Jubilee, Fascism, and the Limits of Legal Neutrality 

Writer: Mila Beerson 

Article Editor: Simmi Purohit

I. Introduction

Due to increasing political polarization and the rise of social media, political debates—particularly on platforms such as YouTube—have gained significant popularity in recent years. The YouTube channel Jubilee, with over ten million followers, has gained recognition for staging debates between opposing ideologies. With notable titles such as “1 Black Radical vs. 20 Black Conservatives” and “1 Progressive vs. 20 Far-Right Conservatives,” Jubilee’s videos are an open invitation for controversial and extremist views due to the stark contrast between participants’ beliefs.

Although platforms like Jubilee are protected by the First Amendment and Section 230 of the U.S. Code, allowing fascist and other radical ideologies to be presented as “equitable arguments” poses serious ethical and societal risks. This framing blurs the line between exposing and legitimizing harmful beliefs, effectively undermining the protections of these laws. Therefore, Jubilee and similar platforms have a moral and potentially legal responsibility to prevent the dangerous normalization of extremist views under the pretext of free speech.

II. Legal Protections and Their Limitations

When posting content online, federal laws and regulations like the First Amendment and Section 230 allow platforms a safe haven for expression. Therefore, this allows these channels to have significant power over who they choose to permit to speak, what content to promote, and what ideologies are expressed to the viewers.¹ These laws grant platforms like Jubilee significant control over what content is produced and who is allowed to speak. This power comes with a moral obligation to filter content, as platforms allow participants to express extremist views and provide them a public stage.² The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring these online communities,³ which means that expressing fascist views on platforms like Jubilee must be permitted under the principle of viewpoint neutrality.⁴ Although the government cannot censor these channels, private actors like Jubilee are not bound by the same restrictions.⁵ It is crucial to understand that just because this information is allowed online, Jubilee is not obligated to post it; the channel chooses to. Section 230 protects Jubilee and YouTube from what these participants say because these volunteers are named as another information content provider.⁶ This law allocates even more authority to Jubilee and similar channels, as this shields them from any legal responsibility for what the participants say or do,⁷ entailing that Jubilee can produce or delete content without the threat of being sued or punished legally. This reinforces the idea that they are leaving this content up, not to encourage debate, but to maximize engagement, thus creating an ethically harmful environment.⁸ Both of these laws lie on a neutral standpoint where they do not restrict content even if it is deemed harmful,⁹ thus outlining their limitations through the lack of content regulation.

With more control comes more responsibility, as both of these laws grant them the ability to post extreme beliefs because of their neutrality. However, the channel itself has the power and flexibility to moderate these harmful ideologies. Although these laws are crucial for the protection of online expression, they are not moral endorsements for platforms to share extreme viewpoints.¹⁰ For example, when Jubilee publicly hosts guests who defend white nationalist ideals, it can give the false impression that these bigoted ideologies are as valid as positions like anti-racism. Without the proper criticism that these laws allow channels to have, it can result in a dangerous legitimization of authoritarianism, all justified by claiming to open debate.

III. The Ethical Dilemma

In the name of neutrality and free speech, Jubilee gives these autocratic ideologies visibility and legitimacy, which can cause serious turmoil for public discourse and democracy. This constitutes an ethical blurred line between exposing and validating these beliefs, which Jubilee often crosses. The channel claims to be politically neutral and unbiased.¹¹ This becomes ethically problematic in many situations. In one instance during the episode titled “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives,” Mehdi Hasan, a self-identified progressive,¹² argues that Donald Trump’s actions defy the Constitution against Connor, a self-identified conservative. While these two are disputing, the conversation veers off topic, and Connor starts explaining how an ideal government would function under an autocratic leader, that he is content with being called a Nazi, and that he is a fascist.¹³ Following his final claim, many of the other far right conservatives started clapping, showing their agreement with Connor.¹⁴ Given that Jubilee did not give any editorial framing during this confession, they solidify the protection of this harmful voice and dilute public understanding of real threats.¹⁵ In its editorial choices, Jubilee also did not take out the celebratory response of clapping from the other conservatives,¹⁶ and because of this, the severity of the statement was reduced and discarded. Furthermore, giving this man time to speak about his fascist beliefs makes them seem legitimate to audiences who are impressionable or uninformed. With this audience impact, viewers might lack political and historical literacy, leading them to not be able to engage critically with these ideas.

