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."
Google is clearly acting in support of terrorism and is therefore itself a terrorist organization. We need to drop some injunction on that.
???? 4. Profit?
Let us decide what we can watch. Don't censor anything, please?
but how long till they buckle?
They should have gone a step further and told Lieberman off for being a censorship nazi.
They seem to have no problem removing videos related to Scientology.
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
At least I'm still able to post terrorist videos. I was starting to get worried when I had all my anti-scientology videos removed.
MABASPLOOM!
Bullshit, not because they won't remove videos, but because youtube is notorious for removing "offensive" material--whether it's insulting women or even something like bashing religion, presumably because people don't like having their dogmas trampled-- or just plain removing material on rather spurious grounds, and I'm not even talking about removing videos wrongly due to DMCA complaints.
Of course they'll leave up terrorist videos because it'll get them more hits.
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.
...but when did assassinations become free speech? Did I miss a memo?
Can I kill my annoying neighbors now and claim free speech protection? I need a ruling here.
Way to go Google. Why is is indecent for a naked human to be shown, but free speech when it comes to videotaped attacks against our soldiers. Please, someone explain this one to me.
A few years ago I used to laugh at news like this coming from the US. But now, I just shake my head. It's not funny anymore.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If anyone wants them removed, just find a way to get NBC to air them. Then they'll be removed from YouTube instantly!
You can't post a video with two people having consentual sex. Yet you can post videos showing violence, inciting hatred and bragging about terrorist attacks.
:-)
Personally, I think that if we allow terrorist videos, then at the very least pr0n should be allowed, too.
This smells like a stunt. Lieberman was probably expecting them to refuse him entirely, and use that to incite outrage to further his agenda. It looks like Youtube saw through it, and took the responsible course of action by fairly applying their community standards. Now Lieberman will have to openly admit that he wants to limit free speech if he wants to push this further, because he can't claim that they're unfairly supporting one viewpoint by keeping the majority of the content which did not violate the standards.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
Well, there are also many videos showing Iraqi's getting mowed down by various US weapons. Bombs, cannons, and so on. What do people who want to remove "terrorist" videos want to do with these?
Google didn't seem to have much support for freedom of speech when they assisted the government of India in locating a man who posted a profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji, as reported yesterday on Slashdot. Strong supporters of freedom of speech indeed - right up until the protection of a user's right to freedom of speech threatens to strain Google's political relationships with distant countries where labor and data center construction are cheap.
Free speech is always important, but we always have limits. In a time of war, when we're asking young men and women to risk their right to life, is it too much to ask that we take away the free speech of people who are encouraging the killing of not only those men and women, but of ourselves and our friends?
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.
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.
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?
THL phish sticks
This is brilliant, if Mr. Leiberman is really starting a public spat in order to cover a cozy relationship in which YouTube provides IP and other log information to government organizations who can then happily watch as terrorists use YouTube to telegraph their intentions and rough location.
But I kindof doubt it.
Tweet, tweet.
The US government should patent terrorism and then Liberman could sue YouTube for copyright infringement. Google would take down the videos immediately.
...like Senator McCain said. We have different standards here.
We should live up to them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
- however the battle between the USA and its allies and Wahhabist / fundamentalist islamic terrorists and their allies is essentially a political battle by other means.
No side in this war can hope to eradicate the other side.. I am British, 20 years ago I was 50 metres away from being dismembered by an IRA bomb in a london street. Now - thanks to courageous politicians - we live in peace with the Northern irish and the former leaders of terrorist organisations co-operate to run Ulster jointly
A peaceful outcome btween Wahhabism and neo-conservatism requires what we had here - both sides being willing to allow the other to speak. the American tendency to try to drown out the voice of the (few) legitimate grievances of al-qaeda pushes the day the middle east is at peace further and further away
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Take the name "YouTube" and replace any part of it with "porn" or "x" and type it into Google. There are PLENTY of free streaming porn sites on the Internet. Most of them even use the YouTube API stuff, I'd imagine. But YouTube itself is trying to be an online community with certain standards.
Yes because those videos posted don't violate any copy right laws. Nice troll though.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
so when a terrorist posts a video, free speech is the guiding principle.
when anyone posts a video that someone else wants to make money from (e.g. DMCA), then this is the guiding principle.
I'd say I am confused, but I'll leave the explanation as an exercise for the reader.
Maybe we can just settle the war by seeing who gets the most hits on YouTube...although I think an expensive and drawn-out war in the Middle East might be a friendlier competition.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
What I see as sort of funny in a not overly funny way is this:
Some wanker (no other term for em) posts a video where he and his mates kill or terrorize some hapless bystander in a bad bad way and says they are doing it in the name of their religion.
