YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos 676
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."
Free speech equals more ads displayed! (Score:1, Insightful)
Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
This is bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they'll leave up terrorist videos because it'll get them more hits.
No nudity, but graphic, real violence is OK (Score:1, Insightful)
Only a couple years ago (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the world we live in (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think that if we allow terrorist videos, then at the very least pr0n should be allowed, too.
political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
What about american guncams? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hypocritical Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait till the people making these videos get in charge... you haven't begun to see censorship yet.
Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't Youtube voluntarily add something to their guidelines like "Don't post stuff that supports terrorism or undermines the national security of the country where Youtube is located? The global economy is nice, but they're still Americans and those soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are still dying for them, and the Youtube owners are still as much targets of the terrorists as the people in the Twin Towers and the United airplanes were.
Re:Hypocritical? (Score:2, Insightful)
> They seem to have no problem removing videos related to Scientology.
That's not hypocritical - that's not wanting to be sued for infringement of other people's intellectual property.
Here's another perspective if you care to read it: (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
this won't go down well (karma sacrifice) (Score:2, Insightful)
No side in this war can hope to eradicate the other side.. I am British, 20 years ago I was 50 metres away from being dismembered by an IRA bomb in a london street. Now - thanks to courageous politicians - we live in peace with the Northern irish and the former leaders of terrorist organisations co-operate to run Ulster jointly
A peaceful outcome btween Wahhabism and neo-conservatism requires what we had here - both sides being willing to allow the other to speak. the American tendency to try to drown out the voice of the (few) legitimate grievances of al-qaeda pushes the day the middle east is at peace further and further away
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
PS. I think you missed a few memos.
Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:3, Insightful)
genuine war would make it much more easy to sort out who's who.
The current undeclared war against no one in particular makes
sorting out of the usual "aid and comfort to the enemy" more
difficult.
There isn't any enemy capitol for young hollywood starlets to
go to so they can pose on an enemy tank...
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
uTube Teh Dunt Be Teh Evel!!11! (Score:0, Insightful)
Since Teh YouTube is owned by Teh Googel, they have probably already provided the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the posters to the LIEberman's conservative buddies in the Schutzstaffel.
Google's "dunt be teh evel" only goes as far as PR and bumper stickers. There are a lot of people in political prisons, or dead, because of Google.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Think that they're wrong? Say something, don't prevent them from saying something
Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Bravo! Why the hell should YouTube fold? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The guidelines (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:1, Insightful)
Who is to determine what exactly does it mean "stuff that supports terrorism or undermines the national security of the country..."?
Because if that's to be based on the governmental guidelines, the same government that suddenly decided that the Constitutional Rights... how to put it nicely... do not apply in time of "war [on terror/drugs/kiddie porn/logic], I'd rather let some psychopath shout his heart's content out for the world than risk taking a ride on that slippery slope.
By the by, has it occurred to you that, despite the quality, a youtube video might actually be used for intelligence gathering?
Re:this won't go down well (karma sacrifice) (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Google doesn't consider supporting terrorism to be evil?
The other interesting thing to note is that Bush, despite all the constitutionally protected rights he's willing to trample over, still apparently thinks it's fine for the US TV networks to collaborate with al Q'aida in broadcasting their videos. One can only guess that having the US population terrorized is what Bush wants, since it playes to his agenda, despite his claims to the contrary.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hypocritical? Not quite (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know the case that happened in India, but if the indian police issued a -legal- subpoena for the offender's identifying information, I wouldn't break their laws since it would probably mean:
1. huge fines
2. complete bar from doing business in the country
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Free Speech is Fine (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely Harbouring Terrorists is worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bravo! (Score:5, Insightful)
What law does Senator Lieberman allege that Google/YouTube has violated?
Oh that's right... NONE... What's more
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.
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hypocritical? (Score:2, Insightful)
typical (Score:3, Insightful)
You're wrong, and Lieberman is wrong. These terrorists are evil, but it is stupid to try to silence them. Americans need to know about them and their message in order to make informed decisions as citizens.
