Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Rose M. Welch (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 10:35pm

   
   

   I think that, if I were YouTube, the answer would be a definite NO. It's very hard to draw a line between artful nudity and pornography, and YouTube is having enough trouble as it is.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Ccomp5950 (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 11:32pm

   
   

   The easiest way is as Rose put it, just no. Having exceptions like this really is silly when in the same breath we say "how are they supposed to know the difference between permissive use of copyrighted material and otherwise" and than what some would call art and pornography. Sure you could allow users to try and police this with a "bring it to our attention" button but as we've seen with the previous rick roll story all of these systems can and will be abused.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   sinsi (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 11:50pm

   
   

   If users are uploading "20 hours of video a minute" how can that be policed? For someone uploading to youtube it's personal, but to youtube you are just one of a deluge. Maybe that's why google seems so bad at PR.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 12:41am

   
   

   It depends...

   ...more on who you are, is seems, than what you do.
   
   Hollywood studio nudity: OK
   Independent video maker nudity: Not OK
   
   The "big corporate club" in action? I guess membership has it privileges.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 1:02am

   
   

   Let me start off with a meme: Rule #34 of the Internet.
   
   Pornography is protected under the 1st amendment here in the US with specific caveats as a form of art. From Lap dances in bars being considered a performance art (and in Las Vegas, Nevada, are taxed as such) to the famous U.S. Supreme Court case of Hustler Magazine (Larry Flynt) v. Jerry Falwell.
   
   So long as the people involved are all consenting adults.
   
   Would an image or video of nude people riding the bus as if they were wearing clothes be considered artistic or pornography? Or is pornography strictly erotic in nature?
   
   Maybe I've been on the internet for FAR too long to see where the line is drawn.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   mariush (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 1:38am

   
   

   Nudity on Youtube

   I was positively surprised seeing videos about breast feeding on Youtube, which actually showed a woman's breast as the child was doing its "job".
   
   Then, I thought maybe stuff like this is so controversial (womem rights, breast feeding in public and so on) they probably preferred to leave them with just a warning ("may not be suitable for minors").
   
   I'm all for it and it's a pity Americans are so stuck up about nudity - here in Europe it's not such a big deal.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Frosty840, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 1:38am

   
   

   There are plenty of medical videos featuring nudity, though that might come under some kind of subheading of "medical nudity" and might therefore not be banned.
   
   But they're very much present on the site.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   tfp, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 1:59am

   
   

   rights n stuff

   Nudity is good, we need more nudity not less. War and murder and greed should be the taboo, not clotheslessness.
   
   Stoopid people (present company excepted).
   
   Copyright Me.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   m., Feb 25th, 2010 @ 2:54am

   
   

   tfp...

   tfp is absolutely right...

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Monk, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 3:07am

    
    

    Artful vs Awful

    Can anyone define the difference between Artful and Awful ?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Haywood (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 3:22am

    
    

    Mainly we need labels

    Why would some forms of nudity be ok while others not? So long as appropriate labels are provided & over 18 agreements are enforced as much as an honor system can be, let it all happen. There is some in such poor taste that I won't watch it, but someone would, or it wouldn't be there.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    R. Miles (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 3:37am

    
    

    Objection!

    "...but there is a separate issue raised here -- which is that, once again, the real issue is Google's lack of customer service..."
    Give people an inch, and they'll soon demand a mile.
    
    This is exactly what's happening here given this idiot named Amy Greenfield decided on her own accord to change the services she saw fit.
    
    I don't believe Google, who gives people plenty of leeway to upload some rather ridiculous things, should be punished (or thought of doing so to its customers) for implementing a few restrictions, one of which being nudity.
    
    Those who challenge "nudity is art" are the same that will turn around ten seconds later and scream "child pornography!" if the same approach is taken to children.
    
    Google has every right to stand by this decision not to open up this can of worms, while trying to give people the choice to determine what's art, and what's pornography.
    
    If people are that damn desperate for seeing nudity, the internet is more than sufficient to meet their desires.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 3:50am

    
    

    They should allow nudity, in the mean time Im going to know one out to Amy Greenfield

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    SKC, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 4:21am

    
    

    I find it ironic how artistic/tasteful nudity is against policy, yet there's nothing in place regarding trolling.
    