Another Jubilee “Surrounded” video that has normalized views centered around antidemocratic beliefs is titled “1 Progressive vs. 20 Trump Supporters.” Before delving into further detail about the video, it is important to understand that while the titles of both Jubilee videos are similar, as they both use the term “progressive,” the topics within the videos vary greatly. Jubilee even posts multiple videos that have similar dichotomies in the title, proving that they cater to this political polarization in the media. Sam Seder, self-identified progressive, argues against Sarah, self-identified Trump supporter, with the claim that unless you are a billionaire, religious fundamentalist, or a xenophobic nationalist, voting for Trump was a mistake. During this argument, Sarah claims that she believes America should be under Christian nationalism, as opposed to a “liberal world order.”¹⁷ As soon as she claims this, the camera turns to show other contestants cheering and speaking in approval of her statement.¹⁸ These acts of acceptance by the other Trump supporters, with the absence of clear editorial framing, reinforce the earlier statements made by giving the audience a false sense of normalcy.¹⁹ Focusing on her actual statement, Christian nationalism is defined differently by many groups, but the overarching understanding is the “integration of Christianity into national governance.”²⁰ This includes the understanding that a predominantly white and Protestant society would be ideal, which overlaps with many main elements of white nationalism.²¹ These views are extremely harmful and promote the use of the term Christian nationalism, which can be viewed as a direct threat to the United States Constitution with the dismissal of the separation between church and state.²² A lack of historical literacy can lead to the audience normalizing this political ideology, which bolsters anti-democratic ideologies.

Political polarization, characterized by media algorithms, can also create echo chambers where these audiences are stuck viewing this harmful content without proper framing.²³ These new algorithms based on the simple exposure of these videos are unlikely to give content that opposes the harmful beliefs shown,²⁴ and through the repetition of this, the Overton window²⁵ of what is politically acceptable can be shifted into accepting fascist and other anti-democratic ideologies as normal ideologies. This constant echo can also lead to possible real-world consequences as it makes these beliefs seem less extreme and more people feel comfortable enough to discuss fascist ideologies as if it is a normal idea to follow.²⁶ The overall importance of the act of platforming extremist values is that although it is legal, it does not mean that it is ethical. The right to speak does not obligate platforms to amplify that speech.

IV. Moral and Emerging Legal Responsibilities

While Jubilee and similar platforms are currently protected by the law, that does not erase the ethical responsibilities that they should uphold. When platforms post content, they have a moral obligation not to amplify or comply with the harmful speech of others.²⁷ This comes from Jubilee actively deciding what and how to post content for each video that they upload. When Jubilee does curate their content, it posts these extreme views alongside more reasonable or marginalized perspectives. This can be exemplified in the aforementioned video in which Mehdi Hasan argues against someone who is anti-democratic and pro-fascist.²⁸ Therefore, this gives the impression that both sides are equally valid, ignoring the historical violence and oppression that the extreme ideology is based on. Not only do these moral responsibilities need to be practiced, but soon platforms might have a legal obligation to prevent harm as well. As social media grows, so do legal debates on whether or not channels and platforms should be held accountable for amplifying harmful content.²⁹ Specifically with Section 230, government officials are discussing whether this law should be amended so platforms do not have this “blanket immunity from liability.”³⁰ If Section 230 is redefined, platforms like Jubilee could be facing legal interference if their content is shown to contribute to hate speech or violence. Even if Jubilee is legally protected, its ethical responsibilities remain relevant. Legal responsibilities are shifting, and with society’s demand on platforms taking greater care in how they manage their content, laws are beginning to reflect these pressures.

V. Conclusion

Although platforms like Jubilee are protected by laws such as the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, their decision to permit and post fascist ideologies without proper framing under the guise of a “balanced argument” poses serious ethical and societal concerns. This approach blurs the lines between critically exposing these ideologies and inadvertently legitimizing them. Legal neutrality, in this context, allows the normalization and quiet assimilation of extremist views into mainstream discourse. As a result, platforms such as Jubilee bear not only a moral duty but potentially an emerging legal responsibility, to prevent the spread and normalization of dangerous ideologies under the pretense of protecting free speech. This emerging legal responsibility can come from narrowing the protections of Section 230, thus adding more regulation to the issue. Overall, Jubilee and channels similar to this may be subjected to a wide variety of future protections concerning the normalization of harmful content as more laws are changed and specified as social media continues to expand and evolve.

