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.'"
So they're already stopping the 24x7 broadcast of extremist videos.
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.
How it works in the US is,
You find someone with deep pockets associated with the video and sue the hell out of them. Repeat until everyone takes down the video/article/link.
The government can't suppress speech but businesses do it all the time.
I'm sure it's legal free speech. And who ever uploaded it could probably be fined for something. And You Tube could definitely be sued for hosting it after it was a known danger (probably before). Might not win, but they would likely fold under mild pressure for something repugnant like this.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Can someone show me a specific example of where he incites violence in his videos?
Britian asked Google to take down the videos. Google can do what it wants with it's site.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech because the US government isn't making them.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
that it's alright for elected officials to protect their positions from being challenged through democratic processes like anything on the internet/media to "protect the social good"?
maybe I'm just a little crazy, but that screams of a corrupt government to me.
To be fair, the elected official in question had his 'position as a living person' challenged by a nutter who came to his constituency office and stabbed him with a knife. He was not "challenged through democratic processes". Over in the UK we have these things called elections to do that. I don't really think that this move is necessarily a good idea, but to say it is corrupt for people to be upset over the case is ridiculous. Also, he is (now) an opposition MP, and is not part of the government.
Not one to cast stones, but I'd say the US gov fears freedom too.
Life is not for the lazy.
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.
Actually, it's the British who should dump a bunch of Youtube videos into the Thames. This time, they're the ones being forced to consume stuff they don't want by an overbearing empire. ^_^
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.
If the UK doesn't want it, they can put up a firewall. Like China.
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.
Urges you mean, article title is a troll
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.
That may be so, but the British govt are less likely to hijack a plane and fly it into a landmark.
Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
Internet Watch Foundation?
You're an immobile computer, remember?
All governments have a love-hate relationship with freedom. Human livestock is more productive the more freedom you give it, but at the same time with more freedom comes more recognition that the farmers aren't necessary.
Ideally governments want to give their livestock just enough freedom to maximize profits and no more.
There's this little thing called treason and it is defined in the constitution as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Alwaki's videos most definitely fit this description and are thus treasonous speech. Treasonous speech is not protected by the constitution. I find it pathetic that any American would support treason against their own country. No wonder the terrorists think they can win.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
The Glen Beck show has been shown to incite mass murder plots. If Google is going to be "forced" to remove these videos, then they should have to remove all Glen Beck videos too.
The proper response to what happened to him is to lock up the "nutter", as you crazy Brits say. Trying to block access to the material said nutter watched before doing something stupid is shifting the blame. The person did something stupid because they're crazy. Saying that "the video made them do it" is removing personal responsibility. Someone is crazy enough to think they can stab an MP in broad daylight? They go to jail.
Apparently you can't read.
The UK government wants the US government to pull this sort of thing off the net.
Google can do what they like, but the US Govt. has rules it must follow in that regard, and they are nothing like the UK's rules (which are more like suggestions for them anyway).
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
FUCK YOU for telling us how to manage "free speech". It's why we are Americans and not British.
Actually, I thought that was because you were better than us Brits at getting out of paying taxes.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
This is the sort of thing that gets on my nerves. I am all for defending freedoms, but freedom must be exercised responsibly.
This is a case where a Member of Parliament -- roughly the counterpart of your Representatives in the US -- was attacked and nearly died, while performing his fundamental constitutional duty to meet a member of his constituency supposedly to hear her concerns. Your President walks around protected by the most high profile private army in the world because of that sort of threat, and the danger it poses to the effective functioning of government.
There is nothing responsible about such attacks, nor about advocating them. At some point, the MP's right to do his job safely outweighs someone else's right to freely advocate harming him, and if you get to the point where someone is getting stabbed then you have gone waaaaay over that line.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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
Frankly, the request from the British government, both to YouTube (and other companies) and to the US Government is all three: reasonable , legal, and likely to happen.
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. None of these characteristics provided any value to our societal discussion of ideas (which is what the 1st Amendment enshrines, but does not define). No one in either the US or the UK needs to see these for any reason other than military intelligence (which, we can get without allowing them to be made for public consumption).
Legal in that according to both UK and US law, these videos fit within the various exceptions to protected speech (that is, they fit into well-defined categories of speech NOT afforded protection). Thus, it's entirely likely that the UK request to the US government will see some sort of follow-through by the US Executive branch, as the content of the videos isn't reasonably up for discussion as to the legality thereof - it's not like they have to be parsed for obscene vs offensive categorization, and I don't see any court ruling in favor of these videos being protected speech (here in the US). It's actually a pretty cut-and-dried case of Incitement to Violence.
