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."
Tarrists! (Score:5, Funny)
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:Tarrists! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tarrists! (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Tarrists! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Smoking crater (Score:3, Interesting)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=268395414333521428 [google.com]
Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Quote vs. quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
You sick bastard
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (Score:4, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/16/1836246 [slashdot.org]
Soon you will be a felon for creating child porn in which NO children were actually abused.
Hell, why stop there, lets just make ANY picture that we don't agree with on a moral basis ILLEGAL and have a hefty jail sentence for it. I was thinking something along the lines of a law against putting government officials in an unfavorable light, what do you guys think?
Yes, welcome to the end of the world, enjoy your stay and make sure to thank the children as well as your local representative.
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.
Bravo! (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
Personal Experience with these types of letters. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hypocritical? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hypocritical? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hypocritical? (Score:4, Interesting)
Featuring such a video does look nearly hypocritical to me. A related problem fresh on my mind is YouTube's habit of suspending good accounts. It looks like most everything is automated, so people need only attract a few malicious trolls to get the boot. With so many people getting suspended and so many videos being pulled under false pretenses, it's just strange to see them taking a stand like this. It's strange to see them paying attention to the content they're hosting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hypocritical? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Hypocritical? (Score:4, Funny)
i mean, what's al qaeda going to do? file a counterclaim and provide Bin Laden's mailing address?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The guidelines (Score:5, Informative)
# 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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (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.
Phew.. (Score:3, Funny)
This is bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they'll leave up terrorist videos because it'll get them more hits.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
refuses? yet removed (some)? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's the world we live in (Score:5, Funny)
But what does God do when I kill a kitten?
political stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about american guncams? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hypocritical Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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: (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:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Re: (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 i
Re: (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. Suppress
Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:4, Interesting)
"Sir, why do you hate America?"
See, The point of freedom of speech isn't for the stuff you like. It's for the stuff you hate, that makes you want to puke or hurt someone. That's the kind of speech that the first amendment is designed to protect.
So, please, go and read the Constitution and realize that the government isn't there to change your wetnaps and wipe your nose, it's there to protect you against real violence. Speech isn't violence and shouldn't be treated as such.
Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you know, for example, that the people in our "volunteer military" aren't allowed to leave if they change their minds? Outside of national defense, this would be considered a form of slavery and would not be permitted. You can't sell yourself into slavery or even rent yourself into slavery as a civilian. But when you joint the military, that's essentially what you are.
And for most of our history when our freedoms have been threatened by violence, we've resorted to pressing young men into involuntary servitude to do difficult and dangerous work. And yes, one of the freedoms they lose when that happens is freedom of speech.
This youtube thing wouldn't be a complete revocation of free speech, but would be measured in response to the threats we face.
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.
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?
Easy. (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
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: (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.
Surely Harbouring Terrorists is worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq is another matter.
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:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Not that I disagree.
Re: (Score:3)
-- 'God' figure says its OK to kill people and jack their land because you'll use it better? (check)
-- Someone is "one of us," whether they want to be or not, because they were born with our genes? (check)
Re: (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 solutio
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait till the people making these videos get in charge... you haven't begun to see censorship yet.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Think that they're wrong? Say something, don't prevent them from saying something
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.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right. I'll bet the Serbs said the same thing about Kosovo - and now look at them. Post WW2 the population of Kosovo was about half Serbian and half Albanian Muslim. Today it's something like 97% Muslim, and more and more Serbs are forced out every day. Kosovo has gone from being a part of Serbia to being it's own mini-state which is more or less part of Albania. It's annexation through ov
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: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.
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:you fool (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, Theists are SCARY.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you havent seen scary, until you have seen the extent of brainwashing that happens in an islamic boarding school. christian brainwashing and radicalism pales in comparison.
Not from my viewpoint. Anything Scientology related, Jesus Camps, nonexistent American Islamic Boarding Schools...
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 Sat
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PS. I think you missed a few memos.
Re:this won't go down well (karma sacrifice) (Score:5, Informative)
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) (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 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: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: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: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.