Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Refuses To Remove Anti-Islamic Film Clip
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that Google officials have rejected the notion of removing a video that depicts the prophet as a fraud and philanderer and has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. Google says the video does not violate YouTube's policies, but they did restrict viewers in Egypt and Libya from loading it due to the special circumstances in the country. Google's response to the crisis highlighted the struggle faced by the company, and others like it, to balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events. 'This video – which is widely available on the Web – is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,' Google said in a statement. 'However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt, we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.' Underscoring Google's quandary, some digital free expression groups have criticized YouTube for censoring the video. Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says given Google' s strong track record of protecting free speech, she was surprised the company gave in to pressure to selectively block the video. 'It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint,' says Galperin. 'I'm not sure they did the right thing.'"
... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.
If only the religious zealots realized all they had to do was lodge a false DMCA claim through a bot...
Restrict the video only in places where they can't handle the freedom of speech without maniacal violence. Google got it right for the first time in a while.
Google is showing some spine. Good.
I've seen the movie. It's not very well produced, but it's better than 80% of the non-pirated stuff on YouTube.
Good for Google... This should not be taken down any more than a video calling Jesus or Flying Spaghetti Monster a fraud should
Either you have free speech or you do not. "Ethical concerns" is a thinly veiled word for "censor that which offends us".
The Onion has this pegged...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here is a video of an Egyptian Muslim leader tearing up and burning a Bible... No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...
FYI, the Innocence of Muslims movie is also available on LiveLeak and other sites.
If you quote the Quoran, can it still be called hate speech?
No, people died because of religious fanaticism. The video was just a largely inconsequential trigger for the current round of violence. But even if said video wasn't there, they'd find another reason.
Google didn't kill anyone - hang the blame where it is deserved -- the religious idealists that actually committed the acts.
Despite Qadaffi's efforts to appease the West in recent years, as soon as he became vulnerable, the US urged NATO to help overthrow the Libyan government. Air strikes, drone strikes, CIA officers on the ground coordinating attacks - the largest military power in the world overthrew the government of this small country - a government which has been making concession after concession to the West in recent years. Apparently not enough. Can anyone imagine the US ambassador in Libya getting blown up if the US hadn't bombed the Libyan government out of existence, working to put its own regime in? You play with fire you get burned.
Imperialism, foreign intervention, torturing Muslims in Abu Ghraib - forcing them to masturbate to the videotaped laughs of sadistic American soldiers, drone attacks, puppet governments, financing the Zionist siege of Gaza - this is what the US is doing to Muslims. Then Korans are burned, put in toilets, mocking videos are made just to rub it in. Then Americans get all indignant that their mockeries of an almost-conquered people are not taken in a light-hearted fashion.
The real question is why is the US over there, why were they bombing Libya and arming the people who overthrew their government. If I was a Libyan patriot, and I knew US insults to Islam would help rally Libyans in an anti-imperial campaign, of course I'd use that. Libyans are responding to everything the US has done to it. The Marines hymn "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" refers to US interference in Tripoli going back to the beginning of the 19th century. None of this can be discussed of course, so it all becomes about religion, when really it has little to do with religion. Middle class Muslim Turks are nor burning down embassies. Americans are more gullible and steeped in imperial propaganda then any Muslim is in guile to religious ideas - not that Americans should talk, as the country is crawling with fundamentalist Christianity more than any other industrialized nation.
It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?
Sorry, but forget the "cause" because this is merely an insult at best. Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult. If you can't contain yourself after being angered in this way, you should be destroyed in the most literal sense of the word.
Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?
(Child brides were rather common in the Christian Middle ages as well; the concepts of pedophilia and age of consent are relatively modern and secular, largely based on women's rights campaigners. In many religions children - in particular girls - are almost treated as property. Remember the Old Testament: "But all the children among the women that have not known lying with a man, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:18)
Unfortunately, the religious zealots are not the problem here. Religious zealots are a minority, both of the rioters and in general. The religious zealots certainly would be content to see the videos removed, and much as I would criticize them for that sort of censorship, at least nobody would be killed.
The rioters were angry before the video was posted. The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior; it could just as easily have been a book, idiotic comments by some preacher, a bomb dropped by the air force hitting a day school, etc. I doubt that most of the rioters had even heard of the video prior to hearing of riots elsewhere, and I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.
