• e-mail

YouTube censored the livestreams of a number of independent law groups who were streaming the Kyle Rittenhouse trial Monday with commentary, briefly suspending their videos after Judge Bruce Schroeder dropped the Kenosha shooter’s charge of illegal possession of a firearm. 

The tech giant intermittently suspended at least four different channels for a 20-minute period during the trial’s closing arguments, over what the company called 'policy violations' for using copyrighted audio – despite trial footage being in the public domain. 

Once the company determined the videos were not in violation of copyright law, they were all back up and running. But law group, Rekieta Media, lost about 40,000 viewers - nearly half the people watching their video. 

It is against YouTube's terms and conditions to use copyrighted content, meaning the site could suspend videos and streams that do. However, it's not clear what the company thought was copyrighted in the livestreams that it suspended or why it only cut out, intermittently, for about 20 minutes. 

In addition to Rekieta Media, news group Law and Crime, video-streaming platform Odysee and right-of-center political commentator The Amazing Lucas had their streams suspended. All channels are either conservative-leaning or centrist, however liberal channels like CBS and PBS appeared to have no issues with their streams of the trial. 

YouTube briefly suspended a number of independent law groups who were commenting on the Kyle Rittenhouse (left) trial shortly after Judge Bruce Schroeder (right) dropped the Kenosha shooter’s charge of illegal possession of a firearm

YouTube intermittently suspended at least three different channels for a 20-minute period during the trial’s closing arguments, over what the company claimed were 'policy violations.' Above, Rekieta Media was one of the law groups to face the suspension

The company claimed the channels were using 'copyrighted audio,' despite footage from the trial being public domain

In a livestream featuring eight lawyers, Nick Rekieta, the group’s founder, says, ‘I got a warning that says, heads up, we’ve detected copyrighted audio in your stream, your stream might be temporarily blocked.’  

The streams appears to cut in and out as Rekieta tries to determine what is happening and alternates between different coverage of the trial before one lawyer in the chat says, ‘This is not making any sense. They’re saying the court audio is copyrighted audio? This makes no sense.’ 

They continue switching between video of the trial, noting that PBS has stayed up the whole time, as the lawyer adds, ‘You can’t copyright public domain.’

Several minutes later, the issue is still interrupting their video as ReKieta says, ‘I don’t know how to articulate how angry I am right now. YouTube shut the stream down.’

Eventually, they get the stream up and running again, but not before noting that 40,000 viewers left during the technical difficulties.

Rekieta Media tweeted at 12:10pm, as the stream was happening, ‘HEY @TeamYouTube YOU BLOCKED MY STREAM?!? FIX THIS SHIT.’

About seven minutes later, the law group tweeted again, writing, ‘hey @TeamYouTube. This is a PUBLIC HEARING and there is no copyright issue. You're suppressing.’

Then, five minutes later, the group tweeted that the issue was resolved and their stream was back up, writing, ‘We're BACK UP. @TeamYouTube dropped us by FORTY THOUSAND viewers over a BS copyright claim because they are literally paid for by the Media … THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ISSUE HERE, Youtube is just shutting down independent creators.’

Shortly after, Rekieta Media shared another tweet commenting on the incident, which read, ‘Today, @TeamYouTube is pushing down independent creators in favor of BOGUS copyright from Media Partners YT consistently shows that creators who actually build their platform are disfavored to media. Hey YouTube. We have a contract, you're breaking it.'

Rekieta Media features multiple lawyers giving their analyses of contentious trials in real time, and yesterday amassed almost 90,000 viewers. 

The Daily Mail reached out to YouTube for comment, but has not heard back. 

Rekieta Media wasn't the only channel to have its livestream suspended. Meanwhile, mainstream news outlets were up and running for the whole trial

Rekieta Media data analytics show that it lost about 40,000 viewers during the suspension

Fox News talk show host Tucker Carlson commented on the incident, titled ‘Media and Big Tech lied about the Kyle Rittenhouse case - here's the truth,’ in which he argued that mainstream media reports were contradicting what was happening in the trial.

One of his main points is that news outlets claimed Rittenhouse illegally had a gun at the time of the shooting, but that charge was dismissed Monday. 

Addressing the YouTube suspensions, Carlson wrote, ‘Just minutes after the judge in the case dismissed the gun charge, YouTube, which is owned by Google, censored the video streams of several independent legal experts who were commenting on the trial in real time. These were knowledgeable attorneys, many of whom were critical of the obvious weaknesses in the prosecution's case. 

Yesterday morning, the judge dropped Rittenhouse’s weapons charge after the defense successfully argued that it is illegal for anyone under 18 to carry a 'short-barreled rifle' - a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches - but that the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun was longer and therefore legal to carry in Wisconsin.

Attorney Thomas Binger entered the courtroom at the Kenosha County Courthouse on Monday 

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother Wendy was seen arriving at the Kenosha County Courthouse to hear closing argument Monday

Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings and the prosecution did not dispute that the AR-15 carried by Rittenhouse on August 25, 2020 was more than 16 inches. 

'Well then,' Schroeder stated, 'Count six is dismissed.'  

Kyle Rittenhouse is seen with his AR-15 patrolling the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin on the night he killed two men and injured a third 

In lengthy instructions to the jury the judge reminded the jurors that, whatever impression they may have of his opinion as to the defendant’s innocence or guilt they must disregard it.

He said, ‘You are the judges of the evidence, I am the judge of the law alone.’ 

Schroeder began by instructing the jury on self-defense – at issue in this case.

He said, ‘As to each count the state must prove that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense.’

Under Wisconsin law a person may threaten or use intentional force against another person only if he believes there is ‘an actual, imminent or unlawful interference with his own person…[and] reasonably believes the amount of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.’

He added, ‘A belief may be reasonable even if it is mistaken.’

Those beliefs must be assessed, ‘from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the acts and not from the standpoint of the jury now.’

He continued, ‘There is no duty to retreat…[but] you may consider whether the defendant had an opportunity to retreat, whether such retreat was feasible and whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat.’ 

Rittenhouse fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum (left), 36, with an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle after Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse across a parking lot and threw a plastic bag at him shortly before midnight on August 25, 2020. Moments later, as Rittenhouse was running down a street, he shot and killed Anthony Huber (right), 26, a protester from Silver Lake, Wisconsin

Counts 1, 4 and 5 First Degree Reckless Homicide, First-Degree Intentional Homicide and Attempted First-Degree Homicide of Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz respectively, all require the jury to find that Rittenhouse acted with ‘an utter disregard for human life.’  

The jury will consider the count of first-degree reckless homicide in relation to Joseph Rosenbaum with no lesser included charges.

That requires the state to show that the defendant acted with criminal recklessness to cause the death of another, that the circumstances showed ‘utter disregard for human life,’ that he was aware there was substantial risk of death or bodily harm and that his acts were not privileged by the defense of self-defense.

The judge has instructed them that, should they not reach a unanimous decision on First-Degree Intentional Homicide in the case of Antony Huber they may consider the lesser charges of Second Degree Intentional or First-Degree Reckless homicide.