Slashdot Mirror
UK Pressures the US To Takedown Extremist Videos
chrb writes "BBC News and the Telegraph are reporting that the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos, particularly on YouTube. The request follows the conviction of a 21-year-old woman who attempted to murder MP Stephen Timms after watching YouTube videos of radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube hosts more than 5,000 videos featuring al-Awlaki, but has begun to remove them following the British government's complaints. The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK. They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good. If they were hosted in the UK then we would take them down but this is a global problem. Many of these websites are hosted in America and we look forward to working even more closely with you to take down this hateful material.'"
This will be a nonstarter. The US government isn't going to start attacking "hate websites" or otherwise poop on the first amendment. Companies like Youtube will certainly comply with the British government. Net result: such content won't be on the most popular avenues of the net, but it'll still be out there for those who are "interested" in such things. So you and I won't be able to browse to it on google video, but it'll be hosted on, I dunno, hatetube or something.
We are not the UK anymore.
If the enemy is willing to tell you their plans, pay attention.
The First Amendment issues are obvious here, but I have to say, we relegare ourselves to a pack of dumb animals if we make the point that watching something or reading something or playing violent video games means we're going to freak out and imitate or otherwise follow the directions of anything contained within.
We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.
The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.
The United States needs to ignore the UK's demand, and the UK, if it insists, can certainly petition google to take action on this.
But unless we rely on the idea that free people in a free society can think critically, why not just invite the government into our lives completely? Why even have a free society, if we're really just animals, a few videos away from going on some kind of horrible killing spree? Why go through the pretense of insisting that human beings are capable, through independent thought and taking responsibility for their actions, of liberty?
The "categorically not allowed in the UK" bit could not, as an American, concern me less -- and should the United States attempt the same kind of argument with the UK in the future, the UK can and should ignore the United States's demands to infringe the right of people to say and read/watch what they like.
The alternative, where the government makes this decision that there's just stuff we can't watch, is scary.
The British government is pressuring the government and private entities. Some private entitites may cave, but that doesn't mean the US government is going to do anything those that don't.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
David Cameron (UK prime minister) has let all the rhetoric go to his head. He actually believes it when the US politicians pat him on the head and tell him that the UK and USA do indeed have a special relationship. Wake up, any balance of power between the USA and UK finished sometime before World War 2, over 70 years ago. The "special relationship" deal is that the USA expects the UK to give their requests special treatment (collude in "special renditions", help out on a war, that kind of thing), but don't expect anything in return beyond maybe the occasional tour of the White House and a signed photo from the president.
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
It's a widespread misbelief that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They don't. They hate us for *political* reasons. Using them against the Russians, invading their countries and so on.
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
You're an idiot. The US cannot agree to a UK request that categorically violates the US Constitution. Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.
It's like requesting that the US make Catholicism the official national religion. It's never going to happen, not for any religion (such a thing would violate the Constitution), and it is bizarre to even ask.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Very nicely thank you, I enjoy my vastly lower probability of being shot to death.
Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence.
War propaganda and active statements of intent to commit violence *do* have societal value. Have you forgotten that our country was founded by revolutionaries?
The value of hate speech is less obvious, but it's still clearly covered by the first amendment.
That said, your analysis of the likely outcome is probably correct.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well, no actually. You're assuming that British people study the US constitution - they don't. Secondly, it is up to the American people to determine how to interpret the US constitution. There is nothing idiotic about that.
If a friend and ally makes a request, you can certainly consider it (before you say no). Constitution or not, quite possibly the specific videos in question might infringe some law or regulation, so there could be reasons to take down these videos if you look hard enough.
It wasn't a "him", it was a "her" that stabbed the Member of Parliament. She did it to be a martyr [sic] for islam. This idea was promoted by some American muslim cleric. It seems America can't control those who wish her harm, or wish to harm anyone else by proxy. I suspect this is the usual "political correctness gone mad". America - please sort yourself out - even if the terrorist wishing you harm holds a U.S. passport, they still are a terrorist, the trappings of religion make no difference. Can we compare & contrast the attitude towards this terrorist cleric to the attitude (who happens to reside in the USA) to the treatment the USA has meted out to Gary McKinnon? He's not stabbed anyone, or urged anyone to do the same, but it's not stopped the US security forces baying for his hide. The difference? He's not American.
I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you could say the same thing about a lot of Christian fundamentalists (and more in certain times in the past).
The key phrase there is "in the past". Judaism is the oldest of the desert religions, Christianity is a bit younger. They both went through their adolescent hissy fits and used brute force to spread themselves in their day, but eventually they settled down and became pretty docile.
Islam, on the other hand, is the youngest of the three and it's still in the middle of its troubled adolescent years. It still has an inferiority complex and gets very emotional when it's insulted, usually reacting violently. (Danish newspaper cartoons, anyone?)
The danger is that Islam is going through these growing pains in an age when one no longer needs the resources of an army or a king to cause large scale loss of life. This is particularly alarming in the nuclear age.
Also, just like a lot of the "Bible quotes" by some Christian fundamentalists,
isn't this one of the many things argued to be a mis-translation?
Could be. Either way it's irrelevant. People read what they want to into scripture. People who are brought up to hate the west (a hatred which seems to be a core subject along with reading, writing and arithmetic in some parts of the world) are going to seize on that and use it as justification for their Jihadist stance no matter how inaccurate the scholarship is.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
news flash people:
Google isn't congress. (yet)
The 1st amendment doesn't apply. Google can censor whatever it wants on its properties.
You cannot have perfectly objective, hard and fast rules for everything.
In this instance, you can: Nothing is outlawed because it is "obscene". If you don't like something, don't look at it. If someone is forcing you to watch, that's different - but the availability of something shouldn't be denied because some people don't like it. (Note: that works for drugs too)
Ayjay on Fedang
Glenn Greenwald explains it better than I can, so I'll just quote him:
"It's truly astounding to watch us -- for a full decade -- send fighter jets and drones and bombs and invading forces and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world, or, as we were doing long before 9/11, to overthrow their governments, prop up their dictators, occupy what they perceive as holy land with our foreign troops, and arm Israel to the teeth, and then act surprised and confused when some of them want to attack us. In general, the U.S. only attacks countries with no capabilities to attack us back in the "homeland" -- at least not with conventional forces. As a result, we have come to believe that any forms of violence we perpetrate on them over there is justifiable and natural, but the Laws of Humanity are instantly breached in the most egregious ways whenever they bring violence back to the U.S., aimed at Americans. It's just impossible to listen to discussions grounded in this warped mentality without being astounded at how irrational it is. What do Americans think is going to happen if we continue to engage in this conduct, in this always-widening "war"?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/07/terrorism
They hate us because we occupy their lands, kill their families, torture them, lock them up with no chance of ever getting out, and prop up other regimes that do the same. "Our freedoms" are far, far down on the list.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The US -has- ignored the constitution in recent memory, and got away with it. So clearly they can again. The US gov only listens to money, not the UK. Catholic isn't likely to become a state religion, it's not Protestant. However the Republicans would certainly vote for a state religion if they had the chance. If they can openly support creationist nonsense (intelligent design) and prayers in school then i'd not put official state religion past them.