General discussion

Internet censorship

By john.a.wills ·
Tags: Off Topic
There is a drug called mifepristone which induces abortion. It takes a while to work. Some mothers change their minds after taking the drug and, till fairly recently, could do nothing but wait in horror. But now there is a progesterone-based drug available that will for some time after the mifepristone has been ingested reverse its effects. The drug is known to be safe for the mother and its working is understood by both pro- and anti-abortion clinicians. Someone has put on YouTube videos explaining how the drug works and descriptions by some users of how glad they were to have had it available when they changed their minds. YouTube has closed the account of the people offering these videos to the world, presumably because YouTube's management is pro-abortion.

Now a question: is such censorship legitimate? The disk space belongs to YouTube, but YouTube is more or less a common carrier for videos.
3 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

YouTube probably reserves the right to remove posted video

by wizard57m-cnet Moderator In reply to Internet censorship

irregardless of topic. Question, do you know if videos explaining how mifepristone works along with the any "testamonials" have been removed by YouTube? I''m not sure, and probably won't research it, but just assuming that PTBs at YouTube are pro-abortion is the reason the videos were removed could be a bit premature.

Collapse -

Lots of pro-mifepristone on Youtube

by john.a.wills In reply to YouTube probably reserves ...

It would take a long time to research them all the 1720 mifepristone videos, but a look at a few indicates a generally positive attitude, with the occasional warning of the dangers to the mother.

If YouTube were the private plaything of a small group, censorship of the kind I think I see would not offend against public morality, but suppose a public-circulation newspaper were to ignore news difficult to reconcile with its editorial opinions, would there not be a swindle of the readership involved? Does a newspaper not at least implicitly promise to deliver relevant news objectively? Does YouTube perhaps have an obligation to accept any truthful posting not harmful to public safety or morals?

Back to After Hours Forum
3 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums