YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos

hhavensteincw writes "YouTube has declined a request from Sen. Joe Lieberman remove videos from terrorist organizations. Lieberman said that the videos made by groups like Al-Qaeda show assassinations, attacks on US soldiers leading to injuries and death, and weapons training, 'incendiary' speeches, and other material intended to 'encourage violence against the West.' YouTube said that while it removed some of the videos highlighted by the Senator, most were allowed to stay because they did not violate YouTube's community guidelines. YouTube went on to note that they are strong supporters of free speech."

Tarrists!

[Bovius (1243040)]

Google is clearly acting in support of terrorism and is therefore itself a terrorist organization. We need to drop some injunction on that.

Re:Tarrists!

[Bovius (1243040)]

Wow. I guess slashdotters don't appreciate sarcasm today. Let's see if I can be more straightforward:

By hosting videos from terrorist organizations, YouTube could be construed as providing communication for terrorists, which constitutes material support for terrorists. In some previous cases of alleged material support for terrorism, the government has acted aggressively (example) [wikipedia.org]. Of course this case will be handled differently, because Google is a well known organization commonly in the public eye, but I suspect the US would be much more aggressive about this "request" if it were a lesser known company. I think applying the law evenly to all potential offenders would expose the problems with current laws.

Re:Tarrists!

[geekoid (135745)]

That's exactly why I am an advocate of a new punctuation mark, I call it 'The Garrett'. It's the tilde(~). See sig.

Re:Tarrists!

[chubs730 (1095151)]

I'd support that if I didn't hate you so much. ~

Re:Tarrists!

[commodoresloat (172735)]

Brilliant my man! I'm sure this radical new shift in punctuation will catch on like wildfire, and we'll see this in usage manuals within the next couple of years. ~

Re:Tarrists!

[geekoid (135745)]

Thank you~

Re:Tarrists!

[lena_10326 (1100441)]

]. Of course this case will be handled differently, because Google is a well known organization commonly in the public eye, but I suspect the US would be much more aggressive about this "request" if it were a lesser known company.

You really believe that? Ask Microsoft's opinion. I'm sure it'll be very different.

Just two points. There isn't a corporation in the US that's a match against the power of the federal government. And secondly, allowing the posts to continue generates electronic evidence leading to people who may know "tarrists". The posters may not be tarrists, but there is a connection in that they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who is the tarrist who filmed the video. Investigating them is a matter of unpeeling the onion skin.

Re:Tarrists!

[WindowlessView (703773)]

There isn't a corporation in the US that's a match against the power of the federal government.

True but they are getting closer. [corporations.org]

Re:Tarrists!

[uniquename72 (1169497)]

The posters may not be tarrists, but there is a connection in that they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who is the tarrist who filmed the video. Investigating them is a matter of unpeeling the onion skin.

I'm with you in spirit, but by that logic, anyone who posts Daily Show clips must work for Comedy Central, or know someone who is.

Re:Tarrists!

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215)]

Microsoft fought the gov't and won.

They "lost" but didn't even get a slap on the wrist.

They are getting away with OOXML and other proprietary standards, and IE is still the default browser and can't be removed, and Netscape is still dead.

Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed

[by Anonymous Coward]

Let us decide what we can watch. Don't censor anything, please?

Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed

[jmorris42 (1458)]

> Don't censor anything, please?

Too late. Google/YouTube has been censoring anything that 'insults Islam', they deem to be 'hate speech (they don't like/disagree with it)' and several other catagories beyond their strict legal obligations. So now they take a firm stand for free speech when it comes to protecting terrorists. But post a conservative video and watch how how few complaints it takes to get it yanked.

Folks, Google crossed the 'Don't be Evil.' line years back.

Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed

[DaHat (247651)]

Just to name a few off the top of my search results:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020445.php [jihadwatch.org]
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22835_Jawa_Report_Video_Censored_by_YouTube&only [littlegreenfootballs.com]
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/06/youtube-goes-dhimmi-part-two/ [hotair.com]

Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed

[Klaus_1250 (987230)]

Yes.

