Slashdot Mirror
Tokyo Demands YouTube Play Fair
eldavojohn writes "Recently, the city government of Tokyo has requested that political speeches to be pulled from YouTube, claiming that it gave certain hopefuls an advantage over others for Sunday's election. You may recall YouTube being in trouble with more than a few countries in the past. 'Japanese election law limits the broadcasting of speeches, which are aired only on public broadcaster NHK. Soon after the race kicked off last month, the speech by one fringe candidate, street musician Koichi Toyama, 36, has become a popular attraction on YouTube due to his eccentric, confrontational approach.' Is it fair that some government officials are being viewed more on YouTube than others or is it simply leveling the playing field for anyone with a message since it costs very little to put a video on YouTube?"
What's that, a new form of thought DRM?
Why arn't there any comments on this story? Entertain me!
I guess that depends on which country you live in.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I'm pretty pissed off that GooTube pulled the first video. Fuck that entire country and their King. The Internet isn't a place for censorship for the benefit of government officials. If the entire country bans the site, tough fucking shit, we aren't going to miss them.
YouTube staff should NOT be bending to this type of political pressure. What, we going to have the White House say that GooTube can't post videos of George falling over, looking like a monkey, acting like a horse's ass, or mispronouncing words because he's the President?
Give me a break.
Put all the speeches on YouTube and let the public access them. That way the playing field is level.
After all, it would be a horrible thing if someone in Japan wasn't doing the same thing as everyone else. How shameful!
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
As technology starts to find its way into governance, governments are losing their control over us. Of course this terrifies the elite, but... just as with the internet itself, there is little they can do to stop the coming of open source governance.
"You may recall YouTube being in trouble with more than few countries in the past"
Yup. Still blocked in Thailand.
I don't know what the fuss is about YouTube is though. Sites which allow users to post content are going to be hosting objectionable content. Governments have the choice of blocking a particular url or making a point and blocking the whole site.
A stupid site like Youtube can complement any current mechanism for "ensuring fairness" that has been set up by the city of Tokyo. How can you be more fair than Youtube? Does one of the candidates lack an Internet connection? Are some of them ugly? Let all the candidates upload their stupid videos to Youtube and maybe Tokyo can sell ad space on the skin of the monsters that invade the city on a regular basis, instead of wasting that space on political ads. ...right?
Plus, just because someone has a funny Youtube video doesn't mean you'll vote to put him in charge of your city. Tokyo elections aren't like American Idol
... from well-off candidates being able to distribute printed fliers as often and as broadly as their finances allow, whereas lesser-healed candidates can't do the same? At least with YouTube, people have to take the initiative to go find the video. Conversely, fliers simply appear at your doorstep or are shoved into your hands at the mall. In my mind this is a far more "unfair" practice.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
My neighbor can demand I turn down the music, walk around clothes or quiet my dog. I then ask "Or what?!"
It seems governments are finding myriad ways to crawl up our asses and using the enabling technology to make it easy for them to do it more efficiently.
I'm not sure "fair" is the right word. I think most free-thinking individuals would agree that equal access to media is "fair". And any controls and limitations placed on speech are inherently and ultimately "unfair" and abusable.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
This doesn't seem all that different to me than many of the political free-speech-limiting laws that we have in the US and elsewhere -- campaign finance laws, equal access, and all that jazz. Political speech on other broadcast mediums gets some close scrutiny; it makes sense that we would see the same thing happening on the internet.
Of course, I think it would be an improvement to allow unimpeded free speech on the internet, television, radio, print, and everything else -- but you can't say that these restrictions are much of a surprise.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
YouTube is not a broadcaster, it doesn't "air" anything. It is a source of goods for consumption. I don't like the idea of governments forcing me to "consume" candidates equally. If I want to watch more videos of one candidate over another, that should be my right.
Broadcast is a content limited resource, which is why those resources are required to be shared evenly among candidates, the internet isn't limited in that way, so forced rationing doesn't make sense. I can't choose what is broadcast on NBC, but I can choose what I watch on YouTube, that's the difference between the two.
http://www.mhall119.com
It seems to me that the law in Japan did not contemplate online video. They should probably update the law since I believe if a transcript of the speech were posted, it would not be in violation.
The law is a good one, in general, it prevents networks sympathetic to a particular candidate to run their speeches 24/7 and deny access to all others. We have similar laws in the US, which prevents Senator Thompson's "Law and Order" episodes from airing air while he is running for President. It also means Al Franken can not continue his radio show while he runs for Senate.
...the Japanese do realize that YouTube isn't the entire Internet, right? What's stopping this video from popping up at other places?
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
The only issue that I could see is if this fellow's supporters are astroturfing in order to expose more people to his Youtube spots, and even the effects of something like that would be debatable.
Even before McCain-Feingold, which involves an unprecidented amount of speech restriction for the US in the political context (it has to be the only US law that makes it illegal to criticize the government during an election!), the US had this lovely little chestnut called the Fairness Doctrine, an FTC policy which essentially micromanaged the content of television and radio broadcasts when they were on issues of public importance during an election. That misbegotten regulation has since been slagged, but the "Oh noes, if we let people have soapboxes they will use them to influence folks!" censorial spirit lives on, even in respectable democracies like the US and Japan.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I think that Google understands that it needs to not fold to requests like this. If Youtube pulled down videos when requested, even if it is a reasonable request, they would open the floodgates to anybody with a gripe... also, destroying any sort of popularity (or cool factor) Youtube has.
They should pull content when the law requires them to pull content. (And by that, I mean the law of the United States.)
The only way Youtube can possibly satisfy every set of laws is by turning it into a country-specific site, and removing videos from specific country sites instead of from the site as a whole. I suspect they'll end up doing this eventually, once they have every country yelling at them for a different contradictory subset of videos.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
This is what they're really afraid of. It would be very funny if he got elected, especially given how 2ch has done stuff like almost getting Masashi Tashiro as Time's 2001 person of the year.
He does sound really awesome when you pair him with music from Dragonball Z!
The Japanese election laws are actually very strict about this kind of thing. I haven't gone through all the details, but for example, Article 142 of the Public Election Law (Japanese link) limits candidates in prefectural governor elections to 35000+X postcards, where X depends on the number of lower-house national representative in the prefecture, and no fliers at all. There are lots of other rules--applying to anyone, not just candidates--preventing things like visiting people to ask for votes and all sorts of stuff.
Of course, none of it was written with the Internet in mind, so it'll undoubtedly have to change in some manner, and I agree that sites like YouTube could potentially be used to help level the playing field. But at least with respect to the current law, the fairness argument is a valid one.
any canadate can upload their message.
Just because you want to say something, does not mean people have to listen.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Everyone knows that no candidate without sufficient money or media backing can make it to any major radio station or tv channel.
things like youtube are needed for leveling the playing field for ANY AND ALL citizens for the first time in WORLD HISTORY.
it was just a fallacious statement that "everyone can run for elections" before. in any country that democratic elections took place, there has been no cases that normal citizens with little income were able to run for important positions and get elected.
this was a pretty little neat trick that ensured the circles who had the money would be the ones ruling the country, and under the pretense of democracy - hey everyone can run for elections. you just wont be able to get heard if you dont have the cash.
internet, with rising connectivity of people and exposure it provides, is being an annoyance for such politician circles, and the media outlets and cartels that backed whichever candidate that would play on their side in the elections and make them get elected.
hence the shithead attack on network neutrality by at&t and their cronies, hence banning of youtube in such countries on political reasons, hence tokyo city's annoyance.
Read radical news here
Then what about the situation suggested by this poster, where one candidate makes use of massive funds to effectively smother another? I'd hardly call that "fair".
The Japanese law is arguably conservative, but its you-may-do-nothing-but-this approach does (or at least did, pre-Internet) work well to preserve a level playing field, or at least punish those who broke the rules. Whether the voters are making good use of that level playing field is a completely separate issue I won't delve into here . . .
This is the central issue. It seems to me that they want to avoid allowing demagogues to promote themselves by allowing their speeches to be engrained in voters' minds through repetition. Limiting reproduction of election-related speeches is one way to accomplish that.
I personally am not sure it's a wise choice, but I don't think it's unfair, and I don't think free speech necessarily applies to election-related content. Total censorship is unacceptable, but I'm much less sure about limits of the sort in this case.
I guess, politicians should adjust to new reality to change legislation - including election laws.
No government will be able to stop the trend of broadcasting videos from huge variety of sources, the age of controlled, monopolistic broadcasting is over.