A US senator complains about them - likely after someone in his office has spoken to their manager, who spoke to their team leader who went to a boss who brought it up in a meeting with the senator.
Income of wanker making video: $10 a day?
Cost to post: under $50
Income of people who looked and discussed material before requesting to remove it:
Senator's lowly underling: $50,000?
Underlings Manager: $60-70,000?
Manager's Team Leader: $90-130,000
Boss: $150-200,000
Senator: over $500,000
Cost to remove: thousands to tens of thousands.
What a funny world we live in no? I would be willing to bet that if the senator put the same amount of cash into a relief effort, or a crisis fund, the amount of goodwill gained would be far far higher than the amount of "badwill" lost by removing the videos.
I mean really, is it that hard to understand that if people are angry, find out why they are angry and help them become less angry. Taking away the fruits of their anger won't curb it in the slightest.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
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.
them: hello, my name is Harold. I am very pleased to be helping you today. May I ask you your name?
me: Sure, it's Shivaji.
them: No, I am not thinking that could be your proper name.
me: If your name's Harold, I'm Shivaji.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
youre just allowing fethullah gulen to set up 'boarding schools' for youth all around the u.s. to easily brainwash american kids there. under fbi protection too !! muslim extremists are not allowed to run around protesting western values there yet ? well, wait 10 years and youll see.
Read radical news here
it doesnt happen with 'coup'. it happens with 'boarding schools' which take in children of ages 7 to 18. they run these 'charities' for children who cant afford a good education. they brainwash kids there. also they tell their supporters to multiply like madmen. results are phenomenonal.
Read radical news here
free speech my ass, they ban people for no reason, that have made hundreds of videos criticizing the government. They were american also.
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?
Hell, every single time the US apparatus kills a non-merkun, that is animosity generated SOMEwhere, and it puts a fucking bulls eye on MY back. Going to wrong place, or just having visible a US passport not only increases the risk of being accosted, grabbed, or killed (not to mention having prices jacked up at the sound of my voice or sight of my gait or clothing or body language) makes me a target, NOT solely because of the passport but for being called a 'merkun.
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.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
that's EXACTLY like television is...
I can see die hard, and swordfish, and the patriot, and all the other 'action' movies.
but I can't see dick of erotica.... entendre intentional.
there is no great suprise there.
and if you can't find porn elsewhere-- well, that's really sad man.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Just listen for EMF of a recording video camera, and you'll know there's some insurgents nearby. My digital camera generated enough EMF to jam the BBC World news long wave station within our house - drove my parents nuts.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Clarification/Amplification:
"Otherwise, the (EARTH)populace (less the non-major-stage-actors and less the smaller locales that behave as family rather than power-seekers.... maybe some better intelligence might emerge...) 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."
(Need to clarify that before anyone fails to grasp the context and assume I'm saying "come and WHIPE OUT the HYOOSEESSSAAA"... All this makes me want to once again watch "Save the Green Planet"...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I mean, at least terrorists admit their evil intentions! Scientology pretends to be all nice, then the next thing you know Katie Holmes is being held against her will and Tommy boy is running around jumping on everyone's couch! Also -- dammit Tom, get off my couch!!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
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
If I owned a multinational enterprise and as such, am bound by the laws of the country I do business in, I would definitly behave differently from country to country. If I don't like the country's privacy laws (or lack thereof) its my choice to stop doing business there. It isn't my right to break their laws based on my own egocentric view of the world.
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
Bye!
You are not living in a free society when the government tells you what you can and cannot look it. It is totally arrogant and stupid to assume the only people who want to look at these videos are extremists. I believe in non violence to the core of my soul, and I look at these videos as a research tool to find out about as much as I can about them, so I can best understand what we need to do to stop them. In a democratic society people need to understand the issues, and to be well versed in them, and this is a check to make sure that the government is doing the right thing. If we want a competent government we must scrutinise what the government is doing ourselves and whether they aredoing the right thing. To understand if theyare doing the right thing requires us to be knowledgeable of the problem and therefore be able to access any and all information regarding it. Only then can we know if the governnmet is telling us the truth about things, or if we are being manipulated to support some government agenda which does not really solve the problem but fulfills some other agenda they have, by keeping people ignorant. Often governments use problems in a way to pass through various agendas that really are not aimed at the problem at all or the best way to fix the problem, the solution becomes the end, and the problem becomes the means to the end. 9/11 and the rush to pass the patriot act is an example, governments, it is a textbook practice, use fear to manipulate people into allowing governnemt to expand its power. The government doesnt really care about solving any problems, they only see it as a way to expand their power which is the end goal for them. In any case, we should not let any threat or problem coerce us into giving up our human rights. If we allow us to give up our human rights and our constitutional rights by allowing govement to censor or to invade our privacy, to basically do whatever it wants, to arrest whoever it wants, to torture and so on, is this not terrorism that is causing us to give up our rights. We keep hearing about how terorrists want to take away our freedoms, well if we give up our freedoms, arent we letting the terrorists win? In this case we should ask who is really the terrorists, the government that comes in and exploits peoples fears to expand its own power? Rememeber that power corrupts and power will be abused, which is why Franklin said, though who give up essential liberty for safety will deserve and will get neither. We can have a dictatorship here, and in Nazi germany and in so many other places, the people trusted the government and thought the government was so kind and good and only wanted what was best for them when they gave up their freedoms. Only later when your freedoms are gone and its too late, does it show its true colors, when the death squads emerge and the concentration camps spring up. The risk is simply too great to allow any government police state powers, since you are enabling them to become a much worse enemy to you than whatever they are supposed to protect you against.