    So let me get this straight... Natural is against the rules, but cyberbulling is perfectly hunky dory? wtf

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 4:46am

    
    

    The first post here was spot on. NO. If you even give people the ablitly to post nude videos you will ultimately have a pretty sweet and funny video site populated by pornoagraphy where "buisnesses" just use it as a free forum for advertising sex. I would be like the internet where almost everything you searched for will somehow almost bring up a porn result. If you want to see nudity or porn just search googles main site.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    raindogg (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 5:01am

    
    

    who cares

    Why is nudity so fregging bad. This country is a bunch of babies. We all have the same parts, get over it.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 5:08am

    
    

    I'm confused. How does YouTube taking down videos without notification indicate poor customer service on Google's part? I understand that Google does have poor customer service, but I just don't see the connection there. To the best of my knowledge, Google and YouTube are completely separate, and nothing on YouTube's site suggests otherwise.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 5:17am

    
    

    Re:

    I'm surprised they drew the line where they did. Educational and big media TV/movie nudity is OK and so is the gratuitous but non-nude pornography. But, on the other hand, Artistic and not big media TV/movie nudity is not OK.
    
    They do need to move the line. Ether no nudity or nudity, I'll support them in ether decision, but I don't support their current policy.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Coyote, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 6:01am

    
    

    Youtube already has the 18+ warning restrictions on some content... The uploader can make it 18+ to start with, and the userbase to flag content as 18+ or flag it for removal.
    
    It's self-regulating.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Ramon, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 6:12am

    
    

    I wouldn't want to be judge of what is artistic

    Personally, I have no problem with any nudity, but if I worked at Google, I wouldn't want the responsibility of deciding what is artistic and what is pornographic, especially in view of instances like Italy's sentencing of Google execs for the contents of a video placed on Google Video.
    
    In order for Google to accept what is artistic, they have to become judges of what is artistic and what isn't. By comparison, it is easier to judge what is of scientific value or what has come out of a major studio.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    The Infamous Joe (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 9:30am

    
    

    Re:

    I thought pornography had to depict acts of sex. So, it stands to reason that anything that has nudity but doesn't show people having sex should be fine.
    
    Or, are we still in the camp where parts of the body are dangerous to children?
    
    Humans are an odd bunch.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    redwall_hp (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 9:35am

    
    

    Re: Nudity on Youtube

    It's because you Europeans forced those annoying Puritans to come over here. Thanks. :P

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    The Infamous Joe (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 9:36am

    
    

    Re:

    As Mike said-- there is no 1st amendment issue when the dealings are between two private entities. Google is perfectly within the law to say "No boobs" just as they could say "no red shirts can be worn in an uploaded video".

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 9:57am

    
    

    YouTube is a PRIVATE COMPANY. Let them decide on what they want to show or not show.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    Yakko Warner, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 10:12am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    "no red shirts" -- Well, I think they do have a policy against showing snuff films and death... ;)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Yakko Warner, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 10:16am

    
    

    Re:

    http://www.youtube.com/t/company_history
    
    In November 2006, within a year of its launch, YouTube was purchased by Google Inc. in one of the most talked-about acquisitions to date.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    Monarch (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 10:46am

    
    

    Re: Nudity on Youtube

    I just spotted an IRONY at it's most precious!
    
    A video of a CHILD Breastfeeding with a warning: ("may not be suitable for minors").

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 11:41am

    
    

    Re: Objection!

    I don't believe Google, who gives people plenty of leeway to upload some rather ridiculous things, should be punished (or thought of doing so to its customers) for implementing a few restrictions, one of which being nudity.
    
    That's not true: they DO allow nudity. It just depends on who you are.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    

    Rose M. Welch (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 12:12pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    No, porn is the depiction of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual excitement. Boobs and penetration both count, under that definition. Now, personally, I don't have a problem with pornography at all, but what you and I might consider okay, other people flip out about.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    

    Rose M. Welch (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 12:14pm

    
    

    Re:

    If they start allowing nudity, they'll have to stop allowing children, and my kids and their friends will be pissed.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

31.  

    

    Rose M. Welch (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 12:17pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    I think the line makes sense. If someone sues YouTube for their content, Big Media is much more likely to to step up and help prove that it's not porn. Small Media just doesn't have the same resources.
    
