YouTube partner accuses gay dads of raping their 12 y.o. son who wrote Justice Roberts re Prop 8

In an apparent breach of its own “community guidelines,” which forbid videos “attacking” and “demeaning” a group based on their sexual orientation, YouTube has refused to pull down a video of one of its partners attacking a 12 y.o. boy who recently wrote to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts about the recent Prop 8 hearing, and labeling his gay dads, and all gay people, as pedophiles, child molesters and child rapists.

In one particularly long screed, James David Manning, the author of the attack video, says the following about 12-year-old Daniel’s gay father Jay, who appears in the video alongside his son:

The Manning Report video shows a clip of 12 year old Daniel with his father's arm around him, while the host, James David Manning, says "they're going after young children, which I consider sexual molestation."

The Manning Report video shows a clip of 12 year old Daniel with his father’s arm around him, while the host, James David Manning, says “they’re going after young children, which I consider sexual molestation.”

“At ten years old [sic] a boy doesn’t know what he’s talking about asking a Justice to approve of same-sex marriage. It’s sexual molestation, it ought to be classified as child rape, it ought to be classified as child pornography to have any child under the age of 18 consenting to same-sex couples, it ought to be considered child rape, it ought to be considered molestation, it ought to be considered pornography… What the hell does he know about marriage, what does he know about family?  And why is he being molested? This is sexual molestation at the highest level, it’s child rape, it’s child pornography.”

In fact, the very first time the video shows Daniel’s face, with his father Jay sitting next to him, arm around his son, Manning says:

“They’re going after young children, which I consider sexual molestation.”

YouTube pulled the video, “Age Matters, All the Time,” several days ago – but then, apparently on closer review, deemed the video acceptable and reposted it a day or so ago, even though the video appears to clearly violate YouTube’s community guidelines banning hate speech against gays and lesbians.

The larger question is how a channel this bizarre even got approved as a YouTube advertising partner in the first place, and why top brands like P&G, Pepsi and the NCAA’s Final Four are permitting their ads to run on such a bizarre channel, let alone such a hateful video.

More quotes from the outrageous video below, after the advertisers.

UPDATE: To its credit, after publication of this story YouTube has pulled the video as “hate speech,” which is great.  But why, when YouTube reviewed the same video earlier this week did YouTube rule that it wasn’t hate speech?  And what does YouTube plan to do to make sure that its reviewers don’t approve of such hate speech in the future?  And finally, are there no standards at all for who is permitted to be a YouTube ad partner, and will a purveyor of “hate speech” be permitted to remain a YouTube ad partner?


Top Brands Advertising on Video Attacking 12 y.o. Boy

Just as troubling, top-name advertisers such as Pepsi/Beyoncé, Club Med, Procter & Gamble, Taco BellDoritos, Capital One, Final Four NCAA, Tiger WoodsPGAXbox360, DellChoice Hotels, Wrigley Orbit gum, Amtrak, Mad Men, Grown Ups 2, and Fix the Debt all advertise on the hate-filled gay-bashing video. (The hyperlinks above are to the advertisers’ Twitter accounts – please use them.)

Daniel’s father Jay Leffew (his other dad is named Bryan), who posted a response to Manning on YouTube, told me today that he was disappointed that so many top brands are advertising on a video attacking a twelve year old boy, and labeling gay people as pedophiles:

“I am so saddened that companies that we like and respect are being used to push this hateful man’s agenda.”

Here are a few screen shots of a few of the ads running on the video attacking a 12 year old boy, and labeling all gays as pedophiles and rapists:

Capital One – Final Four

Capital One on Twitter: @AskCapitalOne
Final Four Atlanta: @FinalFour

Captail One - Final Four ad running on anti-gay hate video.

Captail One – Final Four ad running on anti-gay hate video.

Pepsi – Beyoncé

Pepsi on Twitter: @Pepsi
Beyoncé on Twitter: @Beyonce

Pepsi's ad with Beyoncé on anti-gay hate video.

Pepsi’s ad with Beyoncé on anti-gay hate video.

Club Med

Club Med on Twitter: @ClubMedOfficial


Club Med ad, targeting children’s vacations, on the anti-gay hate video that targets a 12 year old boy.

Taco Bell – Doritos

Taco Bell on Twitter: @TacoBell
Doritos on Twitter: @Doritos

Taco Bell - Doritos ad running on anti-gay hate video accusing gays of raping children.