Both are bad and evil, but truth should always be accessible, no matter what. If you can't view truth, than you can no longer understand the world/reality around you. How can you form opinions on matters with are not part of your view of reality? How can vote? How can you understand people/groups/cultures/countries/... If you lack the necessary information to understand them? The only thing you can do is rely on some sort of authority to provide you with information/truth/whatever. (Recent) History has shown us that authorities cannot handle such responsibility. AFAIK, access to truth is one of the most basic human rights.

As for the sick bastard comment. The materials you mention do make me sick, but the don't make me a bastard per sé. It is how and why you view said materials.

Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed

[Anpheus (908711)]

Child porn downloading needs to be made illegal to increase the cost of making and distributing it. That is, if downloads weren't illegal and the people downloading it weren't afraid of getting caught, their cost/benefit would be different. Making it legal to download but not to make child porn decreases the cost for consumers, which would make it more easily profitable for sellers. And for producers in foreign countries would have more direct, legit distribution. That would encourage more child porn, etc.

As it is, I see no problem with banning something heinous all the way from its act to the distribution of it, so long as the people along the way aren't paying to see said act. Creating child porn should be made as costly, as dangerous, as illegal as possible, and the dissemination of it similarly so. It's not just obscene material, which can be broadcast for the national good (such as terrorist videos, assassinations of world leaders, the WTC attacks,) it's obscene material -created- by people who sought to create obscene material and profit from it. That's the distinction. I would consider true snuff films to be in the same category. This isn't just some journalist sneaking into Burma and taping a protest and the subsequent killing of monks in order to show the world what's happening. That journalist did not cause those events to happen, he is a passive observer informing the world of a tragedy. The people shooting child porn or taking pictures of it... ugh, they are causing horrible things to happen with the intent of distributing them.

Hypocritical?

[amrik98 (1214484)]

They seem to have no problem removing videos related to Scientology.

Re:Hypocritical?

[omnichad (1198475)]

Are you surprised? They're the one group more messed up than the terrorist organizations.

Re:Hypocritical?

[TheSpoom (715771)]

The DMCA (or specifically, DMCA Title II, OCILLA [wikipedia.org]) legally requires them to take down the material when a copyright claim is put forward, such as the ones the Church of Scientology / RTC sends, in order to avoid any legal liability due to the safe harbor provisions in the law. The person who then posted the video can send a counter-notice to YouTube to get them to put the video back up; it's then a matter for the courts to decide (and if the person claiming infringement does go to the courts, the material stays down until they have ruled on the matter).

IANAL, this is not legal advice, this is just how I understand it. You can't blame YouTube for wanting to keep their service provider safe harbor limited liability; otherwise, they'd be sued out of existence every time someone posted a music video.

The guidelines

[by Anonymous Coward]

Directly from youtube's guidelines:

# Don't post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making.
# Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.
# YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and similar things.

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

Free speech hypocrites

Re:The guidelines

[Carthag (643047)]

perhaps the removed videos were the ones with beheadings and the ones that are still there are the ones with i dunno terrorist training camps & osama bin laden speeches & other anti-american propaganda.

kinda hard to tell without a list of them, but if this is the case, i dont see a problem at all.

Re:The guidelines

[Original Replica (908688)]

perhaps the removed videos were the ones with beheadings and the ones that are still there are the ones with i dunno terrorist training camps & osama bin laden speeches & other Anti-American propaganda.

I think the ones with the beheadings and stonings and abuse of women are the most important to keep. They show the true face of Militant Islam and Sharia Law. It's easy to make a convincing Anti-American propaganda video, we make lots of mistakes and some of them are quite shameful (Gitmo and Katrina come to mind) but let not forget to closely examine what our critics are proposing to replace our imperfect America with.

Someone needs to pull Lieberman aside explain to him meaning of "the only thing you have to fear is fear itself." Fight lies and propaganda with truth and transparency, not secrets and censorship.

refuses? yet removed (some)?

