Category: freedom of speech

YouTube: Am I worse than Ousama?!

Blog, freedom of speech

21.09.2026 Brussels Here is my letter to YouTube “support”. Between us: Am I worse than Ousama?.. He is on the platform, collecting millions views, while I am banned…

Dear YouTube team,
You wrote: “We have reviewed the video and determined that it is in violation of our Community Guidelines. Contents intended to praise, promote, or aid violent criminal organizations are not allowed on YouTube. These organizations are not allowed to use YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment.
“Upon review, we have removed the video per our violent extremist or criminal organizations policy as it contains content produced by or glorifying violent criminal or terrorist organizations”. (My video with an annoucement of death in a plane crash of PMC Wagner boss #Prigozhin)

However, contrary to your statement, a great deal of content produced by criminal or terrorist organizations is on display on YouTube, starting with the terrorist number one Osama bin Laden. You have the whole collection of his interviews, and speeches:.

1. Osama Bin Laden was a violent terrorist and founder of al Qaeda who killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children before his death in 2011. He was al-Qa’ida’s founder and only amir, or commander in history. Al-Qaeda is a transnational Sunni Islamist terrorist organization (source CIA).

8.2M views 15 years ago

2. Osama Bin Laden direct speeches:

13M views 4 years ago

3.Osama bin Laden interview:

292K views 10 years ago

4. Osama bin Laden interview:

12M views 14 years ago

5. Yahya Sinwar was a vicious and unrepentant terrorist responsible for the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust (source CIA)

6. Sinwar’s Old Press Conference Mocking Israeli Threat To Kill Him Goes Viral |
Hamas, Gaza, Iran, IDF

753K views 1 year ago

7. Yahya Sinwar: if you wish you can buy Super Thanks (!) for him:

8. Yahya Sinwar Death LIVE News |
Hamas Chief Sinwar’s Last Fiery Speech Before IDF ‘Killing’ | Israel

16K views Streamed 1 year ago

9. Yahya Sinwar speech in Gaza 2021

13M (!)

10. Sinwar did ‘not shy away’ from tough questions: Journalist

370K views

… and the list continues.
CONCLUSION: YouTube as the other major mass media sources regularly quotes official statements …or press releases from organizations designated as terrorist or criminal. For example, reports on the death of a leader resulting from a drone strike or a special operation, or plane crash intended to inform the public. Coverage of events of global significance is protected by principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, such as the First Amendment to the US Constitution or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The quote from PMC Wagner about the death of their leader was done within the existing legal framework.
Consequently, quoting a statement from a criminal—or even terrorist—organization that confirms the death of its leader is lawful if done for informational, journalistic, or academic purposes. Simply reproducing or relaying factual information originating from a group deemed illegal under US jurisdiction does not violate the law.

The second element mentioned in your verdict is the “glorification”. It is a very serious accusation, and as a professional in journalism I need to know the answer to that question:
Please, indicate what words in my video made you come to this conclusion?
Waiting for your answer,
AvD

YouTube vs Me: necrology as advertising ?!

Blog, freedom of speech, Human rights, International, Russia, World

Brussels, September 21, 2026. Dear viewers of my YouTube channel @AnnaVanDensky, today I received a response from Mr. Neal Mohan’s team that took me by surprise. It concerns a video announcing the death of the Wagner PMC leader in a plane crash. That video—posted three years ago, on August 23, 2023 — was taken down THREE YEARS LATER, and the channel was suspended for three months on the following grounds:

“We reviewed the video and concluded that it violates our Community Guidelines.
“YouTube prohibits content that praises, promotes, or facilitates the activities of violent criminal organizations.” Such organizations are prohibited from using YouTube for any purpose, including recruitment.

“We removed the video because it violates our policy regarding violent extremist or criminal organizations: it contains material created by such organizations or glorifying their activities.
“Additional information can be found in the Help Center.”

So, does the announcement of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s death—confirmed by the Wagner PMC—contain material “created by the PMC” or material that “glorifies” it? There is a significant difference. The question is: how can a report on the death of Prigozhin and his military strategist Utkin in a plane crash possibly “glorify” their activities? I won’t get carried away with irony regarding the “appeal” of such an advertisement—the prospect of dying in a plane crash. Instead, I will address the argument that censors are likely to try to level against me.

Under US law, the Wagner PMC is designated as a “Significant Transnational Criminal Organization”; however, the status of a full-fledged terrorist organization on the official US list (FTO) entails specific legal nuances and distinctions.

Consequently, quoting a statement from a criminal—or even terrorist—organization that confirms the death of its leader is lawful if done for informational, journalistic, or academic purposes. Simply reproducing or relaying factual information originating from a group deemed illegal under US jurisdiction does not violate the law.

Major media outlets regularly quote official statements …or press releases from organizations designated as terrorist or criminal. For example, reports on the death of a leader resulting from a drone strike or a special operation, intended to inform the public. Coverage of events of global significance is protected by principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, such as the First Amendment to the US Constitution or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I have currently initiated correspondence with the YouTube team to clarify the exact nature of the claims against me. I am awaiting a response. If I do not receive one in the coming days, I will have to seek legal counsel. Naturally, slander cannot be left unaddressed. Stay tuned!

(Image above: courtesy Elimende Inagella)