[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.