Likely as both the above cases point out, it's pretty much a no-brainer request to the US, as it doesn't run afoul of any of our laws, or even likely to produce a court case. In addition, for private providers, its very clear that they violate pretty much any T-O-S I've ever seen for posting public video or images.
Free Speech is great, but there are well-defined (for very good reasons) exceptions to protection, and this stuff very clearly fits inside those exceptions.
But, I do expect the various TLA agencies to continue to listen to al-Awalki - after all, he's giving them plenty of rope to hang himself by.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Very nicely thank you, I enjoy my vastly lower probability of being shot to death.
Well, apparently, since the only way to end this extremist imperialist inquisition is to remove the videos from *the entire Internet*. Only then will the British people be free to not watch them.
...you are free to LIKE anyone you want, for any reason at all, or no reason at all. In a free society you are free to HATE anyone at all, for any reason at all, or no reason at all.
In a free society, hate is not a crime.
turn into pressures?
Oh I get it, just more hyperbole that's guaranteed to get the colonial rebels frothing at the mouth? ;)
Unfortunately, your approach allows some very nasty people to literally get away with murder. All they have to do is make sure someone else pulls the trigger and let them take the fall. I don't think such a simplistic approach is compatible with justice in any useful sense of the term.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's not as one sided as some in the US like to make out - we have had periods of mutual benefit. The fact that we have land here for US air force bases, for example. Or the trade of custom reactor designs for our subs in exchange for acoustic silencing tech that the US didn't have.
The UK may be a physically small country, but it holds a disproportionate amount of power in the EU for its population which makes it politically very potent.
Only the properly ignorant think this is about who has the biggest army or other nonsensical bravado.
And yes, during WW2 we were economically crippled and relied on convoys from the US. It may have had something to do with being bombed continually by an enemy force and surrounded by submarines. Prior to WW2, the UK was coming off the back of one of its biggest periods of trade and industry - we were the workshop of the world for a long time, despite our diminutive land area.
What a stupid statement. They hate us because we station troops on their holy land. They hate us because we interfere with their government. They hate us because we fight made up wars that kill thousands of civilians.
You were probably joking, but I know some people actually still think they hate us because we are free. And it is just so simplistic and dumb. I'd probably not be irritated if you were modded funny instead of Interesting.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Have you never moved away from your hometown? You have such a narrow world view it is staggering. We indeed have a special relationship with the UK. They are in the same boat as we are fighting against Islamic radicals. They are one of our closest allies. We may not comply with what they request but that would be due to the inability to enact something like that because of our Constitution. We certainly are close partners though and have a lot of cooperation. We are in this with them together.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
(a) This is not a black-and-white issue, but the idea that people are completely immune to any external influence and therefore those who attempt to cause results indirectly should not be held at all responsible is crazy to me. Just ask advertisers.
(b) This very nearly was a murder. The MP concerned was seriously injured.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
Am I misreading something? The article says that YouTube has policies to take various videos down, and says that "the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos", but it doesn't actually say that anything has been successfully taken down due to pressure from or legal actions by the US government.
No, really, it's all politics, not religion.
I approve of removing that trash from YouTube.
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.
While we will allow al-awlaki to say what he wants, we also have targeted him for assassination.
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.
Atheists don't kill in the name of... well, nothing. There has never been a war to un-convert people.
Give it time. Atheism has only gained a large number of adherents within the past few decades. It took christianity ~1,300 years to get as far as the crusades and atheism has already made a start down that road.
You need a point of clarification:
This terrorist is not in the US, he is in hiding in Yemen or Afghanistan and there are US warrants for his arrest. He is a US citizen by birth right to a Yemen tribal leader who was residing in Nevada at the time of his birth. He was raised for most of his childhood in the US. There is a trial in abstention currently taking place in Yemen right now attempting to convict this guy (strengthening the charges against him).
What is in America right now is the servers and companies hosting the videos. The US constitution places severe restrictions on the US government in the areas of speech. This is for various reasons that are ancillary to the point, but the US government's hands are tied. But make no mistake, the US is not harboring this guy at all. He is wanted on charges connected to terrorism in the US and several other countries that US has extradition treaties with.
Eat a dick, cuntbag.
I might steal that for my sig, it has a certain...je ne sais quoi
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We used gorillas in the Revolution? Awesome! I bet those Redcoats were just terrified of being attacked by giant apes.