I commend youtube for keeping the videos online. As reprehensible as violence is, it is not our right to tell people what they can and cannot look at. perhaps those who are looking at these videos as well, are doing so to research extremism and these groups, for the purpose of better trying to stop their violent activities, than as some sort of inspiration. It is very arrogant to assume that the only people looking at these are other extremists. If we want to stop violence we have to understand those who commit violence. Trying to prohibit understanding of them will actually take us further away from resolving violence. For the same reason that Mein Kampf today is often read by many since it teaches us lessons about the horrors of tyranny and inhumanity, hopefully preventing us from commiting those acts again, so as well do these videos. If we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it, and if we do not acknowledge the present and understand it, we are hopeless to change it for the better
Free speech is fine: the GOVERNMENT/STATE should never forbid speech of any kind (with the reasonable restriction on things like child pornography et cetera.)
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.
Derek Greene
They'd be forced to pay the legal consequences for following a moral law higher than the law of the state in which they choose to operate, I think.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
Yet the US continues to harbour Luis Posada Carriles, who is suspect of bombing a Cuban airliner. Venezuela has been trying to get him extradited for years, but the US refuses. The last time a country refused to hand over suspected terrorists, it was invaded as a result. That country was of course, Afghanistan.
Not removing someone else's videos asked about in a letter = not legally actionable
Not complying with a lawful DMCA order to remove videos to which you own the copyrights = legally actionable
There's a difference between taking a stand against The Man when you can legally justify your position, and taking a stand against The Man when The Man can fine you (sue you), or seize your assets and put your employees in jail until you submit.
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.
Read radical news here
America has never had anything against violence, but you best think twice about showing even a side boob.
Ave Molech Setting
"YouTube went on to note that they are strong supporters of free speech." -- except in China for some inexplicable reason.
Ah, mirroring the story, the moderators, too, want to suppress opinions or statements that differ from their own personal views.
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.
Supporters of free speech my ass.
We all want free speech, well most of us, I guess.
At what point are we letting free speech go to far? I mean, I've seen many people want to supress the neo-nazi's calling for the elimination of the Hebrew race, but it's okay for Moslem extremists (notice I specify EXTREMISTS) to do and say whatever they want.
When do we cross the line here? Is it okay to allow them to show an explosion of a car bomb? What if their own countrymen are hurt/killed? What if Western soldiers are hurt/killed? What if your brother or sister is hurt/killed?
I'm not saying that the above applies to this issue directly, I'm just saying we have to have the discussion.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
It's admirable that Google is so fiercely defends free speech as long as your not Chinese.
That it refuses to bow to the will of a powerful government unless it's Chinese.
That it gives terrorists a platform from which to recruit and publish their propaganda, unless the "terrorist" organization happens to be a religion that the Chinese government finds unacceptable.
Stand firm Google!
Don't be evil!*
*except in China
Has anyone else tried to find videos referenced in the "news" and from "government sources" in the past? On more than one occasion I've looked for videos after I saw clips on mainstream news broadcasts to see for myself - and *poof* just not online, anywhere. searched Google and other search engines - searched middle eastern news sites, US news sites, IRC channels - all over, and the *only* place talking about them were US news outlets, who got copies from ?? usually not referenced sources. This was about the same time I stopped regularly watching TV around 2004/2005.
The US *used* to stand for free speech. They used to be the standard for the world of democratic, open society. I find it sad that US leaders are so blind to their own history and so fearful and ignorant to call for censorship of videos.
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.
Liberman isn't the government now is he.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
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
Maybe Google needs to change their community standards. Community standards are not written in stone, and these standards don't seem to be my standards.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Then perhaps the way Lieberman needs to go about this is to work behind the scenes to subpoena the IP address information of the people who posted the videos rather than requesting the removal of the videos - then he could shame the countries that are allowing the offending videos to be posted from their IP blocks and the US could take legal action against them. Wait, Bush is still in office... we'll take military action instead since talking to them would be "appeasement."