[Animaether (411575)]

Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos
Summary: YouTube [...] removed some of the videos

Did the same person actually write both, or what?
New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Some Terrorist Videos

or...

New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Most Terrorist Videos

Then again, wth is a "terrorist video"? A video with terrorists in it? A video with a religious leader spouting extremist ideas in it? What?

Anyway... the ones that -were- removed where apparently removed for violating YouTube's own community 'rules';
"Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines." - http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/16037 [axcessnews.com]

Sounds 'sane' enough (not too sure about the hate speech thing, but if YouTube comments are any indication, I wouldn't want to see the insult-and-flamefest that youtube would become if every 13-year old could spout their hatred for another YouTube user in a video.

That's the world we live in

[melted (227442)]

You can't post a video with two people having consentual sex. Yet you can post videos showing violence, inciting hatred and bragging about terrorist attacks.

Personally, I think that if we allow terrorist videos, then at the very least pr0n should be allowed, too. :-)

Re:That's the world we live in

[Minwee (522556)]

Every time you masturbate God kills a kitten

But what does God do when I kill a kitten?

political stunt

[Chris Snook (872473)]

This smells like a stunt. Lieberman was probably expecting them to refuse him entirely, and use that to incite outrage to further his agenda. It looks like Youtube saw through it, and took the responsible course of action by fairly applying their community standards. Now Lieberman will have to openly admit that he wants to limit free speech if he wants to push this further, because he can't claim that they're unfairly supporting one viewpoint by keeping the majority of the content which did not violate the standards.

Hypocritical Indeed

[CorporalKlinger (871715)]

Google didn't seem to have much support for freedom of speech when they assisted the government of India in locating a man who posted a profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji, as reported yesterday on Slashdot. [slashdot.org] Strong supporters of freedom of speech indeed - right up until the protection of a user's right to freedom of speech threatens to strain Google's political relationships with distant countries where labor and data center construction are cheap.

Here's another perspective if you care to read it:

[gandhi_2 (1108023)]

I spent a year in Iraq as a US soldier.

I found the insurgent videos to be, well lacking in their musical choice. However, they provided an excellent view into the operations of the insurgents. We sometimes would watch them just to get a better idea about them.

And the Uhm Kfar (spelling?) video did have some hella tight beats.

You know...once this whole world-struggle for ideologies (this really isn't about Iraq, as far as the insurgents see it) is over, we are gonna sit down, have some beers, and play our videos together, and laugh about the old times.

They are going to post their videos on some site... we certainly post ours. Why shouldn't a US company get the ad revenue?

Easy.

[zx-15 (926808)]

The US government should patent terrorism and then Liberman could sue YouTube for copyright infringement. Google would take down the videos immediately.

Interesting

[Deanalator (806515)]

I hadn't even noticed that Hamas had so many videos on youtube.
Those interested should check out http://youtube.com/watch?v=U8Nj-QKQkCo [youtube.com] and related videos.

Also an interesting movie I watched recently was "suicide killers". It contains many interviews with suicide bombers right before they kill themselves, and many interviews with failed suicide bombers in Israeli prisons.

http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Killers-Pierre-Rehov/dp/B000NVHWIE [amazon.com]
http://www.mininova.org/tor/635799 [mininova.org]

Maybe I am just strange, but I find it absolutely fascinating how a group of people can have such a strong hatred of Israel. It's a really fucked up situation for both sides, but I think it is very important for both sides to be heard.

Free Speech is Fine

[SquierStrat (42516)]

Free speech is fine: the GOVERNMENT/STATE should never forbid speech of any kind (with the reasonable restriction on things like child pornography et cetera.)

A private organization saying hey we won't allow mass murders to post propaganda on our site is not the same. I am willing to bet YouTube would feel different if the US Gov't posted overt propaganda videos on YouTube.

Re:Good

[PLBogen (452989)]

Kudos for calling a Jew a Nazi.

