YouTube’s Schizophrenic Defamation Policy Goes Out The Window For Nicole Junkermann

YouTube relinquishes its legal immunity as “Not A Publisher” on behalf of Epstein associate Nicole Junkermann – Johnny Vedmore’s War Against The Censors Marches On.

Nicole Junkermann has consistently employed illegal Strategic Lawfare Against Public Participation (SLAPP) tactics to censor my 2019 and 2020 trilogy of articles, which revealed her close business relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Thiel, Ehud Barak, and Elon Musk. SLAPP is where wealthy entities weaponise legal threats to silence journalists without intending to litigate fully.

The videos which YouTube has censored illegally include eight of my read-throughs, which explore, critique and analyse Nicole Junkermann’s proven relationship to Jeffrey Epstein. One of the targeted videos is an analysis of Leslie Wexner and Frank Luntz’s leaked Israeli propaganda campaign during the Iraq War, commonly referred to as the Luntz/Wexner Analysis. If you were to attempt to view these videos, depending on where you are in the world, you will be met with a black screen which clearly reads:

“Video unavailable: This content is not available on this country domain due to a defamation complaint.”

I have not received notification of court action related to any of this content. The only court action I was ever informed of was a temporary injunction from a Berlin regional court. However, I was only informed that I was liable for three-quarters of the legal fee for the case; I was not informed of the case originally, and was unable to defend myself. This not only nullifies the attempt to retrieve the costs order, but it also nullifies the injunction itself. The German court action was an “Einstweilige Verfügung”, which is translated to “Interim Injunction”, a provisional (temporary) measure designed to provide quick protection while a full case plays out. No case followed.

This was an example of strategic lawfare. Nicole Junkermann cannot dare take any case to trial, as her claims of defamation will soon unravel, and she will have to pay court costs, as well as become vulnerable to a successful counterclaim. It would also lead to a process of discovery, which would allow me to put Nicole Junkermann’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein officially on the record. Since that invalid injunction in 2019, no court order has been issued.

Regardless, no court action for defamation has taken place, which means that YouTube, by geo-blocking my video journalism, is assuming the role of a publisher rather than a video platform.

While YouTube does consider defamation complaints from “authorised legal representatives”, its defamation policy fluctuates wildly depending on the country. The YouTube guidelines related to the United States of America specifically note:

“Because we are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation. Consistent with Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, we recommend that you pursue any claims that you may have directly against the person who posted the content. If you choose to pursue legal action against the content creator, note that we may be prepared to comply with any order requiring the content creator to remove the posting in question.”

I have included this within my legal response to three of the defamation allegations to YouTube directly, which looks like this:

October 28, 2025

YouTube, Inc.
Attn: Legal Support
901 Cherry Ave., Second Floor
San Bruno, CA 94066
United States

Re: Urgent Demand for Immediate Worldwide Reinstatement of 3 Geo-Blocked Videos; Full Disclosure of Defamation Complaint Details; Cessation of Unlawful Geo-Blocking; and Compensation for Four Years of Chilling Effects on Journalistic Free Speech – Violation of YouTube Policies, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and Anti-SLAPP Protections

Dear YouTube Legal Team,

I write to you in the strongest possible terms to demand the immediate and unconditional reinstatement of my 3 videos, titled: Junkermann 1 0 - The IDF-linked Bond Girl Infiltrating the UK NHS by Johnny Vedmore #Epstein #NHS; Junkermann 2 0 - Epstein/Junkermann 1st September 2002 - The Secret Senators by Johnny Vedmore; & Nicole Junkermann 3 0 - Model or the Mossad by Johnny Vedmore #Junkermann #Epstein #WSN #NHS, to unrestricted global availability on your platform.

These videos, are pieces of investigative public interest journalism exposing potential conflicts of interest in the UK’s National Health Service tied to Jeffrey Epstein-linked figures, and have been outrageously and unlawfully geo-blocked in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain for over four years—since your baseless notification in 3 separate emails dated September 15, 2021, at 12:51 PM.

Your notifications brazenly claimed the block stemmed from a “defamation complaint” reviewed and actioned by your team, stating:

“We have received a defamation complaint regarding your content. After review, the following content has been blocked from view on the YouTube country site(s) listed below.”

This is not merely an error; it is a flagrant violation of your own published policies, a cynical exploitation of legal asymmetries to enable Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) tactics, and a direct affront to the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230). Your actions have inflicted irreparable harm on my career as an independent journalist, suppressed vital public discourse on matters of international scandal and public health, and eroded trust in your platform as a bastion of free expression. This ends now—or you will face the full force of legal accountability.

First, your conduct disregards your explicit defamation policy, as detailed in your Help Center at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230. You unequivocally declare:

“Because we are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation.”

Consistent with Section 230(c), you direct complainants to “pursue any claims you may have directly against the person who posted the content.” Yet, in a hypocritical pivot to appease EU regulators, you geo-blocked my Video without a court order, without disclosing the complaint’s “specific and strongly supported” basis (as required by your policy), and without affording me any due process or appeal mechanism. Your “Defamation Complaint Requirements” (support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154216) demand exact statements, legal affirmations, and complainant verification—none of which you have shared with me, despite notifying uploaders of complaints as standard practice. This is not compliance; it is capitulation to censorship, allowing anonymous or meritless SLAPP filers to wield your platform as a weapon against journalists like me.