And as for the India case, Google is a US company which has a global presence through the internet. Simple human rights such as freedom of speech are guaranteed by many multi-national treaties and resolutions. Countries that violate such rights are not on the side of the international conscience. Apparently Google's greed and desire to do business in backwards third-world nations supercedes their willingness to stand up for basic human rights. If a country is going to violate human rights, why continue to do business there? Or has morality lost all meaning in America?
I, for one, will not be using any more Google services or products in the future. This nonsense has to stop. Google will fall. It's just a matter of time until they implode like so many other dot-coms constructed like a house of cards on the sale of a single product on the internet - in Google's case, cheap advertising that scams people and companies who pay for it due to click fraud and unscrupulous web hosts and site operators. There is a reason Google's other products are all free; nobody would ever pay money for the other junk they produce, even with all the "smartest minds" in Silicon Valley beating down their door to come work for them. They're a has-been. Their recent follies prove that the end is near.
I am deeply disturbed that the US government is censoring information. This shows that the US government is now operating in total defiance of the US constitution and of human rights, along with the fact it is now engaging in torture of prisoners and indefinite detainments without trail and charges and so on. No government should be allowed to censor information or violate human rights in other ways. We should not allow a government to decide what people can and cant look at. Once we allow this, there is little stop this from getting more and more unreasonable. One minute it could be terrorist videos, another minute it could be videos say uncovering toxic pollution of the environment by a company (this, according to the increasingly vague definition of terrorism, I am sure could eventually be called a terrorist act because it threatens corporate profits and tries to alert the public so they will demand the government stop the pollution).
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.
A "moral law"? What "legal consequences" do you think they would have to pay? I admire your conviction to your beliefs, but I'm not convinced you have a clear idea of what those consequences are, for Google in the short term, and for the prospects of change in that country in the long term.
Petition your state and federal government to ban US companies from doing business in countries that meet whatever criteria you feel is appropriate here. Exercise enough care that you don't ban US companies from doing business in the US too.
Yes, it's not graphic in the sense of showing blown apart people, but if you don't think people are actually dying during some of that footage you're very naive- the 1:37 mark certainly shows live people being shot, and you have bits where the troops are cheering bomb strikes on targets.
Or is it ok so long as it's *our* bombs blowing people up?
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
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.
America : We support free speech as long as people don't say bad things about us.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
They want to Youtube to censor the terrorist organisations showing attacks on US soldiers, but at the same time they're happy to keep footage of US soldiers killing insurgents and civilians (not to mention gun camera footage and smart bomb cameras). A little bit hypocritical, isn't it?
interesting, do you have a blog or email list about this?
Last time I checked, people who are not citizens of these great United States of America are not entitled to protections offered under the bill of rights.
Oh ok, so you can extradite an Australian citizen for violating US intellectual property laws, yet the same, or other, citizen(s) has no protection under the US Bill of Rights?
Come on. Either you apply ALL YOUR LAWS to foreigners, or you apply NONE of them. You can't pick and choose which law a person is entitled to and which law they aren't. The Law is a package deal. However this is typical of the attitude of the current administration - manipulating, abusing existing laws far beyond their original purpose and intent, and creating arbitrary laws. "Justice" no longer exists in the US. I just hope you personally never have to find out the hard way.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The progressive sites I read have been making a big point that these were ALLEGED terrorist videos. A few clearly were, were also violations of the guidelines, and were removed.
The rest? Not so clear, and google did the right thing in punting.
The alternative is to reduce the internet to the equivalence of the "no fly list". You want to post something? Sorry, but someone in the government says that it violates some rules. Can't tell you what those rules are -- you would just work around them. Can't give you a way to appeal the decision. Can't even let you bitch about the decision -- that in itself would be supporting terrorism. Donchaknow. But don't worry, we can trust the government.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
We cannot be like the rest of the dictatorships and communist governments and hide from the fact that this is reality and we are infidels in these peoples minds.
The more we are educated about this kind of behavior the more we will know what to think of these morons as time goes on this is a problem we in the west are going to have to deal with.
Really if anything its a good thing these videos are online IMO, they are only making fools of themselves and educating us in the west of there ways and activities.
Free Speech does not protect inciting violence any more than it protects yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Good to know the airheads at YouTue have their priotities in order:
They'll remove videos that are alleged to be copyrighted, or critical of Scientology at the drop of a hat, but they'll refuse to remove videos of terrorists killing other people.