    Further, it's really easy to say 'This has educational and/or scientific merit.' or 'This does not have educational and/or scientific merit.'. It's really, really hard to say 'This is art.' or 'This is not art.'.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

32.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 1:32pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    If they start allowing nudity...
    
    They already do.
    
    ...they'll have to stop allowing children, and my kids and their friends will be pissed.
    
    No, they'll just restrict some material to registered adults, like they already do.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

33.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2010 @ 1:39pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think the line makes sense. If someone sues YouTube for their content, Big Media is much more likely to to step up and help prove that it's not porn. Small Media just doesn't have the same resources.
    
    If that really made sense, then they would ban all videos from anyone other than Big Media. (Porn isn't the only thing that someone can object to, you know.)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

34.  

    

    Rose M. Welch (profile), Feb 25th, 2010 @ 6:38pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Art, however, is the hardest thing to define.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

35.  

    

    Malcolm Boura, Feb 26th, 2010 @ 11:10am

    
    

    YouTube is a censor

    If there was any evidence that nudity caused harm then You Tube would have some excuse for their policy but the facts are actually very clear. Censoring the human body resutls in wide spread and often serious harm. What is more, it is particularly harmful to the young people that YouTube claims to be protecting. Try comparing the teenage pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted infection rates for prudish countries such as the USA with those for say The Netherlands, Denmark or many other European countries. Attitudes have consequences and the attitudes encouraged by YouTube are disastrous. Children become sexually active younger, are more likely to be promiscuous and less likely to use a condom or contraception. The results are predictable, getting on for ten time more likely to become pregnant, several times more likely to have an abortion and tens of times more likely to catch something.
    
    Prudery is child abuse with good intentions and anyone who doubts that should be required to stand in a juvenile abortion/pregnancy/STI waiting room and explain why it is that if those young people lived in The Netherlands hardly any of them would be there. Is irrational prejudice against the human body really worth the life of even one young person? This policy is driven by commercial pressures founded on prejudice and myth.
    
    What is even worse, because YouTube has a near monopoly, they are exporting harmful attitudes to the rest of the world.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

36.  

    

    Rose M. Welch (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:16am

    
    

    Re: YouTube is a censor

    YouTube doesn't have anything close to a monopoly.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

37.  

    

    brian, Mar 4th, 2010 @ 3:02pm

    
    

    By the way, the best Va-Jay-Jays are actually in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Female-Anatomy-Close-Ups-Photos-Vaginas/dp/1451513135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s =books&qid=1267742388&sr=8-1

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

38.  

    

    Josephine Shaffer, Jun 13th, 2010 @ 6:45pm

    
    

    Should You Tube Show nudity

    I have say yes deffently.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

39.  

    

    David, Nov 28th, 2010 @ 10:34am

    
    

    nudity on youtube

    yes I think nudity should be allowed you youtube. I placed a video on youtube. A circumcision slide show of various nude men that were intact and tried to create a debate on which is more natural and more natural to look at. Or shall I say more pleasing to the eye. (I like the intact men better) I demonstrated how babies become hurt when they get circumcised as well as debate over circumcision and intact. But my video was deleted off of you tube stressing guidelines was beyond their laws of ethical frames of mind. It was too x-rated even though there was absolutely no sex and no erections. Just pictures of the intact male.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

40.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 3:39pm

    
    

    Re: nudity on youtube

    Satan is in the minds of the humans on Youtube that hates all things nude, and they had better bane all natural things, and not show hair or fingernails or eyeballs because all of them are nude, and Youtube should only have man made objects that are not living on YouTube videos, and killing machines. Heaven forbid if Youtube has a video during the mating season of plants they are nude too, and spores will be floating all over the place. Can't have the kids see, and be as aware of that. Can't expose the kids to nudity of any kind. Surround them in a dead lifeless environment like humans are in when they are put in jail. That should make the parents, and Youtube extremely happy.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

41.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 3:54pm

    
    

    YouTube should allow nudity. That is the kind of planet

    YouTube should allow nudity. That is the kind of planet we are on. As it is humans are bowing to clothing like idol worshipers bowed to the cow, and bull god Baal, and Moloch. Humans waring, and endorsing a condemning legal system, and humans giving fear to take drugs for named things directing humans away from www.upcspine.com. U,C,S, chiropractic care.
    All of all ages needs to be evaluated by one.
    Furry nude art is constantly attached, and we should not stand for it any more, and give loving understanding to the furries,and not hatred at all. That art in all of its complexity should be allowed on youtube of any age depicted even as we see all ages from birth on up in nature before our eyes.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

