The Bible Violates YouTube's Community Guidelines Should It Be Banned?

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
trustyoursources's picture
The Bible Violates YouTube's Community Guidelines Should It Be Banned?

The Bible Violates YouTube Community Guidelines, Hate Speech Subsection (Specifically Leviticus 20:13). Should YouTube ban it? What will be the fallout? If it is not banned should YouTube change the rules to allow it or should they make a special exception for it.

My opinion on the topic in depth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKVDRTBAOWk

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Tin-Man's picture
If they ban the bible, they

If they ban the bible, they would have to ban most all other works of fiction along with it.... *chuckle*...

trustyoursources's picture
I disagree almost no works of

I disagree almost no works of fiction call for the death of an entire group of people. Nor are most works of fiction meant to be used as guiding principles for living.

In Spirit's picture
@trustyoursources

@trustyoursources

I would have to agree with Tin-man

The actual number of plot lines is debated but there are no more than 36. Most academics accept that there are 7 plot lines.
It is most certain that in most fiction the innocent are getting killed or mistreated in some way and that justice is not the end of the story. Killing is glorified as is war. Etc... So yes, you would have to ban most of the fiction stories.

xenoview's picture
If the bible has hate speech,

If the bible has hate speech, then it should be banned.

trustyoursources's picture
Why not just allow hate

Why not just allow hate speech? It is allowed in the public square. Why censor above and beyond the norm?

David Killens's picture
@trustyoursources

@trustyoursources

" It is allowed in the public square."

Please offer your definition of "public square".

Tread carefully.

xenoview's picture
Do you approve of hate speech

Do you approve of hate speech against women, LGBT, and racism?

trustyoursources's picture
No I don’t approve of it I

No I don’t approve of it I just believe in people’s right to say it. It’s peoples freedom to be bigots.

Algebe's picture
@Xenoview: Do you approve of

@Xenoview: Do you approve of hate speech against women, LGBT, and racism?

Banning hate speech raises all sorts of issues. Hate speech laws are a short step away from thought crime.

Who decides what's hate speech? Is it hate speech to criticize Islam or Catholicism?

If bigots aren't allowed to express their bigotry, how we will know they're bigots?

Making hate speech illegal turns bigots into martyrs and pushes them underground. They need to be out in the open where we can laugh at them. Fresh air and sunshine are more effective than suppression.

Cognostic's picture
@trustyoursources: "That is

@trustyoursources: "That is an accurate observation." I was actually banned from Yahoo Answers for quoting the bible. With regards to YouTube, I am fairly certain you would have to make a quick video of God telling his chosen to slash open the stomachs of pregnant women and dash their babies onto rocks to get a lifetime ban.

David Killens's picture
A grandfather clause is a

A grandfather clause is a provision in which an old rule continues to apply to some existing situations while a new rule will apply to all future cases.

trustyoursources's picture
Should be called the

Should be called the hypocrisy clause

David Killens's picture
Please explain why this well

Please explain why this well used term should be changed from "grandfather clause" to "hypocrisy clause"?

For the record, I do find hate speech and the crap in the bible as extremely offensive. But I also find your attempting to ram your opinion down the throats of others as too aggressive and almost fascist in nature.

trustyoursources's picture
You find my opinion fascistic

You find my opinion fascistic... mind blown. What about my opinion is fascistic. My opinion is I dislike book burning and censorship and I also believe that rules should be applied universally not with special exceptions. My opinions are literally the opposite of fascism, they are anti censorship and pro free speech, anti hypocrisy and pro equality.

LostLocke's picture
Depends.

Depends.
Do you mean banned by the government? Then, no.
Do you mean banned by YouTube? It's their platform, and so their choice.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: LostLocke's comment

Re: LostLocke's comment

Yep. There ya go. Does not matter a hoot nor a holler what you, I, or anybody else thinks about the bible or any other book. My understanding is that YouTube is a "privately" owned/operated site. And as such, they should have every right to allow or ban any books or other material they choose. And if people do not like that, then those people are not being forced to visit that site. Go elsewhere if something on there offends. Pretty simple.

On the other hand, if the government starts nosing in to put bans on books and other such things, then that is a whole different story. (Try reading "1984". That should illustrate the consequences to you far better than I can explain it.)

And here is one more little sad fact to keep in mind. Yes, the bible (and koran, and several other "holy" texts) are indeed full of hate, and bigotry, and male chauvinism, and countless other such narrow-minded concepts. And they can be and often are used to promote such narrow-minded concepts. Be that as it may, if attempts are made to start banning those texts from public view, then that will open the door to banning pretty much any and all other texts. Because (and here is the sad but important part), pretty much ANY story/concept whether it be written or oral can be used in the same harmful manner by people who are determined to find a way/excuse to promote their beliefs over the beliefs of others. And even IF those texts were somehow banned, do you honestly think that will stop the individuals/groups that cherish those books from obtaining and continuing to follow those misguided words? Not hardly. If anything, it would likely make them more determined and even more radical/extreme.

Bottom line is, talking about banning literature is probably not a path that would be wise to take.

trustyoursources's picture
They are a private company

They are a private company but do they have the right to make rules and only enforce them when it suits them. This effects the people who make money of their platform, their partners. If rules are in place they should apply fairly.

Tin-Man's picture
@TYS Re: "If rules are in

@TYS Re: "If rules are in place they should apply fairly."

Oh, absolutely. I totally agree with that concept. Rules should be applied fairly. Great idea. And in a perfect/ideal world that would be the case. But you and I both know that in the "Real World" that very rarely (if ever) happens. And as a private company who makes their own rules, they are absolutely free to alter and/or bend and/or enforce those rules as they see fit. It's just that simple.

trustyoursources's picture
Cry* Why wont the world be

Cry* Why wont the world be fair.

In Spirit's picture
Fahrenheit 451 and old but

Fahrenheit 451 an old but excellent movie on books being banned and burned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9n98SXNGl8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.