If media weren't scared of vote fraud claims, they wouldn't censor them
President Trump's attorney Jesse Binnall complained that his opening statement before a Senate Homeland Security hearing on election fraud was banned on YouTube. Binnall tweeted, "YouTube has decided that my opening statement in the U.S. [Senate], given under oath and based upon hard evidence, is too dangerous for you to see; they removed it. To this day, 'our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.' Why is Google so afraid of the truth?" The following message appeared when his testimony was searched: "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines." These "Community Guidelines are designed to ensure our community stays protected."
On December 9, YouTube updated its policy on "election-related misinformation." "Our policies disallow content alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. presidential election. Starting today, we will remove new content uploaded on or after December 9, 2020, alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election."
YouTube employees are fairly intelligent people. YouTube's CEO has a degree from Harvard University. If they sincerely wanted to protect the community from false information, they should have allowed Binnall's video to remain on YouTube. By banning it, they activated the "Streisand Effect." The Streisand effect occurs when an attempt to censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing the information. It's named after Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress a photograph of her residence in Malibu, California drew further attention to it. The censored video was immediately posted on BitChute.
The censorship accomplished two things. It increased the number of viewers and further popularized a YouTube competitor. The video briefly appeared on YouTube again on Monday morning. At 1:23 A.M., it had 52,349 views with 2.3K positive and 15 negative ratings. The ratio of positive to negative response must have shocked YouTube execs. One of the comments read, "The Fact that YouTube deleted it is why I wanted to see this..."
The subject of voter fraud is not a completely taboo subject. There are countless YouTube videos contradicting the critics or mocking people making fraud allegations.
YouTube is not alone in its policy to censor criticism of the election. The entire Deep State media establishment is following this policy. Fox News cut off Kayleigh McEnany when she began speaking about voter fraud. At least seven major TV networks cut off Donald Trump during a White House address in which he called the presidential race into question. Sen. Jacky Rosen claimed, "The 2020 election was the most secure in American history as certified by the Department of Homeland Security." If this election was truly the "most secure in American history," this policy was counterproductive. To defend the position would not involve the silencing of critics. It would be a demand that claims of fraud be thoroughly investigated and disproved. If an innocent person is accused of a crime, his first response is usually a claim of innocence and a statement about his whereabouts during the commission of the crime or some other factor that proves his innocence.
Progressives claim that censorship is necessary because critics are "weakening institutions that are essential for our representative democracy," according to Sen. Gary Peters. This is a serious charge. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen claimed, "These senators and members of Congress who have refused to acknowledge that we had a free and fair election in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes are bordering on sedition and treason." Of course, there must be consequences. Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin tweeted, "Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into 'polite' society. We have a list." The mobs shouting "not my president" at the beginning of the Trump administration are now forgotten. Comments by celebrities often bordering on the bizarre were not considered outrageous at the time.
The entire "commanding heights" of our society have been engaged in a relentless war against this president. Despite their constant attacks, Trump has remained popular with possibly a majority of voters. According to a Rasmussen poll, 47% of likely voters believe that the election was rigged. Seventy-five percent of Republicans surveyed believe this and 30 percent of Democrats. Trump's apparent loss leaves a large segment of the population disillusioned. This loss of faith in democracy and our institutions may be irreparable.
Regardless of who is in the Oval Office, more information will come out revealing the election fraud. Internet sleuths are relentless.
John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing). He has a Master of Arts degree in international relations from St. Mary's University. He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. He is featured on the BBC's program "Things We Forgot to Remember:" Morgenthau Plan and Post-War Germany.