42.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jul 2nd, 2012 @ 5:50pm

    
    

    Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most art of all

    Yes. Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most art of all the art whoever will ever see. Youtube needs to publicly, and if they can personally apologize to the furry making it up to them any way they can to put a big smile on their furry faces for the videos cruelly,and heartlessly removed from Youtube.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

43.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jul 2nd, 2012 @ 6:02pm

    
    

    Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beutiful art of all

    Yes. Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all the art whoever will ever see. Youtube needs to publicly, and if they can personally apologize to the furry making it up to them any way they can to put a big smile on their furry faces for the videos cruelly,and heartlessly removed from Youtube.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

44.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jul 2nd, 2012 @ 6:11pm

    
    

    Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all

    Yes. Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all the art whoever will ever see.It is far more expressive than the human form in many ways. The lines, and expressions are priceless. Representations of clothing obscure the subtleties that should not be hidden anymore that the soft petals of a flower. Youtube needs to publicly, and if they can personally apologize to the Furries making it up to them in any way they can to put a big smile on their furry faces for the videos cruelly, and heartlessly removed from Youtube.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

45.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jul 2nd, 2012 @ 6:14pm

    
    

    Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all

    Yes. Furries nude anthropomorphic art is the most beautiful art of all the art whoever will ever see.It is far more expressive than the human form in many ways. The lines, and expressions are priceless. Representations of clothing obscure the subtleties that should not be hidden anymore than the soft petals of a flower. Youtube needs to publicly, and if they can personally apologize to the Furries making it up to them in any way they can to put a big smile on their furry faces for the videos cruelly, and heartlessly removed from Youtube.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

46.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 9:35pm

    
    

    Youtube is sinning by oppressing the furry nude,and sexual art.

    Youtube is sinning by oppressing the furry nude, and sexual art. The comics that have it are well done. Stop punishing the Furries about everything. Hurt the furry hurt the heart of Jesus. That goes for the zoo, and Person called the Pedo too. All of us die. That is a body that has sin in it. Condemn anyone condemn yourself to die in what hell really is. Religions will not tell you. It is the glory of God that burned the top of Mount Sinai when Moses saw Gods back. Give joy, and likewise receive joy. it works out that way.
    
    Restore the video gay furry yiff {18+} Apologize to them. They did not harm you. Proverbes 3:30
    Morality is not found in hatred.Stop engaging is warfare against furry nakedness, and Yiff sex. War is evil propagating white crosses. Be a peacemaker. Stop bending to hatred which is murder. 1 John 3:15 ,Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.Nakedness is not a sin. Youtube needs to know this. K J V1 Corinthians 11: 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Youtube is banning what is on their own body hating themselves. Youtube needs to accept all the furry art rejecting their religions waring mentality. The long hair is a covering. shame for the man is not being naked. Restore the video gay furry yiff {18+} Apologize to them. They did not harm you. Proverbes 3:30 Strive not with a man without a cause, if he hath done thee no harm. Youtube constantly strives against the furries. Tell me when you humble yourselves apologizing to them
    Sent to: YouTube

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

47.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 9:52pm

    
    

    Youtube is sinning by oppressing the furry nude,and sexual art.

    Oppressing is the sin of Sodom, and Gomorrah. What is oppressing is the military policing the world. What is oppressing is the legal system. Police oppressing.YouTube oppresses the furries, and many others too. That means the Sodomites are in control of Youtube. YouTube needs to do what God asks in this verse.King James Version Isaiah 1 >>17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
    Did you get that youtube, relieve oppression not give it.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

48.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Dec 10th, 2012 @ 9:54pm

    
    

    Youtube is sinning by oppressing the furry nude,and sexual art.

