YouTube Removes Movie Trailer Questioning Whether People Are Born Gay

[Wilikon]

http://www.audacitymovie.com/

A trailer advertising a scripted movie about homosexuality has been removed by YouTube, with the company claiming that the content violated the platform’s “policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content” — a claim that the filmmaker behind the project is rejecting.

The clip about “Audacity,” which was written and executive produced by evangelist Ray Comfort, was no longer available on YouTube as of Monday morning, with Comfort telling TheBlaze that he suspects that someone at the company “didn’t like what they saw” and removed it.

Comfort, who previously told TheBlaze that the film presents the biblical view of homosexuality, said that someone notified him on Sunday that the trailer — which had already amassed 130,000 views — was no longer available.


“As anyone who makes movies will tell you, the trailer can make or break the film. It creates interest and gets people excited,” Comfort said. “So, we are continually keeping an eye on how many views they get. … we monitor it daily to see how it’s doing.”

He was surprised to see that the clip was no longer available over the weekend.

A message now appears on the defunct trailer that reads, “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content,” but Comfort said that there’s nothing in the clip or the film that comports with that reasoning.

“Watch the two-minute trailer and see if you can find spam, a scam or anything commercially deceptive,” he said, adding that he believes someone at YouTube simply saw the trailer, didn’t agree with its contents and had it removed. “All we want is to be treated fairly.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/06/youtube-removes-movie-trailer-for-evangelists-film-questioning-whether-people-are-born-gay/

[Collymore]

Did youtube actually comment or issue a statement why they removed it? Sometimes it has other infringing content but the owners will proclaim some conspiracy. I think controversial things should be allowed though and removing unpopular stuff like this is just censorship at the end of the day ( if it was removed for unpopular opinion etc).

[Wilikon]

Did youtube actually comment or issue a statement why they removed it? Sometimes it has other infringing content but the owners will proclaim some conspiracy. I think controversial things should be allowed though and removing unpopular stuff like this is just censorship at the end of the day ( if it was removed for unpopular opinion etc).

Here is the trailer... Make up your own mind.

https://vimeo.com/132660007


 

[Possum577]

Did youtube actually comment or issue a statement why they removed it? Sometimes it has other infringing content but the owners will proclaim some conspiracy. I think controversial things should be allowed though and removing unpopular stuff like this is just censorship at the end of the day ( if it was removed for unpopular opinion etc).

Colly, next time read the article, the first paragraph says "has been removed by YouTube, with the company claiming that the content violated the platform’s “policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content” — a claim that the filmmaker behind the project is rejecting."

Wilikon, as usual is spreading media hype. There's no evidence that YouTube removed the video for any reason other than violation of their spam policy. The produce of the video is also making huge speculative accusations with zero fact to support it. The truth is that YouTube - right now - as many anti gay videso posted. If they were taking some ant-religion stance they'd remove all anti-gay, or pro-religion videos.

The bottom line is that YouTube is a business and they don't have to allow all videos on their site, for whatever reason they want. Unlike the Catholic church can allow some of their priests to engage in sex acts with kids, which is in fact illegal. Two adults of the same sex deciding they love each other and want to get married has (literally) zero impact on other people or any religion.

[Wilikon]

Did youtube actually comment or issue a statement why they removed it? Sometimes it has other infringing content but the owners will proclaim some conspiracy. I think controversial things should be allowed though and removing unpopular stuff like this is just censorship at the end of the day ( if it was removed for unpopular opinion etc).

Colly, next time read the article, the first paragraph says "has been removed by YouTube, with the company claiming that the content violated the platform’s “policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content” — a claim that the filmmaker behind the project is rejecting."

Wilikon, as usual is spreading media hype. There's no evidence that YouTube removed the video for any reason other than violation of their spam policy. The produce of the video is also making huge speculative accusations with zero fact to support it. The truth is that YouTube - right now - as many anti gay videso posted. If they were taking some ant-religion stance they'd remove all anti-gay, or pro-religion videos.

The bottom line is that YouTube is a business and they don't have to allow all videos on their site, for whatever reason they want. Just like people who are ant-gay can be that way and speak that way for any reason they want, like claiming "it's against my religion".

You have the freedom to hype freely... Have you watched the video in the vimeo link?