Not that I disagree. ;-)

Re:Good

[BrainInAJar (584756)]

And if we don't let them make these videos, then it's moot because we've already lost

Think that they're wrong? Say something, don't prevent them from saying something

Re:Good

[Cajun Hell (725246)]

Wait till the people making these videos get in charge... you haven't begun to see censorship yet.

Showing their videos is a great way to keep them from ever becoming in charge. Idiots are their own worse enemies.

If Lieberman succeeds in concealing that murderers are in favor of committing murder, then the murderers win. Personally, I hope Lieberman rethinks his values, and comes back over to the anti-murder/anti-Nazi side.

Re:Good

[_KiTA_ (241027)]

This is America, not France/*insertshittyeuropeancountryhere* where the muslims are allowed to run free protesting all the values of western civilization (freedom) and calling for the beheading and execution of anyone who even talks negatively about islam, let alone draws a cartoon.

Nah, Islam's not allowed to do that, instead we just have people saying 9/11 occurred because we haven't killed / locked up all the homosexuals, atheists, and Jews. And these people are not only allowed on TV after having said this, are actually well respected members of the national community.

Re:Good

[RalphSleigh (899929)]

Yeah, damn them Europeans letting everyone in on this freedom of speech thing.

Re:Good

[Ash Vince (602485)]

As a European (British) I would like to point out there is no chance of most of Europe turning into a muslim state. Most of us over here supported the authors of those comics, as did our governments. There were lots of loony Muslims out campaigning for some stupid fatwa or something, but who cares. That is the joy of free speech, getting to ignore pathetic hatemongering individuals who don't understand that without it they would be unable to open their mouths at all.

If we do anything else in regards to stopping religious loonies being able to practice, march or gather in public places we begin curtailing the freedoms that we hold so dear to begin with and are no better than them. Anyway, watching them whine and burn effegies of some guy who only drew a cartoon gives alot of us even more reason to poke fun at some peoples serious lack of perspective.

The following quote is one I have always identified with in matters such as these:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Re:Good

[cduffy (652)]

Have to destroy the village (personal freedoms) to save it, eh?

To claim that allowing repugnant political views to be published and discussed should be prevented to better preserve political freedoms is hypocritical in the first degree. Moreover, full and frank disclosure and discussion is useful: To let terrorists disclose their arguments in public, and to allow those arguments to be debated and defeated in public, introduces appropriate counterarguments into the public consciousness, ensures that those same arguments can no longer be used as convincingly in private (where the lack of public debate might otherwise make them convincing), and makes claims of coverup and large-scale media conspiracy less convincing. As such claims of conspiracy reduce credibility of non-terrorist-controlled information sources, any action which might lend them credence should be clearly avoided whenever possible.

The military battle should be as asymmetric as possible; the public relations battle, on the other hand, should be fought fairly, convincingly, and in full view of the public if it is to be effective. Just as we should not practice waterboarding even if the other side does beheadings, we should not practice even mild censorship of political speech; we need not do either to win, and taking any such actions reduces our credibility and moral standing in the eyes of the world -- including those who might be recruited to either side.

Re:you fool

[_KiTA_ (241027)]

it doesnt happen with 'coup'. it happens with 'boarding schools' which take in children of ages 7 to 18. they run these 'charities' for children who cant afford a good education. they brainwash kids there. also they tell their supporters to multiply like madmen. results are phenomenonal.

Religious boarding schools... Huh. You mean, something like this? [jesuscampthemovie.com]

You're right, Theists are SCARY.

Re:I'm sorry...

[by Anonymous Coward]

A record of an event is not the illegal event -- why don't you ban the fucking news while you're at it?

> Can I kill my annoying neighbors now and claim free speech protection?

Not unless you're a rich Saudi, in which case Bush will be pleased to assist.

Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life

[by Anonymous Coward]

...is it too much to ask that we take away the free speech of people...

Yes.

Re:Bravo! Why the hell should YouTube fold?