Under US law, which governs YouTube.com per your policy, this is untenable. Section 230 immunises you from liability as a neutral host, not an arbiter of reputational disputes (Zeran v. AOL, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)). By proactively blocking based on an unsubstantiated “complaint,” you have stepped into the role of publisher, forfeiting the very protections you invoke and inviting scrutiny for aiding defamation abuse. Moreover, this enables classic SLAPP tactics—meritless threats designed to intimidate critics into silence through cost and hassle—as condemned by federal and state laws, including the recently enacted SPEAK FREE Act (2025), which mandates swift dismissal of abusive suits and fee-shifting to deter them. My Video, rooted in verifiable public records on Epstein networks and NHS procurement, constitutes protected opinion and newsgathering under the First Amendment (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). Your block has chilled my speech for four years, costing me views, revenue, and credibility—damages you will recompense.

I demand the following within seven (7) business days of this letter’s receipt, failing which I will pursue all remedies, including but not limited to:

1. Immediate Worldwide Unblocking and Reinstatement: Restore the Video to full, unhindered access globally, with backdated analytics and monetisation credits for lost opportunities.

2. Full Disclosure: Provide a complete, unredacted copy of the defamation complaint, including submitter identity, exact alleged statements, supporting evidence, and your internal review rationale. Explain why no court order was obtained, as required “in some cases” by your policy.

3. Policy Revisions and Compensation: Commit in writing to implementing creator appeals for defamation blocks and compensating me $50,000 USD for economic and reputational harms, plus legal fees. Cease all SLAPP-enabling practices by requiring complainant disclosure upfront.

4. Cease-and-Desist: Refrain from further blocks or restrictions on my channel without 30 days’ notice, evidence, and appeal rights.

This is not a request; it is a legal ultimatum. Your platform thrives on the voices you now seek to mute—journalists exposing the powerful. Fail to comply, and I will escalate to the Federal Trade Commission for unfair practices, file suit in California Superior Court for breach of contract (your Terms of Service) and tortious interference, and publicise this outrage via every channel available, including regulatory bodies in the EU and UK. The court of public opinion, and the actual courts, will not look kindly on a tech giant bullying a lone investigator over public-interest truths.

Govern yourselves accordingly. I await your prompt, substantive response.

Yours in resolute defence of free speech,

Johnny Vedmore
Independent Investigative Journalist
NEWSPASTE.com

-------------------

I have had to write to YouTube’s legal team directly because YouTube gave no mechanism for responding to defamation complaints or countering such complaints, through its site or help centre. If I wanted to counter a DMCA Takedown Request, dispute the use of a trademark or a counterfeit, I can use appropriate forms; however, YouTube gave no mechanism for countering a defamation complaint. This is because, for legal reasons, they deny that they are a publisher, and clearly state that they “are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings”. Except when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein’s business associate and friend, Nicole Junkermann.

This schizophrenic defamation policy makes it almost impossible to find any details of complaints which have been made. I have the right to know who has accused me of defamation, the details and nature of the accusations, and I have a right to defend myself. All those rights have been denied to me by YouTube. As a journalist, writing about public interest matters, I am meant to be protected from SLAPP tactics.

The UK has strengthened anti-SLAPP tools since 2023, making it easier to strike down abusive claims early. Nicole Junkermann’s pattern of repeated, baseless threats qualifies as “improper” under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (effective 2024), which targets economic/defamation SLAPPs. I can challenge Junkermann legally in various ways. I can file an Anti-SLAPP application under Defamation Act 2013 & Economic Crime Act, where I can file for early dismissal of any ongoing/ future claims, plus seek costs/damages for “manifestly unfounded” actions. I will lodge a Form N1 at the High Court, arguing public interest, especially focusing on Epstein’s influence on public officials and Junkermann’s companies’ NHS involvement. I can make a harassment Claim under Protection from Harassment Act 1997, suing her for civil harassment. And there are a range of other legal challenges available to me in the UK, the US and European courts.

Still, YouTube are legally required to supply me with the details of what I’ve been accused of. YouTube cannot deny its involvement. In fact, I have been sanctioned by them without any mechanism to clear my name. YouTube has essentially become an ally of an extremely influential Epstein associate who is using SLAPP tactics to systematically hide public interest journalism. At this stage, YouTube is a co-conspirator, acting as a publisher while claiming to be an objective video platform.

Another pertinent point is how YouTube goes about this. If I go to my YouTube Studio, none of the affected videos show an issue. Instead, the videos show no restrictions, claim to be publicly visible, and are all considered by YouTube as being “suitable for all advertisers”. I am still able to watch the videos in question; however, only on my own account, as the videos remain hidden for everybody else.

I am currently countering DMCA Takedown Requests with Substack, because there is a process for such legal disputes. The videos in question were deleted from Rumble with no notice in January. I discovered this in March, and after 7 months of public and private arguments with the Rumble CEO, they were reinstated last week, without apology or compensation. In that case, there should have been a process, yet there wasn’t. Still, I can’t counter YouTube geo-blocking due to defamation because there is no process. This allows Junkermann to continue using SLAPP tactics.

I would assume her legal team will begin a defamation process in secret, probably under an injunction like they did in Berlin. Then they’ll drop the case after the videos have been taken down. This is how SLAPP works. The most evil people in society, who are often invested in public sector enterprises, are allowed to remain in the shadows because YouTube does not respect the rights of journalists to report on matters of public interest.

That needs to come to an end. I will do everything in my power to hold them to account, as I will with any censors. I am at war with censorship, and you should join forces with me.