Palm trees and 8
And the world was populated through incest, polygamy is a-ok, slavery is dandy, and killing non-believers is supported. At least, that's what I get from a few passages in the Bible. What's your point again? That the Koran, like the Bible, is an origin myth massaged to also be a political and social guide to the world? Or that by pointing to the right verse, I can support whatever I want?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
What happens when someone says, "That video might cause people to revolt against their government!" -- does Google take that down too?
Either we have free speech, or we do not have free speech. If Google is going to be the service provider for an important communications medium, they need to respect free speech. The video did not say, "Go out and riot." People who were already angry saw the video and exploded.
The Chinese government claims their censorship is to keep the peace as well. How ironic for Google to follow that same logic, after all they went through with China...
Palm trees and 8
No, people died because of religious fanaticism coupled with decades of American Imperialism.
FTFY; let's call a duck a duck, shall we?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Lets say you are some person in that country trying to make up your mind about how bad the video really is. Your religious neighbor says it is the worst form of blasphemy ever.
Pre Google Ban, you could have watched it and said "well this sucks and is stupid, why should I care about this?"
Now they have no choice but to believe the neighbor, perhaps go out and protest as a result.
Blocking the truth from view never makes things better, especially in a situation where so many seek to inflate the importance of a single video.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One school of thought on this is that the violence is an attempt by one of the more militant branches of Islam to get attention.
The real cause of riots in Egypt is a steadily declining standard of living since Egypt hit peak oil in 1996. Oil production has declined 45% since 1996.
I love Harris and Dawkins. But they don't get it. They think that religious belief can be disputed on a rational level.
It cannot.
Religion appeals to our emotional primitive brain. That is why you have people who can build atom bombs and understand the physics of it still believe in the Biblical god. They have the intellectual ability - more than I - to dispute on rational and logical grounds why the Biblical God is as likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and yet they do.
And it's just not the Biblical God. Humans are predsposed to have magical thoughts. Whether it's making a deal with the Universe, Karma, or anything else for a better life or what have you. It's our brain that want's to see patterns where none exist it's our brains unable to accept that this is all there is. There must be something more to life than eating, fucking and shitting. Hence, for modern people the stubborn belief in God and other superstitions.
"It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint"
You mean like them blocking Nazi videos (including Downfall parodies) from being viewed in Germany?
Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult
Funny how American Muslims, even orthodox Muslims, are not rioting, even now that they know about the video and presumably have had the chance to watch it.
Angry people do not need much to set them off, and the rioters have been angry for a long time. They live in awful places, they have seen multiple wars (no, not "seen" as in "live from a foreign country," but actually seen tanks rolling down their streets and bombs dropping from planes), and most have not lived under any sort of democratic system. The video was just a spark, and it just happened to be right next to a crate full of dynamite.
Palm trees and 8
I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics, the nature of jewish control over the US economy and political space and the belief held by jews that it is jewish destiny to dominate the world.....
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but yes, there's tons of antisemitic videos on YouTube.
Most of them are malicious flamebait, just like your comment and the "innocence of muslims" video.
No sig for the moment.
I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics
Since there aren't any of those movies or books in the world I guess we'll never know.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
So, insulting violent religious fanatics and inciting riots is fine, but having a 50 year-old record playing in the background of a video of your dog running around the backyard is completely outside the bounds of acceptable human behavior.
And using the words "super" and "bowl" together will earn you permanent banishment.
Fucking world...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just have the Muslims copyright Mohammad's image. Problem solved.
Have gnu, will travel.
I agree if you talk at all the people believing in the same God. You know, Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Yes, cause they are all the same. I remember fondly when Viacom and Fox were razed to the ground and the CEO's raped, killed and dragged through the streets by Catholics because of the way that Jesus was portrayed on SouthPark and Family Guy. And the nasty stuff that Jews did to Sarah Silverman and Seth MacFarlane before cutting off their heads for not just leaving Judaism, but ridiculing Jews and God.
Good thing that hating people for their religion is considered bigotry... well, except it is.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
No, people died because of religious fanaticism coupled with decades of American Imperialism.
FTFY; let's call a duck a duck, shall we?
Since we're quaking about the middle east, let's not leave the British & French out. Their decisions about how to divide the Ottoman empire has not helped. Nor the decision to create Israel.
If you quote the Quoran, can it still be called hate speech?
If you selectively quote it to misrepresent what it means, then yes.