Lieberman is wrong.
Re:Free speech equals more ads displayed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:3, Insightful)
While I have sympathy for what you'd like to achieve, the freedoms involved are too fundamental to be manipulated like that. Suppressing opposing viewpoints only gives validity to the conspiracy theorists and the opposition.
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hypocritical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Free Speech is Fine (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder what the muslim world would say if the US posted a video or two of some captured arab getting his head hacked off while the US soldiers around what was happening oozed with anti arab sentiment.
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:nay (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all pretty damned scary from looking in from outside the bubble.
Seriously, "our" brand of fanaticism is no worse, no better, than "theirs" -- "their" PR departments just don't have control of the media like "ours". (Note that inside "their" bubble, it's the exact reverse -- that's why you don't hear about Al Sadir or whatever his name is being run out of town.)
"They" decry the "great Satan" and leave pipe bombs near roads, "we" hide pipe bombs in Abortion Clinics' parking lots and post the home addresses and pictures of doctor's children.
No difference, except for the level of desperation.
I put that in quotes because as many people seem to forget, America is a secular nation. That means that Islam is as much a part of the US as Christianity, Wicca, Buddhism, and countless other beliefs -- all equally valid and equally worthy of our respect and protection.
Outrageous (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech is a very important right and why the drafters of the US constitution did not include any provision for it to be suspended. This is because it is difficult to define what is bad law or a good law in a constitution. The founders understood that if there are unjust laws in the books, that with free speech the people have an opportunity to help abolish bad laws. Its obviously a bad law to place a $500 fine on jaywalking but difficult to draft a constitution that is able to explicitely prohibit all kinds of such bad legislation.
Governments role is not to decide what we are allowed to look at and to control speech. We see the government increasingly doing things it has no business doing, such as invading our privacy and censorship, and engaging in illegal wars, and doing less of what it should be doing and that is helping people who are in need through health care, affordable housing, employment and unemployement insurance, and so on. We need to demand government stop the censorship, the torture, the surveillance to create a prison state to enslave people and start serving the people again and truly protecting peoples freedom, which does not mean censorship torture, and in other ways taking away peoples freedoms and so on.
Re:Free speech equals more ads displayed! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, if I tell you my name is Pat Murphy (which it is not), you might
Similarly, if my name is Saul Bergersteinowitzskimanheimer, it doesn't matter if I show up to Bill Grahm, Jr.'s every Sunday morning. I'm a Jew.
Karl Marx referenced the "final solution" to the "jewish question" decades before Hitler was born. He was an avoid atheist who suggested that Communism, by destroying international capital, would damage the very nature of the Jew and destroy Jews as a people. read here [marx.org] for more info.
However, despite being a "bad Jew," he still makes it into lists of prominent Jews kept by Jewish organizations. Same with Lev Bronstein, aka Leon Trotsky, who changed his name and feigned to be a gentile thereby.
That would suggest that it is something completely and totally different from being American.
As to your point about the Japanese - yes, I am familiar. However, we (Americans) whooped their ass, forced them to submit and now they're more or less harmless. My tax dollars do not go to buy them bombs to use on the Koreans.
However, my tax dollars are going to support a regieme that is racist, militarist and un-democratic, which has an expansionist foreign policy and which commits the type of war crimes that they accused Germany of on an almost daily basis.
Any criticism of their policies is greeted with cries of "naziracistanti-semite! holocaust! 9/11!!" Suggestions that Jews should NOT have their own ethnic state are "racist," while statements saying that Serbs should are ALSO racist? Double standard, I say.
When even Jimmy Carter is called a "nazi" and an "anti-semite" for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, its not fair to use tanks to shoot palestinan kids, then there is apparently no room for intelligent debate.
Fuck Israel.