Way to go, YouBoob.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
Dude - that's what he's saying. The legal consequences are for following a however admirable moral policy rather than the laws.
OMG! We can't let people have free speech. They might say things!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment uses the phrase "the people" rather than specifying "citizens", in contrast to the Fifteenth Amendment:
"Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
I did it for the lulz!
THL phish sticks
First, Europeans aren't having enough kids. Their populations will decline unless Muslim immigrants and their descendants fill the gap.
What you will see, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned it, will be sharia laws in European countries. First for the Muslims. Hopefully, it won't branch out from there. Now, I know people were critical of those remarks. But today's unthinkable becomes tomorrow's thinkable.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
...YouTube was owned by Google, not the State.
You have all the free speech you can get---on your own dime. YouTube is a business, not a public service. They have a right as a private organization, and a responsibility to their shareholders, to determine what stays and what goes, based on what they think will make the most money, plain and simple.
It so happens that free speech is very marketable. If "Web2.0" means anything, it's that one fact. But they have a vision of what they want their site to be like, and a legal responsibility to do basic due diligence in response to copyright violations. The video poster's 1st Amendment rights have nothing to do with this case. You wanna post videos of beheadings on the internet? Fine, go get a domain name and a web server, and you can do just that. I'll bet you wouldn't be the first. (If you can imagine it, there's porn of it.)
If Joe Lieberman or Mrs. Grundy or Jesus Christ says "Remove this," it's up to YouTube's staff to decide whether or not to honor that request.
This isn't about censorship. Let's say I own a building, and I tell you you can draw whatever you want on it, with the stipulation that I'll remove anything that I decide is "bad". Then you draw a person getting their head asploded, and someone says to me, "Hey, Isaac, that drawing is pretty bad." It's my call whether to take it down or not.
The minute the State starts saying that YouTube MUST remove content, then we're all in trouble. But you'd better believe YouTube would cry First Amendment on that one right away, and they'll be right.
Isaac Z. Schlueter
http://foohack.com
All the US Government need to do is Copyright Terrorism. wait an hour. Then slap Google Video with a DCMA takedown order! That video will be down faster than Paris Hilton's undies!
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Yet YouTube will remove any anti-scientology video posted on its site at the drop of a hat, or any others that are merely accused of having "copyright violations."
I think the message Google is sending is clear.
Freedom of expression = bad
Supporting terrorist groups and scientology = good
Can you really not tell I was kidding?
I mean, really???????
Could someone in U.S be so kind and post a official terrorist definition from U.S Military handbook or from law book (or if someone just has one of those)?
What I have readed, the official terrorist definition is bretty bad for U.S policy, because U.S itself is acting like terrorist state. Actually international court http://www.icj-cij.org/ (dont know is that right address!) has sentenced U.S as terrorist country, but it does not have any legal judgement because U.S didn't vote against itself.
So by this reason, U.S should be removed (disconnected) from internet itself! (and many other country too!)
Cocaine sells at anything from $60-$80 a gram in the US which is a reasonable
price, of course the cheaper the more it is cut Many 'cook' it to get freebase
cocaine aka 'crack' and that's the end of reasonable and affordable because
users can't put the pipe down before the last crumb has been smoked. I know
people who literally smoked themselves under a bridge so if you've got crack
to sell your merchandise is hot.
It used to be that 5 grams of cocaine got you 5 years in prison, but even
today being caught with 100 grams is a life sentence. And with truth in sentencing
in some states life means life. So even though I could be making a hundred
thousand dollars a month selling crack cocaine I'm not doing it. But someone
else is and in fact he is not only happy that he's getting 300% returns on
his investments he's also very happy about the fact that selling crack is a
high-risk business. There isn't that much competition around and helps
keep prices solid and profits secure.
The same thing would happen if they really cracked down on child pornographers.
All of the sudden you would eliminate a whole lot of competition and clear
the way for competent players who would enjoy additional control over
distribution and price. In other words you would be doing them a service
by jacking up their profits and even more six year old girls would start
an early modeling career.
Another thing people forget is that drugs and child pornography are actually
already under government control especially in the US. The CIA isn't called
Cocaine Importation Agency for nothing.
Awhile ago I was search around for some world war 2 stuff and oddly enough I found that every Nazi video had been killed and removed. How is it that Nazism is not okay to have videos about the subject and yet terrorists get free use of it? Why the double standard?
and not this article.
Yeah, whatever. You've just succumbed to the same "kill them to make the problem go away" mentality that you were railing against in the first place.
Not easy living with others, is it?
This is sanity check here.
I wanted to let you guys know the details about this whole thing without being angry.
