[LeonM]

> This guy crashed a plane for profit.

So did the Discovery channel. The only difference is that they had asked the FAA permission to do so.

This guy crashed a plane for profit without permission. This may have just been stupidity, not understanding the consequences. Loads of people also crash other vehicles for fun and profit, so why should YT distinguish between someone crashing a car vs a plane. Where should YT draw the line? They don't make the laws.

[manicdee]

The discovery channel didn’t try to pretend it was an engine fire. They set out to plan a plane crash with the full involvement of relevant authorities.

[9935c101ab17a66]

Yes, but now the FAA has stated what we all knew already — it was dangerous stunt undertaken entirely for self-promotion. YouTube don’t have to be experts?

[s1artibartfast]

There is nothing wrong with dangerous stunts entirely for self promotion. He just should have done it over private land with permission

[unfocussed_mike]

> The only difference

If you're pinning your argument on this, then fine. But it is a huge difference.

Honestly this whole idea that Youtube should willingly be a party to this sort of thing is a libertarian take too far for me, but then I'm British.

[himinlomax]

It may be a huge difference, but the problem with asking Youtube to take that kind of decision without a court order is that you're expecting them to have expertise in aviation law. What next? Should they remove house flipping videos because of realtor regulations in various jurisdictions? Remove DIY videos because some jurisdictions require electrical repairs to be performed by certified technicians? The list is endless, and the precedent is so very bad.

[unfocussed_mike]

> It may be a huge difference, but the problem with asking Youtube to take that kind of decision without a court order is that you're expecting them to have expertise in aviation law.

This is a bit of a silly way to look at it, I'm sorry to say.

What if they just remove the video on the balance of probability that it involved, in the FAA's judgement, a deliberate dangerous plane crash without permission?

This is not a challenging precedent. House-flipping is not smashing a plane into the ground without planning and without regard for safety, is it?

[s1artibartfast]

Honest question, is it illegal to crash a plane? Or just secondary crimes, false flight plan, littering, reckless endangerment

[himinlomax]

What about infringement on the regulation on the handling of unsafe chemicals?

Regulations on performing archælogical excavations?

Food safety violations?

Alcohol production?

Blasphemy laws in any country Youtube might be accessed from?

Animal cruelty laws? (Are hamster wheels cruel?)

Religious laws on the consumption of cattle / pork?

Privacy laws in Germany? (Dashcams are heavily regulated there)

Is it legal to show a Nazi swastika everywhere? A non Nazi swastika? A communist symbol? What about an imperial Japanese ensign?

Is it legal to say the Armenian suffered a genocide, or to claim they didn't?

Is it legal to cast doubt on any one finding of the Nuremberg trials?

What about mentioning a crime committed by a living person more than 20 years go? (Hint: it may not be legal in some European countries. Which ones? You tell me.)

[unfocussed_mike]

Oh god. Look. I'm sorry. You're right, obviously. And I am wrong and of feeble mind.

But please, make the libertarian Gish galloping stop.

[_s]

Just to add - getting permission alone is a few man-years worth of paperwork for planning, executing and cleanup.