Taco Bell – Doritos ad running on anti-gay hate video accusing gays of raping children.

Tiger Woods, PGA, Xbox 360

Tiger Woods: @TigerWoods
Xbox: @Xbox



Dell: @Dell


Gays want to “Legalize molestation,” “Legalize rape,” The perverts are after you”

While showing photos of gay parents with children, pictures from gay Pride parades, and repeatedly, and oddly, a photo of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky, Manning says about gays and lesbians:

“This crowd who wants to legalize molestation, who wants to legalize rape, who wants to legalize debauchery…”

He tells children:

 “The perverts are after you.”

Clear Violation of YouTube’s Community Guidelines

YouTube’s community guidelines clearly ban “hate speech” that “attacks or demeans a group based on… sexual orientation.”

We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. But we don’t permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

YouTube’s community guidelines also outlaw any video that is “sexually suggestive” of children:

Videos containing children should never be sexually suggestive or violent…

How is showing a photo of a 12 year old boy, listing his full name, and then repeatedly talking about his rape and molestation by perverts not “sexually suggestive”?

YouTube’s community guidelines also ban “harassment.”

Daniel’s father Jay clearly feels that his 12 year old son is being harassed for having gay parents.  Jay told me today that he is outraged that YouTube and Google have deemed this attack on his son, and on all gay people, acceptable content that meets their community guidelines:

“I am devastated. I have always been a big fan of YouTube and Google, and thought they wouldn’t stand for this kind of hate, especially since it’s aimed at my 12 year old son.”

Jerry Sandusky? Does It Get Any Clearer Than This?

And lest Manning try to claim that he was only using the terms “child rape,” “pedophile,” and “sexual molestation” metaphorically, then why did he keep flashing a photo of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky on the screen during the video?

Picture of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky shown repeatedly in the Manning video attacking the boy, his fathers, and gay people generally.

Picture of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky shown repeatedly in the Manning video attacking the boy, his fathers, and gay people generally.

Please contact the companies advertising on the hateful video via their Twitter accounts:

Pepsi/BeyoncéClub MedProcter & GambleTaco BellDoritosCapital OneFinal Four NCAATiger Woods – PGA – Xbox360DellChoice HotelsWrigley Orbit gum, AmtrakMad MenGrown Ups 2, and Fix the Debt.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the former editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown (1989); and worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, and as a stringer for the Economist. Frequent TV pundit: O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline & Reliable Sources. Bio, .

Share This Post

  • Craig

    If you ask me the LGBT lashback to these sorts of attacks is always just as petty and disgusting. You really think Beyonce has time to monitor every video on youtube that plays her ads? Obviously not, so is it fair to attack her and the various businesses who also can’t contribute all their profits to internet policing? THIS sort of thing is why I will continue to see LGBT activism as the nuisance and public disturbance it is. Take your pride down a notch and EARN some respect by being the bigger person instead of crying every time someone calls you some childish name. Stop being so obnoxiously affectionate in public just to make a statement that you can! It’s disgusting when straight people do it too, so why stoop to that level just to be equal with scum??

  • Mike

    This is the famous Pastor Manning. He is a black pastor who posts the most bizarre and overtly racist, anti-black videos. He has videos where he calls black people lazy criminals. He has numerous videos viciously attacking Obama and Obama’s family, including his deceased mother. The guy has a video track record going back years. It is amazing that he is a YT partner.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    the youtube comments section is one of the most immature and vile “communities” this side of

  • SkippyFlipjack

    By the way, Jay and Bryan’s video in response is terrific. Love it.

  • Butch1

    Unless he has some proof to go along with his allegations he is getting very close to needing a lawyer.

  • MH

    I’m not surprised that YouTube initially allowed the video. If you’ve ever checked out the comment sections of YouTube, they are rampant with comment that degrade homosexuals. And the comments don’t get removed, and the users don’t get penalized.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    There are people here saying that the parents should sue for defamation. In my view, in order for these to be defamatory statements the guy would have to be saying that the parents literally molested their kid. Manning in his words actually appears to be making the case that a minor approving of his parents’ gay relationship “ought to be considered child rape”, which is quite different from accusing them of actual molestation. It’s ridiculous and offensive and hyperbolic but libel? To make the case that he’s literally accusing them of molestation you’d have to accept his logic that the kid’s understanding and acceptance is a form of molestation, which nobody does.

