Google’s YouTube, the Internet video file sharing site, is the medium of choice for rock stars, wannabes, crazy uncles and proud mommies everywhere. But anyone who has ever been to a happy hour on karaoke night at a bar or club will tell you that sooner or later someone steps up to the microphone who probably shouldn’t have.

Such is the case with YouTube. Despite terms of service expressly prohibiting the uploading of material likely to be deemed hate speech, vitriol inevitably finds its way there.

Hatemongers are cautioned upfront that YouTube  “encourage(s) free speech and defend(s) 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).”

With more than 50 million videos hosted on any given day, it seems understandable that YouTube may have trouble policing subjective content. They rely on viewers, who are able to flag offensive files, as the first line of defense for enforcement of their hate speech policies.

YouTube defends any lack of front-end screening by stating, “We have strict rules on what's allowed, and a system that enables anyone who sees inappropriate content to report it to our 24/7 review team and have it dealt with promptly. …Given the volume of content uploaded on our site, we think this is by far the most effective way to make sure that the tiny minority of videos that break the rules come down quickly.”

Atheist author Nick Gisburne joined this tiny minority when he uploaded a video viewers flagged as critical of Islam. The content, reportedly consisted primarily of Ginsburne reading verses from the Koran. Given that his intent may have been to mock Islam, I am happy to report that it was promptly removed from YouTube along with every other entry Mr. Ginsburne had posted.

A video uploaded by Christian pastor David Williams from Bethesda, MD met the same fate. What was his crime?  He parodied an atheist-sponsored “blasphemy challenge,” which encouraged YouTube viewers to record themselves engaged in blasphemous acts. Atheists were outraged and Mr. Williams’ video was yanked after a mere six hours.

At the very least, Mr. Williams’ case seems to support the “24/7 review team’s” rapid response to viewer flags. A great system, as long as it is not selectively enforced.

Unfortunately for Christians, further investigation doesn’t seem to even the score.

“Jesus Juice…Praise the Lord” is a case in point. In this video, a man combines in a juicer, fresh fruit (organic, of course) with what he implies to be a consecrated Eucharistic host. For those unfamiliar with the Catholic faith, this is the most sacred element of their faith. They believe it to be the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. To see it thrown in a juicer with fruit is positively horrific.

Adding insult to injury, the man (identified as TJ) encourages those watching that if they think hard enough about where he got the “secret ingredient,” they too can figure out a way to make their very own “Jesus Juice.” If viewers still haven’t connected the dots, TJ continues, “Jesus, we thank you for this juice. May it nourish my body. And thank you for giving me the idea as I sat in church..."

So here is an example of a video which is clearly intended to demean the Catholic faith. It blatantly encourages others to defame what Catholics believe to be the most sacred aspect of their religion. Both items fit very well into YouTube’s own definition of hate speech. So why is it still on YouTube four months after being posted?

Perhaps the video has not yet been reported as hate speech? Unlikely, given that Catholic talk-radio powerhouse Drew Mariani railed against the video on his show, encouraging listeners to flag it and hold YouTube accountable. If that wasn’t enough, Catholic blogs everywhere are encouraging readers to visit YouTube and report TJ’s offensive entry. Personally, I’ve flagged the video as hate speech, and sent e-mails to YouTube leadership asking them to remove the video based on its own hate speech policy.

No response yet.

It is possible that YouTube doesn’t see what Catholics see when they watch TJ’s video. To do so requires more than a cursory examination of the content—it requires an understanding of the Catholic faith. So that is why YouTube would be waiting, 24/7, for their viewers who do understand the Catholic faith to flag TJ’s entry as hate speech.

Any Christian can tell you that faith, by definition, requires belief in things unseen. So despite mounting evidence to the contrary, I have faith that YouTube will do the right thing and equally enforce its hate speech policy.