The Guns Of MGTOW v YouTube & Google

By Elizabeth Hobson: Bob Lewis is a paralegal with expertise in family law and associated criminal laws, as well as civil rights law. Lewis first came to my attention with the release of his 2017 book The Feminist Lie – It Was Never About Equality. The book is essential reading, a concise and palatable read suitable for everyman that is packed full of quotations from papers and case studies that beg to be investigated further. In it, Lewis discusses feminist revisionist history, the myths of patriarchy and male privilege and truths about female privilege, how feminism harms women, he debunks the wage gap lie and outlines feminist tactics (skilfully) but Chapters 5 and 6 – The Fake Rape Epidemic and Debunking the DV Lies – are master-strokes that draw on the authors own experience and the academic and legal literature to demolish the prevailing narratives around these issues.
Bob Lewis also creates content under the moniker DDJ, with a website and podcast called Misandry Today that predominantly produces MGTOW content as well as featuring interviews with voices such as my own and Terrence Popp.
He was a sponsor of The International Conference on Men’s Issues 2019. In the About the Author section of The Feminist Lie, he writes that “Bob Lewis may or may not be author’s real name.” – the identity of DDJ’s real-life alter ego is no longer in question, because – on the 22nd August, Bob Lewis filed a lawsuit against Google and YouTube.
Informed by his legal prowess, Lewis believes that he has identified a new approach to pursuing legal action against the tyrannical tech giants that just might work to call them to order and force them to abide by the U.S.A.’s First Amendment. He is alleging that they have discriminated against him by demonetising and censoring his channel based on his “Christian religious affiliation, national origin as a patriotic American citizen who supports American tradition and culture, and for lawfully exercising his Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights”.
In the lawsuit, Lewis draws on 42 U.S.C. 1983, a piece of civil rights legislation (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act) which prohibits “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” and has also been utilised in the Prager University v Google and Laura Loomer v Google, Twitter, Facebook ad Apple free speech cases. Lewis however bolsters this charge by making detailed and convincing claims that Google and YouTube are government actors – for the Chinese state, the European Union and other foreign states and have colluded with those governments to enforce their ‘hate speech laws’ and that they actively oppose legal free speech in the U.S.
Lewis is claiming that Google and YouTube commit fraud by lying about their terms of service by stating on their About page:
“Our Mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories.
Our values are based on four essential freedoms that define who we are.”
Freedom of Expression: We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats, and possibilities.

Freedom of Information: We believe everyone should have easy, open access to information and that video is a powerful force for education, building understanding, and documenting world events, big and small.
Freedom of Opportunity: We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people – not gatekeepers – decide what’s popular.
Freedom to Belong: We believe everyone should be able to find communities of support, break down barriers, transcend borders and come together around shared interests.”
Statements that YouTube demonstrably fail to live up to.
And he claims that their contracts are unconscionable and should be ruled unenforceable. With such a huge reach (boasting 73% of Americans as users), they have an unfair bargaining advantage – and use it to tie users into non-negotiable contracts that can be updated at will and without notice.
He is also challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which, despite its billing as “The 26 Words that Created the Internet” by liberating social media platforms for responsibility for what their users post, Lewis claims is unconstitutional because it actually also happens to make them unaccountable for violating their user’s free speech rights.
Lewis has conducted much of the work on this lawsuit (including sixty plus exhibits – available at the bottom of the page here) personally but is also employing an attorney, to support the cause visit his GoFundMe page. God speed, Bob.

Source