Ironically, that is exactly what both the jihadi nutjobs and the religious bigots do - often agreeing on the same hateful misrepresentations because in both cases it furthers their symbiotic causes.
BTW, none of Mohammed's wives are mentioned in the quran. Including Aisha, the wife that the bigots always mean when they call him a pedo. So the question is moot anyway.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?
His first wife was 15 years his senior too. What's funny is that the bigots just incorporate that into their narrative, saying that he was a total deviant because he must have had thing for cougars too.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I know this is a ridiculous troll, but I'd like to point out that Judaism is not a well organized religion like Catholicism or Mormonism. They don't have a central authority. Teachings vary widely by synagogue, and beliefs vary widely by individual. It doesn't make sense to speak of the "jews" as you do because they are not a cohesive group acting with a single central purpose.
It's true that there are jews who hold positions of authority in the government and in the business world and in the entertainment industry. But many more people carrying out objectionable activities in these areas of society are not jewish. It's not right to try to characterize an entire group of people by the actions of just a few of them. Especially if they aren't even part of a centralized organization.
See imho religion itself isn't bad, people can believe what they want as far as I am concerned.
The problem is idiots. When you get idiots that start to use religion to justify their "being an idiot" then all hell breaks loose.
Every religion has got 'em. Even the Athiests :/
Invaders must die
The blame would be placed solely on the shoulders of the "bible thumpers or skinheads." It wouldn't be inappropriately misdirected at a movie trailer.
In fact, restrict those regions from seeing *ANY* video on youtube. No insults to Muhamed, and no cats on invisible bicycles. They obviously have no capacity for happiness anyway.
Of course religion fucking bad. read the bible to see how killing, maiming and stoning to death is recommended to please the god. The peaceful religionists are not following their religion.
For the last time, Atheism in NOT a religion, there is no deity involved
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
It isn't the same G-d. That idea only comes from the New Testament and the Koran accepting some or all of the Torah. Christianity added several features that Jews would never agree to. Similarly the Koran is inconsistent with the New Testament and inconsistent with the Torah. And each adheres to different principles and have different ideas on just what this G-d is.
Both the early (non-Jewish heritage) Christians and the early Muslims where keen to separate themselves from Judism.
and? They do not have the right of free speech do they? What's your point?
Wow... where to begin?
I would love for you to educate me on how Jews are insidiously infiltrating and controlling world politics considering the number of stone-age countries with outright mandates on Israel's destruction.
Please explain to me how Jews control the US economy (have you seen the US economy? whomever is in control is doing a crappy job).
I would love for you to explain to me how you came to the conclusion that is it the Jewish destiny to dominate the world militarily (seeing as Jews make up a tiny fraction of the world population)...
Reminds me of an old joke. Two elderly Jewish guys are enjoying a sunny day in the park, sitting on a bench reading two different newspapers. The first guy is reading the New York Times, and after a while he looks over, curious to see what the second guy is reading. To his horror, he sees that it's some sort of Neo-Nazi publication. "How in the world can you stand to read that kind of garbage?" he asks in shock. The second guy smiles and says, "When I read your paper, it's 'Recession, war, crime, disaster.' But when I read this, it's 'Jews run the banks, Jews run the government, Jews run Hollywood...'"
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
actually non-consensual
Uhuh. And what exactly do you think would have happend if Aisha had said "no"? If you're not offered a choice, you cannot consent. That's rape.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Since when are young girls in arranged marriages given a choice? Since when is a 9 year old girl even capable of making such a choice? Be realistic.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh, so if I get married to a 50 year old woman, it's OK with you if I rape a 9 year old? I guess it all averages out or something?
Nope. But it does indicate that it is bigotry in search of a justification that drives the mohammed was a pedo meme.
As for the direct issue of Aisha's age, the bigots have chosen numbers that fit their narative. It's not anywhere near so obvious as they make it out to be, with plenty of evidence that she was well into her teens.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
They're not pulling it from Egypt and Libya because of fear it might undermine the Google brand in those countries, they're pulling it because the movie is being used as a pretext to kill people.
This isn't about merely avoiding offense. This is about trying to avoid escalating an already terrible situation.
Extremists and terrorists will use whatever excuses they can. It's quite likely that the attack in Benghazi would have happened regardless of the movie. Both Libya and Egypt are very young democracies and need to work out a healthy balance between freedom of speech and rule of law. It is not Google's or anyone else's responsibility to accomodate terrorists or other misguided people who use stupid YouTube videos as excuses for violence.
