For me this is becoming more and more of an issue. I don't know if I have a good solution for it, or if the analogies running around in my head match up well. But the crux of the issue is that internet companies offering very very very public services are hiding behind being a private company when making any sort of decisions on this sort of level.
To me, they are offing a way for people to do mass communication, to a unspecified and in some cases a specified group or list of people.
Lets play with some analogies for a bit. What if AT&T released a memo that you were no longer able to talk about, guns, or any of the other things on this ban list? People would be freaking out. Same goes if your email provider all the sudden said you can't have a gun related mailing list.
The point I am making is while Youtube is a public company they are more of a utility the net society. They do not create the content, they only host and serve it. So they should on be allowed to follow the laws on the books -- and maybe even the same laws that the FCC already imposes on radio and tv broadcast for any video that is public - without paid subscription (much like how cable works, but some mechanics likely need to be worked out there).
Anyway this is just a thought, but I feel strongly that Youtube or any other service that provides public hosting of any content -- no mater how it is monetized -- should only be allowed to restrict content that is illegal to start off with.
On the other hand if they start limiting what can and can't be hosted then I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law every time illegal content is found on their systems. A sort of check and balance system. Either they are responsible, or they are not responsible, they can't have it both ways.