When platform policies are only as strong as the last customer service chat, it’s no longer about free speech—it’s about free reign to abuse, harass, defame, and destroy under corporate protection.
UPDATE: Since the publication of this article and subsequent sharing with the Copyright and Legal Channels at YouTube, all previously reported videos infringing copyright, privacy, misinformation, harassment and cyber-bullying were removed as of October 10, 2025. Six total video removals within a 90 day period proving infringing behaviors.
Evidence regarding all pending legal actions against Hard Lens Media, Inc. are presented across multiple articles on this Substack, including both YouTube and GoFundMe's complicity in enabling the ongoing defamation, privacy violations, cyber-bullying, copyright infringement, and online Incitement to harass from HLM toadies (like yourself?)
Chicago Corner has not been engaged in any attempts to censor “free speech” or apply "gag orders". They have been under siege for two years in an effort to prevent a pair of irresponsible broadcasters who chose to publicly retaliate against a legitimate Illinois Department of Labor complaint for misappropriating promised wage tip revenues and misclassifying volunteers from weaponizing and abusing the trust of their audience with misinformations to fundraise a legal defense so that they can continue their defamatory behavior at the expense of all plaintiffs’ reputations.
Here are the biggest breaks from HLM's September 19th Broadcast (now "made private by the uploader):
“We still own Chicago Corner… they stole it.”
HLM’s own federal filing acknowledged the channel “was … transitioned to the new owners.” That undercuts the broadcast’s core ownership story.
“Judge gave us explicit permission to show discovery.”
On the stream they frame a denied protective-order motion as a blanket permission to “show discovery.” A denial of a gag/protective order is not the same thing as an affirmative license to publish discovery, and the record contains no order granting that “explicit permission” they claim on air. In other words, the on-air framing misleads viewers about what the court actually did—while asking them to donate.
“There is no tipping revenue… they made it up.”
The broadcast denies the existence of Rokfin tips while asking for GoFundMe support. But CC's Rokfin correspondence and ledgers show tips existed and that $100 was paid out to the previously attached wallet before Chicago Corner’s wallet was connected—facts that contradict the stream’s blanket “no tips” line. This paper trail is mapped in the discovery.)
“We’re allowed to speak now because the judge dismissed their order; the judge is ‘done with them.’”
That overstates what a denial of protective relief means and portrays it as a judicial endorsement of HLM’s narrative. Nothing in the record supports the claim that the court “blessed” their public discovery campaign the way they say—again, a distortion deployed alongside repeated GoFundMe asks.
Fundraising through fear of precedent (“every YouTuber becomes vulnerable if we lose”).
The stream repeatedly pivots from contested facts to a sweeping “free speech/censorship” frame while soliciting $50,000—classic sympathy-and-stakes escalation that isn’t borne out by the procedural posture.
Smearing opposing parties and witnesses as malicious liars “making everything up.”
The prepared statement read on the air leans on categorical accusations (fabrication, criminality, RICO, etc.) rather than the kind of document-tethered specifics that appear in the court filings. That’s advocacy for an audience—not alignment with the evidentiary record.
Hard Lens Media's "Help Defend Free Speech and Fair Use From A Movie Director" GoFundMe campaign gaslights for donations in a narrative crafted to inflame “free speech/censorship” sympathies while contradicting (or omitting) key record facts, including HLM’s own admission in federal court that the channel was transitioned to new owners.
If you choose to ignore all of the facts presented here in favor to H:M’s “opinions”, you are not interested in the objective record, you are in a cult.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
UPDATE: Since the publication of this article and subsequent sharing with the Copyright and Legal Channels at YouTube, all previously reported videos infringing copyright, privacy, misinformation, harassment and cyber-bullying were removed as of October 10, 2025. Six total video removals within a 90 day period proving infringing behaviors.
LIAR!
You never prove jack shit.
All you do is play easy to see through congames. You’re terribly embarrassing.
6 video removals in 90 days, but then reinstated, only proves that the LIAR that whined and cried was LYING.
6 Videos were removed and have not been reinstated.
***********************************************************
Via YouTube through Chicago Corner:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 10:25 AM YouTube Copyright <youtube-disputes+3kr8jy32mazrg07@google.com> wrote:
Hi Chicago Corner,
Thank you for your response. We’ve reviewed it and provided updates below.
Request resolved
The content listed below has been removed.