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Go ahead and stand on any of your "Any Town, USA" intersections (any of the four gas stations will do just fine) or a monster truck rally, and shout your jingoism there, where it's appropriate. Scribble it on a cardboard with a felt marker and hang it from your shoulders, if you like. Here, on a forum frequented by people from all over the world, you're just underlining the worst stereotype of your country's citizens.
let alone draws a cartoon.
The swede Allah cartoons were not published in United States newspapers. From what I recall, they only made the rounds there on internet blogs. In fact, only one US publication was going to publish the cartoons, yet they chickened out and yanked the issue before it hit the shelves. So much for your superior stance.
This is America, not France...yada yada yada
That's right, America, stretching from Patagonia to the Arctic Circle, composed of 35 countries and 19 territories. It's a continent! Look into it...
Two basic principles of Freedom are Tolerance and Knowledge, and you're not showing any of either. Maybe you're unclear on the concept? I invite you to go and find out what kind of "ism" your viewpoints delineate, you might find yourself dismally shocked, and begin to discover that many of your fine countrymen are far ahead of you on the path to enlightenment.
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hamas does not get 1st amendment protection (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surely Harbouring Terrorists is worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq is another matter.
Re:Free speech equals more ads displayed! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:4, Insightful)
"That's because droids don't rip your arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookies are known to do that."
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free speech equals more ads displayed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it would pass either of those tests would largely depend upon context, terrorist recruitment videos aren't ever going to pass. Showing videos of crimes, in an effort to recruit people to commit more crimes, is not ever going to be protected speech in the US.
If this were being used in an objective report by a journalist, that would more likely than not pass the tests and be protected. Possible also if it were part of a world's blankiest blank show. As dubious as that second one is, there are more than enough shows of that sort to justify it, as poor as the taste would have to be to show it.
For instance the 9/11 planes hitting the towers was never questioned as legitimate when accompanied with the news, adding a voice over to join Al Quaeda and commit that sort of atrocity yourself wouldn't be protected.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
What you say is true, though: they are reproducing faster than the Jewish majority in Israel, and in a few generations, they will have a majority. Israel has already decided how to proceed with this, though. They'll be a democracy in much the same way South Africa was a democracy.
All this is is brown-skinned immigrant fear-mongering.
Re:typical (Score:3, Insightful)
Which terrorist? Are we talking about the handful of crackpots that planned and executed the Sept 11th hijackings, or all the "terrorists/insurgents/criminals/insert name of the month here" created by US foreign policy since 2003 and the invasion/occupation of Iraq? The latter aren't evil. They think they're doing the right thing by opposing the US, and - newsflash - to be honest most of the world agrees with them.
See the problem now is that the very word "terrorist" has been corrupted far beyond its original meaning. There are almost 1 million people on the "No Fly/Terrorist watch list". And that number is increasing daily. "Terrorist" has gone from its original definition - "idiots who blow up bars, discos, train stations and movie theatres, or hijack aircraft, killing innocent civilians in high profile events to draw the world's attention to their political agenda" to a new one - "anyone who says/does something the US government does not approve of". Like failing to notice the Humvee that's headed towards you at full speed in Iraq (the penalty is summary execution - for being in the wrong lane). Or campaigning against the occupation of Iraq. Or speaking out about Guantanamo, "waterboarding", or the current US administration. Yep, even skateboarders are terrorists nowadays. Do NOT skate near a federal building, or supercops will bully you for endangering public safety through your acts of terrorism.
No, I'm sorry. If you're looking for evil, I would start with George Bush, and work my way down.
Free Speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Quote vs. quote (Score:2, Insightful)
- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:5, Insightful)
It irks me to no end when people wrap themselves in the flag while failing to uphold the very core values that makes the US great. Even worse is when they actively erode those values - work to undermine our basic rights - undo the US Constitution.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a look at a map. Find Israel. Nice, small country, eh? Then find Gaza and west-bank on the map.. and then stop to think for a few seconds. Put aside your feelings, old thoughts on who did what to who when and why, push the horror-stories away.. and just stop to consider the underlying basics in this conflict...
