Joe Liberman calls youtube a terrorist website

Shockingly, the Foxnews anchor agrees.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rceTo8Zy8ws

By the way, I uploaded some new pictures.

I can haz 1st Amendment plz?

Fox News is like a bottomless well of vacuous, semi-conservative, semi-attractive female anchors.

I used to really like Lieberman.

Somehow, the frothing at the mouth Ann Coutler wanna-bes just don't do it for me. I mean, the girl in this video looks like the kind of chick who would cut your balls off if she was having a bad day.

Nobody watches Fox except crazy people.

I like that it is on youtube.

ZOMG FOX IZ A TERRORIST!!

The CNN report on Lieberman's request (some how it seems fair and balanced but how can that be???)

M-i-c-k-e-y . . . .oh, whoops, wrong song.

Okay so I am watching a cnn video capture of youtube on cnn on youtube?

DIVIDED BY ZERO
OH FUCKING SHI-!

I miss seeing Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers on there.

Indeed, it's true. Then again, I'm kind of weird. I think Laura Ingraham is hot. I'm in no way a partisan when it comes to these things.

She's hot. And from the left, I think Maureen Dowd's hot.

Malkin? Was she that asian lady who looked like she was under mind control?

I got an idea, lets stop sending our troops to Iraq so they can stop posting videos of them being killed on Youtube.

i know that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yes.

You won't see more hot female leg anywhere else on the TV. I guess you have to make up for your deficiencies somehow.

MMmmmmm Kimberly Guilfoyle Mmmmmmm.



No, leave the glasses on, baby. Leave 'em on.

Also, this is totally, 100% nit-picky and I realize this, but Lieberman wasn't telling youtube that they HAD to take them down, he was asking them to take those videos down for what he deems to be a valid reason.

Now, whether that reason is valid in actuality is not really the point and I'm not arguing that it is. The point is that the First Amendment is really not implicated here in any special way just by someone asking someone to censor themselves. It's a commercial site and it's under no obligation to do anything it doesn't want to do, but it doesn't really implicate the First Amendment until there are legal penalties involved.

(Note: I'm sure you know this, I'm just making the point because I know a lot of people get confused and scream "FUrST AM3NDM3t!!!111" at any corporation self-censoring its content for political or market reasons when the First Amendment has nothing to do with it. Specifically, I'm speaking of stuff like the idiots who foam and lather on about freedom of speech for ignorant fools like Don Imus, et al.)

Ugh. Not for me.

I'll take the British gal in the CNN video plz.

Dude, really? I dunno. Maybe it's because I've seen her in person a bunch of times, but...


I likes me some brainy brunette ex-bikini babes.

The shape of her mouth and jaw reminds me of:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

and

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

it's true that this isn't directly a First Amendment issue. however, it's also true that a representative of the gubmint is asking a non-government entity to censor itself, with the threat of terrorism as the motivation. which means that this isn't directly a First Amendment issue... yet. burying it in cries of free speech might be a good way to keep it from ever actually becoming a First Amendment issue.