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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
they'd have to somehow sneak 57 million muslims into my country to make me a minority - - 2.9 million a year for 20 years.
:-)
somehow I don't feel threatened by that. our coastal defences might be a bit naff but they aren't that bad... Oh and European law will protect us from the ludicrous notion of sharia in the UK. Cheers
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
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.
The difference: the Irish preferred not to die for their cause. The Islamic Fascists are supranational and would relish to die for theirs. They want to rule the world (literally) and force their religion on everyone. They have no dreams of independence. They do speak. And when they do, they frequently remind us that they are just cleansing the immoral from the earth and asking Americans (and other westerners) to repent and turn to Islam. Otherwise they simply want to kill us all or die trying. So they state three acceptable outcomes: we all become muslim; they kill all non-muslims; all of them die.
It's not a political battle - it's a holy war. The difference is that it isn't between Christianity and Islam (or Hindu and Islam) it's between secular government and Islam. Fortunately there is an identifiable enemy: pre-dominantly men who belief in a twisted version of Islam.
Bottom line: You can't compare this to the dispute between the British and the IRA.
Derek Greene
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Meh, calling middle-eastern nations representative of Islam is like calling America representative of Christianity. We love to say we're a Christian nation, but our actions show time and again that this is simply not the case. An outsider judging "our religion" based on our actions would conclude that Christians are hypocrites of the first order. Is that fair?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.