Viperhor (moar liek ViperWHORE amirite?) is a rabid Twilight fan (a species that is officially referred to as the Twazi or Homo twihardiensis-excessively-violentii-gestapoensis) that is against the Black Pawn Movement, a YouTube group. Her magnum opus of Twitardism is her video, "The Black Pawn Movement Exposed," a mashup of Photoshopped newscasts voiced over with Microsoft Mary, one of Microsoft's voice synthesizers.


Don't worry, no real kittens were harmed

Her Goals Edit

Taken from the "Black Pawn Movement Exposed" video,

This is my first production out of several more to come. Black Pawn Movement beware, as you will not freely anymore to spread ignorance on     
YouTube. Those who support the Black Pawn Movement are, by association,     
against me and what I stand for. If you believe in freedom of      
speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. BP    
states "we have created this movement as a result of the rabid fan base    
of twilight. This fan base as a whole simply    
cannot take criticism of the book series." Most twilight fans and    
anti-twilight haters create     
 video on what they believe hence using the    
given right of free speech. Any criticism of either whether well    
received or not is still "free     
 speech". So it begs the question what is the    
true motive of BP. They hide behind protective speech as their intent    
but actually spread     
ignorance and apathy.    
-Viperhor, on making Bullshit Arguments.

Rebuttals Edit

Of course, anyone who has spent 10 minutes on Fangirl Encounters, or have read the Constitution, sees it for the steaming pile of bovine manure it is.

  1. Fangirls' attacks on anti-fans are infringements on free speech, as the attacks have one purpose: to prevent an opinion from being expressed by physical suppression ("go hate on it somewhere else"/"protest box," yelling over comments, physical retaliation). On a more pragmatic level, "I don't like Twilight" is not hate speech. Twilight fans are not a historically oppressed minority.
  2. BPM's mockery of idiotic comments are not a violation of free speech, as the opinion has already been expressed, and the BPM is simply expressing their opinion on said opinion.
  3. "Ignorance and apathy," is actually "activism against a cult-like, near-violent fandom." There are enough proven (violent) fangirl encounters, posted with near-daily frequency, on the Twilight Sucks forums, both on ProBoards and phpbb, that proves that BPM is merely blowing whistles, not stifling opinion.
  4. Freedom of speech is a two-way street. Someone is free to say something, and if others don't like it, they're free to express their dislike. If the first person doesn't like that people disagree, well, tough for her.

Proof Edit

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, bolded in the part where the emphasis shall be placed:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

YouTube, although a privately owned company subisdary to Google, is a public forum subject to American jurisdiction in this case, as two regular users, not an user and the EULA, are in disagreement. By actively trying to supress the Black Pawn Movement (deleting comments contrary to its goals that are not flame, ordering cyberbullying) she is breaking Rule 1 of the said area of jurisdiction. However, the Black Pawn Movement does not delete comments, and any user to quit an argument with the BPM does so voluntarily (i.e. one can throw ad hominems forever).

Also, the First Amendment states that Congress shall not take away freedom of speech. Neither Google, YouTube nor the BPM are Congress nor are they associated with the U.S. government in any way. Private websites and organizations can censor the speech of their members or visitors however they like. So, even if the BPM did delete video comments, they would be well within their rights to do so.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.