Well a few people have made this point. Is Dave of DavidsFarm now more of a risk now that his account has been terminated by YouTube.
First understand this. The police have made frequent raids of his ranch in the past few years. He is under constant police surveillance. If he posts videos on YouTube or does not post videos to YouTube that will not change what the police do. This is an issue for law enforcement. It is up to the law up there in Canada if he is to be arrested or not. His presence or lack thereof on YouTube will not change that.
What many of us were concerned with and have always been concerned with is the presence of child predators online. Now to those who say I am just focused on DavidsFarm because I am jealous and why don't I focus my time on other real live predators I suggest you look at some of the videos like this one.
I have a history of going after people who harm children. Even as early back in 1997 I along with many others protested the art books of Jock Sturges who was selling books of photographs of children naked and calling it art. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E1DA103FF933A15751C0A96E958260 in fact I was even one of the protest organizers for my city.
Now lets answer a few questions. Can a child predator be reformed. Yes. A child predator can be reformed, however they should have the common sense to not put themselves in a situation where they can be accused again. Dave has not done this. He has continued to interact with kids and freely admits that he markets his channel towards children.
"Everybody knows that the demographics of the Internet is young people and mostly young males, so you have to try to create a type of program that appeals to young males,young males want something short and sweet, something maybe sexy -- so I use pretty women to do my things -- they want maximum excitement, like a big jump or something that's outrageous or crazy . . . that's how the teenage male brain works."
Now Google recently began working with the state of New York to pull child predators off of its sites http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aol-google-yahoo-join-hunt-online-sex-offenders/story?id=9306265
Now hopefully Google will begin working with other states and hopefully with Governments world wide. However should a sex offender who has served his time be forever banned from the internet? Remember, having a YouTube account is not a right. This is a private company and each user must comply with it's terms of service. Furthermore, YouTube reserves the right to amend it's terms of service at any time.
"YouTube reserves the right to amend these Terms of Service at any time and without notice, and it is your responsibility to review these Terms of Service for any changes. Your use of the Service following any amendment of these Terms of Service will signify your assent to and acceptance of its revised terms."
Therefore if YouTube decides on it's own that they no longer want people convicted of sex crimes against children on their website that is YouTube's right to do this.
Dave of DavidsFarm filmed young boys as they masterbated. Furthermore he touched them as they were doing this. This fact is not in dispute. Dave has admitted to this on video. The famous 16:9 interview
Now of course he says that he touched them only for a few seconds so he could get a better shot. Furthermore he says it wasn't about pornography but rather about doing things with the video camera. He also says that he used young boys because nobody else around at that time. Forward to 3:40 of the video above to see this from his own words. Later in that same interview you will hear him claim that he no longer has a sex drive and doesn't even look at pornography anymore. I call bullshit on that. There is no such thing as a man with an internet connection that does not at least occasionally look at porn online.
In this video that he posted to his own youtube channel, he claims that he used to be Bipolar and that is why he did the things that he did.
The issue is not whether a child predator can not enter main stream society. The issue is whether a child predator WHO IS STILL INTERACTING WITH CHILDREN should be allowed to interact with minors online. Furthermore it was shocking to learn that YouTube was willing to turn a blind eye so long as they could make money from it. It is only when the advertisers found out that their ads were on Dave's videos that they complained.
In conclusion child predators should not be online engaging with children. They have a right to housing and the right to hold jobs and to be free from harassment. However when you have someone who has the past that he does, this is one person you don't want talking to kids online. His loss of his YouTube channel will now limit the access he has to meeting new people. He of course still has his current audience who will go to his website when he finishes it, but a new audience will be hard to aquire.