Videos in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RpQF28D_pM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lccyWS3YnQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPY2N1Nl6jw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMuqs84iiZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZA2TYVrNYM
We use a combination of automated systems and human reviews to process removal requests.
***********************************************************
And through Jerry Vasilatos (via Nitestar Productions):
On Tue, Sept 30, 2025 at 4:25 AM YouTube Copyright <youtube-disputes+17bp7xbdb88ps07@google.com> wrote:
Hi Nitestar Productions,
Thank you for your response. We’ve reviewed it and provided updates below.
Request resolved
The content listed below has been removed.
Videos in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gBAbMwVQCg
We use a combination of automated systems and human reviews to process removal requests.
***********************************************************
That's a total of SIX videos removed within a 90 day period, that will never be reinstated due to clear copyright and I.P. infringement.
Click the links and see for yourself.
Your move Mr. "Crime Researcher".
Thanks, I needed a good laugh. 🤣
Let me guess:
After your lawsuits against HLM are concluded, you are going to sue YouTube and GoFundMe for allowing "defamatory" content, right Jerry? 🤦🏻♂️
Evidence regarding all pending legal actions against Hard Lens Media, Inc. are presented across multiple articles on this Substack, including both YouTube and GoFundMe's complicity in enabling the ongoing defamation, privacy violations, cyber-bullying, copyright infringement, and online Incitement to harass from HLM toadies (like yourself?)
Chicago Corner has not been engaged in any attempts to censor “free speech” or apply "gag orders". They have been under siege for two years in an effort to prevent a pair of irresponsible broadcasters who chose to publicly retaliate against a legitimate Illinois Department of Labor complaint for misappropriating promised wage tip revenues and misclassifying volunteers from weaponizing and abusing the trust of their audience with misinformations to fundraise a legal defense so that they can continue their defamatory behavior at the expense of all plaintiffs’ reputations.
Here are the biggest breaks from HLM's September 19th Broadcast (now "made private by the uploader):
“We still own Chicago Corner… they stole it.”
HLM’s own federal filing acknowledged the channel “was … transitioned to the new owners.” That undercuts the broadcast’s core ownership story.
“Judge gave us explicit permission to show discovery.”
On the stream they frame a denied protective-order motion as a blanket permission to “show discovery.” A denial of a gag/protective order is not the same thing as an affirmative license to publish discovery, and the record contains no order granting that “explicit permission” they claim on air. In other words, the on-air framing misleads viewers about what the court actually did—while asking them to donate.
“There is no tipping revenue… they made it up.”
The broadcast denies the existence of Rokfin tips while asking for GoFundMe support. But CC's Rokfin correspondence and ledgers show tips existed and that $100 was paid out to the previously attached wallet before Chicago Corner’s wallet was connected—facts that contradict the stream’s blanket “no tips” line. This paper trail is mapped in the discovery.)
“We’re allowed to speak now because the judge dismissed their order; the judge is ‘done with them.’”
That overstates what a denial of protective relief means and portrays it as a judicial endorsement of HLM’s narrative. Nothing in the record supports the claim that the court “blessed” their public discovery campaign the way they say—again, a distortion deployed alongside repeated GoFundMe asks.
Fundraising through fear of precedent (“every YouTuber becomes vulnerable if we lose”).
The stream repeatedly pivots from contested facts to a sweeping “free speech/censorship” frame while soliciting $50,000—classic sympathy-and-stakes escalation that isn’t borne out by the procedural posture.
Smearing opposing parties and witnesses as malicious liars “making everything up.”
The prepared statement read on the air leans on categorical accusations (fabrication, criminality, RICO, etc.) rather than the kind of document-tethered specifics that appear in the court filings. That’s advocacy for an audience—not alignment with the evidentiary record.
Hard Lens Media's "Help Defend Free Speech and Fair Use From A Movie Director" GoFundMe campaign gaslights for donations in a narrative crafted to inflame “free speech/censorship” sympathies while contradicting (or omitting) key record facts, including HLM’s own admission in federal court that the channel was transitioned to new owners.
If you choose to ignore all of the facts presented here in favor to H:M’s “opinions”, you are not interested in the objective record, you are in a cult.
Standby. It's coming soon.
Share early and often!
http://youtube.com/post/UgkxjJ4WCbH8aZmQj6AlD4MihW90yEYnWrTT?si=j3HtIcNdPSU6R9lM