    Oppressing is the sin of Sodom, and Gomorrah. What is oppressing is the military policing the world. What is oppressing is the legal system. Police oppressing. YouTube oppresses the furries, and many others too. That means the Sodomites are in control of Youtube. YouTube needs to do what God asks in this verse. King James Version Isaiah 1 >>17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
    Did you get that Youtube, relieve oppression not give it.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

49.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Dec 13th, 2012 @ 12:01pm

    
    

    People against the furry nude, and sexual art are against God who made it

    People against the furry nude, and sexual art are against God who made it being sodomistic oppressors. Can't YouTube see that they are on the side of the devil being against the furry art?
    Isaiah 1 >>
    King James Version
    17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
    deleting one video after another is not relieving the oppressed. The videos showing people jumping from a tall building is accepted by YouTube. That is sick.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

50.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Dec 15th, 2012 @ 6:55pm

    
    

    Youtube needs to be slapped kicked, and punched for doing the same to the furry videos. Y

    All of what the furries put on youtube is artful. People need to sue the ass off of youtube for being unspeakably horrible to the furries. Maybe then the Youtube would stop being like religious sodomistic warmongers against Edenlike people. Youtube needs to be slapped kicked, and punched for doing the same to the furry videos. Youtyube needs to give back all of the videos that have been banned. Youtube employes, and those in charge-need to humble themselves bowing before the furry before all eyes saying they are sorry for what they have done groveling before their furry paws!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

51.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Dec 21st, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    
    

    Youtube is admitting that they are allowing all furry videos on youtube.

    Youtube is admitting that they are allowing videos on youtube that is what is in nature its self. Healthy minds will be the result of it. Youtube must hold to what their words are, and put videos on the web making no bones about it that they are sorry for treating the furry badly by banning their videos. Youtube would do well to make it up to the furry.
    
    Sex and Porn Videos are Being Allowed on Youtube
    WEBUPON.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

52.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Dec 21st, 2012 @ 12:11pm

    
    

    outube is admitting that they are allowing all furry videos on youtube.

    Youtube is admitting that they are allowing videos on youtube that were at one time banned. Healthy minds will be the result of it. Youtube must hold to what their words are, and put videos on the web making no bones about it that they are sorry for treating the furry badly by banning their videos. Youtube would do well to make it up to the furry.
    
    Sex and Porn Videos are Being Allowed on Youtube
    WEBUPON.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

53.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 21st, 2013 @ 10:47pm

    
    

    Youtube does not tolerate the hate of others, but does not consider their own hatred

    Youtube should not ban any furry nude or sexual video. To call a nude or sexual video bad is to call your own sexual nude body bad. God did not ban anything from us. All things from him are freely given. Youtube does not allow hateful people on youtube. Therefore youtube should ban themselves for being hateful toward the furry art. That hate exists because people have the word porn. That word needs to phased out. Youtube needs to say they are sorry for banning any furry video. Youtube does not tolerate the hate of others, but does not consider their own hatred against the furries that hate no one. Youtube needs to hang their heads in shame for not being equal.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

54.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 21st, 2013 @ 11:08pm

    
    

    Stop making the furry sad. Make the furry glad. Please?

    All of the videos should be given back. Youtube is a Thief, a robber. There is no hate in the videos, No one is threatening anyone. yet hate is given. That makes no sense whatsoever. It is like an unprovoked attack. Let the furries back on youtube that were banned. All they want is to be is loved. Please stop slapping them for wanting to be loved. The furry loves all of the parts loving the whole body. Love the whole body too. Stop making the furry sad. Make the furry glad. Please?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

55.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 21st, 2013 @ 11:22pm

    
    

    What the furry shows on youtube is not even compared to leprosy even as people see it but youtube treats the Yiffing, and nude videos as if they are worse than leprosy. Psalm 34:14: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.The furry is a peace seeker. Seek it with them giving the furry Joy.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

56.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 27th, 2013 @ 6:57pm

    
    

    Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on.

    Should All nude and sexual furry videos be allowed? yes they should be allowed. The sodomistic oppression needs to s end. Read Isaiah 1 17,KJV, Youtube is oppressing the furry that oppresses no one. All, and I mean all of the furries banned should be reinstated. All of the videos need to be given back. I don't know if that could be done but it would be an gift showing that the militaristic religious youtube is repenting. They are a monster for treating the Eden like Furries the way they have been treated. YouTube needs to be ashamed of themselves. Youtube is a worshiper of clothing. Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on..

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

57.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 27th, 2013 @ 6:58pm

    
    

    Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on.