It's a never-ending source of wonder and despair to watch as pols and other ruling-classers struggle to adjust to 21st Century basic reality. The Tokyo government's stand is like saying no political speeches should be printed because somebody might read one and not the rest. YouTube, unlike broadcast, is a medium of choice: you actively seek what you want to see/hear instead of soaking up what the providers decide you should see. The reason for fairness provisions in broadcasting is that there's the option for broadcasters to eliminate some voices from being accessible. That option does no exist on YouTube or the Net in general. Unlike TV/radio, nobody can subtract candidate's speeches: they can only add them, so there's no issue of thought control (unless Net neutrality loses out, perhaps).
Is that distinction really so hard to get? Is it scary as hell that the world's "leaders" are pretty much uniformly incapable of doing so?
Google has no beef censoring for China, and helping track down dissidents, so it's absolutely reasonable for Japan to expect them to respect their laws re: political messages.
It's not "levelling the playing field". Quit applying American ideals to other countries. The playing field WAS LEVEL, until YouTube entered the picture. Everyone got their alotted portion of media face-time.
This may be because they don't want Hillaries, Dubyas and Gores buying their way to the top with their 50 zillion dollar war-chests.
Agree or disagree, it's their system, and its nobodies business but Japans.
If you dont believe the US military has the right to interfere in Iraq's politics, what makes you think Google would have the right to interfere in Japans?
Offtopic: has anyone noticed that the turing-test you have to pass to post something has more and more sexually suggestive and homosexual terms? I just had to type "felch" to get this message online. Weird.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Here
In fairness, the law simply isn't ready for YouTube. Given the conservative approach taken with respect to other media (placing strict limits on basically all of a candidate's activities; see this comment, for example), I can't really blame the government for this reaction, as ineffective as it may be. The real test will come when they review the law and decide how to deal with sites like YouTube.
YouTube is, basically, the voice of the people. In and of itself, YouTube has no political agenda. It carries video without discrimination. They themselves do not post anything. I think it's interesting to watch how many corporations and governments have "demanded" things, blocked, banned, and legally threatened YouTube. The desire to shut people up when you are criticized or poked fun at is overwhelming. But when will they realize that the internet cannot be silenced? YouTube merely makes sharing such video incredibly easy. However the sentiment (and the sharing) would happen even if it wasn't for this service.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's really going to be interesting in '08. Everyone and their dog are going to be producing political videos. If you think the Swift Boat twinks were bad, wait until you see what they come up with on the internet. A place they can dispense with all pretense of decorum and spew whatever sewage floats to the surface of the demented minds that will say or do anything to win.
This opens up whole new vistas in trash politics.
Of course, it also opens up the process to those lacking the ability to raise 25 million a quarter for their presidential campaigns. A silver lining providing a faint glimmer of hope for the American political process.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If the subtitles in this version of his speech are correct, then what are they worried about? The majority won't vote for him, and the minority won't get him elected.
If he really wants to destroy the government, then maybe they should do what they always do with violent rebels...
Anyway, I don't really understand Japanese, so I can't be sure of the subtitles.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
I live in Tokyo, and know Koichi Toyama, the candidate in question, so I'll bite...
First and foremost, sure, it's illegal by Japanese law. But where does YouTube reside again? There has been little thought regarding the internet and "new media" when in comes to elections and politics in Japan. So little, that it's becoming absurd.
The original election laws were put in place to put an economical cap on elections, and thus leveling the field. Each candidate for the Tokyo metropolitan mayor election needs to pay 3 million yen up front. If they get a certain percentage of votes, the money is returned. (The exact numbers escape me at the moment, but I think it was something along the lines of 10 to 15%.) If they don't, they are "extremist fringes" which shouldn't have ran in the first place. Whether you agree with this concept or not is up to you, but it does have it's advantages. Idiots can still run for office, but they'll waste the money. To be honest, Koichi Toyama fits into the "idiot" profile, but he knew well that the money spent would gather attention, for a fraction of the price of a TV commercial aired in Tokyo. I say he got a bargain. (In his speach, he explicitly states that "If I get elected, the majority will shit their pants. If I get elected, _I_ will shit my pants.")
