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.
Let us decide what we can watch. Don't censor anything, please?
but how long till they buckle?
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.
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.
Kudos for calling a Jew a Nazi.
;-)
Not that I disagree.
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.
They should have gone a step further and told Lieberman off for being a censorship nazi.
Wait till the people making these videos get in charge... you haven't begun to see censorship yet.
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
The US government should patent terrorism and then Liberman could sue YouTube for copyright infringement. Google would take down the videos immediately.
A record of an event is not the illegal event -- why don't you ban the fucking news while you're at it?
> Can I kill my annoying neighbors now and claim free speech protection?
Not unless you're a rich Saudi, in which case Bush will be pleased to assist.
- 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
No, but I can certainly call you a moron for doing it, and even mock you for it. I could even shoot a recreation of the events and mock you. Or I could also post the actual video and call it news.
PS. I think you missed a few memos.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Yeah, damn them Europeans letting everyone in on this freedom of speech thing.
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
If I say the holocaust didn't happen, I go to jail. If I demand the torture and beheading of someone for merely drawing a cartoon picture of my religions prophet it's perfectly acceptable? I see an epic breakdown of logic here.
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!!!
And if we don't let them make these videos, then it's moot because we've already lost
Think that they're wrong? Say something, don't prevent them from saying something
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.
As a European (British) I would like to point out there is no chance of most of Europe turning into a muslim state. Most of us over here supported the authors of those comics, as did our governments. There were lots of loony Muslims out campaigning for some stupid fatwa or something, but who cares. That is the joy of free speech, getting to ignore pathetic hatemongering individuals who don't understand that without it they would be unable to open their mouths at all.
If we do anything else in regards to stopping religious loonies being able to practice, march or gather in public places we begin curtailing the freedoms that we hold so dear to begin with and are no better than them. Anyway, watching them whine and burn effegies of some guy who only drew a cartoon gives alot of us even more reason to poke fun at some peoples serious lack of perspective.
The following quote is one I have always identified with in matters such as these:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I dont read
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"
Have to destroy the village (personal freedoms) to save it, eh?
To claim that allowing repugnant political views to be published and discussed should be prevented to better preserve political freedoms is hypocritical in the first degree. Moreover, full and frank disclosure and discussion is useful: To let terrorists disclose their arguments in public, and to allow those arguments to be debated and defeated in public, introduces appropriate counterarguments into the public consciousness, ensures that those same arguments can no longer be used as convincingly in private (where the lack of public debate might otherwise make them convincing), and makes claims of coverup and large-scale media conspiracy less convincing. As such claims of conspiracy reduce credibility of non-terrorist-controlled information sources, any action which might lend them credence should be clearly avoided whenever possible.
The military battle should be as asymmetric as possible; the public relations battle, on the other hand, should be fought fairly, convincingly, and in full view of the public if it is to be effective. Just as we should not practice waterboarding even if the other side does beheadings, we should not practice even mild censorship of political speech; we need not do either to win, and taking any such actions reduces our credibility and moral standing in the eyes of the world -- including those who might be recruited to either side.
-- "Chosen Race" destined to rule over all others? (check)
... the list goes on and on.
-- 'God' figure says its OK to kill people and jack their land because you'll use it better? (check)
-- Someone is "one of us," whether they want to be or not, because they were born with our genes? (check)
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.
Showing their videos is a great way to keep them from ever becoming in charge. Idiots are their own worse enemies.
If Lieberman succeeds in concealing that murderers are in favor of committing murder, then the murderers win. Personally, I hope Lieberman rethinks his values, and comes back over to the anti-murder/anti-Nazi side.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
You're right, Theists are SCARY.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
So Bhutto's assasination should have been censored? Can't imagine how much American news stations profited from showing that. Heck, how many 100's of hours of television shows and or movies are dedicated to the Kennedy assisination. Profiting over video of an assisination or terrorist act is not illegal when Americans want it to be seen. - heck - imagine it illegal to watch the world trade center fall. How many news organizations in the US sold ads for that newsworthy event?
