Law in the Court of Public Opinion: Mumkey Jones V YouTube
Many years ago, I participated in Harvard's Second Life experiment called "Law in the Court of Public Opinion." It was a fascinating class because it spoke to how our collective opinion of guilt and innocence is framed not by law but by the perceptions of those deciding the fate of others.
In speaking to my 17 year old son, Moustache Man (spelled wrong for impact), we often discuss when we think something is being treated fairly or by the "court of public opinion." Mumkey Jones, a YouTuber, has been ill treated by this circus court, and his channels, Mumkey Jones I and II, were taken down from YouTube for 6 infractions.
Now, I had watched some of the videos when they were up on the channel before the channels were taken down. I can't say I understood most of what he was talking about, but I am also not a teenager or young adult in the target audience. I never get the humor from PewDiePie's channel, either. Of all the modern YouTubers that my two teenage sons watch, I would say that the only one I actually like is the Nostalgia Critic because I have a clue about whatever he's talking about. That said, the right of these young people to create careers, make money, and promote their ideas should be a protected form of free speech.
From what I could see from Mumkey Jones, he satirizes a lot of heavy issues that make us uncomfortable. His satirization campaign of Elliot Rodger was the impetus for his channel's takedown by YouTube. I didn't see any of the videos referenced, but if the style was consistent with his other videos, I probably would have just thought it was stupid (Sorry, Jungle Jimmy, I'm an old lady), but I wouldn't have found it any more offensive than anything else out there.
The issue here isn't one of whether content is good or bad. The issue becomes one of taste. In none of the videos I watched did Mumkey Jones call anyone to violence, suggest adult sexual content, or champion the activities of mass murderers. These were the violations he was cited for by YouTube, and those are serious offenses. The concern becomes, and, really, has always existed, who gets to decide what qualifies as any of these things? Apparently, some dude or dudess behind a screen at YouTube/Google gets to decide.
Should someone like Mumkey Jones be able to set forth disturbing satire? As an English professor, I wouldn't have wanted Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to be banned back in its heyday or its brilliance never would have reached us. In the Proposal, Swift says that we should sell poor fatted babies to the rich for food to end the poverty problem. We are talking cannibalism. It's one of the best examples of satire out there. Other satires include Cervantes "Don Quixote," Heller's "Catch-22," and Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Now perhaps Mumkey Jones can't be considered next to the top writers in the world, but, still, who decided then what was good or bad? If any of those stories would have been banned, as was (is) the right of publishers, we would not have that literature today.
Harvard needs to form a new class called "Law in the Court of Social Media's Opinion" because it seems that they now frame the conversation as to what is hate speech, sexual speech, etc. I think Jungle Jimmy does a pretty good job of explaining his defenses on this video, and I encourage you to watch it. This is a conversation we can't shy away from because it hits right at the heart of freedom.
I wish this young man the very best as he navigates these crazy waters and hope that YouTube sees the error of their ways to restore his channels. It doesn't mean I will watch (unless my kids ask me to watch something), but my watching is irrelevant to his rights to post.
In speaking to my 17 year old son, Moustache Man (spelled wrong for impact), we often discuss when we think something is being treated fairly or by the "court of public opinion." Mumkey Jones, a YouTuber, has been ill treated by this circus court, and his channels, Mumkey Jones I and II, were taken down from YouTube for 6 infractions.
Now, I had watched some of the videos when they were up on the channel before the channels were taken down. I can't say I understood most of what he was talking about, but I am also not a teenager or young adult in the target audience. I never get the humor from PewDiePie's channel, either. Of all the modern YouTubers that my two teenage sons watch, I would say that the only one I actually like is the Nostalgia Critic because I have a clue about whatever he's talking about. That said, the right of these young people to create careers, make money, and promote their ideas should be a protected form of free speech.
From what I could see from Mumkey Jones, he satirizes a lot of heavy issues that make us uncomfortable. His satirization campaign of Elliot Rodger was the impetus for his channel's takedown by YouTube. I didn't see any of the videos referenced, but if the style was consistent with his other videos, I probably would have just thought it was stupid (Sorry, Jungle Jimmy, I'm an old lady), but I wouldn't have found it any more offensive than anything else out there.
The issue here isn't one of whether content is good or bad. The issue becomes one of taste. In none of the videos I watched did Mumkey Jones call anyone to violence, suggest adult sexual content, or champion the activities of mass murderers. These were the violations he was cited for by YouTube, and those are serious offenses. The concern becomes, and, really, has always existed, who gets to decide what qualifies as any of these things? Apparently, some dude or dudess behind a screen at YouTube/Google gets to decide.
Should someone like Mumkey Jones be able to set forth disturbing satire? As an English professor, I wouldn't have wanted Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to be banned back in its heyday or its brilliance never would have reached us. In the Proposal, Swift says that we should sell poor fatted babies to the rich for food to end the poverty problem. We are talking cannibalism. It's one of the best examples of satire out there. Other satires include Cervantes "Don Quixote," Heller's "Catch-22," and Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Now perhaps Mumkey Jones can't be considered next to the top writers in the world, but, still, who decided then what was good or bad? If any of those stories would have been banned, as was (is) the right of publishers, we would not have that literature today.
Harvard needs to form a new class called "Law in the Court of Social Media's Opinion" because it seems that they now frame the conversation as to what is hate speech, sexual speech, etc. I think Jungle Jimmy does a pretty good job of explaining his defenses on this video, and I encourage you to watch it. This is a conversation we can't shy away from because it hits right at the heart of freedom.
I wish this young man the very best as he navigates these crazy waters and hope that YouTube sees the error of their ways to restore his channels. It doesn't mean I will watch (unless my kids ask me to watch something), but my watching is irrelevant to his rights to post.
Comments
Post a Comment