[davidsyes (765062)]

Hell, every single time the US apparatus kills a non-merkun, that is animosity generated SOMEwhere, and it puts a fucking bulls eye on MY back. Going to wrong place, or just having visible a US passport not only increases the risk of being accosted, grabbed, or killed (not to mention having prices jacked up at the sound of my voice or sight of my gait or clothing or body language) makes me a target, NOT solely because of the passport but for being called a 'merkun.

A life is a life, at the individual level. It's only different for those who have bigger guns, pussies for a population, and laws to jail or contain those who speak out.

LET ME DECIDE what I'll watch. So far, to my recollection, i have YET to bother watching the beheading of any nationality. Not out of respect for the dead, but just because of personal preference to not make it a thing to do or repeat.

If the USA doesn't want to see 'merkuns coming home in body bags nor be executed/murdered/butchered, then all it has to do is stop bombing, stop killing, and stop strong-arming and stop acting as if people who have grievances against the US don't have to right to get some rep. The more repugnant the public finds the ACT of murder (as opposed to recoiling over the mere existence of a video that depicts the murder) then maybe the more backbone the 'merkun people will grow out of concern for it's IMAGE.

Right now, we do NOT deserve that much respect. Plain fuckin' period. Trinkets, bravado, money, power, guns, steel, rockets, and freedom for me don't mean SHIT when some asshole decides to kill in my name, steal in my name, plunder in my name, and risk my well being to keep goods rolling and oil flowing when MOST of the bullshit is something i OUGHT not be buying in the first place, or certainly could buy less of it.

There. I speak for myself, even if others agree. Sometimes, I'll assert my opinion has a moral priority over others', and with or without agreement, i will stand my ground. Don't FUCKING KILL in MY name and expect me to ignore it or forgive it or play like every single one of the attacked was wrong or was a threat to ME or even "the system". Otherwise, the populace deserves to be wiped out by plague, pestilence, famine, nature, or even any pot-shot-taking ETs that happen to notice our repugnant leaders and, worse, our general total ineffectiveness to reign in the corrupt.

Congress and the Senate need to remember that when you tell someone NOT to see a movie, they go see it. Assigning an R-Rating to a movie or film just increases viewership. Leaving it UNRATED might do even more to increase viewership.

Re:Bravo!

[fishbowl (7759)]

They will comply with a lawful order. They will even comply with the law when a notice of violation of that law is delivered to them.

What law does Senator Lieberman allege that Google/YouTube has violated?

Oh that's right... NONE... What's more ... a letter from a US Senator is just. ... a letter.
It has no legal force whatsoever.

If you want to compel action, go to the table with evidence of a crime. Otherwise understand that your request can be ignored. I'm surprised they even responded, or acknowledged this stuff to the press.

Somebody at Google is having a good laugh at a Senator who seems to think his word is law.

Personal Experience with these types of letters.

[PhreakOfTime (588141)]

Its amazing how common this practice is these days.

For some reason, when I posted the publicly available court cases for my county, a local real estate company hired a lawyer to send me a letter demanding that I remove this as it was 'possibly libelous'.

There were also claims of copryright, and trademark violations in the letter. Along with threatening me to have the information tunred over for possible CRIMINAL charges. Keep in mind these sites did not sell any product, or service of any kind.

Oh, it also demanded that I turn over my legally owned domains to the lawyers client, free of charge.

The company who did this was Caton Commercial [willcounty...tcourt.com], and yes that is a link to the current pending cases against them at my county courthouse. And also, the Cease and Desist Letter [demystify.info] can also be read online.

What a pathetic way to run a business, or conduct yourself with respect to others differing views.

Re:this won't go down well (karma sacrifice)

[SquierStrat (42516)]

The difference: the Irish preferred not to die for their cause. The Islamic Fascists are supranational and would relish to die for theirs. They want to rule the world (literally) and force their religion on everyone. They have no dreams of independence. They do speak. And when they do, they frequently remind us that they are just cleansing the immoral from the earth and asking Americans (and other westerners) to repent and turn to Islam. Otherwise they simply want to kill us all or die trying. So they state three acceptable outcomes: we all become muslim; they kill all non-muslims; all of them die.

