Youtube bans alot of videos unfairly.

Plus I've seen more graphic content on other youtube videos but hey the country is run by the same people you'll find on the Quaker Oatmeal boxes so what can one do besides keep making new accounts.

:(

Posted by: Robert E. Lee | December 2, 2008 06:12 PM

I think it's ridiculous that they banned footage from the turkey farm investigation, considering that they allow turkey hunting videos!

I will write them an email (not that it will do anything, unfortunately) and would love it if other people did the same.

Posted by: Becci | December 2, 2008 07:00 PM

Now i don't like youtube anymore!!!!

Posted by: simran | December 2, 2008 08:47 PM

Of course Youtube has the right to ban this, they have the right to ban whatever they want. Their site, their rules. Trying to suggest Youtube has a grudge against PETA or what it stands for is rather silly.

Posted by: Yeah | December 2, 2008 09:23 PM

I can't believe YouTube ban the "When I grow up" vid. Seriously what is wrong with that? The Turkey Farm Investigation is very distressing to watch but really YouTube there are worst things on your website.

Posted by: Jo-Anne Carlyle | December 2, 2008 10:00 PM

The lovely PETA ladies are photographed very tastefully with minimal T & A. To find those photos offensive is to find the beauty of the human body offensive.

To view truly obscene and disturbing videos on YouTube, just do a search for "cattle slaughter." You may, though, have to confirm you're not a minor.

This video, for example, boasts how its company's slaughter equipment can kill 60 cattle per hour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEAtaLp137E

I suppose we should really thank YouTube for these videos though, since watching the gentle big-eyed cows get prodded to their bloody deaths is likely to make you go veg.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 3, 2008 10:00 AM

If youtube is applying its rules to everyone, then yes they have the right to ban the videos. If, however, they allow videos from other sources that have similarly unclad or scantily clad women, then they are not applying the rules uniformly and there is a problem.

Posted by: Abby | December 3, 2008 10:11 AM

No, they should have not banned peta youtube since Youtube has videos posted on hunting squirrels and fur promotion and kitty/puppy sales. Youtube should permit both sides of the issue or none. Maybe peta should start PETATUBE

Posted by: roxanne | December 3, 2008 01:06 PM

No, I'd have to say the banning was justified. YouTube is strict with the no-nudity thing

Posted by: Sean | December 3, 2008 01:38 PM

I've seen far more provacative videos that have been allowed on YouTube; maybe PETA is too sexy for YouTube!

Posted by: Aneliese | December 3, 2008 02:30 PM

not too sexy at all, if anything not enough. the state of the union undress is what brought me interest to peta to start with. the more girls you get to strip the more i'll be watching your message on protecting animals.

Posted by: jeffrey | December 3, 2008 03:24 PM

I don't think it's necessary to mention using "burkas" next time. What does that have to do with anything? I get your point, but c'mon. Grow up.

Prove that YouTube is being unfair. I have seen graphic content on youtube. AND you even have to say you're 18, which they can't prove, before you can view certain content. It's dumb to ban whatever you posted seeing as how you can see videos of people getting beat up and provactive stuff (girls bouncing their nasty booty's)and such on youtube. Youtube is kinda dumb anyway. They let idiots post things that make zero sense so why won't they let PETA make their point?

Posted by: bbr | December 3, 2008 05:23 PM

I think this is really ridiculous and unfair.

These pictures are actually (for most of them) pretty tasteful, beautiful, and artistic!!♥ YouTube doen't have a right to ban this when there are nearly pornographic videos, but just beacuse porno or rap videos aren't really too offensive to some conservatives, then it's "okay."

Posted by: ZER0 | December 4, 2008 06:23 PM

didn't some kid just commit suicide on youtube?? nuff said

Posted by: marcie | December 4, 2008 06:40 PM

Personally, I find these sort of PETA ads offensive. Its like porn for a cause-which doesn't make it any more morally legit than porn itself.

I also think that if the women who had fought for woman's rights saw these sort of ads, they would be disgusted too.Yes, their hard work is what won the freedom for women today in North America to be able to vote, speak freely,and be counted as a human being -the thing I find disturbing is how some women are using these freedoms.

I congratulate those vegetarians and activists who can make their point in an assertive manner with their clothing on.:D Way to go, guys!

As for youtube, its their site and they can do whatever they see fit-even if it does mean, they will ban certain things and allow others. Hey, at least some of the slaughter videos are still on there.

Posted by: Wobbles | December 4, 2008 07:34 PM

the when I grow up video? They deleted that? What the hell..

Posted by: kaylie | December 4, 2008 08:47 PM

Youtube might have banned your vids due thier future corporate advertiser deals and they don't want to offend any future sponsers

Posted by: bob | December 4, 2008 11:13 PM

They shouldnt have removed this. Nobody was fully nude, and I have seen much worse on youtube. There are naked bodies all over youtube because of "educational" reasons. So I could look at a mans private parts on youtube because they say its "educational", which it may be...but most people don't go on youtube to get college degrees. I can watch a woman give birth because its "beautiful" and "educational", but I cant watch this video because it shows a woman barely naked covering herself to promote animal welfare? Silly Youtube.

Posted by: Bethany | December 5, 2008 02:06 PM

Wobbles said: "...the thing I find disturbing is how some women are using this freedom."

But that's the point of freedom - individual women having the right to use their freedom as THEY see fit (ie.clad or nude)-not having others dictate how they should express it.

Posted by: lynda downie | December 5, 2008 09:39 PM

I can't believe it!

Posted by: Gisele | December 8, 2008 03:19 PM

Well, let's face it. The one with all the naked women? That's shameless marketing. But the other is actually well thought out. I watched a little bit, and I found it strong, but not bad. Did I miss something later on with gore?
I didn't watch the turkey one, but I decided I didn't want more gore in my life :P
Point is that it was probably gross, but hey, youtube has been slowly dying since google took over.

Posted by: Lor | December 12, 2008 09:01 AM

To:lynda downie

One of the reasons I put "the thing I find disturbing is how some women are using this freedom" is that I feel it also discredits PETA and the people within the company and the people who support it on an intellectual and moral levels. Anyone can strip and say they are supporting animal rights-call young me old fashioned,but I am less likely to listen, let alone support a company which uses too much nudity.
I feel that if you can reach people on an intellectual level and enlighten them rather than getting in their face and insulting them,you're bound to get better results.
Which would be why I said "I congratulate those vegetarians and activists who can make their point in an assertive manner with their clothing on.:D".

But I guess this is downside of freedom-you can't tell anyone what to do. :P But you can have an opinion and I am glad that on this page, everyone is diplomatically stating theirs and not attacking another person because they have a different opinion-unlike on other forums. :P
Cheers, Wobbles

Posted by: Wobbles | December 31, 2008 08:58 AM

This is so stupid! I cannot believe that YouTube will allow basically porn videos but not videos promoting animal rights!

Posted by: Sarah | November 16, 2009 05:31 PM