Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

You're a Capitalist shill fronting as a progressive, its as clear as day.
Others should take note..

Why the refusal to answer a simple question? You can keep abusing me and adding childish labels if you wish but honestly,

by refusing to answer that one simple question you're showing everyone that you believe she shouldnt be able to post whatever she wants even if its against a sites T&C's that she agreed to when she signed up.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Contact youtube and ask them what exactly it was she was banned for..then I will answer. Be specific.
Because you don't know do you?

She was dropped for

"violations of its policies aimed at protecting against hate speech"

So now you will have no problem answering my question? Or will you evade again?

For Forks Sake wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1151203723387047937

Nope. Here's Gems approaching the Newsworthy person.

How do you know? That video doesn't identify anyone.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Hate Speech?
And yet there are literally thousands of videos spewing hate speech against Whites, Blacks, Catholics, Muslims, LGBT, Trans, Infidels you name it and they are still up and running.

Maybe contact them and tell them that?

Like I said youtubes idea of what constitutes hate speech is entirely arbitrary and totally inconsistent.
This is nothing more than a political move to shut down and silence Gemma likely at the request of the Irish establishment/Media and anyone should be very worried indeed at this development regardless of whether you support Gemma or not.

Ahhhh here we go down the conspiracy rabbit hole

Unless of course you are a member of the establishment or on the establishment gravy train which I strongly suspect you are

I don't even live in Ireland anymore, what
part of the "establishment gravy train" do you believe i am a member of?

I also can't help but notice that you have yet again managed to avoid answering my simple question. What has you so flummoxed that you can't give me an honest reply?

Do Gemmas supporters support the attempted assault on google staff?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

She was dropped for

"violations of its policies aimed at protecting against hate speech"

So now you will have no problem answering my question? Or will you evade again?

I reported several of her videos.

listermint wrote: »

She , nor you nor I have the democratic right to a platform


The fact that nonsense is now a thing that lunatics like to spread is gas.



Let me spell it out.


You have no right to a platform.


The end

I explicitly stated this in my post, it's just my political belief that censoring people is scummy. I also believe that online platforms such as YouTube, Twitter etc position themselves as carriers rather than publishers when it suits them, and that it reeks of hypocrisy for them to exercise editorial control in this manner in other circumstances, again when it suits them.

I'm not saying they don't have a right to do it, I'm saying they shouldn't. Freedom of speech online should be protected at all costs, and yes, now that these platforms have totally monopolised several aspects of online communication, I include them in that. I've never particularly cared about the 'rights' of companies or even agreed that this should be a 'thing' to begin with.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Next for what?

Simple question for you,

should Gemma be allowed to post whatever she wants even if its against a sites T&C's that she agreed to when she signed up?

Sites shouldn't be legally allowed to restrict explicitly political or ideological speech as part of their T&Cs. It's bad for democracy when people aren't free to speak their minds about political issues.

Deleted User wrote: »

id be a fan of letting ideas be freely discussed but that has to be an open and honest engagement from all sides and the like of GO'D and her ilk want nothing to do with fair and honest debate. they are leeches that run from reason and take zero responsibility for the truth, quality or consequences of their words

hitching a "free speech" flag to this particular wagon doesnt ring true.

Agreed. The irony of supporting Gemmas "free speech" when Gemma constantly tries to shut other peoples speech down.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I explicitly stated this in my post, it's just my political belief that censoring people is scummy.

Should we allow child pornography then? Instructions on how to build a bomb?

Stephen15 wrote: »

Have you heard what he has to say? Speaks a lot of hard truths if you ask me for example regarding Brexit and Islam.

I listened to every word of at least five videos and took notes. I then deconstructed her arguments and presented these videos with notes on certain time stamps as reports for youtube. I know of several people who did the same.

Seeing as youtube has taken them down and they would have been seen by a panel of people I feel my judgement was vindicated.

Deleted User wrote: »

They are criminal activities.

Political opinion like Gemma's is not as yet a criminal activity.

Then you didn't listen to her videos. She was suggesting attacks on minorities. And she promoted hate speech.

Is her state of mind being considered as a mental health issue yet ?

She's clearly as mad as a bag of spiders.

People encouraging her are sickos.
People believing her are deluded or daft.

For the safety of the general public, she probably should have to undergo a basic psych exam for a while.

Perhaps some court mandated "lie down on the couch" and "how did that make you feel"

Poor lady is all over the dial.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never seen her videos but id be doubtful if she suggested attacking minorities. And hate speech? What is that these days anyway?

If you'd never seen videos of Hitler etc etc. Are you doubtful that was not hate speech as well? A fellow poster told you they had carefully listened and literally documented the instances of hate speech in her youtube videos.

What is Hate Speech? It's pretty well defined actually.

Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989
• “hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on
account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins,
membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation
• Section 2 offence:
“It shall be an offence for a person—
(a) to publish or distribute written material,
(b) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or
material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,
or
(c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,
if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case
may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having
regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.”

Deleted User wrote: »

They are criminal activities.

Political opinion like Gemma's is not as yet a criminal activity.

But her ant Vax views are just as dangerous as any criminal activity.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I wanted to get her so i listened carefully for that little snippet that would breach youtube's rules. Took a while.

It would be 5 secs in an hr long rant.

Have you ever read 1984 by Orwell. This is exactly the type of activity that the thought police and big brother would encourage.

Yes GOD sometimes says things that could be considered extreme. She is careful not to cross the line but she gets carried away during her long live streams and makes bad mistakes. She is going further down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole every day which is actually sad to see. Your actions will do nothing but prove to her, and worse, many others, that there are people out there trying to ‘get’ them.