I want to answer a few points raised here by both Mumbles and BCR, which I feel merit some discussion.

Mumbles seems to be saying that Crowder can simply "be offensive on his own website" (or, alternatively, the BlazeTV website), but that's not being realistic.

YouTube is, unfortunately, a virtual monopoly. While there are other video sites out there, and while you are free to host video on your own website, YouTube has become such a giant that nearly everyone goes there for their video content.

If you want to watch a video about something in 2019, what do you typically do? You open YouTube, bring up the search bar, and type in what you're looking for. Then you click on what appears to be the best result.

If Crowder is kicked off YouTube, he will lose the major platform where he both finds and maintains almost all of his viewers. Sure, the diehard fans will follow him over to his own website or to BlazeTV, but the number of eyeballs on his material will dramatically decrease.

It's not just Crowder.

Force any YouTube star off the site, tell them to strike out on their own, and they will be financially devastated.

This is where the issue of censorship of conservative media comes in. Since YouTube has become the single place most people check for video content online, they potentially wield a tremendous amount of public power/influence. If they are mostly censorship-free, then everything is fine. However, let's pretend YouTube exercised its "right" as a private company to remove all conservative political content on the service. Now people searching for "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" would find nothing but positive pieces on her, and the political thought on the platform would be completely one-sided. While a little bit different, this situation would be as bad as an oppressive, state-run media. The people should always have easy access to opposing forms of political view.

For the moment, YouTube isn't banning all conservative content (hence why Crowder is still there), but they are slowly finding excuses to get rid of it. First they've gone after the more obvious, super-controversial ones, but the fear is that they will slowly clamp down upon all of them, using excuses like "hate speech" (a concept which is extremely broad) to get it done.

While admittedly Crowder has exploited the "omg omg YouTube gonna delete this channel" panic for sales to CRTV/Blaze and his Mug Club, he wasn't fabricating it, either. He did realize that there was a realistic possibility that YouTube would kill his channel someday, and this situation might end up being it.

He actually traded a percentage of his company (not sure how much) to an attorney ("half Asian lawyer Bill Richmond"), in exchange for as-needed legal work. It was actually smart, as he's needed Richmond to defend various frivolous legal claims against him by angry subjects of his videos (especially his parody material), as well as the various YouTube strikes he keeps getting. YouTube seems to respect communications from lawyers more than they do from non-lawyers, so Richmond has been very effective so far. It also helps that Richmond has a fairly good broadcast presence and enjoys being part of the show, so everyone is benefiting there.

Anyway, bottom line is that YouTube should NOT delete Crowder's channel for this reason. It would be one thing if Crowder was just picking on some random gay guy and bullying him via the show, but Carlos Maza has knowingly made a career of being a public figure saying controversial and provocative things. He can't throw himself into that lion's den, make a bunch of money from it, and then cry foul that some YouTube host is calling him names. Come on.