Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos
hhavensteincw writes "YouTube has declined a request from Sen. Joe Lieberman remove videos from terrorist organizations. Lieberman said that the videos made by groups like Al-Qaeda show assassinations, attacks on US soldiers leading to injuries and death, and weapons training, 'incendiary' speeches, and other material intended to 'encourage violence against the West.' YouTube said that while it removed some of the videos highlighted by the Senator, most were allowed to stay because they did not violate YouTube's community guidelines. YouTube went on to note that they are strong supporters of free speech."
Directly from youtube's guidelines:
# Don't post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making.
# Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.
# YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and similar things.
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines
Free speech hypocrites
The DMCA (or specifically, DMCA Title II, OCILLA) legally requires them to take down the material when a copyright claim is put forward, such as the ones the Church of Scientology / RTC sends, in order to avoid any legal liability due to the safe harbor provisions in the law. The person who then posted the video can send a counter-notice to YouTube to get them to put the video back up; it's then a matter for the courts to decide (and if the person claiming infringement does go to the courts, the material stays down until they have ruled on the matter).
IANAL, this is not legal advice, this is just how I understand it. You can't blame YouTube for wanting to keep their service provider safe harbor limited liability; otherwise, they'd be sued out of existence every time someone posted a music video.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
You're right, Theists are SCARY.
The difference: the Irish preferred not to die for their cause. The Islamic Fascists are supranational and would relish to die for theirs. They want to rule the world (literally) and force their religion on everyone. They have no dreams of independence. They do speak. And when they do, they frequently remind us that they are just cleansing the immoral from the earth and asking Americans (and other westerners) to repent and turn to Islam. Otherwise they simply want to kill us all or die trying. So they state three acceptable outcomes: we all become muslim; they kill all non-muslims; all of them die.
It's not a political battle - it's a holy war. The difference is that it isn't between Christianity and Islam (or Hindu and Islam) it's between secular government and Islam. Fortunately there is an identifiable enemy: pre-dominantly men who belief in a twisted version of Islam.
Bottom line: You can't compare this to the dispute between the British and the IRA.
Derek Greene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
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.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
Just to name a few off the top of my search results:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020445.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22835_Jawa_Report_Video_Censored_by_YouTube&only
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/06/youtube-goes-dhimmi-part-two/
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/16/1836246
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.
Actually, it's already been proposed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm_mark, and it's even got a name, the "snark", which I assume refers to "snarky" or perhaps is a conglomeration of "sarcasm" and "mark".
You cited a poor example as there is a Chasm of difference between funding schools for suicide bombers, and providing a public forum where film of attacks are posted.
This has far less to do with actual criminal trial and boils down to one Senator asking one company to express some good taste
If anything, this is blown a bit out of proportion