In other words, apartheid. It's that simple. The current situation is completely amoral and completely unacceptable. Israel should either work on incorporating the occupied terrorities into their own state, or work on getting the hell out.. and I'm absolutely flabbergasted we're actually trading with them. They should have been trade-boycotted to hell and back a long time ago.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite true. I think the point is that ignorant comments such as "Israel would be returning to the people who originally lived there" serve no purpose other than to further entrench the various factions. Who gives a shit who lived there. Giving Israel back to the Palestinians, or to the Egyptians, or even to the Brits, would make about as much sense as demanding that the US be turned over to the Ojibwa, or the Mohawk. It is truly embarrassing to see otherwise intelligent and well educated people making such ridiculous arguments.
Europeans Not Breeding (Score:2, Insightful)
What you will see, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned it, will be sharia laws in European countries. First for the Muslims. Hopefully, it won't branch out from there. Now, I know people were critical of those remarks. But today's unthinkable becomes tomorrow's thinkable.
Re:Priorities..... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you "conservatives" were equally indignant about the state terror of U.S. bombs dropped on innocent civilians living in apartments or shot at checkpoints in Iraq I'd believe, you, alas you're not you have double standards.
And BTW I walk the talk and sayno to censoring either Islamic or U.S. state sponsored military terror.
Re:Free speech equals more ads displayed! (Score:3, Insightful)
The fighting words doctrine is far too narrow to apply to a video posted on the Internet. You'd have to show the video to a real live crowd to have a chance of bringing "fighting words" into the picture.
The Miller test is even further from applicability, unless there's sex in the videos, and no political content. Since it's the political content which is at issue, this seems unlikely.
Might not be, but you'll have to find a loophole other than the ones you've mentioned.
Free Speech? Last time I checked... (Score:2, Insightful)
...YouTube was owned by Google, not the State.
You have all the free speech you can get---on your own dime. YouTube is a business, not a public service. They have a right as a private organization, and a responsibility to their shareholders, to determine what stays and what goes, based on what they think will make the most money, plain and simple.
It so happens that free speech is very marketable. If "Web2.0" means anything, it's that one fact. But they have a vision of what they want their site to be like, and a legal responsibility to do basic due diligence in response to copyright violations. The video poster's 1st Amendment rights have nothing to do with this case. You wanna post videos of beheadings on the internet? Fine, go get a domain name and a web server, and you can do just that. I'll bet you wouldn't be the first. (If you can imagine it, there's porn of it.)
If Joe Lieberman or Mrs. Grundy or Jesus Christ says "Remove this," it's up to YouTube's staff to decide whether or not to honor that request.
This isn't about censorship. Let's say I own a building, and I tell you you can draw whatever you want on it, with the stipulation that I'll remove anything that I decide is "bad". Then you draw a person getting their head asploded, and someone says to me, "Hey, Isaac, that drawing is pretty bad." It's my call whether to take it down or not.
The minute the State starts saying that YouTube MUST remove content, then we're all in trouble. But you'd better believe YouTube would cry First Amendment on that one right away, and they'll be right.
Re:Quote vs. quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:1, Insightful)
Meaning that, as much as you or I might be disgusted by child porn, the action of watching a video of it is a victimless crime. *Making* the video is where a victim is involved. Providing material support for it should be illegal (as it supports the creation of future victims). However, once the video is made, the harm has been done, and the victim has been victimized.
So... I think that making it should be illegal. Providing compensation to someone in exchange for it should be illegal. Knowingly supporting people that make it should be illegal. However, merely having it? How in the world are you in any shape form or fashion contributing to the problem if you didn't provide any support in any way to those who create it?
Criminilizing possession and possession alone is really nothing more than finding a way to punish people for thier thoughts and not thier actions.
Oh, and no, I don't get off on that stuff. I also don't support terrorists, but I support free speech. I'm not gay, but I support gay marriage. I'm not a woman but I support equal rights. In short I don't have to be a part of a group (or agree with the stance/goals/mentality/whatever) in order for me to speak out for their rights.