But it does indicate that it is bigotry in search of a justification that drives the mohammed was a pedo meme.
How exactly do you figure? Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?
As for the direct issue of Aisha's age, the bigots have chosen numbers that fit their narative. It's not anywhere near so obvious as they make it out to be, with plenty of evidence that she was well into her teens.
This is actually the first decent argument I've seen on the topic. However, do muslims get to pick and choose what parts of the Hadith they believe to be true? If the Hadith is wrong about the age of Aisha, what else is it wrong about, and why should any muslim put their faith in it?
And, just so we're clear, if the Hadith is correct about the age of Aisha, then Muhammed is reprehensible, correct?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Some non complicit muslims
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
"Just let them kill each other"
I have more humane proposal.
We give out tons of aid money: (all amounts USD$ for 2010)
Afghanistan = $11,446,800,000
Pakistan = $2,853,500,000
Iraq = $2,087,900,000
Egypt = $1,698,900,000
Sudan = $975,900,000
Gaza = $693,100,000
Why don't we just say: ...and so on.
Every time you kill an American, we take $80 million of your aid money, and give it to Israel.
Every time you attack an embassy: $200 million
Every time you issue a fatwa (on some cartoonist or author, or filmmaker, etc.): $10 million
Any time the violence stops, that aid level is restored the next year.
If you just cut off all their aid, they have no incentive to do anything.
This way, they have incremental rewards to act civilized.
No, it's oversensitive, murderous psychopaths impacting world events. They're actively looking for a reason. If there weren't so many maniacs like them following that fake, evil religion, there wouldn't be a problem. The video itself isn't doing anything. It's just a video. It can't come out of the screen and shoot something and youtube isn't reponsible for how viewers may react. Ohhhh no, Ms Peach's legendary fried chicken music video might make someone a racist who will join the KKK. Not youtube's problem.
Google did the right thing. There is no legitimate ethical or legal ground for restricting free speech in such a case. I would have been quite disturbed if they had taken the opposite stance.
How exactly do you figure? Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?
You missed my point. What I am saying is that the aisha thing, just like everything else on websites like jihadwatch, atlasshrugs, etc is all about rationalizing bigotry, not finding truth. It doesn't matter what the specifics of any event are, they will always pick and choose an intrepretation that suits their agenda. Just like extremists (of any religion) do.
However, do muslims get to pick and choose what parts of the Hadith they believe to be true?
Yes. It is not unknown for different hadith to be contradictory thus forcing people to pick. Intrepretations of the hadith can vary hugely between different sects - in some cases it is the difference in interpretation that defines the specific sect. This stuff is huge in the religion with all kinds of effort put into figuring out things like the "chain of custody" for the oral reports that ended up being written down and thus the quality of the reports. Some sects even deny the whole concept of hadith.
An important thing to keep in mind is that the issue of aisha's age has always been of little importance. Nobody goes around using it as a justification for child abuse. Most muslims don't even consider it a question of any interest. Ask any average muslim how old Aisha was when she got married and you'll get "I dunno" and a guess from mid-teens to probably mid-20s because that's the Mohammed of their religion. The pedo-mohammed is just the mohammed of people with an axe to grind who aren't even muslim.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Not "people of Benghazi". Some people of Benghazi demonstrated against the attacks. You conveniently forget about the existence of other people of Benghazi, who e.g. were hoisting black Shahada flags (the very same that al-Qaeda uses) over government buildings not long ago.
I'm tired of the religious zealotry too, but consider the importance that fidelity to Israel has in American politics for a sec. An American politician who doesn't pronounce he would defend Israel to the death would get eaten alive by either party as well as several political groups. Look at the recent Democratic National Convention. There was a need to publicly proclaim that Jerusalem is and will forever be the capital of Israel. If you lean to the right in the country and are evangelical, Israel factors heavily in your view on foreign policy. The United States puts forth at the very least, the perception that Israel has a strong influence over American national politics during elections. If that weren't so, American politicians wouldn't feel a need to wear a yamaka then publicly speak of their love for Israel whilst pandering for votes. We don't do this for Turkey or Egypt or Jordan. At least when we reaffirm the One China policy, we only do it when we visit with a Chinese delegation. When Romney went to Israel to do fundraising for an American presidential election, it turned heads in the U.K., and it got a lot of people asking questions. Sure, you can argue that this perception is really the fault of American politicians trying to appease evangelicals with their Temple Mount doomsday wet dreams, but either way, it looks bad and it affirms beliefs that the Jews are trying to control the world.
