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."
They seem to have no problem removing videos related to Scientology.
Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos
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
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.
perhaps the removed videos were the ones with beheadings and the ones that are still there are the ones with i dunno terrorist training camps & osama bin laden speeches & other anti-american propaganda.
kinda hard to tell without a list of them, but if this is the case, i dont see a problem at all.
YouTube has removed many anti-Jihad videos and videos critical of Islam, which means that they have a political agenda. A very fucked up one.
I hadn't even noticed that Hamas had so many videos on youtube.
Those interested should check out http://youtube.com/watch?v=U8Nj-QKQkCo 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
http://www.mininova.org/tor/635799
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.
While I am not a Zionist, I'll forgive you mistaking Zionism for Judaism, by any means (personally I feel that Israel is not a friendly power any more than Saudi Arabia is). I do not believe that Israeli policy regarding the Palenstinians, while not innocent or guilt-free or strictly moral, is not on the same level as the unbridled evil that the NSDAP committed against the world. But hey, I'm a mischling of Ukrainian descent, so I may be a little biased.
During the 1980's and 1990's, Maggie Thatcher had a policy of not reporting speeches made by terrorist leaders. The idea was to "cut off their oxygen supply of publicity". Funny how trying to do that now, would just force people to visit alternative news channels, broadcasters or websites.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Do you have any idea what would happen to Google or its employees in many of these countries if they were to refuse to obey a lawful demand for information?
You sick bastard
If there was more child porn on the internet it would be alot easier to catch a lot of pedos, who actually hurt children. Something like 90% of abuse comes from people they know, some freak watching some child porn isn't going to hurt any kids, but might help stop the abuse.IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
The same can be said about the Japanese.
American political theory also has those same concepts except in American political theory if you're born in America you are one of us whether you want to be or not.
That's exactly why I am an advocate of a new punctuation mark, I call it 'The Garrett'. It's the tilde(~). See sig.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I have no idea, Can I find it on youtube?
Then they should pull out of those countries.
Caving to evil is the same as doing evil.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
> Don't censor anything, please?
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.
Democrat delenda est
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 overpopulation.
Or look at Israel - a Jewish state which is facing the very real possibility that within a generation they may become majority Muslim. At which point they have the option of either ceasing to be a Jewish state, or ceasing to be a democracy.
If you really think it can't happen in England, you haven't been paying attention.
America has never had anything against violence, but you best think twice about showing even a side boob.
Ave Molech Setting
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.
Camping on quad since 1996.
It doesn't just smell like a stunt. No reasonable person could consider it anything else. If he was that concerned about the videos, why not just click the report link, instead of compiling a list of them and announcing them to the world. Thus, delaying informing google, and attracting publicity to the videos before they can be taken down? Yes, it was just an attempt to ruffle feathers and get people hufffy based on vague accusations. And, it means that the modicum of respect I still carried for Lieberman is something he is pushing hard to remove completely.
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, and yes that is a link to the current pending cases against them at my county courthouse. And also, the Cease and Desist Letter can also be read online.
What a pathetic way to run a business, or conduct yourself with respect to others differing views.
They pulled down yalla ya Nasrallah for a while so they do not have clean hands.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=268395414333521428
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
It could just be subjective perceptions, but I think it might be possible that it may just reveal a little bit of your bias that you divide the videos into the categories "conservative" and "protecting terrorists".
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Finally, someplace where this quote is appropriate:
"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.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
However, having been part of the BDSM community for many years, people that watch rape porn often enjoy safe, consensual, role-playing with a partner that enjoys the same. Rape fantasy can have safe outlets, and in some cases even be therapeutic. This isn't to say that all people with rape fantasies want to live them out... right away, but in the right crowd it is really quite the experience to test the boundaries of trust. Yes, there are bad apples out there, but healthy educated people are much safer and better off.
So my argument, by contrast, is that you can not make the same argument for child porn. Nambla makes the same argument (As sick as it is to read and try to understand, I believe in "know thy enemy") that all human beings have the right to consent and mutual pleasure. As much as pedophiles are driven by sexual urges, we all are, but the difference is that the pedophile doesn't (necessarily) understand that even though a child may be agreeable or coerced into sex, they do not understand what is happening to them on a developmental level; the child doesn't understand the damage they are allowing to be inflicted upon them.
There is little cause for concern for adults (male or female) that want to participate or experiment with BDSM. NO such subjectivity does, can, or should exist for child porn.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
who decide whose are the terrorist... for one side is a terrorist for the other is freedom fighter.... learn from your US history...how US gain independent....
No, 9/11 happened because the airline industry did not comply with the recomendations of every aircraft hijacking report going back to the 1960's which was to reinforced and lock the filght deck doors.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I don't hate America; I realize that America has a long time of curtailing freedoms during wartime, and even outside of wartime, for the sake of national defense so that freedoms can be protected.
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.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Speaking as an Irishman, just because someone is called Pat Murphy does NOT make them Irish. Americans seem to have this weird fixation with what they feel to be their roots, even if no-one else thinks that it is relevant.
i'm not sure who you talk to but i know of no one who has any kind of respect for any member of that congregation, even among a lot of mainstream right radio programs
i've had just about enough of your vassar bashing.
What is "stuff that supports terrorism or undermines [...] national security?" I mean that as a serious question.
Am I "undermining national security" or "supporting terrorism" if I speak out against the invasion of Iraq? According to the President and many of the Republican talking heads, I am. According to John McCain, I'm supporting terrorism because I favor Obama over him. So, a video of me talking about why I support Obama would then be a video supporting terrorism.
What's a "time of war" anyway? Is the "war on terror" considered to be a time of war? Okay then, what's the definition of "winning" that war? How will we know when it's over and we're allowed to speak freely again?
For what it's worth, I do agree that there should be limits to free speech in time of war. The limits should include operational details that, were they made public, could unduly put troops at risk. Heck, we can even have those limits outside of wartime too, I'm feeling generous. But that's it - no other limits save those that have already been decided on (fire in a crowded theater, etc.).
Personally, I think all of the people who are so eager to throw away our freedoms because they believe doing so will somehow protect them are the real risk to national security. Doing so might (probably won't, but I'll allow the benefit of the doubt) make you a little safer from foreign extremists and suicide bombers, but it will DEFINITELY put you at risk of being completely crushed under the boot of your government.
I have no problem with a company VOLUNTARILY enforcing whatever community standards they feel like, but I am absolutely opposed to the government trying to dictate what those standards are. It is impossible for the government to make a "request" that isn't coercive. Lieberman making this request is abhorrent to me. He swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'd like to think that a Senator should uphold the spirit, not just the letter. Even though he did not attempt to pass a law in this case abridging free speech, he de facto attempted to use the power of his position to make it so. Absolutely abhorrent.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
There was a war there. Those have a tendency to change national boundaries.
Or look at Israel - a Jewish state which is facing the very real possibility that within a generation they may become majority Muslim. At which point they have the option of either ceasing to be a Jewish state, or ceasing to be a democracy.
Which actually goes against your point - Israel was an example of exactly what you're claiming might happen, a load of Jews moved in to the Muslim area and changed it into a Jewish state. (But again, mostly accomplished through war). So that it's reverting is a sign that this Muslim conquest wouldn't succeed.
I am trolling