At least for the Tokyo elections, election posters can only be posted on official boards designated by the election committee. And those posters are paid for through tax dollars (well, yen...). So all candidates get the same exposure, and same number of posters. There is a limit to the number of campaign cars with loud speakers that can roam the streets. There are numerous limits, and I think some of these limits could be imported back to the U.S. for a genuinely level field when it comes to elections. (I'm an ex-pat, by the way.)
That said, the "limit" is so extreme, that candidates are not allowed to pass out flyers of any kind. They are not allowed to post to public areas (including the internet) addressing their political agenda. They cannot mail/e-mail anyone. The best they can do is call their constituents, but even then, they're not allowed to discuss what their political agenda is.
So, how do you determine which candidate to vote for? Well... appearance. Name. Hopefully you heard their speach infront of some train station. Or watched TV. (Contrary to the summary, NHK is not the only broadcaster that broadcasts these speaches. As long as each candidate gets a chance, with the same length and un-edited video, anyone broadcaster can broadcast it.)
Up until now, you really couldn't tell what the candidate was REALLY thinking. Just recently, a candidate from Miyazaki had an idea though. During the election race, homepages cannot be updated. So, he put up his political agenda BEFORE the race started, and left it up. And now, FINALLY, from this election, candidates are allowed to hand out flyers. Again, these flyers are paid for through tax money. Level field.
However, this still doesn't address the fact that YouTube and other CGM-ish media is the exact kind of media that will level the playing grounds in a way that doesn't require economic powers, which the "limits" were placed in for in the first place.
I say let YouTube rule, do no evil, and let this serve as a kick in the ass to the Japanese government as a reminder that this is the 21st century, and getting the "message" out in one way or another is a good thing.
That said, I recently commented on mixi (a Japanese SNS) that all they need to do to get the videos down is to have NHK issue a DMCA take down notice. NHK owns the copyrights. They can issue a DMCA take down notice. (However much you despise that.) And, as far as I can tell, YouTube will comply.
I have a hunch that NHK already knows this, and has forfeited copyrights, or else is playing dumb on purpose. Likewise, the election committee probably knows damn well too. Let's see if this will change the laws any time soon. I for one hope it does.
Maybe the current Mayor of Tokyo, Ishihara is afraid some of his racist rantings will be seen outside Japan.
Anyway, I would gladly exchange being unable to see Japanese political speeches online if they would stop using those bloody election sound trucks.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
..is the number one reason we bother to have free speech. (In America, at least.) Any time you restrict political speech, you undermine the entire "right." Without free political speech, none of it can be defended.
If you are wondering what they are yelling from the trucks it's basically limited to "This is Hiromi Yoshida, We hope we can count on you in the upcoming election, Thank you very much."
That's just a worker doing the actual announcement, the politician himself is probably just sitting in the van waving his white-gloved hand. The white glove is supposed to symbolize honesty but Mr. Yoshida has had his own scandals.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
> Also, looking at Japan's constitution:
Yea, it says that. But I don't see that piece of paper kicking the ass of politicians who wipe their asses on it. Here in the US we had the fabled 1st Amendment that also made certain promises in that regard but I didn't see it, or the enraged ghosts of the signers, kicking John McCain in the nuts when he ripped it out of our Constituition. Although on a slightly hopeful note it appears the American people (at least the Republicans) appear to be denying McCain a run at the Presidency in repayment for his sins.
In the end paper cannot protect us, only WE can protect us. The paper only represents a contract amongst us as to what we are supposed to put up with before we start shooting the bastards. If we don't uphold our end of that bargain we lose representitive government and get what we have now in most western countries, rule by an elite nobility unbound by any rule of law.
If anyone is still in doubt as to the wisdom of "Campaign Finance Reform" or "Government financing of campaigns" look well upon Japan and see the end product of your logic at it's conclusion. For certain definitions ofthe word it is "Fair" but it is not Free by any definition. There is a wider lesson here regarding the relationship between "Fair" and "Free."
Democrat delenda est
Instead of trying to block YouTube for providing a very low barrier to entry, maybe someone should set up a site like http://expertvoter.org/ to show just how easy it is for a candidate to put out a message and have it be considered on equal footing as others.
If it is so easy, then shouldn't everyone be able to take part?