Interesting proposal. Could it be funded through cutting down the military budget?
It wouldn't take any additional funding at all. Zero cost.
You just selectively divert money that would have gone to the offending country (the carrot), to their sworn enemy Israel (the stick). I'm doing it this way because each one dollar is doing two dollars worth of 'work.' Not only have they lost a dollar, they have enriched their enemy by a dollar.
If they behave, aid flows exactly as it does now.
The more they 'misbehave' (i.e. Embassy attacks, suicide bombings, kidnappings...) the more of their precious aid money flows to Israel that year.
But, there is always an incentive for them to correct their behavior, as that aid money could be resumed the next year.
Atheism in NOT a religion, there is no deity involved
A deity is not a requisite of religion. Faith in the unprovable is.
Atheists actually DO belong to a religion, a religion equal to any they abhor, for they too accept an article of faith which cannot be proven: that having not (yet?) found objective evidence for a thing means it categorically must not and cannot exist.
By that same criteria, if you lived in the 1500s then radio waves and X-rays "did not exist", since there did not yet exist the technology to detect, generate, or receive (in the case of radio) them.
At least agnostics are humble and logical enough to acknowledge that they don't know what they don't have a means to test or verify.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The US aid is pretty much bribery. You are already paying them to act a certain way.
That's right. We're already paying them they still slaughter our citizens, and attack our embassies.
Let's put that money to work.
And what is your plan regarding Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates? Where's your leverage then?
I'm sorry I wasn't able to solve the whole 6000 year-old middle-east crisis in one Slashdot post. I'll try to be more thorough next time! :)
Obviously, this is just a start. I think if the whole region would start quieting down, it would create a foundation for better dialogue with all the countries in that area. We negotiate quite peacefully with Germany and Japan now; it wasn't really that long ago we were trying to destroy each other.
If any low-budget YouTube clip or Danish cartoon can set the region ablaze we still have a long ways to go.
I just thought of this as a first step, since we are spending the money over there anyway, seemingly with little result.
I'm not sure how many times people will have to tell you this, but atheists believe in what there is evidence for. If there was any evidence of a god, then I'd believe in him. I believe in electromagnetic radiation, I'm sure we don't understand it completely (i.e. what it's 'made' of, we know a lot about how it works), but there's evidence for it.
I even give others the benefit of the doubt. There's not that much evidence that Jesus existed, but I give Christians the benefit of the doubt, and feel he may have existed.
There is absolutely zero evidence that gods exists. Nothing. Nothing at all that even suggests this. Most of the data about what God is meant to do (save lives, help people win reality TV shows, cure the sick, watch us masturbate, make the world in 6 days) indicates that he doesn't do any of these things. So what's the fucking point in believing in a god that does absolutely nothing?! And when looked at objectively doesn't even exist!?
Take the blinders off. Life will be a lot better if you stopped believing in that nasty iron-age fairy tale. And that very least it means you'll be able to stop sounding like an idiot trying to justify DNA similarities, fossils, cosmic background radiation, astronomy, etc, etc etc.
There is a good strategy to let people have their say, so we can all laugh and mock them, rather than silencing them.
Freakonomics details the one-man crusade against the KKK in the US, basically by exposing all their secret rituals and so on, essentially changing them from a truly active, vicious organization to a good ol' boys bitchfest and knitting circle.
The human tendency is to want to shut people up, when in fact, the opposite is what's successful.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
We've "adapted" the religion to fit the times.
Oh, so that's why homosexuals can get married in any state in the US?
Or that abortion clinics are allowed to conduct their perfectly legal business without harassment.
Whilst religions have adapted in other western countries, the US is alone in it's Christian fundamentalism.
...and that is that those doing the violence are not the ones getting that money.
That's the fallacy of falling for the "too much of the wrong abstraction" hole: you group people by (artificial, not existing in the REAL world) nationality, instead of asking "Cui bono?" (who actually benefits)? I see this all the time in the German newspapers, "Germany looses/wins" - what BS. WHO excatly is that "Germany" guy??? Same thing with your not very well though through proposal, I'm sorry to have to say :)