Youtube Censorship-Gisburne's Banned Video
Uploaded by: chaosinabox
Video Description:
Apparently YouTube likes to censor what it feels is wrong. This video is purely quotes from the Qur'an. Nick Gisburne posted this video and was banned. His new youtube account is: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=NickGisburne2000
He was banned because he is an atheist and apparently atheists cannot have opinions.
This is blatant censorship and it should not be allowed.
Get this video off of his website: www.gisburne.com and post it.
Don't let YouTube get away with it.
Tags for this video: athiesm censorship gisburne gisburne2000 god islam koran muslim qur'an youtubeisbullshit
Find more videos in the "People" category
See more videos uploaded by chaosinabox
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:














Nick didnt invent the scriptures he quoted. He simply repeated what is written on the sacred book of Islamic holy toilet paper known as the Quaran. Will you ban the Quaran next? It was indeed his source. I forgot, you are a trendy sort as a leftist, thus you feel ok with blaming an athiest for wha
t the holy toilet paper says.
Dear trendy little democrat: His source was the holy toilet paper itself, he only quoted it. Will you now ban all Muslim videos if they quote the holy toilet paper? It is only fair. Dont get me wrong, the Quaran is better than Sears catalogs when left in an outhouse but we have modern mass produce
d wiping paper that beats both now. There is thus no need for the quaran anymore.
The quaran is disparaging islam? Why do muslims consider it a holy text if it makes Islam look bad? As for youtube guidelines they banned this video while allowing for militant recruitment videos from muslims. It seems their guidelines are selectively enforced. There is no logic to your view of "h
ate speech", hate speech could be any speech about anything.
Funny, you claim yours is based on logic. Where is the logic? If we have to ban all diisagreeable speech by labeling it hate speech the Quaran is sure to be the first to go. Even you seem to agree as you state that his sources offend Muslims. For how many years will we sentence hate criminals who
eat ham sandwitches? This progressive "logic" of yours is rife with elastic terms and poor arguements.