He Who Must Not Be Heard: YouTube Censors Jan. 6th Committee for Including Video Clip of President Donald Trump

We have previously discussed the increasing censorship at YouTube where conservative and dissenting viewpoints are now increasingly blocked, including U.S. senators and physicians with opposing views of Covid.  It has also banned videotapes of former President Don Trump. Other social media companies have banned others from posting the voice of Trump. The problem with censorship is that it becomes an insatiable appetite. As you censor opposing views, it demands more and more censorship. It becomes increasingly ridiculous as was the case this week. According to a New York Post report YouTube censored the Democratic-controlled Select Committee for a video that included a clip of Trump. It was being posted to implicate Trump in the January 6th riot but YouTube has continued to blindly follow its “he-who-must-not-be-heard” policy.

The clip also featured testimony from former Attorney General William Barr, which the company suggests violated its terms of service relating to misinformation. YouTube has no problem with posting proven false allegations against Barr like the claim that he cleared Lafayette Park for a photo op.

In the latest absurd removal, the company explained:

Our election integrity policy prohibits content advancing false claims that widespread fraud, errors or glitches changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, if it does not provide sufficient context.

We enforce our policies equally for everyone, and have removed the video uploaded by the Jan. 6 committee channel.

However, Barr’s testimony has never been shown to be false. While people can disagree, YouTube is barring people from being able to watch the testimony and reach their own conclusions. It is simply enforcing the view of one side in this public controversy.

Accordingly, even critics of Trump are barred from showing his words. It is the ludicrous license of those who claim the right to control what people can say or see on such sites. There is no stopping once you put yourself on this slippery slope of censorship.

102 thoughts on “He Who Must Not Be Heard: YouTube Censors Jan. 6th Committee for Including Video Clip of President Donald Trump”

  1. Everything about today’s democrats disgusts me, especially when they say we’re a democracy when we actually are a constitutional republic

      1. No, we’re not. We employ an Electoral College to prevent mob rule; but it also is corrupted and gamed via those of mass wealth and bestial values. Power Über alles, at the cost of a decent future.

    1. I know, but I think it’s code for “Our plans just got crushed again”

  2. The democrat party hate the truth and facts it upsets there false narrative on just about everything .

    1. Once upon a time some Democrats were true liberals:

      “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
      –John F. Kennedy

    2. Uh… I believe you mean “their”. At what point do you think you will learn how to construct a rudimentary sentence?

  3. horrific. Biden’s America



    Jane’s Revenge
    Night of Rage
    An Autonomous Call to Action Against Patriarchal Supremacy
    Within the month we anticipate a verdict will be issued that overturns Roe v. Wade, setting in motion an evisceration of abortion access across the so-called United States.

    To this we say: no more. We need to get angry.
    We need the state to feel our full wrath.
    We need to express this madness fully and with ferocity. We need to quit containing ourselves.
    We need them to be afraid of us.

    1. No one is afraid of you or your ilk. Dont want babies? Dont have unprotected sex.

  4. Disgraced twice impeached Trump can say anything he wants……..under oath

        1. Hahahaha, snort snort….you’re joking right? “facts and the truth”? Hahaha

          1. “Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason” J. Randi.

            1. “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ~George Washington

              You a sheep, Fishy.

              Oh, and Adam Schiff is a psychopath.

    1. Twice impeached? You do realize that’s like saying twice accused? He could have been impeached a hundred times, so what? Without a conviction it means nothing.

  5. one you tube video STILL banned is one put out by aytu biosceinces addressing its HEALLIGHT technology. never heard of it? remember “injecting bleach”? lysol? two days before that apr 2020 presser aytu announced a joint investigation w cedars sinai of LA. What is heallight? you INJECT A DISINFECTANT INTO THE LUNG TO TREAT COVID!!! omg!! umm…the disinfectant is uv light [drump “you know inject light…” ] the results of that pilot study were PUBLISHED last December!! The video is still banned!

    1. That’s not “injecting” light, any more than any standard medical use of light technology (x-rays, gamma rays, near-infrared, lasers, etc.) is “injecting” light. Injection into the body involves using pressure to physically push something (most often, a liquid). The researchers certainly do not refer to it as “injecting” light:
      Rezaie, A., Melmed, G. Y., Leite, G., Mathur, R., Takakura, W., Pedraza, I., … & Pimentel, M. (2021). Endotracheal Application of Ultraviolet A Light in Critically Ill Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A First-in-Human Study. Advances in therapy, 38(8), 4556-4568.

      1. If he had said “You know the thing” would it have made a difference?

      2. I think ATS is once again trying to disrupt. It might not have been the best use of the word “inject” but it got the idea through.

        Definition inject:: to introduce into something forcefully

        Bronchoscopy is not passive and that would be used to “inject” the light. Moreover, one can inject a different argument in the discussion.

        This posting of ATS will not likely be cancelled along with all those that follow. He picks and chooses to disrupt and to be spiteful.

  6. Social media and “anyone can publish” www-tech innocently gave skilled, deceptive infowarriors the upper hand, and it’s gradually being taken back by a public that realizes how utterly dependent our way-of-free-life depends upon the truth prevailing in the infosphere over distortions, exaggerations, and mendacious lies.