    Should All nude and sexual furry videos be allowed? yes they should be allowed. The sodomistic oppression needs to end. Read Isaiah 1: 17,KJV, Youtube is oppressing the furry that oppresses no one. All, and I mean all of the furries banned should be reinstated. All of the videos need to be given back. I don't know if that could be done but it would be an gift showing that the militaristic religious youtube is repenting. They are a monster for treating the Eden like Furries the way they have been treated. YouTube needs to be ashamed of themselves. Youtube is a worshiper of clothing. Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on..

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

58.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 27th, 2013 @ 7:07pm

    
    

    Youtube is guilty of engaging in unprovoked attracts , preemptive strikes against furry nude, and sexual videos that are as harmless as a butterfly. YouTube needs to repay the furry four times that what was done to them. The rich man who killed a poor mans sheep payed him back four times, and a tax collector gaining ill gotten gain did the same.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

59.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 27th, 2013 @ 7:08pm

    
    

    Youtube is guilty of engaging in unprovoked stacks - , preemptive strikes against furry nude, and sexual videos that are as harmless as a butterfly. YouTube needs to repay the furry four times that what was done to them. The rich man who killed a poor mans sheep payed him back four times, and a tax collector gaining ill gotten gain did the same.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

60.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 27th, 2013 @ 8:08pm

    
    

    Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on.

    Should All nude and sexual furry videos be allowed? yes they should be allowed. The sodomistic oppression needs to end. Read Isaiah 1: 17,KJV, Youtube is oppressing the furry that oppresses no one. All, and I mean all of the furries banned should be reinstated. All of the videos need to be given back. I don't know if that could be done but it would be an gift showing that the militaristic religious youtube is repenting. They are a monster for treating the Eden like Furries the way they have been treated. YouTube needs to be ashamed of themselves. Youtube is a worshiper of clothing. Fantastic videos have been spit on by YouTube like Jesus was spit on..

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

61.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 28th, 2013 @ 8:38am

    
    

    This headline is seen on the web page WEBUPON.
    "Sex and Porn Videos are Being Allowed on Youtube" "Webupon"
    I thought that Youtube was repenting of being a consuming monster chomping of furry videos, and banning harmless loving christlike people that harm no one from youtube. The hater in this instance is Youtube acting like the troll I report doing bad to me and others with Youtube banning the malicious hater. How can Youtube not be equally malicious in their hatred? Youtube is acting like the trolls I report to be banned. YouTube is being unequal. The devil is unequal.
    Soon after reading the headline on WEBUPON Youtube treated the nude,nand sexual videos like a marksman shoots clay pidgins. Youtube is a malicious hater of natural things ending up hating their own natural nude sexual body.
    People need to start loving their own bodies. When that happens people will stop treating the furry videos like a target at a shooting gallery.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

62.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 28th, 2013 @ 8:39am

    
    

    This headline is seen on the web page WEBUPON.
    "Sex and Porn Videos are Being Allowed on Youtube" "Webupon"
    I thought that Youtube was repenting of being a consuming monster chomping of furry videos, and banning harmless loving christlike people that harm no one from youtube. The hater in this instance is Youtube acting like the troll I report doing bad to me and others with Youtube banning the malicious hater. How can Youtube not be equally malicious in their hatred? Youtube is acting like the trolls I report to be banned. YouTube is being unequal. The devil is unequal.
    Soon after reading the headline on WEBUPON Youtube treated the nude, and sexual videos like a marksman shoots clay pidgins. Youtube is a malicious hater of natural things ending up hating their own natural nude sexual body.
    People need to start loving their own bodies. When that happens people will stop treating the furry videos like a target at a shooting gallery.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

63.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 10:46pm

    
    

    It has come to my attention that YouTube can reinstate banned videos. All of the banned Furry videos that have been banned by youtube by people acting like a self righteous scribe, Sadducee, pharisee, chief priests,and high priests like a military personnel needs to be reinstated showing the furries that Youtube is sorry for being cruel to them when they have not been cruel to anyone. Tell them Artie the white arctic fox demands that youtube does this.
    
    The Los Angeles Times reports that YouTube admitted to their mistake in banning Upton's video, which she made with fashion photographer Terry Richardson. The Times published this statement from YouTube about the "Cat Daddy" video: "With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it's brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it."