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's all pretty damned scary from looking in from outside the bubble.
Seriously, "our" brand of fanaticism is no worse, no better, than "theirs" -- "their" PR departments just don't have control of the media like "ours". (Note that inside "their" bubble, it's the exact reverse -- that's why you don't hear about Al Sadir or whatever his name is being run out of town.)
"They" decry the "great Satan" and leave pipe bombs near roads, "we" hide pipe bombs in Abortion Clinics' parking lots and post the home addresses and pictures of doctor's children.
No difference, except for the level of desperation.
I put that in quotes because as many people seem to forget, America is a secular nation. That means that Islam is as much a part of the US as Christianity, Wicca, Buddhism, and countless other beliefs -- all equally valid and equally worthy of our respect and protection.
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.
Can't imagine how much American news stations profited from showing that
That's close to the truth. One call back to Langley and Google would have been told to ignore old Joe. They want this stuff shown. Who would host their Osama videos? It's one arrow in the quiver for keeping us scared and throwing bags of money at them. They want to eliminate these videos from YouTube as much as anti-virus companies want people to stop writing viruses.
Now if AQ were to start making videos of calm, reasonable arguments of their grievances THAT would have to stop.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
My passport gives detailed instructions on how to give up my American citizenship. One can't become "ungerman" or "unjewish."
/assume/ I'm Catholic. However, I might be protestant, atheist, agnostic or pagan. However, my Irishness is not in doubt.
For instance, if I tell you my name is Pat Murphy (which it is not), you might
Similarly, if my name is Saul Bergersteinowitzskimanheimer, it doesn't matter if I show up to Bill Grahm, Jr.'s every Sunday morning. I'm a Jew.
Karl Marx referenced the "final solution" to the "jewish question" decades before Hitler was born. He was an avoid atheist who suggested that Communism, by destroying international capital, would damage the very nature of the Jew and destroy Jews as a people. read here for more info.
However, despite being a "bad Jew," he still makes it into lists of prominent Jews kept by Jewish organizations. Same with Lev Bronstein, aka Leon Trotsky, who changed his name and feigned to be a gentile thereby.
That would suggest that it is something completely and totally different from being American.
As to your point about the Japanese - yes, I am familiar. However, we (Americans) whooped their ass, forced them to submit and now they're more or less harmless. My tax dollars do not go to buy them bombs to use on the Koreans.
However, my tax dollars are going to support a regieme that is racist, militarist and un-democratic, which has an expansionist foreign policy and which commits the type of war crimes that they accused Germany of on an almost daily basis.
Any criticism of their policies is greeted with cries of "naziracistanti-semite! holocaust! 9/11!!" Suggestions that Jews should NOT have their own ethnic state are "racist," while statements saying that Serbs should are ALSO racist? Double standard, I say.
When even Jimmy Carter is called a "nazi" and an "anti-semite" for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, its not fair to use tanks to shoot palestinan kids, then there is apparently no room for intelligent debate.
Fuck Israel.
This is America, not France/*insertshittyeuropeancountryhere*...
Go ahead and stand on any of your "Any Town, USA" intersections (any of the four gas stations will do just fine) or a monster truck rally, and shout your jingoism there, where it's appropriate. Scribble it on a cardboard with a felt marker and hang it from your shoulders, if you like. Here, on a forum frequented by people from all over the world, you're just underlining the worst stereotype of your country's citizens.
let alone draws a cartoon.
The swede Allah cartoons were not published in United States newspapers. From what I recall, they only made the rounds there on internet blogs. In fact, only one US publication was going to publish the cartoons, yet they chickened out and yanked the issue before it hit the shelves. So much for your superior stance.
This is America, not France...yada yada yada
That's right, America, stretching from Patagonia to the Arctic Circle, composed of 35 countries and 19 territories. It's a continent! Look into it...