    Yes, policing the infosphere for garbage info is difficult, messy, non-perfectable, and can lead to unwanted suppression of good-faith contributions that initially appear non-conformist, eccentric, dissonent or hard-to-understand. But, simply failing to impose quality-control over what is being promulgated leads to a more collossal fail, where society is goaded into making bad decisions based on faulty info. We’ve already wasted trillions on a 21st century war, having been conned by some savvy infowarriors in Baghdad intent on getting Uncle Sam to take down Saddam Hussein. This is our fate if we allow deceptive infowarfare to flourish in the name of free speech. We’ll pick lousy, corrupt leaders, and we’ll enact policies that backfire spectacularly. Is that what you want, JT?

    Freedom of speech comes with a commensurate responsibility to fact-check, apply quantitative thinking, and avoid oversimplifying, over-dramatized narratives (with an axe to grind).

    By pushing out two grandiose political lies (birtherism about Barack Obama, and “winning the 2020 election”), Trump has shown his mastery as a cunning, deceptive infowarrior. He squandered whatever credibility he once had.

    The same standard of honesty needs to be applied regardless of political viewpoint. Honesty is the backbone of our way-of-life.
    If you’re not willing to defend that, what kind of life do your kids and grandkids deserve?

    1. “Social media and ‘anyone can publish’ www-tech innocently gave skilled, deceptive infowarriors the upper hand, and it’s gradually being taken back by a public that realizes how utterly dependent our way-of-free-life depends upon the truth prevailing in the infosphere over distortions, exaggerations, and mendacious lies.”

      Wow, someone clearly is butthurt over the fact that private citizens, especially citizen journalists, can now step up and challenge government propaganda and destroy corporate media “narratives”. You wouldn’t by chance happen to be a colleague of Taylor Lorenz, would you?

      Anyway, the public isn’t taking anything back, it’s actually losing a lot as corporate media tries to regain the upper hand thanks to its relationship and collusion with antisocial media. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but corporate media, antisocial media, and the government do not have the right to tell us what and how to think. We are the ones who get to determine for ourselves what’s true and what’s not, and then act/vote accordingly

    2. Speaking of HONESTY, Trump won, Biden cheated, and Obumma has no birth certificate and a social security number from a dean man in another state. So let’s see some honesty.

  7. “ It is the ludicrous license of those who claim the right to control what people can say or see on such sites.”

    Why is it ludicrous? Turley is a constitutional scholar and he knows exactly why they are allowed to do that. His own blog does it, which is why his criticisms are pure hypocrisy.

    The reasons are incredibly simple. The first amendment’s prohibition on censorship is limited to government not private entities. They can’t violate a law that is not applicable to them. That’s why it’s legally impossible to violate the 1st amendment prohibition against censorship when it comes to these companies. Then there’s the embarrassingly stupid problem of people stupidly AGREEING to THEIR terms and conditions which specifically stipulate that by agreeing they voluntarily give up control of the content placed on the THEIR platform. Meaning if they deem the content in violation of THEIR rules they can censor or remove it.

    Trump’s Truth social platform is doing it too. Yet Turley is quiet as a church mouse on that.

    “ Truth Social’s terms of service state, “We reserve the right to, in our sole discretion and without notice or liability, deny access to and use of the service (including blocking certain IP addresses), to any person for any reason or for no reason… We may terminate your use or participation in the service or delete [your account and] any content or information that you posted at any time, without warning, in our sole discretion.” (Twitter’s terms of service include similar language.) In the U.S., under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, internet platforms like Truth Social have legal protections for their content-moderation decisions — a carve-out that Trump unsuccessfully sought to revoke when he occupied the White House.”


    1. and it is off to the races for Seth Warner / Svelaz / Sammy / Wtf_anonymous with another day of trolling for dollars, aka copying / pasting discredited leftist snewz pieces for the Big Guy’s DNC Party

      for the love of unicorns and pink rainbows…SEND US BETTER TROLLS!

      thank you. thank you very much

      1. Anonymous, it’s funny that you can’t acknowledge the obvious when it comes to Turley’s criticism of social media platforms censoring content that they have every right to censor. Turley’s own blog and Trump’s do exactly the same thing. Turley is one massive hypocrite.

        1. But when the Biden administration utilizes its immense power to influence the content allowed by these companies, it crosses the line of First Amendment guarantees.

    2. “The first amendment’s prohibition on censorship is limited to government not private entities.”

      Cap. You only need to see Marsh v. Alabama (1946). to realize in many cases it does indeed extend to private entities. (Shout out to Dan Bongino for that discovery by the way.)

      This is especially important now as the Soylicon Valley platforms are de facto agencies of the federal government (as well as foreign governments, but that’s another story).

      1. That was a case about a company town: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/
        “A state can not, consistently with the freedom of religion and the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, impose criminal punishment on a person for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a company-owned town contrary to regulations of the town’s management, where the town and its shopping district are freely accessible to and freely used by the public in general, even though the punishment is attempted under a state statute making it a crime for anyone to enter or remain on the premises of another after having been warned not to do so.”

        Youtube is not a town. No one resides in Youtube, so it is not analogous to the company town in Marsh v Alabama. Google can remove videos that violate Youtube’s Terms of Use, which all users agree to.

  8. It’s funny that Turley is mentioning YouTube for “censoring” content about the Jan 6 committee even “Truth social” was censoring any posts about the Jan 6 hearings. Turley was typically silent about the obvious censorship going on at Trumps own social media platform. If Trump can do it, so can YouTube. They are both private entities after all.

Comments are closed.