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
Of course, if Google is smart, they'll see this as an opportunity to seriously change the mechanics of elections,... candidates with less money can create a campaign video and upload it to Youtube, which still stands a decent chance of being viewed by a lot of people; versus the candidates with big bucks that can afford to spend ungodly amounts of money be extorted on advertisements on network television. The good news, too, is that Youtube's "viewership" is increasing, quite substantially, especially among the younger crowds. Network television's viewership is really not doing anything; either remaining stagnant, or possibly decreasing, due to all the crap that the network executives idiots keep broadcasting these days.
If there ever was a time when Google's, "Don't be evil," policy applied, I'd say this is it,. . .
I have no idea why you'd even get prompted like that. Must be just you.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I did not read TFA, but common sense tells me that limiting broadcast of speeches is intended to limit the amount of push-based advertising. YouTube media is a pull-based model, so it should not be subject to the same logic and laws.
If you cannot cope with information, do not try to.
That is what they should think: local elections cannot
be legislated UNIVERSALLY. And... well, anyone with
a camera and an internet connection can do it...
Its not about two countries disagreeing on what laws take precedence. It is about the world's governments finding out that pandora's box is wide open. Information is free, and wants more freedom. When there were only TV and radio stations and newspapers, it was fair to regulate access to them to ensure electoral fair play. Well, say hello to the Internet! It is all three of those mediums wrapped in one nice simple package. The rules need to change when the game changes, and the game has definitely changed regardless of whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
Censorship, for whatever reason is not right. Limiting public access by political candidates is one thing, but limiting all other speech related to it is censorship. By posting a video on YouTube, I can tell the world "hey, look what this guy said. Isn't that bad?"
To require that YouTube limit such speech is overbearing and stupid. One reason this is so is because the government trying to do so will have to play whack-a-mole with every other video sharing site as well. The lid to pandora's box can't be closed that easy. Please let's not forget that YouTube is just ONE video sharing site, and they are taking the brunt of the complaints when the problem should be shared by all video sharing sites.... or none. I vote for the latter.
Governments that believe they can limit the content on the Internet are not only fooling themselves, they are showing the entire world that they are both clueless and in need of removal from office.
Yes, governments could simply shut off access to the outside world and censor all Internet activity within their borders, but that would harm their economy and drive the populace to dislike them vehemently.
Pandora's box cannot be closed now.....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Feel free to Mod me down. Nothing is accomplished through modding!
I have one thing to say just in case...
If I am modded up,
they will be terrified.
I myself will be terrified.
"I love his boyish charm, but I hate his childishness" - Leela
of course they don't want videos of the candidates' massages on youtube...I can't even imagine watching the happy finish let alone the whole thing!
...oh wait messages...yeah thats silly, keep those up!
Walk with Music;
Norway is a real multi-party democracy. Politics is a grass roots affair here, and printed media is central to the debate. We view the issue of TV-advertising as a threat to democratic discourse - in that the big two/three parties have far more funds than the rest. The only TV debates that matter are the one's broadcast on the national public broadcaster - where the representatives of the 8 major parties field their views. The commercial TV channels have their own coverage of course - but still no advertising campaigns. Oh, and the political parties are publicly funded, but may receive gifts from private donors if they are publicized.
Dismantle the internet. That way, politians can safely ignore the people, not tell them anything, and listen to corporations who give them money! A win for the ruling class, but a lost for freedom and democracy! I believe that the greatest invention of the twentieth century was... the internet, because it gives the common man an outlet to do pretty much whatever he wants.
Slashdotter 1: That sucks. They need to understand freedom of speech. ...CULTURE! RACIST! WOOF! :(
Slashdotter 2: YOU RACIST!!11! HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE YOUR LAWS ON ANOTHER COUNTRY!!@@ HISS! SPIT!
Slashdotter 1: How am I doing that by just disagreeing with the decision?
Slashdotter 2: YOU CLAIM TO BE EXPERT ON EXPERT ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES. HA!
Slashdotter 1: Huh? Where did I say that?
Slashdotter 2: RACIST!@ BIGGOT! PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN CULTURES. AARRGH! GROWL!
Slashdotter 1: OK, but do I have to carte blanche agree with every aspect of them? I can only be non-racist if I never criticize another culture ever?
Slashdotter 2: STOP IMPOSING YOU'RE WILL ON OTHER COUNTRIES!