It's not a political battle - it's a holy war. The difference is that it isn't between Christianity and Islam (or Hindu and Islam) it's between secular government and Islam. Fortunately there is an identifiable enemy: pre-dominantly men who belief in a twisted version of Islam.

Bottom line: You can't compare this to the dispute between the British and the IRA.

Re:this won't go down well (karma sacrifice)

[CdBee (742846)]

they'd have to somehow sneak 57 million muslims into my country to make me a minority - - 2.9 million a year for 20 years.

somehow I don't feel threatened by that. our coastal defences might be a bit naff but they aren't that bad... Oh and European law will protect us from the ludicrous notion of sharia in the UK. Cheers :-)

Re:This is bullshit.

[corbettw (214229)]

Thank you, this can't be said often enough. YouTube has no problem leaving up videos from Islamists and neonazis calling for the destruction of Israel and the subjugation of women, Christians, pagans, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't follow those groups agendas. But post one video detailing what those groups believe, and your account will get turned off before you can say "Godwin".

Re:Free speech equals more ads displayed!

[Mistlefoot (636417)]

So Bhutto's assasination should have been censored? Can't imagine how much American news stations profited from showing that. Heck, how many 100's of hours of television shows and or movies are dedicated to the Kennedy assisination. Profiting over video of an assisination or terrorist act is not illegal when Americans want it to be seen. - heck - imagine it illegal to watch the world trade center fall. How many news organizations in the US sold ads for that newsworthy event?

Re:Free speech equals more ads displayed!

[WindowlessView (703773)]

Can't imagine how much American news stations profited from showing that

That's close to the truth. One call back to Langley and Google would have been told to ignore old Joe. They want this stuff shown. Who would host their Osama videos? It's one arrow in the quiver for keeping us scared and throwing bags of money at them. They want to eliminate these videos from YouTube as much as anti-virus companies want people to stop writing viruses.

Now if AQ were to start making videos of calm, reasonable arguments of their grievances THAT would have to stop.

Re:Free speech equals more ads displayed!

[Original Replica (908688)]

America deliberately act against its own interest. Why should America act contrary to its interests?

You assume that the interests of America (as represented by the incumbent elected officials) is the same as interests of America (the general populace) or the same as the interests of America (the Platonic Ideal put forth by our founding fathers and daydreamed of by starry-eyed libertarians). Those in power take actions based on staying in power. The general populace takes actions based on increasing wealth and/or comfort. Platonic Ideals are talking points not action points, they almost never result in real world actions.

Re:Hamas does not get 1st amendment protection

[LionMage (318500)]

Last time I checked, people who are not citizens of these great United States of America are not entitled to protections offered under the bill of rights.

Actually, since the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land (and by extension, the Bill of Rights, which is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution), it applies to any person or entity operating on U.S. soil, whether or not they are citizens. This is why it's not legal to murder illegal immigrants, for example -- they still have rights that are recognized, and they don't need to be citizens of the U.S. to be afforded basic rights.

So, sorry to burst your bubble, but if a jihadist publishes a video through YouTube, that video has First Amendment protections, by virtue of the fact that YouTube is owned by Google (a U.S. company operating in the United States) and by virtue of the place where the material is "published" -- regardless of where the author might reside. So YouTube can't be legally compelled to censor said video.

Freedom of Speech applies universally in the United States, not just to speech that you agree with, and not just to people you happen to like. That's why you can run out and buy a copy of Mein Kampf in this country, and why we have a Nazi party here when the same political party is outlawed in Germany. If the First Amendment only applied to citizens, the effect on any kind of diplomatic or political discourse would be chilling to say the least... not to mention the effect on the cultural contributions of foreign authors. Picture an America devoid of Harry Potter because some religious nutbag in the government decided that J.K. Rowling was promoting witchcraft.