1. Bart Cammaerts, The Neo-Fascist Discourse and Its Normalisation Through Mediation, 15, J. Multicultural Discourses, 241 (2020). ↩︎
2. Andrew L. Shapiro, The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know 225 (2d ed. 2000). ↩︎
3. U.S. Const. amend. I. ↩︎
4. Cong. Rsch. Serv., Amdt1.7.4.5 Viewpoint Neutrality in Forum Analysis, Const. Annotated (last accessed Dec. 2025), https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-4-5/ALDE_00013122/.on Annotated). ↩︎
5. U.S. Const. amend. I. ↩︎
6. 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996). ↩︎
7. Id. ↩︎
8. Mira Sickinger, Jubilee: The Commodification of Political Discourse, 30 Intertext 52–53 (2022). ↩︎
9. Joseph W. Roberts, Neutrality, Speech, Free Speech Ctr. Middle Tenn. State Univ. (July 2023), https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/neutrality-speech/. ↩︎
10. Ilan Fuchs, Law vs. Ethics: The Debate Over What’s Legal and What’s Right, Am. Pub. Univ. (Dec. 2024), https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/security-and-global-studies/resources/law-vs-ethics/. ↩︎
11. Chad de Guzman, ‘Memeification of Politics’: What to Know About Jubilee Media’s Viral Debate Show Surrounded, Time (July 2025), https://time.com/7304339/jubilee-media-surrounded-viral-debate-show-criticisms-mehdi-hasan-fascist/. ↩︎
12. Mehdi Hasan is an award winning British American broadcaster, journalist, author, and political commentator. ↩︎
13. Jubilee, 1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives (ft. Mehdi Hasan), at 25:05, YouTube (July 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo [hereinafter Far-Right Conservatives]. ↩︎
14. Id. ↩︎
15. Natalia Aruguete et al., Framing Fact-Checks as a “Confirmation” Increases Engagement with Corrections of Misinformation: A Four-Country Study, 14 Sci. Rep. (2024). ↩︎
16. Far-Right Conservatives, supra note 13. ↩︎
17. Jubilee, 1 Progressive vs. 20 Trump Supporters (Feat. Sam Seder) | Surrounded, at 40:34, YouTube (Mar. 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js15xgK4LIE&list=PLBVNJo7nhINQ6qGkFlgtK-0GW0_NOS4k7&index=17 [hereinafter Trump Supporters]. ↩︎
18. Id. ↩︎
19. Aruguete et al., supra note 15. ↩︎
20. Elizabeth Mohn, Christian Nationalism, EBSCO Rsch. Starters (2022), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/r
    eligion-and-philosophy/christian-nationalism. ↩︎
21. Id. ↩︎
22. U.S. Const. amend. I.; Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons & Maggie Siddiqi, Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom, Ctr. Am. Progress (Apr. 2022), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/christian-nationalism-is-single-biggest-threat-to-americas-religious-freedom/. ↩︎
23. Mark S. Kende, Social Media, the First Amendment, and Democratic Dysfunction in the Trump Era, 68 Drake L. Rev. 273, 282 (2020). ↩︎
24. Id. at 273. ↩︎
25. The Oxford English Dictionary defines overton window as the spectrum of ideas on public policy and social issues considered acceptable or viable by the general public at a given time. See Oxford Eng. Dictionary, Overton Window (last accessed Dec. 2025), https://www.oed.com/dictionary/overton-window_n?tl=true. ↩︎
26. Cammaerts, supra note 1, at 241. ↩︎
27. Jeffrey Howard, The Ethics of Social Media: Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty, 11 J. Prac. Ethics (2024). ↩︎
28. Far-Right Conservatives, supra note 13. ↩︎
29. Rosie Moss, The Future of Section 230 | What Does It Mean For Consumers?, Nat’l Assoc. Att’y Gen. (July 2023), https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/the-future-of-section-230-what-does-it-mean-for-consumers/. ↩︎
30. Id. ↩︎