    Now I think I’ve made that argument in all the ways I can, so I’ll leave it there. The calls for “sue! sue! sue!” just rubbed me the wrong way.

  • John Aravosis

    But you are correct generally about ads, I know very little about which ads go on this site, to be honest – it’s technically way over my head, and many, if not most, of the ads come via huge ad networks. It’s not as if we pick each ad. But as I said, my greater interest is for them to tell YouTube, “yo, what are you doing okaying a partner like that for ads”? That is fair to ask the advertisers to tell YouTube.

  • John Aravosis

    I don’t think anyone was saying that — all the comments are on our side, I think.

  • Sweetie


  • SkippyFlipjack

    I worked for a video ad startup for a while and they mostly went after big brand content — network news mobile video, for example — because that was a much easier sell to the big advertisers (where the money is) who had no interest in advertising on user-created content where they had no control over what showed after their ad. Youtube has gotten the big advertisers to advertise on their network, so I’ve always figured they’ve given them more control over ad content than smaller advertisers get, like filters to run campaigns only on ads that get over a certain number of views or don’t generate complaints or get “favorited’ by people meeting a certain demographic or whatever. Perhaps they have a ‘sensitivity score’ and advertisers can choose to only advertise on the most vanilla of content. I’d say with some certainty though that if a video got a million views but Ford didn’t want their ad to be associated with it, YouTube would make it so they weren’t associated with it rather than yanking the video.

    As far as the “partner program” I don’t know anything about that but you’re probably right, it’s probably a program designed to let advertisers “trust” content from specific producers.

  • Robert Martin

    Actually, from what I can see so far having done some research, I can’t see anything where an advertiser can “opt out” of advertising on specific video’s. From what I have been able to find out so far these ad’s are run on Youtube partner’s channels as part of a package deal that Youtube negotiates with the advertisers. The only way, so far, that I can see of stopping and advertisers ad showing up with a potentially controversial video posted by a Youtube partner is to have Youtube revoke that partner’s partnership priviledges. Still researching though so I may be wrong.

  • Robert Martin

    How would one do this in such a way as to target just this “gentleman’s” (and I use THAT term VERY loosely) specific Youtube account?

  • Robert Martin

    Welll… Don’t you think advertisers should be running from this kind of stuff then? I am fairly sure that the advertisers themselves don’t see what their ad’s are attached to. Doesn’t it behoove Youtube, if they are going to create and run this partnership program to ensure that, as stated in their own criteria, that what is being uploaded is “original, quality content that is advertiser-friendly.”? We can bring it to the advertisers attention as much as we want but they sell these blocks of ad’s to Youtube to attach at the beginning of video’s of their Youtube partners. It is REALLY should be up to Youtube to monitor the content of it’s partners. In other words, in my opinion, if you want to be a partner with Youtube then you should be willing to subject yourself to extra monitoring to ensure your content remains within the criteria established by Youtube for said content. You fail at that you lose the partnership and go back to being just another Youtuber. You can still have your account you just don’t get all the perks of the partnership with Youtube.

  • Houndentenor

    No actual person decided which videos would have which ads. It was either placed randomly or more likely based on tags and keywords in the description and/or comments. It’s also possible (or rather likely) that different viewers see different ads based on their own viewing history. This is why liberal blogs will often have ads for right-wing books and publications. Not because someone thought that would be a good ad placement, but because the authors had been mentioned on the site.

  • BloggerDave

    manning didn’t mention frozen yogurt, you did…

  • Rick Williams

    youtube should never have even posted that disgusting rhetoric. the author of this hate filled propoganda should get a grip on reality. Child molestation is done ALMOST exclusively by men who identify as hetrosexual. Seems like the studies show it’s 96% a heterosexual male who molests children and the gender of the child is generally unimportant to the man doing the molesting. The author of that hate filled tirade against “gay dads” should try to learn something before opening up that BIG hate filled mouth.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Sorry, I think you’re misunderstanding me — when I say “consent” I mean the kid’s consent of someone else’s actions, not his own — I mean the kid’s accepting and understanding of his parents’ gay marriage. That’s what Manning thinks is so wrong, that the parents are teaching the kid that being gay is OK.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    You’re saying that teaching your kids that gay marriage is OK is a form of child rape; I happen to disagree with you, that’s all.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    I was an assistant manager at the Doodle, thank you very much. My “absolutist” statements are pretty narrow; I’m not saying that the parents couldn’t win a lawsuit, only that Manning has an obvious defense that people don’t seem to want to acknowledge. The only thing absolute about the law, though, is that it’s all gray area. You’re right though, saying the parents should sue based on a short excerpt is silly.