Slashdotter 1: But it's OK for them to impose their law on a company from another country?
Slashdotter 2:
Slashdotter 1: Aren't you from the crowd whose always going on about you cannot regulate global network whenever someone in the USA complains about content on a site?
Slashdotter 2: ARGH! IMPOSING! DAISY! DAISY! [Head explodes]
Slashdotter 1: Man, the interwebs get less jolly every day.
This is the second time I've seen a Japanese person miserably fail to give the bird in the correct way. I was telling my wife, who is Japanese, that when you give the bird, you look at the target in the eyes and put the bird in his face. You don't surreptitiously wave it around behind your podium. Argh, so many cultural gaps we need to bridge, so little time.
Fair play youtube demands tokyo.
..slow work day here. all servers are at almost no load.
-_-
Read the Wikipedia article:c e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governan
Or better yet... have a look at the new government:
http://www.metagovernment.org/
It is all detailed there... and it is much larger than any one country, or a mere tens of millions of people. This project intends to replace ALL governments at all levels.
And no, it's not about money... it is about interest. Unlike democracy, where the most uninformed, uncaring person gets just as much say as the most engaged, learned person; wiki government allows people to contribute as much as they want to wherever they want. It is a major paradigm shift, and not really democracy in the traditional sense. But... is democracy really even valid anymore?
At some point someone, somewhere will try to pass a law like this: If a politician's election web site gets more hits than his/her opponents, the internets will have to automatically reroute traffic to the sites of the other candidates until the levels are equalized.
So you'd click on Hillary's link and get, like, Obama. Or Dave Barry.
Actually, that doesn't sound so bad.
At some point (we can only hope it will be soon), folks are going to realize that the phrase, "information wants to be free," is no more a statement of wishful thinking than, "gasses want to expand to fill their contianer." It's an anthropomorphic way of stating something fundamental about the physics of information with respect to large groups of humans.
All attempts to a) disseminate information to large groups and b) control that dissemination will FAIL. They must fail. The energy required to contain information scales very much logarithmically with respect to the size of the group that receives it, and quickly becomes impractical. We're not telling the RIAA, MPAA, Japanese government, and many others that, "your information is something I should be allowed to have." Rather, we're trying to explain that, "your information is going to be knocking at my door several times a week, and if you make it illegal for me to answer my door, it's just going to end up with me going to jail... does that serve a purpose?
But what if you have candidates whose sole purpose of running is to get certain people NOT elected? They'll slander, lie and do anything to get that effect, should that be protected by free speech? We've seen the damage done by attack ads in the US.
Anyway, I believe that all campaign rhetoric, for or against, should stay off youtube. But, there is no way of really defining what is campaign rhetoric. So, the only way to do it is to keep everything and allow it to be used as evidence of promises and slanders
If the Japanese candidate violates Japanese election laws, disqualify the candidate. Duh.
Just because some idiot posts his speech on the internet, why does it matter as long as people vote based on whether they think his message speaks to them or not. I don't understand. If he's a crackpot then it actually helps the other candidates because people will be able to see him as such. If they are afraid his message will speak to the people then he should have every opportunity to get that message out and let the people decide at the polls who should represent them. I don't get what the controversy is.
The internet has always been the land of the anarchists (good sense of the word). But when it got discovered by big money, it started to look like it might become just another media outlet, controlled by the few.
But as the game continues to play out, it is obvious there is a lot to the internet that is simply unreachable to the powerful. Not only are they unable to control what we do on the internet; much of the time they are unable to even understand it.
It is oh so heartening to know that the people who really control this place -- the caffeine-rushed, shoeless, semi-autistic, shower-once-a-month-whether-I-need-it-or-not people who live on slashdot -- have no interest in the machinations of politics. That must drive the power-hungry crowd nuts!
With certain footage on youtube.com from the Iraq war, I am only able to view if I come from an IP space outside of the US. Is this not censorship for US citizens? The US censors many things, especially with the Iraq war. I live in the US. I would imagine that many people outside of the United States see our society turning into a Kremlinology state. Every country that has the ability or power to censor the internet will try to do so. Perhaps the two countries that are best at doing this are China and the US.
never before has a forum existed where anyone can say what they feel and have potentially everyone hear it. it is the ultimate soap box. the paradigm has shifted and I expect to see the politicians begin to address this more forcefully as time goes forward. the younger candidates get it (its NOT a series of tubes to them) and will make use of it, but I am not going to be surprised to see the older politicos condemn this new "heresy" and attempt to squelch it or regulate it to their liking. but this is the true nature, and great value, of a Neutral Network. for once in human history we have built a place where everyone is absolutely, truly free. if you like something, you can find it and find people who like it too. if you dislike something, you are free to either move on or bitch about it if you choose. this is what people in power really fear, that they can no longer tell you what to believe, what to do, how to do it, what you can see, what you can hear, and what you can say. expect to see our WonderfulWorldwideWeb come under attack, be ready to defend it. Viva la Information Revolution!
Did you know that you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...
Politics is all about the machine, or party if you prefer. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which is neither, has ruled Japan since 1955, except for one brief interregnum in 1993. Nothing will be tolerated that threatens the established rule of the oligarchy. The election laws are there to insure LDP control. YouTube threatens that in Japan. It's probably not much of a threat, but it's easier to stomp on a little bug than Mothra.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
this is an excellent point, google seems to be operating in the same "gray" area that allofmp3.com is: they're perfectly legal in their own country and under those laws, which is all that matters to them (and all that should matter?)
It's a website in the USA run by US citizens. What's wrong with an Amero-centric way of looking at it?
It's not YouTube's job to police the Japanese people. If the Japanese government wants to limit what their citizens can look at, they can do it themselves.
If Japan's laws say speeches can't be broadcast except through government-controlled TV, then I'm sorry, but that's the law.
It's a web page. It doesn't broadcast anything. People have to go and look for it. A web page is nothing but a billboard in your front yard, except that everybody in the world can get a pair of huge binoculars, so they can see the billboard from wherever they are. YouTube is in the USA; Japan has no say whatever about what they put on their billboard. If Japan doesn't want Japanese citizens to be able to see YouTube's billboard, they can ban binoculars.
I'm a US citizen. I don't give up my First Amendment rights for anybody. As long as I'm not stomping the rights of someone who created a work, I feel totally free to put anything on my web page that I like, and if people in Japan don't like it they can turn off their computers. It's my billboard. MINE. I'll say ANYTHING on it I want to. And if you want to say something too, maybe I'll let you have a corner. And anyone who doesn't like what I have to say is out of luck.
I believe that tokyo politicians have been listening too much to Chavez lately
ghostbar page.
The last thing we want in the US is the two party, big money, system to dictate information on the internet. Maybe YouTube needs a politics section that keeps the political messages out of the mainstream popularity pools. Rather, they are popular, relatively, within the politics section. AND force the more obscure videos on to the page bottom.
Let's face it: children are not taught to question the two leading parties. They are taught to pick one of the two leading parties and that the third parties have no chance. THey dont have a chance because the two major parties have written the rules in their own favor and they have bigger wallets. Wealth should not be an issue when making political candidates visible.
Google is operating in Japan and wants to continue Japanese operations. Therefore, they will comply with the laws. They may hire Japanese lawyers and contest the requirement by questioning the Japanese laws that they are alleged to be violating, or they may not. They may simply remove the offending material or block its distribution to Japanese IP addresses.
My other first post is car post.
Thanks for the validation. I am in charge.
All the pretty, stupid people may now bow to me.
If my points hadn't expired yesterday I'd do it myself.
anything from youtube after this :
(warning EXTREMELY graphic and VERY disturbing. people with heart condition, people who get annoyed a long time after watching violence, children, people at work, delicate duties should not watch)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LjqZi46P8Gs
actually, and the idiotic posts by japanese in the comments to that video, pretty much nullified anything japan has as a value in my eyes. iran as a country and nation seems much more civil.
Read radical news here
I'd like to believe you were going for funny, but you got modded insightful. How sad.
Guess what, dude- there are no McDonalds restaurants in Iran. You know the reason why? It's because Americans don't actually force their culture on everyone else. American culture is certainly an export but it's going to people that want and accept it for what it is. In fact, Americans aren't even able to impose "American" norms and culture within their own borders. How many countries in the world have a problem with illegal immigrants demanding health care and driver's licenses? How many countries in the world can you move to and never learn the local language? Better yet, how many countries in the world don't even have an official national language?
