But, if we take a step back, is it a good thing to do? I claim it isn't and I will try to explain why. Be aware that I will use epilepsy and a petition created by an epileptic as an explicit exampe further on. I will not pull punches, as and where I think they're deserved to not be pulled, but I will also try not to be offensive for the sake of being offensive.
So, what is this "moral outrage" on which I pontificate? It is an indignation over a wrong, perceived or real, that prompts an individual X to ask other individuals to regulate reality so that it suits X. It takes many forms, like forbidding support to programs trying to help the developed world and include information on family planning (like "use of condoms"), you can find it in law regulating Internet use, you can find it in semi-law (like the Internet Watch Foundation in the UK) and, in our specific example, a petition to YouTube to ban videos mocking epilepsy. What I am trying to say is that you have no moral right not to be offended. At all. You should, however, be provided with enough information to know where you are and are not likely to be offended. You also have the right to expect that a "no offense to sensibility Y" room (I use "room" in a very general sense here, as describing something that may be a physical or an informational space)
Moving from generalities to specifics, I've read the petition. I feel for Ms XXX YYY. I understand that she now sees YouTube as a hostile environment. That is, truly, sad. If she has been subjected to auto-starting YouTube videos embedded in a web page, I agree that the video should at the very least not have been auto-starting.
However, as the petition is worded, she has not asked for that. She has asked YouTube to forbid mockery of epilepsy and as much as I want to, I will not, nay cannot agree with this petition and think it should be politely ignored by Google, as it tries to curtail the very freedom of speech that the petitioner speaks so highly of. Had this been for a site (or a section of a site) specifically targetted towards providing those who suffers from epilepsy a forum, information, assistance or just mutual support, I think the petition would be spot-on, but to the best of my knowledeg, YouTube is none of these things.
Looking at what options are available for tagging and flagging videos on YouTube, I do not see any "may trigger seizure" (or, possibly better, "contains flashing images"). This would, in my opinion, be a better thing to petition for.
Note, I do not have epilepsy, but I know people who do. I do not find it funny to force videos with extensive flashing that is likely to trigger seizures. I, personally, have a problem with strobe lights, but it is not seizure-related. I find rapidly flashing images to be stressful and strobe lights in an otherwise dark room with people moving about is more than likely to induce stress-related anciety and aggression in me. So while I may not speak from the exact point of view that the petitioner wants me to see things from, I do have at least a smidgen of an idea where she is coming from. I still think it would be insane for me to even write a petition banning strobe lights to be used in dance halls (or whatever the young ones call it today), it is much easier for me to avoid these.
This is one of Ingvar's essays