  • MountainMama

    These people are so hypocritical. Why is it acceptable for one child to protest in front of a church against marriage equality, but not OK for another to send a letter to the Supreme Court Chief Justice in favor of it?

  • mountainMama

    I’m pretty sure that libel/slander is not just about someone saying something untrue about another. The reputation of the victim of libel/slander must have suffered withing that victim’s community. The victim’s community here is the collective group of people who follow their FB page. We all know that the video was a speech full of hateful crap and not truth. I for one do not believe that these men, in allowing their son to have a voice and teach him about the political process have abused him in any way. Therefore the reputation of these fathers has not suffered. Hate crime yes, libel no.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    The false equivalence is on Manning’s part.

  • ronbo

    Skippy, Is your legal opinion based upon your years pulling fries at the Burger Doodle? You might leave the absolutist statements to the professionals. Basing your legal opinion on a short excerpt seems … well … like you should keep your day job.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    No, my opinion is that not accusing people of raping their own son is not slander.

  • clarknt67

    Where he tells the world these two adoptive fathers raped their son.

  • clarknt67

    Nope. Just your completely ridiculous opinion that accusing people of raping their own son is not slander.

  • clarknt67

    He is accusing the men of raping their child. What is the matter with you?

  • clarknt67

    WTF? No. 1. 12 year olds can’t consent to a sexual relationship. 2. You’ve just accepted the slanderers premise the 12 year old HAS HAD a sexual relations as though it’s true. Of course the video poster, and we have no way of knowing but certainly have no reason to believe the child has been raped or molested.

  • BeccaM

    So am I. Nor do I talk about it much. It doesn’t change how I feel about the death penalty, and the damage it does to us as a society.

  • Kristen Osgood-Rdesinski

    I respect your p.o.v., however I think that it would be a waste of money to house such offenders in a mental health facility. Then again, I am a survivor, and that is not something that I usually speak about.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Did you read the guy’s words, or just the headline of John’s post? He was engaging in a hyperbolic attack, not literally saying the parents raped their kid. All he’s accusing them of is letting their kid support gay marriage and letting him tell Justice Roberts so — and he’s right. He said that letting the kid support gay marriage “ought to be considered child rape,” which is ridiculous and offensive, but makes clear his accusation. His video is nasty and mean, but that doesn’t mean it’s libelous. (Again, I have to base this solely on the short excerpt above of the 14 min video.)

  • Kristen Osgood-Rdesinski

    defamation of character? Especially when an extremely negative message is being aimed at a child who is using his first amendment rights to respectfully express his opinion.

    On a personal note, I find it very disheartening that hateful messages are being spread by people and/or groups who try to use religion to justify their behavior. Have people forgotten the main “rules” in their book? Some of those being “Love thy neighbor”, “Judge not lest ye be judged”…etc?

  • BeccaM

    I’m not a parent, but I do concur that removal from society, since there appears to be no cure, is the only answer.

    I am, however, 100% against the death penalty in all cases. Life in prison or permanent involuntary commitment to a mental health facility is hell enough.

  • Sweetie

    True pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It’s a disordered condition.

  • FLL

    Congrats, John, on getting YouTube to reverse their decision. It sounds like YouTube’s policies are enforced very unevenly, probably depending on individual moderators, which forces the public to be ever on the lookout.

  • clarknt67

    Well, if publicly accusing someone of rape and child molestation without a shred of evidence to substantiate such a claim isn’t slanderous, I can’t imagine what legally would qualify as slander. That’s a serious question. What can you say about someone that is more slanderous than they rape children?

  • Ninong

    Incredible that Google employs people as dumb as the idiot who thought a hate-filled homophobic rant attacking a 12-yr-old boy was somehow not hate speech the first time it was reviewed. That employee needs retraining STAT.

  • The Gay Report

    One point about the ads is that the advertisers are not aware and have almost no control which videos get the ads. one thing that CAN be done is to complain to google ads and you might be able to get this guy’s adsense account disabled. Google ads has a specific prohibition against hate speech, and also youtube will mark this violation on Manning’s account and they can drop him out of the adsense program (but only for youtube not the entire adsense program).