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

64.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 1:13pm

    
    

    Re:

    Say no say no to your own body bowing to cloth like a Baal worshiper. Call the nude sexual body indecent on Youtube call your own body the same name. Call the maker of all things the same name too. The furry art, and the furry is being oppressed. Lift the oppression.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

65.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 1:19pm

    
    

    Re:

    That is right. people will abuse people. Hate is what abuses people. Little do the haters know that they are in Gods eyes hating themselves. They are hating what God made as a result hating themselves with the same intensity not even knowing it.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

66.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 1:22pm

    
    

    Re: It depends...

    Don't people see that what they did not make is nude? The word porn divides. That makes war. YouTube is at war with a thing that this world is all about.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

67.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 1:27pm

    
    

    Re:

    Dislike one part of a nude person is disliking the whole body. Nature is nude. Artists see nature as artistic. Sheeh people make the indecency law obsolete.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

68.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 1:30pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Nudity on Youtube

    The puritans are satanic not being like Jesus at all.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

69.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 1:33pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Nudity on Youtube

    The devil in the souls of people make the warnings being divided against themselves. Youtube needs to wake up so they will stop serving the devil.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

70.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 2:10pm

    
    

    Re: Artful vs Awful

    Awful is in the eye of the beholder. Have the eye of the beholder perceive in their mind that a piece of art is awful registers it in their mind as being awful .Another person will see what you saw as artful. In reality all of it is vanity. Better to not war about what is seen. Heaven is what is not seen. War about what is seen war about what is not seen. Warmongers will not be in Gods kingdom.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

71.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 2:38pm

    
    

    Re: Mainly we need labels

    Labels are good to a degree because people know what to look up on the web, but in the beginning God did not make labels. Labels have an inherent by product of creating division giving the illuton that one is better or worse thgan another. That is an illusion. Good question. Nudity is nudity. The type that is not medical is much more creative. Furry art is creative. They show life as it is. Furry art is expressive. Accepting it calms your soul. That is Gods spirit in your soul.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

72.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 2:48pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Objection!

    Now I see. There should be no restrictions for nudity. We are not restricted from being born nude. I am sure the devil would like to have a man made things on us when we are born. That would pacify the devil.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

73.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 2:54pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    Children are the ones who don't have a problem with a nude form. People that are adults have the unstable mind. To protect the kid from all nudity would be fatal. The air itself is nude. What God made is naked. People kill nude life freaking out about nude people. That tells God that what he made is bad. The devil wants to do that.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

74.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 2:58pm

    
    

    Re:

    incredibility insightful. Hateful trolls are a blight on the web denying people to have freedom. We must not let hate win.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

75.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 3:07pm

    
    

    Re:

    Videos that harm no one having beautiful positive music have been shoot down by Youtube like a clay pigeon. The love of many will wax cold. That is a very good example of having a cold heart. That needs to stop.Many furry nude,and sexual videos banned That includes zoosexual videos too. Youtube doing that says violence is better war is better. Youtube is saying that hateful people are right even though they ban them from Youtube.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

76.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 3:14pm

    
    

    Re: Re: YouTube is a censor

    it is what YouTube is teaching people. Youtube is teaching people that a warring mentality is better than a non warring mentality. Furry or zoosexual videos of all kinds are not of a warring mentality. They are innocent in whatever they do.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

77.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 3:24pm

    
    

    Re: nudity on youtube

    The people that have the bible in their blood soaked hands have the truth hiding it. The King James Version has what God wanted in 9 places in KJV saying the heart figuratively is to be circumcised not the sexual organs at all. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Romans 3 >> 30, circumcision is a blood sacrifice. nothing more nothing less.
    Youtube is acting like the lying religious people that were against Jesus, and Lazarus.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

78.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 12:41pm

    
    

    Nudity is nudity. Make one part bad make the whole body bad. Don't make the whole body bad at all. Nature is graphic in your face. You love it. A hummingbird hovering in front of you face captivates you, and yet that hummingbird is totally naked with no man made covering. Why make furry nude art bad? All things are nude. Protect people from all nudity would be fatal. Please relax about all forms of nudity. Persecution of the nude form needs to come to an end. To not want nudity would be youtube sending the message that clothing is the only acceptable thing to be seen on youtube. Youtube is teaching the world that people or representations of people are bad. How can people war calling the body good? Youtube is for war when they should be for peace. Like I said; make one part bad make the whole body bad. The peoople at youtube not changing their policy are calling their bodies bad too.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

79.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    
    

    18+ is arbitrary. To even have an age limit means a baby to give suck would be illegal. A young human under 18 is seeing a tit. Not only seeing a tit, sucking on it too. According to law the way it is with the age limit would mean by law a policeman would have to arrest a mother for feeding her infant. ans laws are indeed foolish,and oppressive. That baby is definitely under 18 years of age.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

80.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Feb 4th, 2013 @ 1:00pm

    
    

    18+ is arbitrary. To even have an age limit means a baby to give suck would be illegal. A young human under 18 is seeing a tit. Not only seeing a tit, sucking on it too. According to law the way it is with the age limit would mean by law a policeman would have to arrest a mother for feeding her infant. mans laws are indeed foolish, and oppressive. That baby is definitely under 18 years of age.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

81.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 8:19am

    
    

    Furry nude, and sexual art.

    people need to accept the nude form like the furries accept it. To not accept it would be the same as rejecting Adam and Eve in their innocents has Jesus raise them up from the dead in our day. People would unmercifully attack them. Stop attacking Adam and eves innocents. Bring back Marvel VS capom video with the nude females, and music. Stop warring against the zoosexual too.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

82.  

    

    Artiewhitefox, Apr 5th, 2013 @ 8:26am

    
    

    Furry nude, and sexual art.

    People need to accept the nude form like the furries accept it. To not accept it would be the same as rejecting Adam and Eve in their innocence had Jesus raise them up from the dead in our day. People would unmercifully attack them. Stop attacking Adam and Eve's innocence. Bring back Marvel VS capom video with the nude females, and music. Stop warring against the zoosexual too.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

83.  

    

    Artiewhitfox, Apr 21st, 2013 @ 1:35pm

    
    

    Re:

    The art is what it is to the eye of the beholder. Be tolerant even as the peacful furry is. You know what KJV bible says. If your eye offends you pluck it out. It is better to not have it offend you. If what is seen offends you what will heavenly things do to you? Can't take what is seen how can you endue what is not yet seen

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

84.  

    

    Artiewhitfox, Apr 21st, 2013 @ 10:59pm

    
    

    Re: nudity on youtube

    An anti God anti Christ religious mentality that favors the blood sacrafic of circumcision deleted your video and every single zoosexual video and every single furry video too. Satan in he souls of religious people crafted the X rated myth. If that was true nature and all things in the universe would have to be called X rated because they are all NAKED! Religious people are demonic liars having truth not wanting people to know the truth wishing secretly that all life had their sexual organs ripped out.
    9 places in KJV says the heart figuratively is to be circumcised not the penis tip at all. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Romans 3, 30, Islamic religious parallels the deceptions of the west. Truth has been hidden in a shroud of darkness.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

85.  

    

    Artiewhitfox, Apr 21st, 2013 @ 11:04pm

    
    

    Re: Re: nudity on youtube

    An anti God anti Christ religious mentality that favors the blood sacrafic of circumcision deleted your video and every single zoosexual video and every single furry video too. Satan in the souls of religious people crafted the X rated myth. If that was true nature and all things in the universe would have to be called X rated because they are all NAKED! Religious people are demonic liars having truth not wanting people to know the truth wishing secretly that all life had their sexual organs ripped out.
    9 places in KJV says the heart figuratively is to be circumcised not the penis tip at all. Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26; Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Romans 3, 30, Islamic religious parallels the deceptions of the west. Truth has been hidden in a shroud of darkness.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

86.  

    

    Artiewhitfox, Apr 21st, 2013 @ 11:13pm

    
    

    Why are people even trying to make what God made bad? Satan in he souls of religious people crafted the X rated myth. If that was true nature and all things in the universe would have to be called X rated because they are all NAKED! Religious people are demonic liars having truth not wanting people to know the truth wishing secretly that all life had their sexual organs ripped out. No longer delete any of the furry videos bringing back all of the cruelly deleted ones. You know which ones,and the zoosexual ones too.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

87.  

    

    Artiewhitfox, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 8:43pm

    
    

    Nature itself nude with myriads of different kinds of sex going on in it. People accept that. Why reject what has been rejected?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

88.  

    

    Artiewhitfox, Apr 23rd, 2013 @ 8:44pm

    
    

    Nature itself is nude with myriads of different kinds of sex going on in it. People accept that. Why reject what has been rejected?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment