Additionally, a vast intentional conspiracy to suppress a political idea by the media should be actionable in court. I’m not sure where you draw the line and I don’t think we’re “there” yet where we need such a law (especially since real liberals seem to finally be allowed on the teevee with Maddow’s amazing new show), but my point was that if the wise old aristocrats are suppressing political free thought and manipulating people to vote for somebody, that’s antithetical to some of the very core values of our country. Of course much of that may already be actionable using existing laws (such as libel).

So really, after additional thought, the ideal solution is breaking up the transnational media conglomerates.

While there are really frightening implications to the consolidation of media power that we’ve seen in the last twenty years, the solution your comment seems to suggest would be to mandate what political coverage media outlets provide. I’m not sure that that is either constitutional or really that good an idea.

I find this all to be a strong argument in favor of a dynamic, autonomous and well funded public media outlet after the same fashion as the BBC. There was a push for such in the sixties but public media has been waning ever since, much to my chagrin.

This does not, however, change the precise issue at hand, which is that YouTube pulled a video. There are a number of other outlets for such materials. This is the internet we’re talking about, after all.

When government agencies begin systematically prescreening the press…

I’m not sure your explanation goes far enough. It’s perhaps legal when content providers “censor” content, but we are currently in a situation where the most popular media form (television) is owned and controlled by an extremely small handful of people. In some ways they are as powerful as the government itself. If there was a coordinated commercial effort to censor political content on the teevee, I argue that censorship is as dangerous as offically state sponsored censorship and should be illegal.

It has been around for a year or two now, I think. I’ve lacked the nerve to actually go there and explore. Even I have limits.

…I’m willing to bet it’s as scary as Conservapedia.

That’s a really good point. It’s one I mention occasionally (but neglected this time). Free speech only refers to government interference.

That actually makes this situation even more ridiculous than it first appears. Fundies lobby the FCC and Congress to impose restraints upon what is allowed on television. They are advocating true censorship.

This YouTube situation is just an instance of commercial speech. YouTube is entirely within their rights, yet Tony Perkins is trying to make it out to be the moral equivalent of true censorship (which, ironically and hypocritically of course is what he himself advocates the rest of the day).

If the fundies don’t like YouTube’s policies, they’re free to avoid the site and spend all their time with their fellow mouth-breathers over at GodTube.

When YouTube pulls a video or a magazine refuses to publish and article, yes, that’s censorship but it’s not the kind of censorship that freedom of speech is meant to protect against. No government agency, no entity with force of law is demanding prior restraint. A private organization is simply refusing to distribute certain content and that is, and should be, perfectly allowable as long as there is an abundance of outlets.

Both sides of the aisle like to jump up and down and scream that their ideas are being suppressed when, in fact, private content providers are simply picking and choosing what they publish based on the sensibilities of their patrons. When government agencies begin systematically prescreening the press, then we should contest and even take up arms but private organizations really should get to do as they choose.

Fundies only see one side: The Truth™. There is no other side. Anything that opposes or gets in the way of The Truth™ must be suppressed.