  • Papa Bear

    While I do not doubt the truth of your statement, the studies that originally showed such a connection have been brought into doubt. What we need, besides scientific studies, is a greater understanding of how people can do this sort of stuff to other people, and how we can get them to stop.

    BTW: Like most parents, sometimes I feel that if the only way to get them to stop is to “remove” them from society (or even the human race), I don’t have a problem with that…

  • Liam

    Because the living staff behind YouTube engages in homophobic activity whenever it can do so.

  • BloggerDave

    And I just explained to you that he is… And the frozen yogurt analogy is a false equivalence…

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Just the detailed, reasoned counterargument I’ve come to expect from you.. :)

  • SkippyFlipjack

    I’m “introducing a sexual angle”? No, I’m explaining that he’s not actually libeling anyone, he’s just being an asshole. It’s weird, you want to let that idiot redefine things — it’s like if I said “Frozen yogurt is awful, anyone who eats it is guilty of a crime against humanity” and instead of ignoring me you said “How dare that guy accuse me of a crime against humanity?!?” It’s ridiculous but it doesn’t seem like libel.

  • BloggerDave

    By definition, a 12 year old cannot consent to any sexual relationship so that assh*le is in fact saying that his parents raped him. You and manning are the ones introducing a sexual angle as the boy just views his parents as a loving couple just like a similarly situated boy from a straight couple would view his opposite sex parents as a loving couple..

  • karmanot

    What BS!

  • BeccaM

    In the vast majority of cases, the child molester was molested themselves. Which is not to say all or even most molested kids turn out that way. Just that it doesn’t usually spring out of nowhere.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    most of the opinion pieces posted to YouTube aren’t “original, quality content” that’s “advertiser-friendly” — they’re generally boring, repetitive or obnoxious rants by some idiot in their living room. Advertisers generally run from that kind of stuff.

  • Bj Lincoln

    99.9% of child molseters are heterosexual. Gay does NOT equal Pedophilia

    I am disappointed with Youtube for re-posting the video after looking at it. They are usually good about suce things.

    As for the ads…..They all buy time and placement. They count on Youtube to place them targeting the demographics. They are inserted to a program and puts it up according to key words in the profile of the users page. They did not know. They do now. I’m sure someone got yelled at all around for this OPPS!

  • SkippyFlipjack

    The question is not the definition of “libel”, but what exactly he says that’s libelous. He’s saying that having a 12-year-old consent to a gay relationship is a form of molestation, I guess because it’s introducing them to sexual concepts at a young age, or whatever knots his mind is twisted in. He’s not accusing the parents of literally molesting the child (based on the partial excerpt above, the only transcript I’ve seen).

  • Randy Riddle

    Reading the statement, I think it would fall under an accusation of criminal activity – if not sexual molestation, then, at the very least, child abuse.

  • Stev84

    Pedophilia is usually not related to gender. They are attracted to children precisely because their secondary sex characteristics haven’t developed yet.

  • PeteWa

    that’s not what this data supports:
    A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against
    children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation
    and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two
    groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on
    children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were
    victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed
    offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were
    heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of
    regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males
    . The
    possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be
    mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a
    greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

  • John Aravosis

    I mention the advertisers because YouTube ought to know better than to okay a channel like this for any advertising at all.

  • John Aravosis

    Actually, if you do the research, sexual molestation happens independently of someone’s sexual orientation – it’s not a sexual orientation per se. A gay guy is just as likely to rape his son as a straight guy is likely to rape his daughter. Generally speaking, it’s not something parents are terribly interested in doing, of any sexual orientation.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    What’s the libelous part?

  • Rick Dunn

    Are you seriously that stupid. IDK

  • BeccaM

    The answer to your question is an emphatic NO. Gay does not equal pedophile, and it never has.

  • Jim Olson

    Unfortunately, its the sort of thing that otherwise ordinary, conservative Americans say to one another when they think noone else is listening. This idiot just made the mistake of putting it up on YouTube. They might get marriage equality passed, but they aren’t going to change the bigotry in people’s hearts. I’ve just found it easier to assume that people are going to disapprove of me and my husband and let them prove it otherwise.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    It would be libel, not slander, and no they don’t.

  • Blue52

    Sorry lol allowed.

