5th...
that WOULD be stupid.. (though some may try)

so
not Constitutional Law case

but Contract and Property Law case.

==========

It can get complex.
I can give you 'for instance':

A farmer and a land owner enter into contract for rent or sale of a property.
The farmer plants, then breaches the agreement.
The land owner 'takes back' the land.

Q. Does the farmer then 'lose' the rights to harvest his crops?
A. No. The farmer retains his rights to his 'fruit' (by statutory law which demands 'compensation')
The 'terms of contract' cannot violate that statute.




A landlord and tenant enter into contract.
The tenant breaches the contract.
The contract 'language' says the landlord can 'take back' the property
at 1 minute after midnite following the breach
and does. (aka 'shuts off his channel and access to all vids)

No he can't.
It violates the protections afforded to the tenant.
He must be given TIME (by law)
and
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (a 'start clock' by law)

See where I'm going?
Maybe the lawsuit would be setting precedent. So what. I think it should be argued.

[Jamesiv1]

First: It is a contract.

At bottom, many of these terms are no different from those seen in the brick and mortar world,
and thus the basic legal landscape for enforcement is not much different.
Indeed, Internet commerce “has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract.”
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/communications_lawyer/2015/january/click_here.html

The legal elements of an implied-in-fact contract are the same as an express contract:
offer and acceptance, consideration and mutuality of intent.

These agreements govern a variety of terms,
including software licensing,
terms of use for utilizing a website,
privacy policies,
terms of sale,
subscriber agreements,
and credit card applications.

The agreements have real ramifications because they can dictate a variety of terms critical both to users and website owners.
Among other things, the agreements may govern where a lawsuit can be adjudicated,
whether arbitration will be mandatory,
whether a prohibition on copying a website’s content will be enforceable,
and whether a provision limiting use of the website for noncommercial purposes will be enforceable.



2nd: You wouldn't be suing for breach of contract.

You would be suing that the contract is unenforceable (as written)
and violates certain elements of property law (chattel).

I'm using real estate contract analogy because that is what I'm familiar with.
I held a broker license for 20 yrs.
You can't 'fine print' your way into making a party to an agreement 'give up' certain property and protection rights.
(landlords would love it. so would car dealers. so would banks.)
It renders the 'agreement' (or at least that 'challenged' part) as unenforceable.





Forget about all elements of 'content'/censorship/free speech etc. 1st/4th & 5th...
that WOULD be stupid.. (though some may try)

so
not Constitutional Law case

but Contract and Property Law case.

==========

It can get complex.
I can give you 1 'for instance':

A farmer and a land owner enter into contract for rent or sale of a property.
The farmer plants, then breaches the agreement.
The land owner 'takes back' the land.

Q. Does the farmer then 'lose' the rights to harvest his crops?
A. No. The farmer retains his rights to his 'fruit' (by statutory law which demands 'compensation')
The 'terms of contract' cannot violate that statute.
Ok, all that is fine. But I still say that a farmer and a landowner entering a contract to rent or sale property is a whole lot different than a video-hosting website that lets you upload your videos for free. Heck, even lets you monetize it if you allow YouTube to display some ads.

Now it sounds like you are mostly burnt about YouTube not giving him time to download his videos? Giving him 30-day notice or some such? If I were the judge I would call BS on that. You made the video to begin with. If you cared about it, make a back-up. I think it is unreasonable to think of YouTube as a personal storage space.

Your "fruits" analogy doesn't apply because the YouTube account is free. You should have kept a copy of your "fruits" on a backup harddrive. And I wouldn't call youtube comments "fruits".

The bottom line for me is that the video uploader is giving no compensation for the hosting.

You get what you pay for.

[goldenequity]

Ok, all that is fine. But I still say that a farmer and a landowner entering a contract to rent or sale property is a whole lot different than a video-hosting website that lets you upload your videos for free. Heck, even lets you monetize it if you allow YouTube to display some ads.

Now it sounds like you are mostly burnt about YouTube not giving him time to download his videos? Giving him 30-day notice or some such? If I were the judge I would call BS on that. You made the video to begin with. If you cared about it, make a back-up. I think it is unreasonable to think of YouTube as a personal storage space.

Your "fruits" analogy doesn't apply because the YouTube account is free. You should have kept a copy of your "fruits" on a backup harddrive. And I wouldn't call youtube comments "fruits".

The bottom line for me is that the video uploader is giving no compensation for the hosting.

You get what you pay for.

'Price' is immaterial.
It's not even arguable in front of a judge.
It can be 'free'.
It still doesn't matter what 'matters' is: Is there a contract or not.

One of the pivotal elements to ANY contract is
that there must be 'consideration' between the consentor and the consentee.
I gave you a link to the Bar Association article
that declares that online 'terms of service' agreements are in fact contracts.
(btw.. Price and Consideration are NOT the same thing.)

It is Prima Facia for purposes of a lawsuit.

'Fruit' may be relevant also.
Beyond the video (copy or no copy) there is (as I said above) the 'fruit' of the comments/links/contacts that the video generated.
There is NO question that Stranahan has suffered loss by their actions.
Are their actions LEGAL... do they violate PROTECTIONS afforded by law.

IS he already 'protected' by law? (which the ToS has violated?)
That is ALL the case would be about whether free or a million pesos.

[Jamesiv1]

'Price' is immaterial.
It's not even arguable in front of a judge.
It can be 'free'.
It still doesn't matter what 'matters' is: Is there a contract or not.

One of the pivotal elements to ANY contract is
that there must be 'consideration' between the consentor and the consentee.
I gave you a link to the Bar Association article
that declares that online 'terms of service' agreements are in fact contracts.

It is Prima Facia for purposes of a lawsuit.

'Fruit' may be relevant also.
Beyond the video (copy or no copy) there is (as I said above) the 'fruit' of the comments/links/contacts that the video generated.
There is NO question that Stranahan has suffered loss.

IS he already 'protected' by law? (which the ToS has violated)
That is ALL the case would be about whether free or a million pesos.
meh. I advise you not spend more than .50 cents on it.

Wait. What loss has Stranahan suffered? I would say zip. He doesn't have any claim to compensation. He doesn't have any claim to the comments about his videos. He's an idiot if he doesn't have a backup of his videos. What loss?

How did YouTube violate the ToS?

[goldenequity]

To all your points see above.
You have the right to any opinion you want to hold.
cheers.

[goldenequity]

Stranahan: Connection Between Charlottesville, Soros, CIA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXzhOFAxpqI

[goldenequity]

Alex Jones Joins Diamond & Silk In Massive Lawsuit Against Google / YouTube Discrimination
http://investmentwatchblog.com/alex-jones-joins-diamond-silk-in-massive-lawsuit-against-google-youtube-discrimination/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvZSiHrOTFQ


Like I said above... let the lawsuits begin.
I think the 'Constitutional' road (1st/4th/5th), discrimination/Civil Rights is going to be tough.. i.e.
'Private' vs 'Public' ... baking 'wedding cakes' problem.

'Property' is a the better argument. imo.
chattel: 'moveable' 'tangible' 'personal' property protected against 'confiscation' by statutory laws affording notice and time periods for removal/transfer.