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


By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi noliesradio,

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

Video content restrictions

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

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

For more information, please visit our Help Center.

How you can respond

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

– The YouTube Team

©2019 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA


Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.

He is host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard driving weekly radio show funded by listener donations at and FALSE FLAG WEEKLY NEWS (FFWN); a audio-video show produced by Tony Hall, Allan Reese, and Kevin himself. FFWN is funded through FundRazr.

He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.

Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.

DISCLOSURES: All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


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

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

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

  3. btw, I do not see how comment moderation on any website is different from what youtube is doing.
    From my perspective, they are actually encouraging the outcry, perhaps as governments put pressure on youtube to censor the content, youtube in turn is activating it’s user base.
    Some of the demonetizing and erasure seems to have no other motivation other than to draw the outcry from users with a huge audience.

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

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

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

    • I see what you are saying, it is the crux of the matter now at hand.
      “The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.” They want it both ways. I think we are going to see a stalemate here, because the decision either way, crosses over to other exemptions in other areas that are doing the same type of thing. Religious lobbying for one. It is the place issues go to die.

  4. There is a collective voice of you tubers getting louder. My personal preference is to see youtube accelerate the disenfranchisement so viable alternatives break up the monopoly. It’s just a website and anyone can build another one.
    Why Everyone’s Leaving YouTube This came in my recommendations ! I do not know any of the people in it, …
    Then there’s this from Corbett,
    FaceBorg Births ZuckerBucks – (this to me is a larger concern)

  5. “This includes videos denying that a well-documented, violent event took place.”
    Nice, in the freedom country, with freedom gas, and freedom bombs for everyone around the world you can’t denying what you want freely… 🙂

Comments are closed.