  • Regan DuCasse

    There is no defense for this. No lawyer would win this. I’d be surprised that for a basic fee, there is no money in it. The anti gay need to learn that they makes themselves a liability to the media, businesses, their employers. Just because people are gay, doesn’t mean everyone will accept or should, the nasty things you say about them as a group. But this was an attack on these fathers in particular.

  • blue52

    I never thought about that…I wonder if gays that are aloud to adopt are at a higher chance of molesting??? I’m just saying even having a stepfather increases the chance of child molestation and gays can’t have their own children so pretty much the same thing idk…

  • BeccaM

    Sounds to me like this is a letter-writing campaign just waiting to get started. There is zero doubt he’s violated both of those criteria on a regular basis.

  • Regan DuCasse

    This IS absolute libel! Not all speech is free. There rightly have to be consequences for saying things that literally can get someone harmed. When a person mouths off like this, they have to be held accountable for their actions. It’s a grown man who knew exactly what he was saying and why. He can’t un ring the bell. And shame on YouTube for not sticking to their own guidelines.

  • Vicky

    I’d be slightly wary of going after the advertisers, simply because I’m not sure they necessarily have control over exactly which videos their ads are shown on. I think Adsense uses complicated algorithms to target their ads to individual viewers, to a certain degree.
    The guy already has up another video ( talking about the previous one being taken down (which re-uses some of the same images, though doesn’t repeat the claims in all their gory detail!), warning his subscribers he might soon be banned from YouTube (in the process of course setting himself up as a bit of a martyr) and pledging to go on with his “fight”.
    I agree his claims about the Leffews were awful (incidentally, that’s Bryan, not Jay, in the photo with Daniel), but he also has up many other videos saying all sorts of other dreadful and/or misguided things (one choice example I found during a brief look around his channel the other day is one claiming Obama – who he likes to refer to as “Mack Daddy” – has herpes – or some other “sexual disease” – on the basis of a supposed unexplained bruise the “Pastor” noticed on his cheek in a photograph one day).

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Sued for what? His screed was vile but I don’t see how it’s libel. He’d defend himself, probably successfully, by saying that he wasn’t accusing anyone of literal child molestation but using it as a device, an analogy. The video’s not available (*) but the words above seem to back that up. It would be great to see this turd in court, though, explaining why he was unloading on a 12-year-old kid with a serious disease. Now *that* seems like indecent behavior towards a child.

    (* Note to John: Next time you cover a controversial youtube video you might want to download it for posterity using or similar site..)

  • SkippyFlipjack

    To be fair, advertisers have to opt out of running on specific videos (I’m presuming YouTube allows them to do that, instead of just opting out of particular types of content) so they’ll always be playing catchup when videos cause an uproar. No advertiser is going to be viewing every single video on which their ads are running.

  • nicho

    They should still be sued. Pulling it down would be a mitigating factor in a libel case, but it is not an absolute defense.

  • nicho

    Sorry, but if YouTube allowed this filth to be broadcast, they are malicious. If I send a letter to the editor to the local paper saying you are a child molester — and they print it — we are both committing libel and could be successfully sued.

  • Robert Martin

    I know, I know…. I am replying to myself… Just found the criteria to become a Youtube partner: Seems Mr Manning, in his content alone, is violating 2 of the 5 criteria right of the bat:

    “You upload original, quality content that is advertiser-friendly.”


    “Your video content complies with our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. (specifically the Community Guidlines here)”

    I am still trying to hunt down (other than reporting the entire channel itself) a way to bring this channel to the attention of Youtube for a thorough review and determination on whether it REALLY should be a Youtube Partner.

  • BeccaM

    As near as I can tell, becoming a Youtube ‘partner’ is a way of creating a branded personal channel on Youtube to which people can subscribe as viewers. Advertisements are shown along with the posted videos and you can actually get stuff from them in the form of rewards and gift cards.

    This James David Manning guy has a partner channel named ‘The Manning Report’ — and just looking at the Google hits, he is one ace lunatic. I mean, he makes the craziest Tea Baggers look reasonable by comparison. He’s a pastor associated with a teeny splinter church in Harlem who posts a video every few days with his commentary on current events.

  • James Stone

    This is revolting to me! I know the Leffews. Daniel and Selena are the most well behaved, loved kids I have ever met and Jay and Bryan are the best Dads. There is nothing “Christian” about this vile man!

