Google Reveals "Terrorism Video" Removals

jones_supa writes "Google has revealed it removed about 640 videos from YouTube that allegedly promoted terrorism over the second half of 2011 after complaints from the UK's Association of Chief Police Officers. The news was contained in its latest Transparency Report which discloses requests by international authorities to remove or hand over material. YouTube had also rejected many other state's requests for action. Overall, Google summed it had received 461 court orders covering a total of 6,989 items between July and December 2011. From those, it said 68% of the orders were complied with. Google added that it had received a further 546 informal requests covering 4,925 items, of which it had agreed to 43% of the cases."

Comments

Censorship, much?

[evorster]

Why is it that some people believe that if they hide away from something that something ceases to exist?

Re:Censorship, much?

[NettiWelho]

I believe its called 'creating an illusion'.

Re:Censorship, much?

[zero.kalvin]

I guess they know that, but they want to make it harder for anyone to find these things. Now I understand if it is regarding material on how to construct IEDs or similar things. But if these videos promotes terrorism then why not let them? Look at this from my point of view, arabic is my fluent language and I have easy access to that sort of material, but I am not going to be convinced by these videos just because I saw them. However there is a positive side for this, by hearing what they have to say, I gain more information on them and the way they think. So for me the average person I can better articulate my objections to these people, and be able to say with knowledge why these people are bad, and not just "they hate us for our freedom" - Sorry to break this to you, they don't hate you for your freedom. Now for you, who is not from that region, or someone who doesn't speaks arabic, you should have access for these videos because how else would you understand them if they were not presented to you ? The state is stupid to think that people would suddenly resort to terrorism just because they saw some bearded asshole with a machine gun and screaming "death to the infidels" --- Not letting you see that is more dangerous than you actually seeing and understand what he is saying. ~~~Rant over

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to watch a terrorism video in order to object to terrorism? Listen, I'm not in favor of censorship, but that's a pretty weak argument. The only people I know who think the terrorists hate us for our freedoms are willfully ignorant.

Re:Censorship, much?

[__aaeihw9960]

I've always wondered this, but my own investigations have proved futile:

Sorry to break this to you, they don't hate you for your freedom

So, if they don't hate us for our freedoms (I'm with you on this point - that's the whitewashed, political reason), what do they hate us for? Is it our economic policies? Our military strategies? What is it?

Because I'm at a total loss, and I can't get any real information about this in the states. Why did the Islamist extreme folks start wanting us dead? Who kicked that off, and what the hell is it all about?

Re:Censorship, much?

[jonnythan]

The idea behind suppressing undesirable or illegal videos is the same idea behind advertising. Companies spend money on advertising because advertising works. Deleting or otherwise suppressing what amounts to "terrorist advertising" is helpful to suppressing terrorism itself (or at least active recruitment/incitement to terrorism).

Re:Censorship, much?

[characterZer0]

Understanding your government's enemies, even if you disagree with them, is dangerous to your government. If you do not believe what your government tells you, you might not support them anymore. The videos are dangerous to some, but that is okay.

Re:Censorship, much?

[evorster]

I pretty much agree with you. Censorship in all forms are bad.

Hate Speech? - Let the world see what a douchebag looks like for real.

CP? - The damage is already done.. find the bastard who did it, and do bad things to them, but taking the sick depraved things off the net does not do anything to stop it happening in the first place.


I fully believe that people _need_ to see the horrors of what other people are doing, so that they have a sense of perspective.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Hentes]

Only 640 removals is more like censorship, little. A drop in the sea basically.

Re:Censorship, much?

[jonnythan]

Because of our involvement and activism in the middle east. We have steadfastly supported Israel since its creation, we invaded Iraq and toppled its government, we have participated in the overthrow of Iran's government, etc etc. We've messed with and in many cases toppled with the national governments in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and others.

We've been dicking around in their business for 70 years. It's easy for the US to send some troops and equipment over and have a massive influence by installing dictators, killing people, etc. - all while pretending it's perfectly acceptable. They don't have the resources to do that, so we get car bombs.

Re:Censorship, much?

[zero.kalvin]

I wrote this some time ago in another discussion, while it's not the same subject. If you read it you can understand how it is related. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2546664&cid=38189330

Re:Censorship, much?

[Nyder]

Why is it that some people believe that if they hide away from something that something ceases to exist?

Google is a business, they don't have to follow freedom of speech in youtube.

If the Terrorist really want to their videos being hosted, they will have to host it themselves, Youtube/Google isn't required by any laws to show them.

Youtube isn't a public forum to speak your mind, it's a business that can exclude anything they want.

Re:Censorship, much?

[evorster]

Why did the Islamist extreme folks start wanting us dead? Who kicked that off, and what the hell is it all about?

You meddle. Having the benefit of living very far away from both the US and the far east, I can see this. They hate you for coming from your fat rich economy and telling them what to do, and forcing them to sell their oil cheaply, btw.

Think of it like this: Would you be happy if Europeans started telling you to lower your living standards and work for minimum wage because they need things cheaper over there?

Re:Censorship, much?

[Teun]

One single but simple to check reason for some Muslim fanatics to hate the US is the occupation of their second most holy place by Israel and the support Israel gets from the US.

Any person with access to a (public) library, newspapers, news magazines or the internet can find many more reasons.

A discussion about the validity of these claims is often difficult but in any case lost on those guys.

Re:Censorship, much?

[zero.kalvin]

Terrorism is a problem, but bombing the shit out of them right away is not the god sent solution. Understanding them, understanding the motivations behind what they do is very important to defeat them. If you don't understand why they hate you, then how can you destroy them ? Or more importantly what is your moral justification for killing them if you don't know why they are doing what they are doing? For me it sounds as if you don't care enough to know, and content with delegating these issues to your government ( which is the stupidest thing anyone can ever do), and this in my opinion is even worse than a bad argument.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

>>>what do they hate us for?

Because we keep killing Arabs. We've been killing Arabs ever since we first attacked Iran in the 1950s and overthrew their democratic government (replacing it with a dictatorial government). More recently we starved a million Iraqi children by blocking food shipments into their country (90s) and directly killed or maimed another 2 million during Bush's Iraq War. Then we bombed Yemen and bombed Libya, killing about 50,000, and permanently disabling another 200,000 with blown-off limbs, after which we set-up a dictatorial government run by the military & religious dictators.

No I don't know why they would hate us?
(That was sarcasm.)

Re:Censorship, much?

[Baloroth]

They hate you for coming from your fat rich economy and telling them what to do, and forcing them to sell their oil cheaply, btw.

Bull-fucking-shit. You know who largely sets oil prices worldwide? OPEC (in a manner that would be completely illegal in most of the Western world for price collusion, BTW). Do you know why the US meddles so often? Because OPEC and the Arab world in general hold so tight a fist on oil production, and have shown their willingness to strangle the rest of the world if they don't get their way. The US didn't invade Iraq the first time because it wanted to: no, it did so because Saudi Arabia asked the US to. Gave us a pretty big check to help out, too. The whole region is massively fucked up, has been for literally millennia. The US hasn't always helped, but they also haven't been the ones to start it either.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the whole Arab world LOVES Saudi Arabia...

The Saudi regime is a corrupt organisation that is out to be the puppet masters of the region

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, she told me she was terrified she wouldn't be satisfied, and apparently she was right.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because every study on terrorism which addresses the issue of recruitment confirms that sources such as YouTube are effective tools for recruitment.

I know that doesn't agree with your view of the world, but sometimes worldly views differ from what's really going on.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a muslim, but I can tell you without a doubt that nowhere in the Quran, it says that the 'infidels' (people with other religious or atheist views) should be killed.

A quick quote of the Quran says this about the prohibition of murder:'Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.'
The words of Allah: 'Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority: but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)'

There are verses that point in this direction, but when placed in their historical context, they are more of a permission to fight the terrorists. One could however argue that the US has been terrorizing the Middle East for the past 70 years, as one of the posters below pointed out. However, I think it is very simplistic to view these verses as a permission to kill anyone anywhere.

Please educate yourself a bit before making comments like we're strong and they must kill us, or they hate us for our freedom. All I see is political indoctrination. Not exactly a sign of a freedom loving nation...

So no, your Islamic neighbor is not out to kill you, only a couple of simpleton idiots who are as indoctrinated as you apparently are.
My apologies if I offended you, but it makes me sad to read things like this over and over again. No wonder we can't all be friends...

Re:Censorship, much?

[MacGyver2210]

Now I understand if it is regarding material on how to construct IEDs or similar things.

This, also, is protected speech under the first amendment. Even some questionable material should remain available. Picking and choosing what is acceptable and what is not is the first step on a slippery slope to tyranny and dictatorship.

Now if someone is doing something illegal on video, threatening illegal action, or inciting others to illegal action, then that should be removed. Saying "Go build one of these and throw it at a government building" should not be allowed. Simply showing HOW to build one should be perfectly acceptable.

For example, a tripwire-activated firecracker to scare your friend can be upscaled to a stick of dynamite for nefarious purposes. That does not mean nobody should be able to see the initial prank video.