 

[bryant.coleman]

This is the state of the freedom of speech in the United States. And still there will be idiots, who will call the US as the land of freedom or the land of the free. I watched the video in VIMEO, and honestly, I couldn't understand the reason why YouTube removed it. Couldn't find anything that is even remotely offensive to the Sodomite community.

[saddampbuh]

doesnt surprise me at all, jewtube has a liberal political agenda, my clip of a battle scene from the film "zulu" got taken down because i entitled it "how to deal with the baltimore riots"

[miki77miki]

I'm all for gay marriage but I care a lot more about the freedom to proclaim your ideas than gay marriage. I've watched the video and I fail to find anything that "commercially deceptive" or things of that sort and I do feel youtube is upset by something that counteracts their beliefs and instead of confronting it they shunned it away and sat in a corner with their hands over their ears.

[bryant.coleman]

doesnt surprise me at all, jewtube has a liberal political agenda, my clip of a battle scene from the film "zulu" got taken down because i entitled it "how to deal with the baltimore riots"

And at the same time YouTube has no issues with videos such as this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztSzoh8N6es

I had clicked on the Report button and written "hate propaganda against a particular ethnic group" in the description box a month back. So far, YouTube has taken no action.

[Wilikon]

I'm all for gay marriage but I care a lot more about the freedom to proclaim your ideas than gay marriage. I've watched the video and I fail to find anything that "commercially deceptive" or things of that sort and I do feel youtube is upset by something that counteracts their beliefs and instead of confronting it they shunned it away and sat in a corner with their hands over their ears.

Thank you for at least using your own mind and judgement...

 

[PenguinFire]

YouTube is a private company.  It have the right the decide what content it allows on its servers.  Bigots crying for no reason.

[protokol]

This is the state of the freedom of speech in the United States. And still there will be idiots, who will call the US as the land of freedom or the land of the free. I watched the video in VIMEO, and honestly, I couldn't understand the reason why YouTube removed it. Couldn't find anything that is even remotely offensive to the Sodomite community.

Yeah, I agree with you - I don't see anything wrong with this and don't know why they removed it. I was expecting a far more extreme video tbh, I reckon there is some shady reason that it was removed, possibly an attempt at the "Streisand Effect" to gain publicity for the film?

Oh yeah, and you should probably stop using "sodomites" to describe gays, seeing as by your own admission you engage in sodomy (with ladies)   It also makes you sound a bit like a crazy preacher/dancehall MC.  

[Wilikon]

YouTube is a private company.  It have the right the decide what content it allows on its servers.  Bigots crying for no reason.

Like bakers making wedding cakes?

[Wilikon]

This is the state of the freedom of speech in the United States. And still there will be idiots, who will call the US as the land of freedom or the land of the free. I watched the video in VIMEO, and honestly, I couldn't understand the reason why YouTube removed it. Couldn't find anything that is even remotely offensive to the Sodomite community.

Yeah, I agree with you - I don't see anything wrong with this and don't know why they removed it. I was expecting a far more extreme video tbh, I reckon there is some shady reason that it was removed, possibly an attempt at the "Streisand Effect" to gain publicity for the film?

Oh yeah, and you should probably stop using "sodomites" to describe gays, seeing as by your own admission you engage in sodomy (with ladies)   It also makes you sound a bit like a crazy preacher/dancehall MC.  

Like this guy getting publicity for his cause you mean?


Gay Man Faked Robbery-Beating and Carved Anti-Gay Slur Into His Own Arm

A man who reported someone beat him and carved a homophobic slur into his arm staged the attacks, authorities in rural Utah said Tuesday.

Millard County Sheriff Robert Dekker said Rick Jones, 21, could face charges after officers investigating the series of reported attacks found inconsistencies in the evidence. The Delta man eventually acknowledged faking the harassment, Dekker said.

Brett Tolman, an attorney for Jones, said the reports were a cry for help initially directed toward people close to him, and Jones didn’t realize how much attention they would get.

“I think it’s such good evidence of the difficulties members of the gay community deal with, and some make better choices than others,” Tolman said.

[...]
Dekker said prosecutors are considering possible charges including filing a false report and reckless burning.

Tolman said Jones didn't have any criminal intent and the outpouring of support after the allegations became public was a good message.

Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox publicly declared his support after the allegations were reported. Cox said Tuesday that he's relieved that the troubling allegations weren't authentic, but he's concerned for Jones and his family and hopes they find "peace and healing."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HATE_CRIME_UTAH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-30-21-36-15

[saddampbuh]

http://movie25.ag/watch-audacity-2015-59319-1898801.html

[gogxmagog]

I'm guessing it had more to do with viewers complaining... Which could translate as "community standards" but youtube can claim whatever they want. The guy who posted it is supporting a very unpopular opinion and won't have much recourse in the court or Internet.

Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.

[TECSHARE]

I'm guessing it had more to do with viewers complaining... Which could translate as "community standards" but youtube can claim whatever they want. The guy who posted it is supporting a very unpopular opinion and won't have much recourse in the court or Internet.

Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Znb8dRascg

[Wilikon]

I'm guessing it had more to do with viewers complaining... Which could translate as "community standards" but youtube can claim whatever they want. The guy who posted it is supporting a very unpopular opinion and won't have much recourse in the court or Internet.

Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.

Freedom of speech was meant to protect very unpopular opinions. Not anymore?

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Well, to be fair, there is no evidence that homosexuality arises from birth. The best research we have is that there is correlation with factors at birth, but not conclusively proving it's caused at birth. There are many twin concordance studies where scientists looked at the sexual orientation of identical twins who were either raised together or separated at birth and raised apart. If it was something that arises from birth (e.g. gay genes), you'd expect to see almost 100% of twins separated at birth to either become matching homosexual or heterosexual. Instead it's only around 30% of identical twins where one is homosexual and the other turned out to be too.

What we have in science is a "nature-vs-nuture" debate. If homosexuality was exclusively by the way someone was raised, then you'd expect to see a very low rate of concordance in those separated twins (i.e. the twins raised in different homes by different people would have an expected homosexuality rate around the population average, rather than the 30% seen in the studies). There's other ambiguous evidence, like MRI scans that show structural differences in the brains of men and women, and homosexual men have brains that match the shape of women in certain areas (identified as the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus, SDN ). Whether this is a pre-existing condition that causes homosexuality, or takes shape in the brain in response to homosexuality, is unclear in today's neuroscience research. The best answer I can say is that both nature and nurture are critical factors it seems.

It's not not something that presents at birth; for example 30% of gay couples with children in the US have their children from a previous straight marriage. I'd argue people arrive at homosexuality in different ways; it's through classical and operant conditioning that we develop our likes and dislikes, and our desires are shaped. The idea that homosexuality is present from birth would mean there are gay babies, which nobody takes seriously (even New York Times magazine said that it was an uncomfortable thought that even gay advocates didn't want to venture into).

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Well, to be fair, there is no evidence that homosexuality arises from birth. The best research we have is that there is correlation with factors at birth, but not conclusively proving it's caused at birth. There are many twin concordance studies where scientists looked at the sexual orientation of identical twins who were either raised together or separated at birth and raised apart. If it was something that arises from birth (e.g. gay genes), you'd expect to see almost 100% of twins separated at birth to either become matching homosexual or heterosexual. Instead it's only around 30% of identical twins where one is homosexual and the other turned out to be too.

What we have in science is a "nature-vs-nuture" debate. If homosexuality was exclusively by the way someone was raised, then you'd expect to see a very low rate of concordance in those separated twins (i.e. the twins raised in different homes by different people would have an expected homosexuality rate around the population average, rather than the 30% seen in the studies). There's other ambiguous evidence, like MRI scans that show structural differences in the brains of men and women, and homosexual men have brains that match the shape of women in certain areas (identified as the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus, SDN ). Whether this is a pre-existing condition that causes homosexuality, or takes shape in the brain in response to homosexuality, is unclear in today's neuroscience research. The best answer I can say is that both nature and nurture are critical factors it seems.

It's not not something that presents at birth; for example 30% of gay couples with children in the US have their children from a previous straight marriage. I'd argue people arrive at homosexuality in different ways; it's through classical and operant conditioning that we develop our likes and dislikes, and our desires are shaped. The idea that homosexuality is present from birth would mean there are gay babies, which nobody takes seriously (even New York Times magazine said that it was an uncomfortable thought that even gay advocates didn't want to venture into).

Thanks for that post. I haven't looked it up before, but just did. This article states one test came up with lower percentages than that, even:

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic