It doesn't have to be a valid DMCA notice to temporarily take down a video.
YouTube's process is pretty much automated and if a video receives a DMCA notice, the video is blocked until the uploader challenges the claim (up to three claims at a time). From there it would be up to Thomas to file a civil suit against Rojas.
Challenging a DMCA claim on YouTube can take a number of weeks to process. This leaves the video offline for a long period of time.
And so the witch hunt begins. Will you protest your own execution when someone points the finger at you?
Your viewpoint bothers me because it goes against the U.S. Constitution when it comes to Due Process. It goes against the Geneva Conventions when it comes to processing POWs. It goes against the International Human Rights Campaign when it comes to treating suspects in criminal activities.
And more importantly, it goes against the basic, simple human morality of giving someone the benefit of the doubt before you decide to end their life.
Labeling things in this manner is deliberately reducing a complex issue that needs to be handled carefully to a rhetorical level. Worse, it does so in support of a power structure, which makes it very likely to be usurped and abused in furthering that power structure.
Sadly it's the reality of the situation at hand in the United States. Do I agree with it? Not at all. I am sad to say it's commentary from people who believe it combined with the policies put in place by the politicians they vote for which reflect this sentiment.
Go to any politically charged discussion and see who affiliates with which group and read what they write. There's a clear distinction in what people believe and with whom they associate. Tolerance and acceptance of differences has generally been considered a "Left Side" issue while regimented conformity and a strong reluctance towards change falls to its polar opposite.
It's just a part of natural human existence. There's a whole host of published research on the subject of varied personality traits, brain structure, and political views.
For a quick read there's this article: Political Views Are Reflected in Brain Structure. But if you want a more in-depth review of the study there's a 2011 issue of Current Biology that published the results from the Ryota Kanai's group at University College, London.
There are a few other studies that predate this one that a quick search will probably bring up if you're interested.
Counter-arguments to consider, with source citations:
Except for the pagan harvest festivals that happened all over Europe before the First Century BCE. The most well known being Samhain of the Gaelic Celts who's traditions make up some the modern Halloween celebrations we know of today.
Then there's the Roman celebration of Feralia. In late October the Romans traditionally commemorated the passing of the dead. Plus the Halloween tradition of "Bobbing for Apples" may have come from the Roman celebration of Pomona.
Also your Lutheran Church website is a dubious source for historic information. Especially since All Saints Day was established by Pope Gregory III in the 8th Century between 731–741. This is several centuries after the date given by your source.
Life is full of bumps and bruises. Attempting to band-aid over them as opposed to focusing on root cause just doesn't work. Have you ever had to deal with someone who treated every little thing that didn't go they're way as a prejudice against them?
Some people are asshats that can't take responsibility for themselves. Others really are just tired of the passive-aggressive crap they have to deal with day-in and day-out.
On a sociological level, we humans are pretty limited to how we view others that are outside of our monkeysphere. In order to address the root cause, we'll have to go beyond tens of thousands of years of biologically ingrained tribalism that's helped our species to survive. This means teaching tolerance and acceptance of those who are different than us. To use the Left/Right political spectrum, this is generally considered a 'Leftist' or 'Progressive' viewpoint.
If someone claims offense even where most wouldn't, it is somehow the fault of the offender, despite them not intending any offense.
"I didn't mean to!" is generally a common excuse of a child that hasn't been taught how to act or behave properly. That phrase graduates to "I was only joking!" as a person grows older and gets chided for something. The solution is for that person to stop doing whatever it was they did.
One of the examples I'm thinking of here was someone claiming that I was prejudiced against those of German descent. I find this interesting, given that the largest portion of my ancestry is German.
To me this reads like, "I'm not prejudiced because I have ______ friends."
The other was a slacker who eventually violently assaulted someone else where we were working in a manner that could have been lethal. I'm not sure whether there was a legitimate case of racism or not (there probably was), but the guy was also legitimately a slacker with anger issues who evaded these issues by claiming racism against anyone who called him on it.
In this case neither one of us has the full details on the anecdote. Me even less so. Without context I'm afraid I can't really make a judgement here.
I didn't know progressives had made up a new word to tar otherwise regular people as racist.
Apparently everyone who isn't racist is still guilty of racism because.. because.. Microagressions!!
Hi there! Welcome to techdirt! Here you'll find a higher quality grade of conversation than your native lands. Now don't tell me! Let me guess by your accent where you're from...
Fox News? The Blaze perhaps?
Here's a person you might not know about: Chester Middlebrook Pierce. Now why is that important? Well because he's Emeritus Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
Fun Fact: He coined the term 'microaggression' in 1970.
Microaggressive acts are subtle, usually culturally ingrained and subtle things people do to each other since we're all generally judgmental bastards who want to feel superior to everyone else. To see a good example of microaggression in action, one only has to point their browser to peopleofwalmart.com.
Or for another example, this very post! You see, there's a stereotype regarding people who post at or regularly agree with the comments sections at Fox News and The Blaze. Using the content and context of your post and denoting a stereotype is a form of microaggression on my part. In fact, so is your use of "Progressives" as a pejorative!
I can tell that your Irony Meter is broken if you can't see the irony in Sen. Cruz using the story in an attempt to stall, block, and repeal ACA. That or you're one of those annoyingly stubborn and misinformed Dead Dog Republicans.
The programs that have been enacted so far have greatly benefitted me. For instance, insurance companies can no longer charge me a higher premium because I'm not a man. Also since I have the breast cancer gene (most women in my family do) I cannot be denied coverage due to a "Pre-existing condition." Even though I do not have breast cancer and may not get it until much later in life (if I even do). There's more that works in my favor so I don't really see any issues with ACA as it is now.
But then members and leadership of the Republican party have been attacking women's health for the better part of a decade now so I'm not surprised at this turn either.