The rest I completely agree with. Nobody is going to 'join the terrorist cause' because they saw someone shouting nonsense about the 'evil western powers'. The personal ideals videos are harmless except to my ears and opinion of the Human race.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Artraze]

Regardless of why they might say they 'hate' the US (infidels, meddling, etc.) the real reason is, at the end of the day, not a whole lot different from why the US 'hates' the terrorists: They want an enemy.

They have a lot of social and political problems, and because they cannot fix them (and really, do not want to because that would require advocating their control) they create a war. It lets the leaders accumulate more power while giving the people someone to blame for their problems other than their leaders.

Why the US? As the 'most powerful' country it's easy to come up with reasons (and not necessarily inaccurate ones!) that it could have negatively impacted people (e.g. selling arms to Israel, trade stuff, cultural influence, etc). That also means that you are expected to lose your war, which is nice because it means you don't really have to try that hard because you can also blame your failings on them being too powerful. This gives a bonus of making you then underdog and any small victory huge. The are also a few other things like being non-islamic and well known and all that.
(As you'll note, the basic ideas here are what makes terrorists, in turn, a great enemy for the US: far away, impossible to actually defeat, and different(==bad).)

Re:Censorship, much?

[fishthegeek]

Bull crap. Thomas Jefferson was a president who had to handle Muslim piracy with warships, which escalated into the First Barbary War. The Europeans didn't have any stake in the middle east when the Moors invaded Europe, which created the sentiment of containment that sparked the crusades. You need to stop drinking the kool-aid. Many other countries have steadfastly supported Israel since it's re-establishment in 1948, and the list of countries that support, and trade with Israel is huge (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel) so simply stating that our support of Israel is causal in certain groups hating the United States is nothing more than ill informed nonsense. Some (certainly not all) Muslim states have ALWAYS engaged in violence against non-Muslims, and it will always be that way. I write all of this as a vet of the Persian Gulf War; so I have been there and, I will also say that some of the most hospitable, kind, and wonderful people I have ever met were also Muslims in the middle east. I do not want anyone to get the impression that I have a grudge against Islam because I do not. That said, history isn't kind to the idea that certain Islamic states (or groups if you prefer) hate us for any reason other than because we're not them.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a muslim, but I can tell you without a doubt that nowhere in the Quran, it says that the 'infidels' (people with other religious or atheist views) should be killed.

Maybe you're not a muslim, but you are a liar as well as an apologist for a murderous religion that seeks to spread itself by the sword.

Re:Censorship, much?

[aaaaaaargh!]

You should watch the outstanding documentary "Taliban: Behind the Masks" It won't give you a full answer to your question, but perhaps a partial one. Ignorance plays a crucial role.

Nowadays, with all the media and the Net, people often forget how different life can be in remote places. Then again, from what I remember of the documentary, the taliban themselves do not seem to be so different from us even if they have a wholly different frame of mind.

Re:Censorship, much?

[bkaul01]

Iranians are Persian, not Arab. And we've killed plenty of Europeans and East Asians in various conflicts without it leading to jihadism. It's not an issue of ethnicity, but one of an extremist religious cult amongst various Muslim peoples that teaches that terrorism is a desirable means of spreading Sharia Law throughout the world. That's not to say our meddling really endears us to the people in Arab states, but it's not sufficient to explain the level of hatred that exists.

Re:Censorship, much?

[JazzLad]

People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.

(Young) River Tam, Serenity

Re:Censorship, much?

[Pope]

Why the US?

Because the US is the biggest meddler in the region, plain and simple.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

>>Bull crap. Thomas Jefferson was a president who had to handle Muslim piracy with warships, which escalated into the First Barbary War. The Europeans didn't have any stake in the middle east when the Moors invaded Europe, which created the sentiment of containment that sparked the crusades.
>>>

I fail to see how events of 200 or 800 years ago have any relevance to present events. The young men who join terrorist armies are not fighting because of some ancient war. They are fighting because of *present* U.S. on Arab slaughters that are within their living memory.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any quotes on that? I'd be happy to respond...

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it like this: Would you be happy if Europeans started telling you to lower your living standards and work for minimum wage because they need things cheaper over there?

Fuck no! Who are we, China?

Re:Censorship, much?

[moeinvt]

"....what do they hate us for?"

This is why it's important to have free and open communication. We can listen to Bush say "they hate us for our freedom", when we should be getting the word from their point of view.

Various Al Queda figures have said repeatedly that their main grievances are U.S. military occupation of their holy land and unconditional U.S. support for Israel.

With regard to Iran, the U.S. CIA conducted a coup to overthrow Mohamad Mossadegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and consolidated power under The Shah, a brutal dictator who ruled until the Iranian revolution in 1979.

If you want to know why the Muslim world (and the rest of the world) hates the U.S. I recommend the book "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson. It was published in Spring 2001 before 9-11 happened.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

>>>Now if someone is doing something illegal on video, threatening illegal action, or inciting others to illegal action, then that should be removed. Saying "Go build one of these and throw it at a government building" should not be allowed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already said that such speech is protected by the first amendment. They said the only time it would be outlawed, is if the person was actually holding a gun or weapon and saying, "I'm going to kill you." The case where they made this decision involved a black protestor in Chicago saying he was going to kill President Johnson. The U.S. Supreme Court found him not guilty and released him from jail.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cellocgw]

Nobody is going to 'join the terrorist cause' because they saw someone shouting nonsense about the 'evil western powers'. The personal ideals videos are harmless except to my ears and opinion of the Human race.
The successful conversion of millions of US citizens to dittoheadism suggests otherwise.

Re:Censorship, much?

[dark12222000]

Right, and I don't see anyone screaming "You're violating my first amendment rights!"

What we are asking is that since Google typically does try to promote as much freedom as possible within the confines of their rules (as it makes them look good and certainly helps their popularity and thus profit), this does seem odd unless the videos contained hate speech or something else which have already been against their TOS - at which point, there shouldn't be a need for a request.

It may be that Google is complying purely for political reasons, and, if that's the case, then we should be talking to our government(s) about why they are trying to take down these videos, since that IS a constitutional issue (at least in America, your mileage may vary) - even if it's not a "command" but a request, all US governmental entities (federal or state or whatever) ARE required to uphold the constitution in good faith.

Re:Censorship, much?

[moeinvt]

Few, if any governments in the Arab world govern by the consent of the governed. What the Saudi Arabian royalty wants is not reflective of what the bulk of the Saudi population want. Just like the policies of Mubarak were not reflective of what the people of Egypt want.

I'm sure their hatred has nothing to do with our military intervention, installation and support for puppet dictatorships, blind support for a military aggressor state in the middle of their region, crippling economic sanctions aimed at coercion, etc. etc.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Bigby]

US monetary and political support for Israel dwarfs all other countries combined. You follow up your argument that saying they hate us because we aren't them. So why don't they focus their attention on Switzerland? The Vatican? Canada?

We are the big fish in transgressions against their will. Whether their will should be tolerated or not is another story, but the transgressions are the cause, not just because we are free or we simply exist.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued."

Just one of many. There are literally dozens, and IN CONTEXT*, they do in fact promote spreading Islam by force.

* Note that a common rebuttal is to say "well in X's holy book they say to fight too!". Of course this does nothing to justify the Koran's language, but if you actually read the response in context it is either

a) metaphorical, or
b) referring to some specific people rather than followers of the faith as a whole. IE if I took a quote from the Bible that said "kill all of those who do not worship me" and it came from some wicked king, yet I tried to pass it off as words from Jesus, I'd be dishonest.

Re:Censorship, much?

[moeinvt]

I understand your point, but the point of this story is that the removals are being done at the request of government authorities. This is not Google making independent decisions about what to remove.

Re:Censorship, much?

[dkleinsc]

So, if they don't hate us for our freedoms (I'm with you on this point - that's the whitewashed, political reason), what do they hate us for? Is it our economic policies? Our military strategies?

The biggest reason they hate us right now, according to surveys and writings from people in the region, is that US drones are rountinely blowing up civilians with no involvement in terrorism. In addition, if you show up at the funeral of a person killed in a drone strike, you're now on the suspect list. I mean, imagine you're a typical Yemeni man who goes to work, does some shopping, heads home to your family, and finds that instead of a home and your wife and kids, you have a pile of rubble and a bunch of bodies (and the US reporters will say that a bunch of "militants" were killed). I think it's fair to say that you and everyone who cares about you would probably have nothing but complete hatred of the group of people who did that to you.

Other things that are definitely not helping are complete inaction on Syria slaughtering its own people, doing nothing to stop Israeli settlement building (which appears to have the goal of complete takeover of the West Bank), having allied governments attack protesters with equipment made in the USA, killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, quite probably working with Israel to blow up Iranian physicists (and anyone who happens to be standing near them), and supporting oppressive and corrupt dictatorships throughout the region.

Re:Censorship, much?

[phantomfive]

If you don't understand why they hate you, then how can you destroy them ?

Sarin gas.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Shadow99_1]

Actually to me " more importantly what is your moral justification for killing them if you don't know why they are doing what they are doing?" Actually seems like it should reasonably describe the terrorists in most cases.