Posted Anon for obvious reasons.
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a matter completely separate from your slippery slope ideas that we should ban them from watching Hostel: no one was harmed in Hostel. Snuff films -can- be made without killing people, "loli" porn -can- be made without children (there are a lot of people who are 18 who don't look it and are totally willing to do porn.) This isn't a slippery slope matter, you shouldn't be able to profit off, nor should you engage in the distribution of video, picture, or other evidence of illegal acts.
As said by other people in this discussion, if someone buys a book from you which happens to contain some steganographic child porn hidden in it, and then that porn is discovered on their computer, they should be punished. We don't know who they payed, how the content was put there. We may never find that evidence. But not making it illegal to have makes it much, much harder to track down people selling it. It is in fact, nearly impossible to determine where digital media is coming from, though it's very, very easy to determine where it's at when someone has it.
I think it's one of the actual obligations of our nation's FBI and other police organizations to attack -every- aspect of a crime. Not just the crime itself, but anyone who intended to gain from it, whether that is public or private. You SHOULD NOT gain from child porn, true snuff films, films of stealing or in any way breaking the law.
Don't respond with 'stay in the church' to an Atheist by the way. I'm not saying ban fictitious works, I'm not saying ban animated works that harm no one, I'm definitely not saying things like Hostel or Saw are obscene and should fall under the same category. I'm talking about profiting from criminal activity, with the intent to cause that activity or encourage the distribution of the evidence. There are certain things that are absolutely for the public good, or clearly fall under first amendment rights. My ability to satirize the Islamic holy text is inviolate here.
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tarrists! (Score:3, Insightful)
A mild side effect is that you have no confidence in humanity, but hey, at least you got a laugh out of it.
They should fold because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google are happy to remove anti-Islam videos, anti-Scientology videos and so forth yet Islamic Extremists and Scientologists are free to post all the propaganda they want.
Google are simply citing free speech when it suits them to further whatever bias they have at the time whilst happily going against free speech and censoring plenty of other things that are far less offensive.
Someone making fun of Scientology, or someone calling Islam evil is treated as being far more evil than videos showing civilians getting shot or maimed yet Google's censorship program goes against this reality.
Presumably in the states with Scientology at least it's because they're scared of being sued by them, well, perhaps it's time the parents of a soldier shot dead in one of these videos also sues them so that they can make their decision based on fear of legal reprisal rather than common sense as it's the only thing that seems to be able to balance their censorship.
Of course I'd rather see the zero censorship option, but Google have already long gone against the idea of that so let's at least have balanced, unbiased censorship shall we?
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:3, Insightful)
YouTube has its own community standards which exclude violence and the ridicule of victims of violence, and it has a moderation system which is easily abused. And yet these people think it is some sort of personal conspiracy against them when their videos are removed.
Re:Tarrists! (Score:3, Insightful)
But that is the general point of the said videos. When they say "Death to America!" they mean it and say it throughout the whole video which would make it pointless to remove sections of it since it would be the majority of it. Its their message!
My consideration is that if you fear their message so much that you must censor it then they have already won. Secondly, it is ever US Citizens rights to know that people elsewhere are threatening them with death. Now I believe the terrorist threat is exaggerated at this point, but if you pull the wool over the public eyes it only hurts the victim and possibly helps the terrorists.
9/11 was able to happen because those airline passengers didn't know who Al Queda was or the geopolitical situation in the middle east. If the public had situational awareness that something like this was possible then their might have been a different outcome on that day.
Consider the source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:3, Insightful)
Supporting terrorism? Please. How about exposing barbarism for its true form. This IS an issue of free speech. You see for free speech to work you need to let everyone cast their opinion, so that you can argue against theirs.
At least we both agree that terrorizing the population for selfish purposes is bad, but broadcasting terrorist videos is not the same as supporting them. It is necessary for understanding the perspectives of the people who are so woefully mislead into indiscriminate violence.