You said that you weren’t getting feedback on your comments and thought the community was “dead.” Was that here?

I have some ideas of why people might not respond to you but I don’t want you to think I am ‘attacking’ you.  If you are interested in that feedback I can either post it here or send it to you privately.  Which ever you would prefer (if you want that feedback) just let me know.

YouTube posts some of the vilest things out there, including pornography. This pastor’s sermon was over the top on many levels, but that is not the point. YouTube has the right to choose who they publish, so this post is not aimed at YouTube.

I am surprised you missed that.

YouTube, just like this blog, can publish content at will. I don’t expect YouTube to accommodate everything. That said, it is very interesting that they will allow some of the most disgusting acts ever recorded on video but can’t seem to handle a hateful preacher.

The Exodus Blog is privately owned for staff bloggers which isn’t different from YouTube as far as being privately owned.  Even so, we are very different in that we don’t provide a free service to the public to publish original main blog content.

At first glance I can see why you would think they are similar but if you think about it a little further it isn’t the same situation on a lot of levels.  Even so, as is so obvious in the post itself, we didn’t go after YouTube’s right to publish whatever they want. We questioned their unfair treatment and according to Manning they were using the Hate Crimes legislation as an excuse.

Pastor Manning is incredibly wrong on theological issues, seems to be mean spirited and incredibly hyperbolic … yet, I don’t think he would lie about something like that.  In fact, part of what made him so angry is because he really liked the service enough to brag about them having a good working relationship and his videos having 21 million views there.   Are you implying that he is lying?

For a very large majority of the post, we question what that legislation will do to inhibit future religious liberty and our Christian testimonies of overcoming homosexuality.  We question what this legislation might do to encourage private companies to discriminate against biblical viewpoints regarding sexuality.

Even so, we left the question open (emphasis mine.)

How much longer will we be able to share the above paragraph without being silenced, fined, punished or even imprisoned? We don’t know. What we do have is today.

…

Speak the truth, no matter how unpopular; speak the truth, no matter the consequences. Speak the truth.

About our blog and your ability to comment here, our Comment Policy states (among other things)

Our comments section is for supportive viewpoints and civil disagreement that foster quality communication.  That determination is made by the sole discretion of this blog’s administrative team.

We are pretty clear.  Also, as you know from years of not having but a very small fraction of your comments allowed here or on my other blogs, we are consistent.  YouTube … not so much in this case.

If YouTube didn’t say that to Pastor Manning and states so publicly or if Pastor Manning corrects himself … I’d be glad to do a follow up post documenting that for this blog.  Let me know.

YouTube posts some of the vilest things out there, including pornography. This pastor’s sermon was over the top on many levels, but that is not the point. YouTube has the right to choose who they publish, so this post is not aimed at YouTube.

I am surprised you missed that.
YouTube, just like this blog, can publish content at will. I don’t expect YouTube to accommodate everything. That said, it is very interesting that they will allow some of the most disgusting acts ever recorded on video but can’t seem to handle a hateful preacher.
The Exodus Blog is privately owned for staff bloggers which isn’t different from YouTube as far as being privately owned.  Even so, we are very different in that we don’t provide a free service to the public to publish original main blog content.
At first glance I can see why you would think they are similar but if you think about it a little further it isn’t the same situation on a lot of levels.  Even so, as is so obvious in the post itself, we didn’t go after YouTube’s right to publish whatever they want. We questioned their unfair treatment and according to Manning they were using the Hate Crimes legislation as an excuse.
Pastor Manning is incredibly wrong on theological issues, seems to be mean spirited and incredibly hyperbolic … yet, I don’t think he would lie about something like that.  In fact, part of what made him so angry is because he really liked the service enough to brag about them having a good working relationship and his videos having 21 million views there.   Are you implying that he is lying?
For a very large majority of the post, we question what that legislation will do to inhibit future religious liberty and our Christian testimonies of overcoming homosexuality.  We question what this legislation might do to encourage private companies to discriminate against biblical viewpoints regarding sexuality.
Even so, we left the question open (emphasis mine.)

How much longer will we be able to share the above paragraph without being silenced, fined, punished or even imprisoned? We don’t know. What we do have is today.
…
Speak the truth, no matter how unpopular; speak the truth, no matter the consequences. Speak the truth.

About our blog and your ability to comment here, our Comment Policy states (among other things)

Our comments section is for supportive viewpoints and civil disagreement that foster quality communication.  That determination is made by the sole discretion of this blog’s administrative team.

We are pretty clear.  Also, as you know from years of not having but a very small fraction of your comments allowed here or on my other blogs, we are consistent.  YouTube … not so much in this case.
If YouTube didn’t say that to Pastor Manning and states so publicly or if Pastor Manning corrects himself … I’d be glad to do a follow up post documenting that for this blog.  Let me know.

Even so, he lives in a country where he can say those things as a free exercise of speech, conscience and religious liberty.  Freedom for all means freedom for some to say offensive things. No one has a right to not be offended.

And he still does.  He can slap that video up on his own blog anytime he wants (or Godtube, et al).  The Phelps gang has no problem doing so and never will.  But perhaps Manning’s real purpose is served better by not posting it?
The real question here, and one I think should have been determined before the post, is whether Youtube actually used the hate crimes law as a reason.  I’ve not been able to find any verifiable evidence that they did in this or any other instance (every reference seems to point to this particular case).  It seems unlikely they would have, since a) Manning’s rant is not addressed by the law, and b) Youtube has been removing excessively hateful or threatening videos for years as they are against their TOS.
Should I expect an absolute right of free speech on this blog?

Even so, he lives in a country where he can say those things as a free exercise of speech, conscience and religious liberty.  Freedom for all means freedom for some to say offensive things. No one has a right to not be offended.

And he still does.  He can slap that video up on his own blog anytime he wants (or Godtube, et al).  The Phelps gang has no problem doing so and never will.  But perhaps Manning’s real purpose is served better by not posting it?
The real question here, and one I think should have been determined before the post, is whether Youtube actually used the hate crimes law as a reason.  I’ve not been able to find any verifiable evidence that they did in this or any other instance (every reference seems to point to this particular case).  It seems unlikely they would have, since a) Manning’s rant is not addressed by the law, and b) Youtube has been removing excessively hateful or threatening videos for years as they are against their TOS.
Should I expect an absolute right of free speech on this blog?