Youtube Deletes Candace Owens' Podcast " Men are Not Women and Woman Are Not Men" Video

There was a recent thread on Candace Owens.

Candace Owes is 31 and Harry Styles is 26 so she is addressing her own generation and their thought pattern… The podcast commenter Michael Knowles is 30.

In the podcast, which aired on July 14, 2019, Owens discussed gender identity and sex with Michael Knowles. The two conservative political commentators stated they do not believe there are any other gender identities aside from female and male.

“What the left wants to do is break down structure, and what it creates is mass confusion. And I genuinely believe that mass confusion, and when you have a society that does not have structure, that leads directly to depression,” Owens said.

Knowles said that those who refuse to accept that males and females are intrinsically different are denying “objective reality.”

According to YouTube, the language Owens and Knowles used in the video violates its policy on hate speech.

This podcast has been on youtube for 1 year but recently deemed it inappropriate.

1 Like

Or one particular pattern of thought, it would be a mistake to assume that everyone of a particular generation had one thought pattern.


I did not say they all think alike. I am saying that they all basically have the knowledge of their generation, and therefore know that biology girl and boy, has nothing to do with gender identity, therefore you can dress as you chose.

Not a problem until you get into sexuality which proclaim gender is fluid so you can engage in sexual relations with anyone and anything.

That said YouTube’s propensity to start removing things is something I actually dislike of late, even where I disagree with the content. I can decide to watch it myself or not but as it is a private company they can do as they wish.


This podcast has been on the Youtube site for 1 year but now it was deemed inappropriate… It is a private company but it is given 230 status by the US government and that is why there were hearings in the Senate last week on social media .

From wikipedia

Section 230©(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”, as long as they act “in good faith” in this action.

She will be okay…

The length of time something was up on YouTube isn’t relevant. If a person complains that content violates a guideline, if the content is found to violate a guideline, then action may be taken on the content. It doesn’t get grandfathered into being able to stay there. There is no time limit on when someone can report a video.

Section 230 protection is applicable to any user generated content that was posted by the user. It is not a status that an entire entity has. Any content that is posted by YouTube itself (such as YouTube Originals) do not have the same legal protection since it did not come from a user.

Similarly, CAF has protection from liabilities for content that is posted by the users, but not for content that is posted by CAF staff and administration.

If you created a new user form tomorrow, you would have legal protection from your user’s content.

Note: there are limits on the applicability of Section 230( c ) protections from the DMCA and SESTA.


The stated purpose of the hearing last week was to review their response to election misinformation.

He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past.

It’s time for the right to acknowledge that private corporations can trample rights just as effectively as government, and we need to start treating giant publicly traded companies by stricter rules than smaller mom and pop operations.


There have been no rights trampled in what has been described so far.

Suppression of speech on the largest platforms for speech is trampling of free speech. Facebook, YouTube, etc. are the modern town square. Stopping people from talking there is effectively silencing them because that’s where the majority of people are.


She does not need YouTube for publishing that speech. Or, to borrow what a judge said in PragerU v YouTube, “YouTube is not essential to free speech.” If she wants her video posted on the Internet, she can self-host, or use a number of hosting services. Her views can still be made public.

Access to YouTube is not a right. Denial of access to YouTube by YouTube is not a violation of a right.

This was also argued in PragerU v YouTube, among other cases. For these services to be considered a public forum or town square in the sense in which the phrases are used for First Ammendment Law, they would have to be spaces that the government setup for public discourse.

I don’t care what the law says. The law is wrong.

1 Like

Noted. Here we part ways.

1 Like

How do you know that? She may be the next one who is banned off social media sites, takes a while. Alex Jones is totally banned from all sites, as are a number of others… Kayleigh McEnany, the press secretary was banned from Twitter (Twitter jail)

This was the case in March 2019, when White House social media director Dan Scavino was unable to reply to questions on his Facebook account. Scavino wrote on his Facebook: “Dear Facebook — AMAZING. WHY ARE YOU STOPPING ME from replying to comments followers have left me - on my own Facebook Page!!?? Why are you silencing me?”

Good article…

Ryan Moore

It happens to the most famous conservatives and to people like me, a little-known writer and songwriter. I also have 10 years experience working as a social media director and I have managed numerous high-profile accounts and have spent over $700,000 running social media ads for my clients.

