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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
...is it too much to ask that we take away the free speech of people...
Yes.
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.
You're right, Theists are SCARY.
They will comply with a lawful order. They will even comply with the law when a notice of violation of that law is delivered to them.
... a letter from a US Senator is just. ... a letter.
What law does Senator Lieberman allege that Google/YouTube has violated?
Oh that's right... NONE... What's more
It has no legal force whatsoever.
If you want to compel action, go to the table with evidence of a crime. Otherwise understand that your request can be ignored. I'm surprised they even responded, or acknowledged this stuff to the press.
Somebody at Google is having a good laugh at a Senator who seems to think his word is law.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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?
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.
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.
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.