Mark Bunker, a well known critic of Scientology, had his Youtube account removed a day or two before he posted the entire Jason Beghe interview. Why? Because of a prior violation on a previous account that had a small clip of the Colbert Report on his channel without Viacom's permission. In any case, he made a new account and made sure that everything on his new account had nothing that violated the TOS. Everything was fine, until he drew much attention to his account from the public when he posted the Jason Beghe interview teaser; Youtube, then, started caring about his prior violation on an account that was closed about a year prior to him getting the most recent warning. His account was banned, much uproar was created, etc. etc. Up to this date, he is still not allowed to be back on Youtube, despite contesting the prior violation and proving that he hadn't violated any copyrights ever since that past offense. Even more, Scientology had an account disabled a while ago for posting identities of anti-Scientology protesters yet now enjoy the luxury of a Youtube paid channel (no comments allowed, of course!)
Now, I pose the question to you guys: does this seem like a violation of free speech or not? I'm inclined to think that it does seem at least hypocritical, as the OP suggested, for Youtube to allow terrorist videos to be on Youtube while not allowing the same leeway for "lesser issues" such as Scientology. Without getting into at least external moral issues, it seems hypocritical to allow one content thread to flourish under the TOS, while not allowing another content thread to flourish under the same TOS. But maybe I'm missing the entire point here? I don't know. Eh, what do you guys think?
"Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig." - Bertrand Russell
Wont they concede if China asks them to remove those videos? Yahoo does it and so does Google
This is ridiculous. Google has no duty to BREAK the law of the land to "protect" free speech. Google followed the law.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
If what you say is correct, I can use your doorstep for Skinhead anti-semetic, anti-black hate speech that does not advocate a direct call to violence.
Oh, that's right. There's those pesky private property laws... But 1st Amendment! 1st Amendment!!! halp?
As long as Google/Youtube maintains legal status, they can keep any material they see fit on there, along with purging any they dont like. You use 14.99FPS? They can erase it. You show beheadings? They can dismiss it. The limit is copyrighted material (which the DMCA provides for these mass-collector sites) which is erased, provided proper channels.
The Constitution only LIMITS government, not corporations. (Though, a case could be made if the government required that stipulation in corporate charter.)
Some kind soul has tagged this story as 'China'.
I, for one, am kind of curious what this story has to do with China.
Max.
Because (ignoring the perils of censorship for the moment) it's better to see what the bad guys are about than to not have that info at all. If they make themselves look ridiculous, so much the better. Even if they make themselves look good, it gives the opposition that much more ammunition, since now they can compare and contrast bad-guy's promotional video against known reality.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Not the sniper ones, but the pro-Hizbollah and pro-Saddam videos are fascinating from a cultural perspective.
Viz.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIiQkMbFoC0
The music is fantastic.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I just take notice that youtube refuses to remove terrorist movies, but does remove or doesn't allow anti-islam movies like the one by the dutch politician Wilders. Bunch of hypocrites
...they also refuse to remove terrorist videos even after the terrorist dies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
They're not folding fairly.
Google are happy to remove anti-Islam videos, anti-Scientology videos and so forth yet Islamic Extremists and Scientologists are free to post all the propaganda they want.
Google are simply citing free speech when it suits them to further whatever bias they have at the time whilst happily going against free speech and censoring plenty of other things that are far less offensive.
Someone making fun of Scientology, or someone calling Islam evil is treated as being far more evil than videos showing civilians getting shot or maimed yet Google's censorship program goes against this reality.
Presumably in the states with Scientology at least it's because they're scared of being sued by them, well, perhaps it's time the parents of a soldier shot dead in one of these videos also sues them so that they can make their decision based on fear of legal reprisal rather than common sense as it's the only thing that seems to be able to balance their censorship.
Of course I'd rather see the zero censorship option, but Google have already long gone against the idea of that so let's at least have balanced, unbiased censorship shall we?
the company should change its rules "to address violent extremist material." Of course Sen. Joseph Lieberman means "anti-american" since he probally wouldn't want all the pro christian stuff take off since they cant be evil right ?
A lot of people here are talking about the freedom of speech and what censorship of this videos would mean. This freedom that America and the UK have we have had to fight for and even now you can't say exactly what you want for fear of upsetting the Political Correctness Police (but that is another rant). The point I am trying to make is that freedom of speech comes with a price. If that price is that some fanatic learns how to make explosives and kills a group of children on a school bus don't you think the cost was a little too high. I know what some of you are going to say... "But you can get that information off the Internet or in a collage library...". SO WHAT! we don't need to publish that information for all the idiots of the world and give them step by step instructions on.... I don't know... military tactics to enable them to efficiently storm through the corridors of a well known collage and pump round after round into fellow students. Or in another case create a bomb that can fit in the heel of a shoe. The stuff I have mentioned is all easy enough to find if you know where to look without having it placed in view of every fucked up Muslim (or any other) teen with growing pains.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flamebait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Here is what Turkey does: Bans access to youtube from whole country. And strangely, all the offensive videos disappear in one or two days.