On St. Patrick’s Day, I made a video to wish everyone a safe and happy St. Patrick’s Day. In the video, I’m wearing the St. Paddy’s Make America Great Again hat. I talk about the horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, and speak out against anti-Semitism and all forms of hate. I also defend Chelsea Clinton as she was accosted and blamed for the Christchurch terrorist attack for speaking out against anti-Semitism herself. To help my video reach a larger audience, I submitted an ad to promote it through Google Ads. My ad was denied by Google Ads/YouTube for “dangerous or derogatory content” and my entire ad account was permanently suspended as a result.

n my case with the permanent ban to my Google Ads account, I assumed it might have been an automated error so I appealed. Here is their response: “We’ve confirmed that your account is in violation of our Google Ads policies. Since this decision is final, the account will not be reinstated. Please avoid creating additional Google Ads accounts, as they will be subjected to the same suspension. Our support team will not be able to give you any more specifics on the suspension…

Anyone at any time can get banned and without a warning.

Having a video removed from visibility on YouTube isn’t the end of the world. I’ve lived through it, and when I got to the other side of it, I was okay. :+1:t6: :slight_smile:


But seriously, having a video removed from visibility isn’t the end of the world.


No, he isn’t.

I think the use of exaggerated language (in this case “banned” to refer to a suspension that can be ended at any time by user action) may serve to cause other claims to not be taken as seriously or at face value. When future claims are made, there may now be reason to ask “but is that what really happened, or is this another exageration?”

A reading of the ToS would have informed someone of that.

Please give us these other places where people (who aren’t politically correct) can post videos and comments. I’m sure there are some but I couldn’t name one and thats because google makes them so obscure to users. I would argue the same for the news media. Fox News offers opposing stances on politically correct topics. There are a few less non news sources too but again (in this instance) mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, and practically all local news station who get their stories from these big name medias) makes sure those opposing views are mocked and made to look stupid (which they are not). If YouTube is a public company on the NYSE then it needs to give a fair and balanced access to all ideas and views. Otherwise stay private. If the are private then again let an alternate website be known to users so they can make it popular too.


The trauma will be rocking your world yet mate, flashbacks in your old age just when you think you’ve got past the worst of it…

As mentioned before, if someone wishes to host their own video, they can purchase a domain of their own and host any content which they wish that so long as that content is not illegal. Video was streamed on the Internet before there was a YouTube. It can be shared without it.

Though I believe you may have been thinking more about video hosting services. That link will take you to a few that are listed on Wikipedia. But the available services are not limited to those.

Hosting video cost resources (storage, network bandwidth, computational effort for video conversion, so on). For some of these services, those resources are paid for through advertisements. For others, the resources are paid for by viewer subscriptiosn. And for others, the resources are paid for by those that are creating the videos. A video creator can choose what fits their needs best. Sometimes a mixture of monetization methods is used to pay for the resources.

That’s a philosophical statement that may be based on one’s value judgements. It is something on which reasonable minds can come to different conclusions. I’m not inclined to argue value judgments here. But I acknowledge this as your position.

I will point out, however, that your uses of “public” and “private” here appear to refer to the trading status of the company, and not public and private with respect to the application of the law. A publically traded company can still own property that is not available to the public. Purchasing a share of GOOG doesn’t entitle one to unfettered access to Google resources. In speaking about the fiduciary requirements that GOOG has to its shareholders, there is the goal of keeping the company profitable. Given the loss of ad revenue from advertiser boycotts across Google (not just YouTube) when YouTube allows a certain type of content to stay up or stay eligible for ads, it is in the interest of the shareholders for Google to keep in place restrictions of content allowed on the system and allowed to earn ad revenue.

I might need to get some emotional support for it in a few years, not sure I can hold it together. LOL.

I feel you, you’ll need a safe space, filled with teddies and scented candles and take away of your choice. Found just the thing for you:-

1 Like

John Cleese Stirs Twitter With Transgender, J.K. Rowling Tweets – Deadline

What will happen to John Cleese? Will he be labelled mentally incompetent? Or will he be accused of spiking women’s drinks to have sex with them? What will the mainstream media find on him to disgrace him and his point of view. Maybe he supported Pope John Paul II’s sainthood. Maybe he’s a b-rated actor like Ronald Reagan was so his point of view is laughable. Maybe he was an alcoholic who skirted the draft because he had a famous father and on top of that he was “stupid” (so said G W Bush critics). We’ll see. If Spam-A-Lot starts to flop, we know where it started.

I don’t think John is really going to care, he is an old man now and approaching the end of his life most likely. John is an Anglican nominally so Pope John Paul II’s sainthood would mean nothing to him. I presume you know who John Cleese is perhaps he was more famous a decade or two back in the US, he is still a well-known figure in the UK, albeit not as major one as he once was. The Draft would have no meaning here, in the period John it would have been National Service, which ended before John went to uni.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit