Here’s How PragerU Found out YouTube Was Censoring Its Conservative Videos

October 26, 2017

WRITER

PragerU is an educational site that sums up conservative ideas in concise, shareable videos. The problem? YouTube has been arbitrarily marking PragerU videos as inappropriate content and blocking them from generating ad money.

“What they have done is truly remarkable, and they make these 5-minute educational videos,” Glenn said. “You can’t tell me that they are inaccurate; they are done by some of the greatest minds alive today, and they are now being censored on YouTube.”

Dennis Prager Talks Google, YouTube Lawsuits Over ‘Ideologically Driven Censorship’

PragerU CEO Marissa Streit spoke out about the dangers of online censorship on today’s show. At first, PragerU thought there was simply a mistake since the videos don’t contain pornographic or inflammatory content that would be flagged in YouTube’s guidelines.

She said PragerU first noticed the problem when college students who enjoy their educational videos reached out to say that their school’s internet had blocked the clips.

“The students were the ones who told us, ‘We can’t reach the videos,’” she said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: You know, I would -- I would like to -- I'd love to have -- boy, I've never used this word before in a positive. I'd really like to have a symposium sometime next year with some of the best minds in the country. Not only the conservative minds, but also the futurist minds, on how does -- how do you -- how do you get a message out?

I think the days of people like me are numbered. I -- I worry. And it has changed in the last six months. And -- and things are becoming more and more clear on the railroad lines that have been laid by companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook, and even Apple is poised to get into it.

How do we -- how do we pay for news? How do we do news? How do we deliver news, when these companies can just wash you out? People are not talking about the fact that Google has hired its -- this is a quote, its first 1,000 journalists, end quote.

They are going to provide news. And it's going to come all through them. And if they don't like you, you're not going to see it. It won't be -- I mean, it will be on some dot-com. But how do you find it?

It's already beginning. You know, we are going to be doing a special next -- probably after the first of the year, about Media Matters. And I want to show you how Media Matters is operating, and how they are already at places like Google and YouTube. This is -- in their own words, they're already there, telling them who should be dropped and who is -- who has an opinion that is important. And who has an opinion that isn't important. Which is offensive? What isn't?

You want Media Matters deciding that? Because that's who Google and YouTube are now listening to. Which brings me to a story yesterday that we talked about.

And if you have any money, and you are looking to help somebody learn and gain some knowledge in a -- in a very effective way, I want you to make a donation to Prager University. Prager University is -- Dennis Prager, what he has done -- and his team is unbelievable.

And what they have done is truly remarkable. And they make these five-minute educational videos, that, look, if you have a different opinion, you may not like it because they're very effective.

But you can't tell me they're inaccurate. They're done by some of the greatest minds alive today. And they are now being censored on YouTube and being demonetized, which means you can't -- they can't make money on them.

Now, here's the thing, they operate on donations because I don't know how many thousands of dollars each of these videos cost. But they're not cheap to make. And so they have been making them on donations, because they -- they can't rack up the views like the Young Turks did, who are complete conspiracy theorist guys. Completely discredited. And yet, they'll sell for a billion dollars.

Prager U is never going to be able to cash out at a billion dollars. No company is ever going to buy Prager U. We can't eat our own. And we must support our own. And Prager University, I can't recommend highly enough that you support them in every way possible, even if it is just spreading their video.

So they have now -- they have now filed a lawsuit on Monday against YouTube. And who do we have on, Stu?

Marissa Street? She's the CEO. I love this woman. So smart. From Prager U. Hi, Marissa, how are you?

MARISSA: Hi, Glenn. Thank you for this. An amazing introduction. I can't tell you how encouraging it is to have good people like you on our side. Well, thank you.

GLENN: Well, I have been watching you and cheering you from the sidelines for a long time. And I want to do everything I can. And I've already pledged to you that Mercury One is going to give you a percentage of everything that we raise for education. Because I think you guys do unbelievable work.

So, Marissa, tell me what is happening at YouTube.

MARISSA: So I'll tell you something really interesting, how we heard about this, to begin with. About a year and a half ago, we got some emails from students. You know, we have this student group called Prager Force, they're essentially our ambassadors on campuses across the United States. And they started emailing in, hey, what's going on? We've been watching your videos. We use them on campus. But for some reason, we can't watch them. When we get to the library, we've been wanting to share them with some other students. And we couldn't figure out, what was the issue? Why aren't they able to reach -- see these videos? So as we looked into it, we figured out that our videos are being restricted. And they're being restricted from the exact audience that needs these videos more than ever. So the students were the ones who told us, you know, we can't reach the video.

So we started looking into it. And we sent a few emails to Google and say this must -- we said, this must be a mistake. Why would our videos be -- be censored?

We read through the guidelines. The guideline that said that videos that are censored are usually pornographic and graphic, and hate speech, and -- and violent. Obviously, anybody in their right mind would watch our videos and agree with us, that these videos are none of the above.

So we started looking into it further. We heard crickets from YouTube for almost a year, until we launched a petition this past summer and got close to 300,000 signatures. At that point, YouTube finally responded to us and said that they're reviewing our videos. And we have this in writing, by the way. They review our videos, and they deemed them inappropriate and only appropriate for mature audience. So the very audience that we're trying to reach is essentially blocked from reaching our videos.

GLENN: Okay. So the audience can get a handle on this. These are the same kind of people that say that we have to teach about transgenderism to our kindergarten classes. Yet, students in college cannot handle -- why isn't communism as hated as Naziism? Or the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill.

You can't handle that. But a kindergartener can handle transgenderism. I don't understand it.

MARISSA: Yeah. Exactly. I mean, that is -- that is our exact point. And that's the point that our students and our viewership was making.

So, you know, we can't allow the left to take over the university -- to take over the internet as they have done with the university. If we lose the internet, which is obviously the -- the way people get information these days, then -- then what's left?

GLENN: Yeah. This is -- this is the new Hollywood. I mean, I think -- for instance, Facebook, I think is replacing -- is a replacement for the telephone, the television, the newsroom, talk radio. It's -- it's all forms of communication that we have had. And if you lose in Facebook and you lose with YouTube and Google, you're never going to be found. You're never going to be found.

Do you know, Marissa, we have an internal -- bunch of internal documents from Media Matters, where they say they are already in-house at YouTube and Google, advising them on what should be cut and what should remain. Were you aware of that?

MARISSA: I'm certainly not surprised. I mean, from the way that he's been dealing with us, it's -- it's not a surprise to me, that they have -- and, by the way, it's complete hubris as well. They believe that they can get away with it. They believe that people on our side won't fight.

GLENN: So, Marissa, what should people do? I know you filed a lawsuit. But what should people do?

MARISSA: So, first of all, we are fighting Goliath. And we know it. Suing Google, slash, YouTube weighed very heavily on us. Obviously, was a very big decision, but we decided that we have to do. And we'll take any help we can get.

So we have a petition, which obviously brought some awareness to YouTube. And a willingness to at least communicate with us, if you can sign the petition on our website at PragerU.com. That would be immensely helpful. And share it with other people. This specific case is going to be tried in the court of public opinion, as well as in the court of law. And we need you to help us win the public opinion and bring awareness.

If you think about the word "Google," people think they can -- they use it as a verb, right? You can Google anything and find anything. But that is not the case. And the public should be aware of that. So we want everybody talking about that. And, of course, financially, this is not going to be inexpensive. So anybody who can help us in any way -- and, by the way, even $5 shows me and my team that we're not in this alone. So anybody who can give anything at any level is -- is hugely encouraging, and we need anything we can get.

GLENN: Marissa, I thank you so much. And your team is truly remarkable. And -- and I would go to work for you any day of the week. I think you guys are remarkable. And I'd be proud to be an intern there with the people that you have assembled. I'm sincere. I think you've created something really, truly remarkable. And you're making a difference. And I thank you for that. Thanks, Marissa.

MARISSA: Well, God bless you. Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. PragerU.com.

Now, if you're a student, you cannot Google this, if you're using -- if you're at a university. You can't Google this and find it. This is the problem.

If you are not a student, I want you just to -- I want you to Google a couple of things. I want you to Google, why did America fight the Korean War? Prager U. And watch that.

I want you to -- I want you to Google, what's the other one? Why isn't communism as hated as Naziism?

Google, the world's most persecuted minority, Christians.

You watch those three things. Those have all been banned now by Google. By YouTube. And you can find them, unless you have settings on your computer that you have set them so your kids can't watch them. They'll never pop up for you. If you're at a university or if you're at a government institution, you will never be able to find them.

But if you don't have any filters, you're going to be able to find it. And I want you to watch those and ask yourself why. Why would those be deleted? Why are those -- with everything you can get on YouTube -- how many times have you walked in, and you've caught your kids online, and you're like, what the hell are you even watching?

How many times have you walked in on the Disney Channel?

I want you to watch those and tell me what you would say if you walked in and your kids were watching those videos? I'd hug my kids.

Google them. And then do everything you can to support Prager U. PragerU.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.