Two basic principles of Freedom are Tolerance and Knowledge, and you're not showing any of either. Maybe you're unclear on the concept? I invite you to go and find out what kind of "ism" your viewpoints delineate, you might find yourself dismally shocked, and begin to discover that many of your fine countrymen are far ahead of you on the path to enlightenment.
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 deliberately act against its own interest. Why should America act contrary to its interests?
You assume that the interests of America (as represented by the incumbent elected officials) is the same as interests of America (the general populace) or the same as the interests of America (the Platonic Ideal put forth by our founding fathers and daydreamed of by starry-eyed libertarians). Those in power take actions based on staying in power. The general populace takes actions based on increasing wealth and/or comfort. Platonic Ideals are talking points not action points, they almost never result in real world actions.
We are all just people.
There are two things required for freedom of speech to work. 1: The information has to be true, or at least uncensored. 2: The majority of the population must be educated and capable of rational criticism. Either of these may be questionable in the modern USA.
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
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
It's questionable if it's protected speech. I haven't personally seen any of those clips. But I'm not so sure that it's going to pass the Miller test for obscenity or the fighting words doctrine.
Whether it would pass either of those tests would largely depend upon context, terrorist recruitment videos aren't ever going to pass. Showing videos of crimes, in an effort to recruit people to commit more crimes, is not ever going to be protected speech in the US.
If this were being used in an objective report by a journalist, that would more likely than not pass the tests and be protected. Possible also if it were part of a world's blankiest blank show. As dubious as that second one is, there are more than enough shows of that sort to justify it, as poor as the taste would have to be to show it.
For instance the 9/11 planes hitting the towers was never questioned as legitimate when accompanied with the news, adding a voice over to join Al Quaeda and commit that sort of atrocity yourself wouldn't be protected.
What you say is true, though: they are reproducing faster than the Jewish majority in Israel, and in a few generations, they will have a majority. Israel has already decided how to proceed with this, though. They'll be a democracy in much the same way South Africa was a democracy. If you really think it can't happen in England, you haven't been paying attention. The idea that "this could happen in England" completely ignores the historical backdrop. Muslims that come to England, with the exception of a few raving loonies, mostly integrate into English society just fine. And make British food a bit more edible in the process, for which they are to be commended.
All this is is brown-skinned immigrant fear-mongering.
Well, before being renamed, it was actually Land of Canaan inhabited by the Canaanites - the Israelites rolled down circa 1500BC with the breakup of the Egyptian empire :)
Two Parts Swash, One Part Buckle
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.
- Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
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.
How about videos of Marines killing people? There are plenty of those on YouTube as well. Do you want those taken down?
Quite true. I think the point is that ignorant comments such as "Israel would be returning to the people who originally lived there" serve no purpose other than to further entrench the various factions. Who gives a shit who lived there. Giving Israel back to the Palestinians, or to the Egyptians, or even to the Brits, would make about as much sense as demanding that the US be turned over to the Ojibwa, or the Mohawk. It is truly embarrassing to see otherwise intelligent and well educated people making such ridiculous arguments.
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.
"but they'll refuse to remove videos of terrorists killing other people."
:( In fact beyond double standards you are proud of U.S. taxpayer sponsored U.S. military terror bombings.
If you "conservatives" were equally indignant about the state terror of U.S. bombs dropped on innocent civilians living in apartments or shot at checkpoints in Iraq I'd believe, you, alas you're not you have double standards.
And BTW I walk the talk and sayno to censoring either Islamic or U.S. state sponsored military terror.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
The fighting words doctrine is far too narrow to apply to a video posted on the Internet. You'd have to show the video to a real live crowd to have a chance of bringing "fighting words" into the picture.
The Miller test is even further from applicability, unless there's sex in the videos, and no political content. Since it's the political content which is at issue, this seems unlikely.
Might not be, but you'll have to find a loophole other than the ones you've mentioned.
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.
...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
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?
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
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
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.