If Google & Youtube got problem with classification of videos,
/Z
then why they don't ask professionals for help in that matter?
http://www.memri.org/
Where is +1 Flamebait when you need it?
Well if you 'starred' in it, then your picture got passed on to the authorities, you got identified and you molester got put in jail, id guess you'd be pretty happy about it.
Having videos on the internet of you getting rapped as a kid is a small price to pay to stop getting rapped.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Why not? No one's FORCING you to watch it.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Using the sarcasm mark quite nearly ruins the whole thing. For example:
:)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=554292&cid=23422504
I could have put a sarcasm mark on that, but I posted it with full knowledge that some Apple or Microsoft fanboy with no sense of humor would mod me down, but I did it anyway, and I'd do it again. Some fanboy modded me down and another guy who got the humor modded me up. It's like I'm setting up a puzzle and making people do it, posting the results publically, and few people realize the game I'm playing with them. It's especially fun when my karma is high enough that I can risk being sarcastic with a dead serious tone, that's like setting a really hard puzzle
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I tink it is stupid action! So, they should delete them. And i have question what about Porno videos?? what they do with them?? So, if they delete Porno so IMHO they should delete this type of videos too.
"There isn't a corporation in the US that's a match against the power of the federal government" If you mean that they don't have the military power, then you're right. On the other hand, I think corporate power in America, and corporate influence over government in America, is at an all-time high - and that the balance of power in American government has shifted to corporations. The rise of lobbying, the decline of public interest in non-local/personal issues and the recent Republican hegemony have all benefited corporations. They don't have to match the power of the federal government because it works for them.
Rights come from force. There is no such a thing as undeniable rights. These so called "rights", from the Constitution, laws, international treaties or anywhere else are fictitious and exist only, and to the extent, that the parts involved agreed on them.
As soon as someone gain enough force, these "rights" might be dissolved. The force can be political, military, economical. But ultimately it all relies on force. I'd quote the coup in Argelia just to prevent a (democratically elected) islam party from taking the government. No major occidental nation, press or organization cared to defend democracy. Democracy is a strange beast that only works while people believe in it.
Heck, I never thought I would effectively quote and use Heinlein's Starship Troopers concepts here in /. . But he got that right. Sometimes, if you believe in democracy, you may have to fight for it in an completely anti-democratic way.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Where is Youtube's sense of Country patriotism and loyalty?
I enjoy the Youtube service, but I find this appalling and completely unacceptable.
"Community Guidelines" is a poor excuse to allow displays of our soldiers being hurt.
What's next, beheading videos? Would that violate their guidelines or is that also considered free speech, too.
Bad decision; the major media should cover this one.
Pay higher wages somewhere else?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"YouTube went on to note that they are strong supporters of free speech."
No, YouTube and their parent Google are very strong supporters of making more money. In China, they won't support free speech since it jeopardizes their access to the Chinese market. But stateside, where they can throw around the "free speech" catchphrase as much as they want, they don't want to let go of something as controversial, eye-catching and crowd-drawing as videos put out by a terrorist organization; they got ad space to sell!
Where's their precious love of free speech when Beijing asks them to stop allowing Chinese users to see this?
To approach this honestly you have to consider the source of the complaint. Lieberman is hardly worried about Al Qaeda videos. Lieberman is heavily backed by AIPAC (the right wing Israeli lobby group) and the most extreme right wing elements in the Israeli government. He's the closest thing to an Israeli seat in the U.S. Congress. His real concern is that Israel is afraid of having their illegal and immoral actions in Gaza and the West Bank exposed. Many reporters are afraid of entering Gaza fearing that they too will be slaughtered by an Israeli tank group. However, these actions haven't stopped YouTube uploads of camera phone videos, like the targeting of a reporter last month. That's what really worries Lieberman's backers. The U.S. veto on the U.N. Security Council has prevented Israel from international retribution. But the country still fears the consequences that may result from further videos of their illegal and immoral actions becoming public. And that is what Lieberman's efforts are really all about.
Then I won't bother telling you about the Iraqi alcohol establishments that were around Ramadi.
Oh, and since you are so educated, you might know the difference between Arabs and Muslims.