Oh sure they get our media (which even we would often like to avoid as it doesn't represent us or our interests well) and crap we want to sell them... But what do they really know about us? Oh sure they get lots of crap from our government (which much like our media lots of us would love to see change) and our companies which have often run rough-shod over them... But it does that to us as well... Few if any of them really know what it is like to live in our nations... Yet they have no problem trying to kill us from time to time.

Understanding and empathy are easy solutions to lots of the worlds problems. However we tend to be self-important and myopic on issues, so this rarely happens. 'Live and let live' is just not something many people seem to be able to do.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cdrguru]

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemmed to repeat it.

Just because people in your age group feel that events 200 years ago have no meaning to them does not mean other cultures feel the same way. In part, Jews have a worldwide problem because many Christian people hold a grudge against something 2000 years ago. Conflicts today in many cases rooted in conflicts many years ago. Irish and Scottish independence is rooted in events more than 600 years ago and the brutality that was inflicted upon them by England. We may have seen the end (for now?) of Irish violence, but there is still resentment.

The formation of Israel may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake that was designed in the aftermath of WW I. There are two choices today in reality, either the continued support of a Jewish state or the destruction of it. There is no real "third solution" which would involve Israel becoming an Arab state or some type of temporary co-existance on the same land. Israel will be a battleground until their neighbors accept it and live with this acceptance for a couple of generations. There can be no co-existance when Palestinian TV shows children's programming glorifying martyrs and promoting the destruction of Israel. They are taking historical events from hundreds of years ago and reframing them for the children today.

Today the US is still concerned with conflicts in our streets resulting from many African Americans feeling that they are continued to be oppressed as slaves. There have been no real slaves for over 140 years but as long as people on both sides cling to a slave culture and a cutlure of oppressing slaves there will be conflict. A lot of Mexico's problems come from a clear separation between those of Indian origin and those of Spanish origin, with the Spanish heritage folks owning most of the property and wealth with the Indian heritage people existing in poverty and subsistance farming. All of Central America has had these problems for the last 500 years or so and the current "solution" is to export the underclass to the US.

So as much as you might like to ignore history and say that it has no bearing on your life, it does. And it will continue to do so. If you do not educate yourself as to how history impacts you in your daily life you are going to be simply reliving the same conflicts and the results of these conflicts without solving anything.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, disregarding the ones who kill civilians on marketplaces, most of these "terrorists" are actually killing foreign occupational troops, and hence you can cell them freedom fighters.
I know it is hard when your boys get killed and mutilated by IED's, but face it, you are the Occupators and they are the resistance.
What would you do if, say, the Russians or the Chinese were to occupy that US? Wave Chinese or Russian flags at them and welcome your new overlords???

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraqis killing US soldiers on Iraqi soil? Sounds like a legitimate Iraqi resistance movement to me!

Re:Censorship, much?

[phantomfive]

They hate the US because of Lady Gaga, because she is immoral and sinful. Not because of her fashion choices, but because they are opposed to music. American culture is corrupt, and it is spreading to the Middle East. (Note that Western Europe at one time had huge fights over whether music was moral or immoral as well, so this is not something unique to Islam).

Sayyid Qutb was an important proponent of this way of thinking, and had a lot of influence in the formation of Al Qaeda. Some people suggest cultural immorality is more important to global jihadism than what the US did in Iran 50 years ago (remember Iran is not Arab anyway), but who knows if they are right. Certainly American 'immorality' is an important aspect.

The way I see it for Bin Laden, he was a rich powerful guy, wanted to get into politics (ambitious people often do), but the only way to do that in Saudi Arabia where he lived was to have a revolution. There was absolutely no way to have a revolution with the US supporting the Saudi government. So the obvious first step is to remove the US from the situation. The simple way to do it is to hit Americans hard somewhere, then they run. Americans don't stick around, they run, just like after the Beirut hotel bombings. After America was gone, it would leave Bin Laden free to start a revolution, and it would also make him look very powerful. Middle Easterners are drawn to power, much like in the European middle ages (or really for most of history).

Because lets be honest, with all the mistakes and problems the US has caused in the Middle East, we are still much nicer and better than their own dictators.

Re:Censorship, much?

[sirlark]

Talk about a self referential sig!

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is more of an angle to this than simply "If we hide it then no one will do it" sort of mentality. I think there is also the idea that Google just plain doesn't like the content and clearly does not want it accessible through their services. That is a defensible position. YouTube is essentially a giant, privately-owned forum and the moderators remove content regularly. I don't like censorship and believe, as it appears you might, that information is not and will never be inherently dangerous. Having said that, though, I can't really argue against what they're doing.

Imagine if you had a front lawn that could easily be seen by a street or avenue that had a lot of traffic. Now, if someone used the visibility of your front lawn to stage a demonstration that expoused beliefs and ideals with which you disagree or even find morally reprehensible, would you not invoke your property rights and have them removed? And if your neighbors came along and said "You really should have allowed them to continue even if you were offended" and accused you of censorship, how would you respond?

Re:Censorship, much?

[phantomfive]

I'm not so sure you can clearly see anything. The US never went to the middle east to tell them to lower their living standards and work for minimum wage. I don't know of ANY country where they told them to lower the minimum wage, although they did tell Samoa to raise the minimum wage, which had the unfortunate effect of lowering the living standard.......

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bin laden gave very specific reasons gay 9/11 happened, mostly due to our presence in Saudi Arabia and continued support of Israel. Personally, I think the Kingdom's policies help ferment radicalism more than most states and Israel has enough money where it shouldn't need our support.

Re:Censorship, much?

[jonnythan]

I guess I didn't realize that Al Qeada was the official world terrorist group and that terrorism began with them. I also didn't realize that their sole continued reason for existence is US presence in Saudi Arabia.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the crime for apostasy in Islam?

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

Google also censored the 16-year-old girl who was reading from her Bible the passages that forbid gay marriage. (They claimed reading a text that has been revered by billions of humans beings over 6000 years is "hate speech".) Sometimes they are a little heavy-handed with their removals. Meanwhile they left the videos calling her a "cunt" and threatening to murder her as okay.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you really see me advocating carpet bombing the Middle East? No. You don't know anything about me, but you are making wild assumptions about what I care to know and my position on my government's actions in the Middle East. You are offering up strawmen. You are appealing to emotion and using value judgments.

But let's say I was all those things you assumed I am. Your weak argument would do nothing to convince me.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

They said the only time it would be outlawed, is if the person was actually holding a gun or weapon and saying, "I'm going to kill you."

Then explain this.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Bull crap. Thomas Jefferson was a president who had to handle Muslim piracy with warships, which escalated into the First Barbary War. The Europeans didn't have any stake in the middle east when the Moors invaded Europe, which created the sentiment of containment that sparked the crusades.
>>>

I fail to see how events of 200 or 800 years ago have any relevance to present events. The young men who join terrorist armies are not fighting because of some ancient war. They are fighting because of *present* U.S. on Arab slaughters that are within their living memory.

you said it: you fail to see it. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. events 2000 years ago have lots of relevance today. 1500 years ago, too. one half of the population of our entire planet believe one of those two time periods are very relevant to them.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

>>>Do you know why the US meddles so often? Because OPEC and the Arab world in general hold so tight a fist on oil

The U.S. has been meddling in Arabia since the 1920s..... long before OPEC existed or we were dependent on them (we had our own abundant oil supplies in Ohio and Texas).

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The videos that many of the terrorists created and shared (at least in Iraq) were awful and brutal, filled with people's heads being sawed off with dull knifes and American soldiers getting sniped. I am sure those violate TOS for many web sites.

Re:Censorship, much?

[zero.kalvin]

Did you really see me advocating carpet bombing the Middle East?

No, and it doesn't matter, and I didn't say carpet bombing. The point of that sentence was going and bombing countries shouldn't have been the first reaction. However I do accept that violence is sometimes is a necessary.

No. You don't know anything about me, but you are making wild assumptions about what I care to know and my position on my government's actions in the Middle East.

True and fair.

You are offering up strawmen. You are appealing to emotion and using value judgments.

But let's say I was all those things you assumed I am. Your weak argument would do nothing to convince me.

Emotions ? The whole point of that is that we shouldn't appeal to emotions or rash judgment. Understanding them might open you up to the fact that their actions might be a reaction rather than an action. Some of these Iraqis who were blowing themselves to kill American soldiers are considered by their people as freedom fighters and not terrorists. So me the person who have no access to intelligence material, how do you propose I would understand the motivations of these different groups ? I only have these videos, and these videos might help me understand that some of these groups who are fighting us are not really terrorists, and some are. How difficult is to accept that ? I agree that we don't need videos to object to terrorism, but we do need to understand who is doing what for what reason.

Re:Censorship, much?

[fishthegeek]

It's relevant because violent attacks have been a part of the middle east region for thousands of years and will continue to be. It doesn't matter what the United States does (except for adopting Sharia) because as long as we aren't the same as them we, and everyone else, will be targets.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Radical Islam (that is religion+politics) came out of the cold war. Read up on Sayyid Qutb, the egyptian schoolteacher that visited the US in the 1950s (he wasn't a radical yet, just conservative). Read up how the CIA helped set up the torture prisons in Egypt and how these people were were imprisoned and radicalized in the torture chambers. You're government helped set up radical Islam because they needed something against communism. Now you have to live with it.

Re:Censorship, much?

[fishthegeek]

They do hate Canada, Switzerland, and everyone else that isn't them. See http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=3697

When you're the biggest kid on the block (the U.S) you'll get the most fights. Besides.... there are plenty of Canadians who feel threatened. http://www.opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/just-how-threatening-is-the-terrorist-threat/

Re:Censorship, much?

[fishthegeek]

Yes and American food aid (to the rest of the world) dwarfs every other nation in the world by a most impressive factor. So what. They will attack regardless of what we do. See Barbary War etc. You have no evidence at all that what your saying is meaningful.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some (certainly not all) Muslim states have ALWAYS engaged in violence against non-Muslims, and it will always be that way.

[Citation needed]

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

revered by billions of humans beings over 6000 years

I'm sorry, but how exactly do either of those two things make something not hate speech? Please note that I am not discussing my views on hate speech, only that those two properties have fuck all to do with making something not be hate speech.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange the translation I have of that text doesnt exclude gay marriage. Btw the text also isn't 6000 years old and I fear her special translation is far younger.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Grygus]

Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech because someone writes it down. It also doesn't stop being hate speech because a whole lot of people agree with it. The Bible is less than 500 years old. If people did not submit the other videos for removal, then it's not a judgment call on Google's part.

I have no idea how your post got modded insightful.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disregarding the ones who kill civilians is a convenient redefinition of terrorism. You can argue that some people who are called terrorists actually aren't (because they are freedom fighters,) but claiming that this applies to most actions called terrorist is going too far. Ask most people what they think of when they think of terrorism, and they will cite 9/11 or a cafe bombing. Virtually none of them will think of the barracks bomb in Beirut.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're full of shit.
If you're going to play that game then start with Alexander The Great.
Btw, the US has always engaged in violence.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile they left the videos calling her a "cunt" and threatening to murder her as okay.

A clear reflection of the American values: prefer violence over sex. Just kidding. The difference is clear: hate speech is targeted speech towards a section of the community, or population. The violent threats were targeting an individual. They too should be removed, but for the different reason of death threats.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Johann Lau]

They claimed reading a text that has been revered by billions of humans beings over 6000 years is "hate speech".

What's your point? Sometimes people need 6000 years to learn stuff, does that bother you? That doesn't mean it's now suddenly hate speech -- it means we suddenly realized it's been hate speech all along. I don't mean the whole book, I personally think it's hilarious to consider it a harmonious whole (I guess this is where reverence plays a big role, eh?).

Meanwhile they left the videos calling her a "cunt" and threatening to murder her as okay.

Of course they weren't, but to play devil's advocate:

IF you believe that your sky daddy is gonna torture and kill all who don't wear your little armband, and is going to give you ETERNAL LIFE, and what's more, pretty much said that either you follow Jesus and get hate for it, or you're a backsliding wannabe --- I don't get what the problem is. What you call being murdered could also be considered a shortcut to heaven, and deliverance from temptation.

Unless she doesn't really believe any of that, but just likes to tell others how to live. In that case, fuck her and related hypocrites! She tried to scare others, it backfired. That's a cruel, but also logical way to look at it. It's not like people thought "oh look, a kid on the webs, let's threaten her".

If you slip on an armband, you get treated like the organization you represent. You wanted that, the organization promised you HUGE rewards for slipping on that armband, and EXTREME punishment to anyone who doesn't. You said "that's a great deal, l'm yours". So cry me a fucking river, will you. You run with the Nazis, you hang with the Nazis.

Re:Censorship, much?

[shutdown -p now]

On the other hand, saying that there is no such thing as same sex marriage is not hate speech. Saying that you should kill gay people who marry would be.

Re:Censorship, much?

[St.Creed]

The barracks bomb is a good point: the local population felt the French and US troops were no longer neutral bystanders after shelling that killed innocent bystanders and attacks on the Bekaa valley. At that point they became co-belligerents without getting formal notice, while already having irritated Iran to the point it had announced retaliation, as well as several other factions in the civil war. The marines were representatives of a power that was actively involved in the fighting in the region, so no surprise they got hit. The surprise was about how hard they got hit, not *that* they got hit. You can call it terrrorism, but asymmetrical warfare is probably a better name for it.

However, squabbling over the definition of terrorism is rather futile. From the wikipedia article on definitions of terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism):

A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[7] Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".[8]
As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.[9][10]

Re:Censorship, much?

[shutdown -p now]

I can tell you without a doubt that nowhere in the Quran, it says that the 'infidels' (people with other religious or atheist views) should be killed.

The corresponding Koranic verse is so well known that it even has a special name for it - it's very aptly called the Sword Verse.

The precise interpretation of this verse vary from school to school, but Salafi in particular seem to be taking it quite literally.

Re:Censorship, much?

[shutdown -p now]

The concept of warmongering Islamic fundamentalism, and the associated terrorist activity, predates the creation if the state of Israel, not to mention invasion of Iraq etc. Sayyid Qutb wrote the works that outline most ideas guiding al-Qaeda and the likes today back in late 40s to early 50s, and was preaching them even before that.

Re:Censorship, much?

[shutdown -p now]

The important thing to understand is that there is a difference between motives of individual people in the Islamic terrorist movement, and the driving ideology of that movement as a whole. Most certainly, there are many muji's that are there because their country was attacked etc. And it's quite possible that bin Laden got involved originally because of US support of the ruling Saudi regime. But once they become part of the movement, their concerted action is driven by ideology of that movement - and that ideology is summed up in the Sword Verse, or simpler still: submit or die.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we take specifically Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden as an example, didn't the reason to strike against the Americans were the remaining forces from the Gulf War around and in the Saudi-Arabia and the American support for the Saudi Royalty? The Palestinians did try to distance themselves from the rhetoric of the Al-Qaeda, so perhaps the conflict with Israel is just a facade or a proxy to gather the local support. Recently, various local grievances caused from unjust social conditions or some other local problems have been the catalyst of recruitment for Al-Qaeda, based on those bomb and other events reported in the news.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

>>>Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech because someone writes it down. It also doesn't stop being hate speech because a whole lot of people agree with it. The Bible is less than 500 years old.
>>>
I stopped reading here. The various books Christian Bible was consolidated around 300 A.D. making if FAR older than a mere five hundred years!!! (How could you be so dumb???)

>>>I have no idea how your post got modded insightful.

Ditto! "500 years." That is in no way insightful. The mods must be fucking stupid. PLUS: The specific passage she was quoting was Leviticus which dates to approximately 4000 BCE. And finally: Quoting the book is not hate speech. IJust because I quote Nero's "Let the city burn and blame the christians" speech does not mean I am engaging in hate speech. It's called READING aloud.

Even legally you have to be actually beating someone for Hate speech laws to take effect. Saying "white people suck" is *protected* speech per the Constitution and thousands of SCOTUS cases.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Understanding them, understanding the motivations behind what they do is very important to defeat them. If you don't understand why they hate you, then how can you destroy them ? Or more importantly what is your moral justification for killing them if you don't know why they are doing what they are doing? For me it sounds as if you don't care enough to know, and content with delegating these issues to your government [...]

I agree. Let's read a summary of Sura 9 from the Koran:

God has proclaimed that you have no obligations to follow an agreement you have made with nonbelievers. Travel and speak of a painful death to those who do not believe. When a term of ceasefire has passed, kill the nonbelievers wherever you can find them until they agree to worship God and pay tribute. Most of them are evil. Doing evil is their custom. If they attack your religion, attack their leaders. Do not fear them. God is mightier. Fear God, and fight them! God will give you victory. This is the way of God, and is worth more than charity.

If any of your family are nonbelievers, they are evil. If you try to protect them, God's judgment will be upon you. God's servants will punish you as they punish nonbelievers, and you will not see them coming.

The nonbelievers are filthy. Fight them until they have been defeated and surrender tribute. God has sent the message of the one true religion. Other religions are greedy and do not follow God. Promise them a painful death. They will burn in Hell. Fight war against all nonbelievers. Go in the way of God. Do not fear death as there are greater pleasures in the afterlife, but if you fail to go to war, God will ensure you a painful death. Go forth with your weapons, your money, and your lives in the way of God!

Whoever fails to go to war has fallen into temptation and disbelief. Their souls are forfeit, and Hell will consume them. They are nonbelievers. Do not accept their money or their children or their claim that they are faithful. They are hypocrites who have forgotten God. God will give them eternal torment in Hell. Be cruel to them, and let them have no friend or protector. They may ask for forgiveness many times but do not forgive them since they are nonbelievers. Some will argue against fighting in the heat, but the fires of Hell are hotter. Never again allow them to fight with you. They are useless. Never pray for one of them who has died or stand by his grave, for they are nonbelievers. God's only purpose is to punish them.

God has bought the believers with the promise of Heaven. They will fight in the way of God and kill and be killed. Fight the nonbelievers, make them fear you, and put your trust in God.

They are fighting because they believe God told them to kill everybody else on Earth. Any peace negotiations or cease fire agreements are temporary measures while they rearm and reorganize to try to to kill you again. Failing to try to kill you -- just because you are different -- is against their religion.

Of course, there are different interpretations of the Koran and different versions of lslam. We're talking about the fundamentalist terrorists. This is what they believe.

Now it's my turn to accuse you of not caring enough to know what the terrorists are fighting for.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

That's where it begins. If you don't think that our foreign policy is racist, please compare and contrast what we did to Iran vs Norway when each country nationalized their oil.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

>>>>>Meanwhile they left the videos calling her a "cunt" and threatening to murder her as okay.
>>
>>Of course they weren't, but to play devil's advocate: IF you believe that your sky daddy will give ETERNAL LIFE --- I don't get what the problem is.

Not sure who you're talking to?
I'm an agnostic.
Nice try though; maybe you shouldn't jump to false assumptions about people.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

>>>Just because people in your age group feel that events 200 years ago have no meaning to them does not mean other cultures feel the same way.

Our soldiers have been showing photos of the WTC attacks to the locals. So far they've found NO locals that even knew what the building represented, or that there was an attack. These people have next-to-zero education, and only care about the present, and their own little world. They SEE the Americans are killing their neighbors but have no idea why..... they only know they want revenge. And they hear Bin Laden and other leaders offering the opportunity.

So I stand by what I said before: . The young men who join terrorist armies are not fighting because of some ancient war. They are fighting because of *present* U.S. on Arab slaughters that are within their living memory

Re:Censorship, much?

[Darby]

The US never went to the middle east to tell them to lower their living standards and work for minimum wage

No, we just went in, murdered their deocratically elected leaders and installed brutal right wing thugs who tortured and murdered anyone who didn't bend over and start taking it up the ass for the benefit of American industrialists.
Do you honestly not know anything about the history of US foreign policy?!?

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? There is this thing called sovereignty. Nations are free to collude in any ways they care about. If only US understood or respected sovereignty. And oh yeah the Saudi Arabian people did not ask the help of the US, the dictators of Saudi, asked for 'help' and the US 'helped' them. The US did have the option of saying 'go fight your own wars, you bloody dictators', but still opted to 'help' them.

Re:Censorship, much?

[reboot246]

The difference is clear: hate speech is targeted speech towards a section of the community, or population.

You mean that it's targeted towards one of many "protected" groups. Not all groups have such protection. She's in two of those groups - white and Christian. You can say whatever you want about them and nobody will accuse you of anything. Equal protection under the law? I think not.

THAT'S why hate speech laws (and censorship) have no place in society.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

6,000 years lol. Also, do you even know when the world's population exceeded1bn? Protip:Less than 6,000 years ago.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Listening to this crap doesn't do you any good. It just distracts you from thinking about anything interesting or useful.

Re:Censorship, much?

[siufish]

If what you say is true then a large part of history and literature is hate speech (e.g. historical texts on slavery and Nazi Germany). Should we censor Mein Kampf because it is hate speech? You see how ridiculous this is going to be?

I have no idea how your post got modded insightful either.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tibman]

You must be talking about some really backwater locals. I have never seen an Iraq city that didn't have internet cafes and tv. My experience is limited to Iraq and Kuwait but i didn't find them to be stupid. Some were uneducated but that doesn't equate to them being simple. A good comparison would be American "country folk" who get a bad rep from "City people". They are typically viewed as backward (from popular view), but surely not stupid.

If you really want to get into who is killing who.. it's Arabs killing Arabs and they know that more than the rest of us. Young men join militias, gangs, and terrorist organizations because it's a job, it's food, it's something cool to do, and it's the butt-end of the "you'll be a hero" sales pitch.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant that the bible that you and everyone else living today reads is 500 years old. Most likely referring to the King James version, which 500 years sounds about right. Just like we call the newest version of Ubuntu as x years old, instead of whenever the linux kernel was first released. Perspective. It helps people!

Re:Censorship, much?

[Bob9113]

how else would you understand them if they were not presented to you ?

I think it is potentially a mistake to believe that our Western political machine wants us to understand Muslim extremism. Irrational fear is a much more effective means of controlling the public than dispassionate analysis.

I might hesitate to say such a thing were the evidence not so painfully clear. I love what my country is supposed to stand for, but it is hard to claim that we are on the path of our principles when there is a push to lift the ban on domestic propaganda.

Re:Censorship, much?

[desdinova 216]

The formation of Israel may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake that was designed in the aftermath of WW II

FTFY

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bible has been rewritten so many times over the ages that if you honestly believe that any text has survived as it was originally told, you must be really naive.
The bible as in the canonic pope approved texts we have today are not the same bible people had in 200AD. It's merely a loose reinterpretation with various agendas woven into it.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never encountered the generic "you" before? You must be very confused. And illiterate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The various books Christian Bible was consolidated around 300 A.D. making if FAR older than a mere five hundred years!!! (How could you be so dumb???)

Prove it. What is the second translation of the word "Ex-libris"?

I don't at all believe you speak the language the original bible was written in. You (barely) speak English, which is a language that not only hasn't existed that long, but any Bible written in it was clearly translated into English sometime after English existed. Even more than likely, any bible you have read in English is a translation less than 500 years old.

So prove it, prove you have the ability to read the original bible. Else you are just a liar.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech because someone writes it down. It also doesn't stop being hate speech because a whole lot of people agree with it. The Bible is less than 500 years old.
>>>
I stopped reading here. The various books Christian Bible was consolidated around 300 A.D. making if FAR older than a mere five hundred years!!! (How could you be so dumb???)

The first English language version was finished in 1539. The translation process has changed the content so much over the years that we can consider its current form less than 500 years old.

And yes, there are a lot of us that consider the Bible to be generally harmful and responsible for inciting hate crimes. I'm fully aware that a lot of the abuse and discrimination brought about by Christians isn't illegal under US law, but you aren't the only country that matters.

Re:Censorship, much?

[sjames]

So, if they don't hate us for our freedoms (I'm with you on this point - that's the whitewashed, political reason), what do they hate us for? Is it our economic policies? Our military strategies? What is it?

Bombing the crap out of them, supporting brutal dictators that squash democracy in their countries, and generally throwing our weight around.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an agnostic.

So you're an atheist scared to admit it. K.

Re:Censorship, much?

[phantomfive]

Well, you know how to frame your arguments as propaganda. Do you know how to portray a faithful representation of what actually happened? I doubt it.

Re:Censorship, much?

[phantomfive]

True.

Each individual person has their own individual motivation, and unfortunately all we can do is paint then with broad, sweeping strokes, which is an approximation at best.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Solandri]

US monetary and political support for Israel dwarfs all other countries combined.

Chicken and egg. The U.S. supports Israel disproportionately because it's a (flawed) democracy which a bunch of people have repeatedly tried to wipe off the map. When someone tried to wipe South Vietnam, South Korea, and Western Europe off the map, we threw disproportionate support their way as well.

After a couple decades of watching everything that goes on there and in the U.S., the conclusion I've reached is that it's the repressive governments there which promote it. Now, the U.S. has been no saint, preferring to support dictators to block the spread of Communism (the Shah), then supporting even worse dictators to block the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism (Saddam Hussein). But the governments there, even in the absence of U.S. support, are pretty fascist and repressive. By most accounts Assad is as bad as if not worse than Hussein, so the supposition that Iraq would've been better off if the U.S. had not supported Hussein in the 1980s is rather speculative IMHO. There's a strong probability that had Hussein not had U.S. support, whover overthrew him would've been just as bad.

When you're doing a bunch of stuff to your own people which would make them hate you and want to overthrow you, what's the best way to control them? Divert their attention to an external threat. Nothing brings people together under the banner of nationalism like a common external threat. The U.S. happens to be pretty convenient because it's the only remaining superpower, and a staunch supporter of Israel. If the populace is growing restless and upset over your domestic policies, unemployment, the cost of milk, whatever, air a few news broadcasts about how terrible the U.S. is for supporting Israel to distract em.

The more democratized Muslim countries (e.g. Indonesia, Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan) don't seem to have the bloodthirsty hatred of the U.S. that the more repressive ones have.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you doing there, junior. Enjoying being a homosexual chinaman? How are you and your boyfriend doing? Fagging around in San Fagsicko Gay Area, no doubt. You're looking quite sickly and weak. You probably have AIDS from all of the cock you take up the ass, chinkoid twink.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

Why is it that some people believe that if they hide away from something that something ceases to exist?

Why is it that some people believe that propaganda and indoctrination have no effect on other people?

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

Google also censored the 16-year-old girl who was reading from her Bible the passages that forbid gay marriage

You say that almost like it's a bad thing.

Meanwhile they left the videos calling her a "cunt" and threatening to murder her as okay.

