Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship
jamie writes "On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
Actually, if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough to demonstrate that there had been an edit by CNN, and had added his own content explaining what this showed and why, it would probably fit under the Fair Use requirements for scholarship or criticism - but IANAL.
1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation
Actually, it mentions 17 USC 512, which is part of the copyright law, which was amended in part from the DMCA. So, yes, this does involve the DMCA.
2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.
You are missing the point. He is being asked to take it down by CNN (through YouTube). They are claiming copyright violation. He is claiming his clip falls under fair use, a concept only really defined in courts, not in the law, and not very well at that. He might not have a right to post it to YouTube, but if he doesn't have a place to host from himself and his post doesn't violate Copyright Law, then he can argue Fair Use. Fair use is at the heart of the matter here since the request for removal came from the copyright holder.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Being gay is a non-issue. Being a hypocrite should be huge issue in politics. Censorship is even a bigger issue.
Here's the clip. Note in the comment section of that post, they mention a few other hypocrites.
Here's the image that CNN showed on their censored rebroadcast of their 9/11 footage. I guess they didn't want people to wonder why their were reports of bombs in the building, and start doing research.
Fact is censorship is everywhere. We only get half the story, if that.
If random Person A goes on a live show and makes a COMPLETELY UNSOURCED accusation that Person B is gay, it would be completely unethical and irresponsible for CNN to leave it in a subsequent broadcast of the show. I used to be a journalist, and I guarantee that most reasonable (non-ideological) journalists would make the same decision. It's not censorship. It's a responsible editorial decision regarding an completely unsubstantiated charge. The guy may or may not be gay. I haven't a clue (and don't care), but you don't broadcast something like that without having some reasonable basis for believing it's TRUE.
David
The point of Maher doing this is to expose the blatant hipocrisy that is going on. The current Republican leadership has been hostile towards gay and lesbian people and their rights. They pander to an audience of religious fundamentalists on a platform that alienates a minority group while being part of that group themselves. If they kept their own internal struggles and self-loathing private then I'd say they have a right to privacy. However, as it stands their public actions and policies have the potential to make life miserable for a group of people so their hipocrisy deserves to be brought under public scrutiny. Just because the minority group happens to be gays doesn't make this ok, there would be an uproar if you had a black man advocating segregation or making interracial marriages illegal, for example.
The worst offense a politician can incur is to be a hypocrit. If you're going to blast others for their lifestyles and actively work to pass laws to limit their lifestyles, all the while participating in the exact same lifestyles yourself... then you are:
A. A hypocrit
B. A masochist
and... it *IS* different for Democrats, because Democrats are NOT the ones trying to demonize the gay lifestyle.
ps. Preachers like Haggard claim that homosexuality is a "choice" and not an inate character trait. Then he writes an apology letter to his congregation saying "I have been at war with these inner demons most of my adult life". Sounds like he's admitting that it WASN'T a choice... it's just who he is and he's forced to come to grips with it. And his followers offer HIM forgiveness, meanwhile their still bashing OTHERS like him.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Mentioning youtube makes the contents of the DNC daily fax a technology story?
They are not a hypocrit if they disagree with the catholic church that abortion is wrong.
.. say make public speeches against abortion, have laws passed against abortion, and then it turns out they are having abortions themselves or supporting abortion actively in secret.
They are only a hypocrit if they
However, hypocrisy just doesn't have the sting it did 20 years ago. People have no shame any more.
Except maybe republicans *once* they are caught.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.