Fox News: They Want This to Continue (Censored Edit With Commentary)

COPYRIGHT ACT ALLOWS THIS MATERIAL : "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use, in addition DMCA claims are made under penalty of perjury in addition to being eligible to collect damages under §512(f) over material being taken down and lawsuits involving DMCA abuse exist.

This has been uploaded not for profit, but to expose censorship abuse (editing has been done to keep the video relatively PG compatible). Even thought I think these views are wrong as Putin has occupied part of Ukraine since 2014 and probably wants more parts of Ukraine for Russia for himself.

A video by Fox News that was censored for it's criticism of the military industrial complex by for-sale big tech censorship (and in a manner that circumvents the normal copyright abusing, fair-use infringing DMCA type censorship). I found a unrestricted copy on a censorship watchdog website called Alt Censored. Censorship should not be bought and sold while Cardi B is able to show female nipples and not only not get age-restricted, but I can recall a age-restriction on her "money" video was removed, so obviously it's not about "oh no think of the kids" it's about control.

https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-flags-tulsi-gabbards-criticism-of-military-industrial-complex/

0:00: On this video, I'm going to show you censorship abuse involving Tulsi Gabbart and the Ukraine war.

0:11: Theres the age-restriction notice.

0:23: I have edited the video to block out war footage.

1:40: She's a rarity amongst democrats who are mostly bought by corporate lobbyists.

2:50: They're selling another war, and right after the Afganistan stuff.

3:08: I have extreme doubts Putin won't stop until the Ukraine is his.

3:41: When the foreign policy is bought by defense contractor lobbyists.

4:17: If only they could look as tough on the economic issues, or increasing gas prices.

4:43: That's a graphic way of putting it.

5:48: The taxpayers have been left holding the bag.

6:12: Remember the Right to Bear arms means the right to fight back against the guy attacking you during increasing crime.

Here are a list of researched, pre-packaged legal information that could be useful in various censorship cases. I'm not a lawyer I must disclaim, I just wish one day someone brave would use the courts to force reform as unlike congress, judges can't legally take lobbyist money.

They have long renounced the Neutral Platform and Good Faith stances of Sec 230 on a altar of political bias, and possibly opened themselves up to the possibility of discrimination lawsuits and the censorship enabled by parts of sec 230 could be challenged by constitutionalist lawyers.

1: Wrongful Termination/breach of contract: in cases of people being terminated without a strike or the ability to appeal the violative content or even know what the violative content is this is applicable

2: Discrimination: For cases of people being censored and discriminated against based on various status, which is against California law. Since this can involve channel removal or age-restriction with disabled embeds (it mentions in YT's own guidelines that most would be disabled CLEARLY implying there is a group that has them enabled, video game trailers such as those for the Call of Duty games for example can be age gated and playable in embeds) this alone grants a stronger legal argument than Prager U's legal argument over a optional filter.

3: Bad Faith: the censorship was in bad faith (see argument 2): Against Sec 230 mandated good faith, good faith DOES NOT cover up blatant abuse and in fact EXCLUDES this. A example of bad faith is when a appeal is never looked at nor acted upon or handed over to a bot who instantly disapproves it within minutes/seconds of the appeal being filed, in these cases bad faith could be claimed.

4: should they bring out sec 230: there's the "trap card" that the censorship enabling segments of sec 230 are unconstitutional, legal shielding relating to censoring speech in the name of good faith does not excuse (and in fact excludes) bad faith efforts from organizations CLEARLY acting as a biased publisher.