I somehow doubt those people go around accosting and murdering random strangers who happen to be carrying a Bible in real life.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

Should we censor Mein Kampf because it is hate speech?

Not in itself, but I see no objection to censoring people reading inflammatory passages from it in public, in order to whip up actual hatred against Jews.

It's a matter of context, and here in the UK we do have laws against inciting racial hatred. It's not like the US where of course everyone is equally free.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

You mean that it's targeted towards one of many "protected" groups. Not all groups have such protection. She's in two of those groups - white and Christian. You can say whatever you want about them and nobody will accuse you of anything. Equal protection under the law? I think not.

White Christians are not an oppressed minority, who need protection from the bigotry, and the socio-economic ingrained bias and control of power structures that the majority have, you unbelievable moron.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

I'm an agnostic.

That just proves that, in order to be a homophobic reactionary bigot it's not absolutely essential to be a Christian too. Well, I think we knew that from the Taliban already.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

The problem isn't wiith educated people like you watching these sort of terrorism-glorifying videos, but with the near illiterate, desperately poor schmucks who get sucked in.

Much like TV evangelism in the US, really. Society should protect the weak against the rich and ruthless..

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

Disregarding the ones who kill civilians is a convenient redefinition of terrorism. You can argue that some people who are called terrorists actually aren't (because they are freedom fighters,) but claiming that this applies to most actions called terrorist is going too far. Ask most people what they think of when they think of terrorism, and they will cite 9/11 or a cafe bombing. Virtually none of them will think of the barracks bomb in Beirut.

In any sort of resistance/occupation scenario, civilians are going to get killed, either because they're mistaken for actual collaborators, or (at the end of the day) because if they're not helping the resistance, they're helping the occupiers.

Just because it's the US/UK in Afghanistan now instead of the Nazis In occupied France during WW2 doesn't change the nature of the problem.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

If the Koran is so clear. it's a bit funny that it's only a handful of terrorists who go around killing people and not all the 1.5 billion Muslims isn't it?

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

So, if they don't hate us for our freedoms (I'm with you on this point - that's the whitewashed, political reason), what do they hate us for?

Interfering politically in the Middle East, up to and including the physical nvasion and murder of thousands of the citizens of counrtires like Iraq, primarily.

Crazy, huh?

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

There are literally dozens, and IN CONTEXT*, they do in fact promote spreading Islam by force.

It's a bit odd then that the only people I have ever met who were interested in converting me to their religion were Christians, whilst I've never met a single Muslim who wanted to.

I suppose all those non-violent Muslims just don't read their Quran properly?

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

What is the crime for apostasy in Islam?

Having to be a Christian instead.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

Why did the Islamist extreme folks start wanting us dead?

The base reason, is that we're strong, and have a non-Islamic state....and the koran tells them they must kill the infidels...

Sometimes reading slashdot is like being transported into a Victorian steampunk alternative umiverse with the US taking the place of Britain and the humour extracted entirely.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

The US didn't invade Iraq the first time because it wanted to: no, it did so because Saudi Arabia asked the US to. Gave us a pretty big check to help out, too.

Oh, well that's all right then. What's all the fuss about? Obviously if the corrupt, repressive Saudi Arabian regime ask you to do something, you just do it.

I don't think I've ever heard a more fucking pathetic excuse.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

They hate the US because of Lady Gaga, because she is immoral and sinful. Not because of her fashion choices, but because they are opposed to music. American culture is corrupt, and it is spreading to the Middle East. (Note that Western Europe at one time had huge fights over whether music was moral or immoral as well, so this is not something unique to Islam).

If the terrorists hate Lady Gaga, they can't be all bad.

Re:Censorship, much?

[tehcyder]

I fully believe that people _need_ to see the horrors of what other people are doing, so that they have a sense of perspective.

That is utter bullshit. I do not need to watch endless videos of hostages being beheaded or babies raped to know that those acts are wrong.

By punishing those who view child abuse material you send out a clear message that actual child abuse will not be tolerated. Your freedom to masturbate to videos of babies being raped is, I'm afraid, of less value than the prevention of current consumers of child abuse material going on to commit actual future abuse.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

>>>>>IF you believe that your sky daddy will give ETERNAL LIFE ---
>>>
>>>I'm an agnostic.
>
>That just proves that, in order to be a homophobic reactionary bigot it's not absolutely essential to be a Christian too

6 of my friends are gay or lesbian. About 10 of them are black and 30 are asian. You keep striking-out with your name-calling, and I find that VERY amusing.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech because someone writes it down. It also doesn't stop being hate speech because a whole lot of people agree with it. The Bible is less than 500 years old. If people did not submit the other videos for removal, then it's not a judgment call on Google's part.

I have no idea how your post got modded insightful.

Same way yours did, I imagine. You know, she was reading from something more recent than the King James Version, so what she was reading was a *lot* less than 500 years old. This appeal to authority is beside the point, however.

Do you personally believe that girl was engaging in hate speech reading those passages? Do you really believe that the responses calling for violence were not hate speech?

I know a lot of folks have it against Christianity for calling them sinners and making them feel guilty and all, but that's an immature reason to attack the religion.

free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech is great... as long as you're someone we like saying things we like.

Re:free speech

[sideslash]

There's no legal guarantee of free speech in this context. The (metaphorical) microphone belongs to Google, since they are hosting everything and letting people upload their stuff at no cost. As long as they can make money off of what people say into their microphone, they'll let them keep talking. And if Google decides they occasionally want to grab their microphone back and make somebody stop talking into it, that's their right. People are free to complain and criticize such treatment, but that doesn't affect Google's right to do what they want with their microphone (metaphor for website).

Ironically, it could arguably be a violation of freedom if Google didn't have the right to censor their own website.

Re:free speech

[moeinvt]

This is NOT a matter of Google self censorship.
It is government authorities coming to Google with "polite requests" and court orders about certain content that the authorities and government's don't like.
It's likely that they're making profit-based decisions, but those decisions are also being made under government coercion.
Look at what happened to WikiLeaks. They did something the government didn't like, and all of a sudden government strong-arms PayPal, Amazon and others to dissociate themselves. Even though WikiLeaks had committed no crime other than embarrassing the government.
Authorities shouldn't have such arbitrary powers.

Re:free speech

[sideslash]

I take for granted that Google is in bed with the three letter agencies and has been for a long time. I consider it reasonable to assume that government agencies have multiple hooks into the internet both at backbone locations (unencrypted traffic) as well as nodes inside key services like Gmail and Skype so they don't miss out on any of that juicy stuff either.

That irritates me because it probably should be considered unconstitutional, but it would probably take a huge whistleblowing movement to set right, and somebody would probably go to jail (or worse) along the way. ...and the powers that be would immediately set something else up, like Whack-a-Mole.

Re:free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, Wikileaks committed espionage. Or, if it's a U.S. citizen, treason. People get sentenced to death for that, according to the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention. Soldiers don't like it when you leak their battle plans and intelligence reports, because it gets their friends killed.

Re:free speech

[tqk]

actually, Wikileaks committed espionage. Or, if it's a U.S. citizen, treason.

Yeah, like Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times? Or perhaps the military were being idiots when they gave the keys to the kingdom to a kid in uniform?

Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time, the term 'terrorism' was used for attacks that inflict terror upon the population. Now, it seems to be used indiscriminately and anyone you don't agree with is a terrorist.

Re:Terrorism

[equex]

yup that is the case

Re:Terrorism

[sideslash]

Note that Google didn't claim that the videos were terrorist, but rather that they "promoted terrorism". Most people would consider a video that supported the militant operations of al-Qaeda to have "promoted terrorism".

On the other hand, a video that urged extending legal protections to al-Qaeda detainees, such as those in Gitmo, might be widely disagreed with in some circles, but would not be censored by Google for this reason, because it's not promoting terrorism proper. Make sense?

tl;dr -- It's fun to rant, but sometimes this stuff actually makes decent sense when you spend more than 30 seconds thinking about it.

Re:Terrorism

[ToadProphet]

I believe you're stating your opinion on what 'promoting terrorism' means, not the governments in question or Google's. Would a factual documentary that showed some element of the Taliban, for example, in a positive light be considered 'promoting terrorism?'

In an age where much political dissent is treated as 'promoting terrorism' there is a pretty obvious slippery slope.

Re:Terrorism

[__aaeihw9960]

I find it interesting that the words terrorist and troll have evolved to mean roughly the same thing.

Terrorist - someone I don't agree with - probably lives somewhere sandy.

Troll: someone who I don’t agree with - probably lives in a basement somewhere.

Re:Terrorism

[sideslash]

I agree re: the slippery slope. The Taliban is an interesting case. It's true that they have been allied with al-Qaeda at various times; but to the extent that we find factions of the Taliban to be fighting a defensive war for parts of Afghanistan, it isn't completely accurate to classify them as terrorists. At some point it seems hopeful that we could determine that al-Qaeda has been sufficiently exterminated along with many of their Taliban allies, that Afghanistan is engaged in what amounts to a civil war, and try to back out of that whole mess. There will be more international terrorists to kill, but it's not reasonable to suppose that everybody wearing a turban and holding a rifle in Afghanistan is one of them (much less a walkie-talkie -- I recall that the rules of engagement allow our snipers to kill walkie-talkie holders on sight in many areas, no guns required).

Re:Terrorism

[MacGyver2210]

I think a much better use of their time would be to remove videos that are blatantly detrimental to common knowledge, like factual statements about the existence of Nabiru, or pseudoscience claiming the end of the world, or 'cure AIDS by praying', various conspiracy theories, etc. These things give people false hope which they believe as fact because it is presented in a semi-professional manner. That is the REAL danger on YouTube.

Re:Terrorism

[MacGyver2210]

Terrorist: Blows up buildings and transportation.

Troll: Blows up chat rooms and forums (with nonsense)

Re:Terrorism

[dkleinsc]

Terrorist: Blows up buildings and transportation.

Well, by that definition the US military is by far the biggest terrorist organization on the planet. Of course, the US military's official definition of "terrorist" is "Any male person between the ages of about 14 and 50 that we just killed in a drone strike."

Re:Terrorism

[moeinvt]

At one time it was "common knowledge" that the Sun orbited the Earth, the earth was flat, taking a bath more than a few times per year was unhealthy, Newtonian mechanics was completely accurate, The Knack was going to be the new music of the '80s and Iraq had WMD.

Thank goodness you weren't around to censor information that was detrimental to common knowledge.

Re:Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true, and you are a damn terrorist for suggesting it!

Lesser of two evils

[Sparticus789]

Better to take them down than receive a subpoena for the information of everyone who viewed them, whatever their reason for viewing them may be.

Re:Lesser of two evils

[Anonymous Coward]

Google: Yeah, so, as it turns out, we had to take down a bunch of terrorism-related videos from YouTube over the past year.
Public: ZOMG WHAT?!??!? How COULD you? That's censorship! TAHTS EVUL OHNOES
Google: Hey, don't look at us. We have to do our work in this country, and we've got to adhere to court orders and stuff.
Public: RRRRRRRRRHATE HATE HAET
Google: Look, we're sorry. But hey, on the bright side, thanks to these transparency requirements forced upon us by various governments, we'll keep you informed of what we had to remove, what departments demanded this, and thanks to our search engine, who's in charge of those departm-
Government: Um... a-heh-heh... yeeeeeah, you know that "transparency" thing? Yeah, um, turns out that won't be needed anymore, yeah pleasebequiet pleasebequiet pleasebequiet pleasebequiet...

32%

[hackula]

The 32% they absolutely refused to take down were videos of cute little kittens.

Re:32%

[MacGyver2210]

Guess they didn't know that the cute kittens were secretly a distraction technique for the terrorist forces. Well played, sirs. Well played.

Re:32%

[antdude]

Where are these kitty terrorists? ;)

Let the terrorists speak

[Psyborgue]

Free speech concerns aside, I'm much more afraid of terrorists promoting their agenda in the dark than those who shout it from the rooftops. It's a lot easier to keep track of people stupid enough to put themselves out in the public sphere (and those who associate with them).

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[funwithBSD]

No free speech issues here at all. The service is privately owned, they can decide who can show what on their service. You have no rights on their private service.

Now, perhaps you can be mad about who they choose not to serve, but they have the rights, not the people uploading the images.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[fluffythedestroyer]

We got agencies and people who are trained to deal with those kinds of people. This is no fear for me. I'm more afraid of a government who tells their people their plans and you know it's completely wrong and doesn't make sense (especially about the part on how much taxes we give) and lets face it, the people can't do really much about this. Sure it's not terrorism but in an odd way it can be considered one if you think about it.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[Psyborgue]

That's very true, but here we have a government ordering a private entity to take content down, unless i'm misreading the summary.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[funwithBSD]

Summary and original article imply APCO is a government agency.

It is not.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[Psyborgue]

Aha. Maybe Google wasn't aware of this either. The name of the association sounds mighty governmental.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[Adrian Lopez]

No free speech issues here at all.

Of course there are free speech issues involved. It's just that this kind of censorship is perfectly legal.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[guises]

Yes. Just because the first amendment doesn't apply doesn't mean that this doesn't impact speech, or isn't important.

Insistence on asserting absolute property rights over a forum that Google has made every effort to sell as a public one is also very narrow-minded. If a private entity can censor on a whim, then the only way to have free speech would be to prevent private ownership of public communication mediums.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[Hatta]

In a world with a strong public commons, private restrictions on speech don't affect free speech much. But in a world where the public commons has been impoverished, where almost everything is owned and controlled by (and to benefit) private interests, then freedom of speech only belongs to those who own the means of communication. That's not what we should expect from a democracy.

We once made it illegal to censor or tamper with communications on the state of the art communication network of the day... the US Postal Service. All the arguments in favor of a free and secure postal service apply to communication channels of all sorts.

If there were a public internet where free speech was protected, then yes I could see how Google's actions weren't contrary to free speech. But since we only have one internet, it should be operated for the public good, and the same restrictions should apply to private companies as would apply to the government.

Unfortunately, our Constitution is inadequate to provide this kind of protection, but that doesn't mean this restriction on free speech is "OK".

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

Terrorists are able to radicalize their supporters much quicker using mass-media. Let them try to recruit "in the dark" at a rate of one new recruit a day. It's a number's game and right now we're arming them in the name of some lala land ideology.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[moeinvt]

TFA mentions much more than APCO, for instance

"the firm said it had received 461 court orders covering a total of 6,989 items between July and December 2011."

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[funwithBSD]

Yes, but not regarding terrorism.

Again, the Slashdot summary reads like the other removed items were terrorism related, and they were not.

I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terrorists

[crazyjj]

I bet if you could see the list, many of these "terrorists" would turn out to be people just criticizing their governments and revealing government secrets.

A better idea

[Ukab the Great]

Ban all infomercials from YouTube and classify videos promoting terrorism as infomercials.

i miss it...

[Titan1080]

I was lying in bed last night, reading a book that is set in 1998, and it suddenly occurred to me that I REALLY miss the pre-9/11 world. So absolutely sick of hearing about all this supposed terrorism.

Re:That'll solve the problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

They left the videos supporting the lowering of taxes on the super wealthy up though.

here come the free speech fundamentalists

[circletimessquare]

who don't understand that everything has its limits

when you are a fundamentalist, in any ideology, you damage the world with your oversimplifications

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Churchill

that applies to religion, obviously

that applies to free markets (tea party morons and assorted ayn rand acolytes)

that applies to free speech

fundamentalism, oversimplification, idealism, of ANY ideology, represents the downfall of the world

a wise life is all about a balance, a moderation, an appreciation for the complex realities of the world we live in

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[Anonymous Coward]

No one today lives in a free market economy. Get over it. Don't go blaming the free marketers for today's troubles. And better yet, stop doing business with those that you feel abuse their possition of power. Good luck at trying to stop doing business with the over zealous government.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[circletimessquare]

the free marketers are usually propagandized fools in the service of the oligarchy. a handful of large corporations that collude with each other and infect the government does not represent any ideal of the free market, but they are the only ones who benefit from free market fundamentalist rhetoric and political action

meanwhile, the only institution actually intended to protect the little guy, the government, is vilified by the clueless little guys. they want to remove their only protection, their government, because their government is ineffective, and it is ineffective because it has been infected by the corruption by large corporations

through their thoughts and actions, free market fundamentalists expose themselves to even more pain and suffering at the hands of large corporations by desiring the dismantling of their government. the oligarchy of large corporations do not represent the free market, and genuine free markets are hurt as the government's regulations, the only thing that actually keeps free markets truly free, are dismantled. a truly regulation free market NATURALLY devolves into domination by its largest players. only a government and its regulations keeps a market truly free, that is, balanced in power between the little guy and the big guy

so i'm sorry, i do blame the free market fundamentalists for our problems. we suffer for their economic illiteracy in service of a mythology about how free markets function that never existed and never will

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[Anonymous Coward]

A pretty weak form of argument. I would expect that, with the subject you chose, you would either prove problems with free speech rights or show how supporting free speech is fundamentalism. Instead you just assert that free speech is fundamentalism and outline why fundamentalism is a bad thing. Are all widely held ideas fundamentalist?

You argue by associating a negatively viewed group with the subject you're dismissing instead of trying to counter the main idea.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[Teun]

However sceptical I am re. censorship your posting is insightful to many but the fundamentalists.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[circletimessquare]

no. free speech is important, i support it

the problem is free speech fundamentalism, which is an entirely different enchilada

you are confusing two entirely different concepts

free speech fundamentalism is the idea that speech needs no limits, and ANY limits are therefore as bad and the same as THE WORST KIND of limits

we're talking about people, for example, who equate china squashing all political expression, with the west squashing kiddie porn. they obviously are not the same. but to a free speech fundamentalism, it's the same, it's just all censorship, regardless of the subject matter

nonsense

free speech has it's limits: i can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, i can't threaten to kill someone, i can't incite people to kill someone (these terrorist videos), i can't secretly record you having sex with your wife then put it on a billboard next to the highway: free speech has its limits in a free society. and SOME forms of speech are not free, and should not be allowed: those that cause real harm to individuals. you can say that, and you can still say you support free speech passionately. you just have to have to be wise enough to know that real life is more complicated than ham fisted oversimplifications

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw no posts on this topic that advocated any of the "fundamentalist" views of free speech that you rant against.

Your posts were pure straw man, and your claim that criticism against this case of censorship was an "entirely different concept" from the kind of support for free speech that you find acceptable was almost Orwellian.

Most of the comments against YouTube's cooperation with the government were, "no they shouldn't have done that", and not, "OH NOES, teh gubmit is bad as CHINA!"

You devalue the worth of your own speech with your extreme and off-target criticism.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[Hatta]

Yes, idealism should be tempered by practicality. Tell me, as a practical matter, how is censorship better than counter propaganda?

Do you think that these people are just going to go away if you censor them? Do you think censorship won't help them paint themselves as persecuted, and serve as a marketing tool for them?

If you think Islamist propaganda is an effective recruitment tool, wouldn't anti-islamist propganda be just as effective? How are you going to counter their arguments if their indoctrination isn't taking place in public?

You can call me a fundamentalist if you like, but you haven't shown any reason to think that censorship is going to be effective. It certainly sets a nice precedent for suppressing dissenting opinions on Youtube though.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[moeinvt]

Everything has its limits. The problem arises when someone attempts to define those limits. A major problem arises when people attempt to define those limits and then impose them on others who might not see it the same way. What if the Catholic church was put in charge of defining the limits? Suppose all governments defined limits that mimicked those imposed by the Chinese government?

I stick to my absolutist position on free speech because we should always err on the side of favoring unrestricted communication over government-imposed "limits". We "fundamentalists" are a necessary counter-balance to the authoritarian nuts who want to use government power to enforce their subjectively defined limits.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[j35ter]

I disagree! Some posts even encouraged the protection of kiddie porn as free speech. what the grandparent was talking about is pragmatism; and I agree with him.
Currently, I see many US citizens carrying the corporate flags against the oppression and tyranny of the government...how ironic, when you look at how little the corporations care for people and their needs!

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[moeinvt]

The statists are propagandized into believing that big government is the solution to the majority of societal problems. They support this massive and inherently corrupt(infected as you say) government in the futile hope that SOME DAY the little people will be able to take over this massive power and use it for the general good. It will never happen, and if it does, it will be a transient situation.

What the statists fail to understand is that concentrated power is an inherently corrupting influence, and that some systems are far too large and chaotic to be managed and controlled. The problem isn't with the current people in charge, as the statists like to suggest ("we just need to elect the right people"), the problem is with human nature and the institution of government itself. A big government built on a central planning model naturally becomes corrupted.

Why blame the corporations (whom we all know exist for the single purpose of maximizing profits) for corrupting the government? Why not blame the government (whom we all know is SUPPOSED TO exist to serve the governed) for betraying the people?

Government bailouts, subsidies, no-bid contracts, selectively enforced regulations and laws granting "special privileges" to the elite few are what maintains and exacerbates the disparities between the big guys and little guys. It is no coincidence that the concentration of wealth in the private sector has grown in lockstep with the concentration of power in the public sector.

That free market "mythology" coupled with a small and decentralized government(not zero government) is what turned the U.S. into the world's economic super power. Our decline can be traced directly to our abandonment of that model and our drift toward central planning, which has always failed and will continue to fail.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[moeinvt]

"SOME forms of speech are not free, and should not be allowed: those that cause real harm to individuals."

Who defines "harm"? If someone hurts your feelings have they caused you harm? If someone advocates lifestyle choices that you deem unhealthy or even destructive (advice you don't want your kids to follow) have they caused "harm"? What about cases where exposing the truth causes "harm"?

Taking an absolutist position on free speech is no more simplistic than pretending you can draw a line through a giant gray area.

I actually think you're over-estimating the number of people who genuinely BELIEVE "anything goes". In my experience, that's more of a general philosophy and a sort of "tactical position". People who advocate for absolute free speech are often just approaching real world complexities from that starting point.

I also think this position is one of "holding the line" vs. pro-actively pushing for "anything goes" as a public policy objective. When for instance have people organized to repeal laws against slander or death threats?

For every 1 free speech fundamentalist, there are 100 government bureaucrats or other people who want to implement their own censorship pet projects, and another 10,000 people who don't give a damn. I think you need people who adopt the absolutist position as organized resistance to the various people who always want "just a little" restriction on free speech, because the sum of all those little restrictions is scary to contemplate.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists

[circletimessquare]

i'm a committed capitalist

i just understand, unlike yourself, that there is a difference between capitalism and corporate oligarchy, which is exactly what you play into with your thinking

i also know that a strong central government is the only thing that actually makes a free market (as in fair market) work

and finally, and most importantly, i understand the difference between what the government is supposed to do, and the corruption of our government by special interests

you see the sickness, and you blame the patient, rather than the virus. and your solution is apparently to give the corruptors exactly what they want: less influence over their oligarchy, less recourse for the little guy

you really are a giant fool

Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

All the real meaty videos are likely unlisted and only spread around darknets.

Better still...

[betterunixthanunix]

...to not keep information on people who view them.

Re:I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terroris

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone recall what the first YouTube video was called?

Re:I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terroris

[Anonymous Coward]

The first YouTube video was entitled Me at the zoo, and shows co-founder Jawed Karim at the San Diego Zoo.[11] The video was uploaded on April 23, 2005, and can still be viewed on the site.[12]

From Wikipedia

Re:That'll solve the problem!

[bacon.frankfurter]

This article from Reuters says 1,000...

Google: government requests to censor content "alarming"

Also, this all stems from Google's own blog/press release: More transparency into government requests

ACPO

[JamieKitson]

ACPO is a very strange organisation, it's an unaccountable PLC, refusing FOI requests, and yet it is funded in part by tax payer's money and has a lot of power within the police and government.

Obama is a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Any videos featuring Ba'raq Saddam Hussein Osama Obama should be removed from the Internet, because he is a Kenyan-born Islamic Terrorist and should be treated as one.

The Cost of Silence

[Adrian Lopez]

"It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard; it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something." -- Christopher Hitchens

Google is a government - trust it

[Anonymous Coward]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me. – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)

Re:Google is a government - trust it

[kiwimate]

It seems particularly ironic that you are using a phrase condemning people who refused to stand up against genocide to condemn people who stand up against terrorism.

Not again!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Download torrent of the videos from HERE"-link is missing!

Re:I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terroris

[Bigby]

The term "terrorist" is defined by the eye of the beholder. Even though it means something like "a person whose goal is to increase fear among a certain population". They'll use it instead of the real word they are looking for: treasonous. Because treason could be a Good Thing and terrorism can't.

Encouraging crime is illegal for good reasons...

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, yes, seeing a terrorists encourage to terrorism, isn't going to turn anybody into a terrorist. I agreee...

But if I encouraged people to murder, well anybody, do drugs, or rob a bank, that is also illegal. There are limits to what you can say, it's not censorship, it's law enforcement. Just, because you're communicating over the internet doesn't mean you can write stuff that the newspapers can't print.

I think we can discuss definitions of censorship till the end of time, but let's a least agree that censorship is first really bad when stuff gets reviewed/censored prior to publication.

Wonder how many were actually promoting terrorism.

[wisnoskij]

Since terrorist has become commonly used to refer to anyone that the government does not like for any reason what so ever, you have to wonder how many of these video actually had anything to do with terrorism.

Re:I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terroris

[Anonymous Coward]

It is treason to blow up enemy soldiers who occupied your country??

Why did they TERMINATE/BAN accounts?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

If they claim to be about free speech why didn't they just remove the content, why did they terminate accounts (which on YouTube means you are forever banned and it is a violation of their terms of service to EVER in your life to create another account!)?

The difference is like between censoring an article from the newspaper, and blowing up the newspaper office!

Google's handing of YouTube is scary.

The bans for 3 allegations of copyright infringement, which is NOT required by the DMCA, which says you have to terminate infringers, not those merely accused, now if a court say it was infringement that is different, but get 3 takedowns and you are banned are also scary.

Now you have the option to watch their propaganda, take a test and if you give the politically correct answers you can ask to be allowed back on.

At least if a search result on Google is blocked, they link to the order blocking it, and don't ban that person from ever having a web page in Google again or even ban the site! (which they do for black hat SEO).

Re:Why did they TERMINATE/BAN accounts?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they claim to be about free speech why didn't they just remove the content, why did they terminate accounts (which on YouTube means you are forever banned and it is a violation of their terms of service to EVER in your life to create another account!)?

I've only read the entries from the UK, but here is the most recent one:

We received a request from the UK's Association of Police Officers to remove five user accounts that allegedly promoted terrorism. We terminated these accounts because they violated YouTube's Community Guidelines, and as a result approximately 640 videos were removed.

Note that the accounts were terminated because they violated YouTube guidelines.

Re:That'll solve the problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're no fun!