ArtLindsey.com

When people say things like “There is no such thing as ‘fair’”, it is one of the few statements in this world that is universally true. I’ve been known to say it myself, in fact, and there’s not much that any of us can do about it.

However, I’ve come to notice a phenomenon that is gaining more and more momentum as time passes. What is that phenomenon, you ask?

The disturbing trend that free speech is only being allowed if it first passes a liberal litmus test.

What do I mean by this? What I’m saying is that if you don’t agree with a liberal mindset, you will be censored, and branded as a hatemonger. This most recently occurred to conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, when she posted a video she made depicting radical Islamist attacks on innocents to the Internet video site YouTube.

The YouTube terms of service agreement in regards to such issues is as follows:

“In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not: (i) submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein; (ii) publish falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage YouTube or any third party; (iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate; (iv) post advertisements or solicitations of business: (v) impersonate another person.”

Now, if you objectively watch the video in question, which can be found here, you will see it is mostly a series of journalistic still frames. I suppose that it is possible that in some way the video could be considered defamatory, but only because the acts depicted are accurate, and defamatory because of what they are, and not due to anything Miss Malkin attempted to create. She is being punished merely for presenting facts. Liberals *hate* that. Maybe it’s because they are so bad at it, and they’re jealous. I find this to be entirely possible.

I understand that it is not entirely YouTube’s fault. Video’s can be flagged by users and arbitrarily pulled by YouTube, as is their right. But how come the majority if not all of the conservative-bashing videos go unflagged? In fact, it’s gotten so bad for Michelle, that her entire conservative video *group* has been flagged as “inappropriate”. This, boys and girls, is liberalism at its finest, Whether it come from the administrative end at YouTube, or the user end.

That’s right. You can express yourself, but if they don’t agree with what you have to say, they’ll shut you down quicker than you can blink.

Michelle has asked YouTube exactly what part of the TOS she violated, but is yet to receive a response. She most likely never will, because no matter what they do now, YouTube has incriminated itself as a hypocritical entity, so they will most likely remain silent.

All in all I guess this shouldn’t surprise me. YouTube is a mecca for young people, as is a good portion of the Internet. I would know this, because I’ve been involved with Internet media for years, and I have had hours of discussions with people who are considerably younger than I. That being said, for as bright as the younger generation is, a vast majority of it doesn’t understand reality or the way the world works. Not everything can be solved with a “nicey-nice” discussion, and they are mostly interested in how they “feel” about something.

Don’t get me wrong. Feelings are nice, but sometimes they don’t apply. Facts end up ruling the day in debates such as these. One of the problems with liberalism is that, again, they are not interested in facts. If you try to present them with any, they will simply cover their ears and scream “La-la-la-la-la-la! I can’t hear you!” It’s not really that they can’t. It’s just that they don’t want to. Because if they do, they will be forced to accept that their entire set of life precepts are nothing more than lies.

Admittedly, that’s a tough pill to swallow.

Another reason why this shouldn’t surprise me why this happened is because of where YouTube is located. YouTube can be found in San Mateo, California. For those of you who are geographically impaired, that is the San Francsico area. Ah, Frisco. The liberal haven of supposed tolerance.

Let’s talk about that place for a minute. I would like to make it known that I once visited San Francisco years ago, which was way before I became as interested in politics as I am now. When I left there, (I was 17 at the time,) I had firmly decided the following:

I hate that town.

It just seemed smarmy, over-priced, and arrogant. Not to mention that it was 40 degrees in June. There is something inherently creepy about that.

Now that I am older, it seems that my original assessment of arrogance holds true, because in recent history San Francisco, as a *city* has attempted to do the following:

- Perform Gay Marriages (A violation of California State law)
- Ban Firearms (A violation of the 2nd Amendment of The U.S. Constitution)
- Expressed dismay and/or attempted to prevent the U.S. Navy from docking. A city official was even quoted as saying “The United States doesn’t even need a military. Police are enough.”
- Impeach the President of the United States. (I’m not joking. They actually filed a motion in city council. Hey guys…You don’t have federal jurisdiction, M’kay?)

I’ve been thinking lately of conducting an experiment. U.S. flag burnings happen in San Francisco from time to time, as means of “expression”. Well, what if I was to fly there, go stand in the middle of Fisherman’s Wharf, and burn the Gay Pride flag as a means of expression? Not that I hate gays. I mean, I’m just expressing myself, and it’s “just a flag” right?

Would I be allowed the same courtesies? I doubt it. I’d probably be branded as a hatemonger, and then physically assaulted, which would be doubly ironic, since *I’m* the “hatemonger”.

Personally, I think we should pay France back for the Statue of Liberty. As a gesture of goodwill, let’s give them San Francisco. France is full of non-bathers, just like the San Francisco hippies. Call me crazy, but I think it would be a perfect match.

In retrospect, I don’t think I’m as upset now as I was when I started this article. The more I think about it, yeah. The liberals can have San Francisco, YouTube and the Internet.

We conservatives? We’ll take Washington DC. Thanks.

Popularity: 16% [?]