America isn't really the empire you think it is. America is a country that currently has a black eye for being a bit to strong-armed in its international relations. Of course it tries to extend politics past its own borders for American gain but if you think it's the only country to do so you are sorely mistaken. This is how international diplomacy works. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Countries that don't like the American norms and culture DON'T HAVE IT. You must be shocked that they could maintain independence despite your assertion that "we" have imposed this culture "all over the world for some time now". If you feel personally guilty about imposing American culture and norms all over the world I can't help you, but I can say that you're in the minority on that one.
I suggest that, when you get out of college, you go see the world. Actually experience it for yourself instead of believing what somebody told you. Travel to countries that dislike America and also travel to the countries that like America (yes, they exist). You'll find that most people are the same when you meet them in person -- they have some notions about the rest of the world that are accurate, some that are innacurate, some dissatisfaction with their own politicians (elected or not), the same struggles at home to live within their means, etc. Try to remember that just because you're not watching Fox News doesn't mean somebody isn't trying to brainwash you. No country is perfect.
I don't know enough detail to say whether this is rigorous defense of fair play in politics, but the skeptic in me says it is probably more of a push to keep politics/politicians isolated to influenceable channels.
Also on the level playing field argument, I can tell you that for every election season, the politicians with money (and whatever permits which are almost certainly hard to get) are driving around my street, neighborhood, etc.. with loudspeakers and entourages blasting their platforms and trying to sound good. That kind of activity plus tv advertisements of the large parties (who then endorse the lower level politicians / vice versa) does not come cheap.
It is probably a bit of both, but being politics, I suggest assuming it is about control more than fairness.
According to the article "The site has allowed only certain candidates' speeches to be viewed freely on the site..." which if true, would be a bit unfair. But this feels to me more like "Candidate A has a cooler looking campaign poster than all of the others. So we request that the posters be removed, because more people are looking at them. Its only fair"
I have lived in Japan for the past decade. I think it is great that youtube and any other internet services are challanging the way things are done in Japan. For egalitarian reasons (?) the law says speeches are only broadcast on NHK - but in reality the way most of us hear about the politicians is from the damn sound trucks that set up outside of train stations and drive around neighborhoods. They have these vans outfitted with (VERY LOUD) loud speakers on the top of them, and often a place for an entourage to stand on the roof. There is often some woman with a bright, chirpy voice talking about the politician incessantly while he (or she) waves at everyone while wearing white gloves. (To show how 'pure' they are or some such shit.) I absolutely loath these people and this system. I have talked to many Japanese about them and everyone agrees they are annoying, but kind of shrug their shoulders and say 'what can you do'. That is the way things are done. These vans are often parked outside of big train stations but they also drive around neighborhoods (as one is doing right now while I am writing this) blaring their spin about the candidate over a wide swatch of a residential area. I would love it if youtube and Japanese web sites could change the way we get our information about candidates to lessen the noise polition and aggravation that are the norm today.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
I swear, do you do anything other than troll with that exact same fucking link? It's like it's the first time you've ever heard of anybody doing something icky, and you feel the need to hate entire nations for it and go around telling everybody about the horrible evil you've uncovered.
Get a clue: humans in general do horrible things. This is not the first, it won't be the last. Get over it. At least they're giving an honest reason for what they do. I hope nobody in your country has ever murdered, raped, or tortured somebody, or else you've just become a giant hypocrit.
I do other things than trolling with the EXACT same link. However, i do trolling with the EXACT same link, because it is RIGHT and NECESSARY to do as such.
cut out with the fucking old "people do icky things" shit already.
rape, murder, cruelty to animals are FORBIDDEN and PUNISHABLE by laws in MANY civilized countries. last time i checked, japan was putting itself in a 1st world, civil nation's shoes.
this SHIT is not something that some criminals or vagabonds are doing in back alleys. this motherfucking CRAP is something that japanese shitheads are ALLOWING some locales to do, under the fucking shitty pretext of "ethnic culture". at this point, i think, fuck their ethnicity. honest reason my butt.
Lets allow numerous tribes in africa, amazon region to continue on with their CANNIBALISM TRADITION too. For one, they have been practicing that for thousands of years, for two, this is THEIR ETHNICITY. so it is fucking plain HONEST and VALID reason for doing stuff isnt it ?
Read radical news here