Buddy, this is just a part of the global balance of power, between the religiously-free and the Muslims. Just like the cold-war is just a global balance of power between the politically-free and the communists. Just like when the Catholics ruled Europe, and tried to rule the world. Oil you say? Whoever controls the energy will factor better in the balance of power. In the end, it comes down to which side of the ideology you are on. I'm not duped, I'm not stupid, and I even understand that Arabs != Muslims and both drink alcohol if they feel like it (and depending on who's watching). In any case, that beer thing was something of a joke, like us getting together and laughing about the old times.
Let me ask you dude, what if this was a war for oxygen? Would you cry-ass about a war for oxygen? Why not? We need oil to support EVERY aspect of our current society. So does EVERY nation on this planet. Just like oxygen. I'd like to transition to a better energy source, post haste! But we aren't there yet.
Oil is just a means to an end, economics, and power just the same. This war, and all the wars before it, are just about jockeying for position in the grand scheme, balance of power of ideologies. Which side are you on? There's only a couple of camps. The free-agency team, and the others.
THL phish sticks
Drug crimes are often not victimless, quite aside from the chance of OD-ing and the financial burden of addiction, you're funneling money into a criminal enterprise with massive resources. This encourages corruption in law enforcement both here and abroad, and it keeps open regular channels of unmonitored (even more unmonitored than usual) material transfer into the country.
Among other things, the massive criminal enterprises drug abuse in this country funds in other countries discourages tourism and business investments there, creating barriers to trade and development. Ultimately, we lose a lot of money.
On the flipside of the coin, drug crimes often aren't victimless because people can get caught: in Massachussets, for example, I think two joints qualifies as intent to distribute these days. That's the end of someone's federal student aid, at the least.
Would drug crimes be victimless if they weren't on the books? Would there then be a need for criminality? Sometimes they'd be victimless, probably; and sometimes, not; but they are certainly not victimless crimes today.
when lawyers claim copyright violation! So Copyright is a bigger threat than terrorists!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If one of these were built, and if i had my own billions, there'd be wrath upon ANYone trying to declare my abode non-sovereign. There has come the time when nations need to be reigned in to SOME point, and where a passport acts ONLY as proof of citizenship, not as a means to deny re-entry to one's place of birth, and not as a means to prevent one from exiting (provided no real or tangible crimes have been committed. Of course, there's nothing to stop nations from fabricating crimes or committing outright character assassination or incarceration or murder against people who decry onerous expectations of citizens. I was born here, at The Presidio, served 4 years in the USN and I damned well shall retain my right to call a spade a spade and fools fools and not have my citizenship stripped just because of that.
I'm a citizen of Earth and a legal resident of where ever I work and pay my taxes. So long as I'm not killing, maiming, stealing, or destroying physical property no nation should deny me (or others) free (but crime-free) travel. After all, consider that in 200 years or so or when/if we achieve space travel (as in Trek), what value will fiefdom-like "state" borders have?
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/05/seasteading?currentPage=all
Some real/some tongue-in-cheek micronations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations
------
Another interesting case:
http://www.sealandgov.org/history.html
----
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Do you think that the main reason Google has offices in other countries (like China) is to enjoy a cheaper labor rate? You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
A company has only three choices when dealing with presence in a foreign country: obey the country's law, break the country's law, or not have a presence. Breaking the country's law is clearly not a good option; it simply results in jail time or removal from the country. Should Google not do business in India?
Almost every single country in the world has more restrictive freedom of speech than the US. Either we (as a country) can interact with the rest of the world and try to change it, or become isolationist and try to change it. As a country with open trade, we have political, economical, and military influence to cause change. As an isolationist country, we only have military influence. Which do you think is more effective?
I didn't say that cheap labor was the main reason behind Google having offices in other countries. I think you're being naive to think that it's not one of the perks of having foreign offices (especially for a company based entirely on the Internet).
I said higher wages would be a consequence as an answer to:
Since:
a) Google, being a creation of the Internet, doesn't have to actually be in that country to sell ads or other services.
b) It would cost them more money to hire workers elsewhere, or bring in foreign workers from their target markets.
Maybe, but I'm probably just as qualified as your are :P.
The main reason Google has foreign offices is money. They have a target market, and having a local presence within that market lowers their operating costs. However, Google is not required to have a local presence to service that market.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
So... if a video has someone else's music in it, then we have to take it down and fine people and all that, or if it was on Comedy Central, but if it's actually threatening people in the world... we can't touch it?
I always did know that Scientology's are on slashdot, but I never figured that they had mod points (But I know they have lots of guns and TNT and C4 and other explosives, for what reason I don't know...yet). As Scientology has generals and commanders, like an illegal military organization.
The parent isn't a flame, it is the truth told in an angry fashion. This thing here isn't a flame either, it is the truth about Scientology and there ugly, ugly facts.
Many anti Scientology videos contain no copyrighted material, yet get removed anyway.
MABASPLOOM!