  • slappymagoo

    Question, because I really don’t know – what constitutes a “Youtube partner?” Is he a person with an office and a title at youtube and makes decisions regarding content? Or is he a guy who posts videos that get so many hits, Youtube will contact him and say “we’ll give you some money if you let us put ads in front of your video(s?)”

    If it’s the latter, then I’d like to say/write, while the content of the video was inappropriate and should have been taken down and left down the first time, the biggest a-hole in this fracas (aside from Manning himself) is the person or people who let it go back up after the first take down. What was the criterion for letting it go back up? My guess is Manning argued “I was only talking about pedophilia metaphorically” and “you’re squelching my freedom of speech, I thought this was’murka” and pitched such a hissy fit (you know how closeted people get), that for whatever stupid reason the person or people responsible decided that the video passed the corporate smell test after al and let it go back up.

    I’d also argue that the “corporate sponsors” never saw the ad. They give Youtube commercials, and say “we’ll pay you x amount of money for each pair of eyes that see this ad.” A situation like this might make them rethink such carte blanche, where they’ll demand to see videos before deigning their ads precede them, but up to this point it’s probably rarely been a big deal because after all, these videos are supposed to pass youtube’s smell test, and they didn’t live up to their obligations.

    People at the very least should face some reprimand or punishment for being this lax. But Manning was the only person being malicious, everyone else is guilty of doing things half-assed, which isn’t cool but still not malicious.

  • Robert Martin

    A side question here… Is there a way to get the channels partnership with Youtube pulled (i.e. could, just based on the content of the channel, Youtube be made to pull it’s partnership thereby affecting the ability of the channel to use the advertisers that Youtube provides)?

  • kingstonbears

    Perhaps someone will have knowledge of this, but do the advertisers on YouTube pick the videos they are put with or is it just a random rotation? It’s not stopping me from contacting the advertisers and informing their marketing departments that they need to be paying attention to who and what they are being connected with.

  • clarknt67

    I really don’t know how anyone reviews a video accusing a person of rape and molestation and offering ZERO proof or evidence to support the claim and the reviewer doesn’t conclude it’s slanderous and liable.

  • John Aravosis

    UPDATE: To its credit, after publication of this story YouTube has pulled the video as “hate speech,” which is great. But why, when YouTube reviewed the same video earlier this week did YouTube rule that it wasn’t hate speech? And what does YouTube plan to do to make sure that its reviewers don’t approve of such hate speech in the future? And finally, are there no standards at all for who is permitted to be a YouTube ad partner, and will a purveyor of “hate speech” be permitted to remain a YouTube ad partner?

  • Indigo

    Unfortunate. I plan to pay a whole lot more attention to what YouTube puts up in the future now that they allow slander. It matters that they took Iit down and it matters that they claim to reject hate speech but with a tainted record, I don’t have any reason to trust them.
    That being said, my new word about YouTube is, “You can’t really trust them.”

  • Chuck Bryant

    Jerry Sandusky is straight-married, and has been for decades.

  • 2patricius2

    They have apparently removed the video again from Manning’s channel.

  • John Aravosis

    Yep, I posted an update regarding some outstanding questions:

    UPDATE: To its credit, after publication of this story YouTube has pulled the video as “hate speech,” which is great. But why, when YouTube reviewed the same video earlier this week did YouTube rule that it wasn’t hate speech? And what does YouTube plan to do to make sure that its reviewers don’t approve of such hate speech in the future? And finally, are there no standards at all for who is permitted to be a YouTube ad partner, and will a purveyor of “hate speech” be permitted to remain a YouTube ad partner?

  • PeteWa

    such seething hatred and free floating anger with a healthy serving of insanity from James David Manning.
    horned Jesus with a pointed tail and bat wings would be very proud of him.

  • jomicur

    Vile. It’s the kind of thing I’d expect from Westboro Baptist Church. I really, really, REALLY want to see this douchebag get sued for libel.

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    The video has been taken down.

  • bigbob

    Manning is gay himself- I get a strong gaydar ping from him.

  • tamarz

    Who do we contact at YouTube to demand they take this down?

  • nicho

    I hope this idiot had a good lawyer. This is libel — pure and simple. If I were these parents, I’d be readying a $10 million lawsuit right now, against the originator and YouTube.

  • Randy Riddle

    The gay dads have an excellent slander/libel case – they should find a good lawyer.

© 2015 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS