Why can't youtube just pull the film?

[cynatnite]

I know it wouldn't solve the problems, but it seems it might help.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. They have let it stand, but blocked it in Egypt and Libya as of this morning.

YouTube restricts video access over Libyan violence

""This video -- which is widely available on the Web -- is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have temporarily restricted access in both countries."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/tech/web/youtube-violence-libya/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[cynatnite]

2. Thank you for that information. n/t

[Xithras]

3. Because Google has always taken a firm stand against censorship.

The one instance when they didn't (China) was a PR disaster for them that eventually led them to pull out of that country altogether.

It's one of the main reasons that Google, in spite of its myriad of other problems, still has legions of fans. They are one of only a handful of Internet companies that have consistently fought on the side of free speech, open communication, and an unrestricted Internet.

Caving on this now would be highly hypocritical and would violate their own long-held positions. Anyone can defend popular speech, but it rarely needs defending. Genuine supporters of free speech have to be willing to support unpopular speech against attacks, even when they themselves disagree with it.

[BlueStreak]

6. This is a classic case of yelling "Fire" in a movie theater

That is not protected free speech.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. That's Not What The Supreme Court Ruled In Brandenburg V Ohio

[BlueStreak]

11. Not comparable. That was a case where the speaker was charged with a felony

The question in this case is whether Google is compelled to keep this material on its database. it most certainly is not. Youtube is their own property. They can take down any content they wish. And legally they can easily defend that if they have an obkective standard. They use such objective standards every day with regard to copyrights. An objective standard in this case would be the "Fire in a crowded theater test". If there is a complaint about the video and Google determines that the material is primarily intended to incite, they would have a very solid basis for taking it down.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. There Are YouTube Videos That Make Fun Of The Undergarments Mormons Are Required To Wear

Should YouTube require them to be pulled?


And if the answer is yes what religions is it ok to insult and what religions is it not ok to insult?

[-..__...]

22. Pissing on and/or burning the Koran

Some of these videos have been up for two years...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=koran+pissing&oq=koran+pissing&gs_l=youtube.12...1844.8940.0.11478.13.13.0.0.0.0.90.1006.13.13.0...0.0...1ac.1.LVP54EHZ0Go

[BlueStreak]

33. The question was "Why can't Google take these down?"

The answer is "They can."

[msanthrope]

13. Well, hate speech is protected. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. The Film Is A Joke

The punishment for the cretins who made it should be opprobrium and societal censure and not censorship.


If you applied the same standards that some want to apply to youtube DU would be shut down...


Something to think about...

changed public to societal. the cretin should be censured by the public but not through its elected official.

[msanthrope]

17. Yes. It is. I wish 4chan on the producer, not violence or censorship, though. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. "Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

[-..__...]

21. 4Chan, /b/, would be more likely to produce a film like that.

They're probably pissed that they didn't think of it first.

[msanthrope]

36. Oh....that's why I presumed they would go after him.

It's not that I thought justice was involved....

[BlueStreak]

35. Free speech is not equal to the right to post anything on Youtube

Google can develop their own standards. Their standard has been in favor of minimal censorship because that means they don't have to spend much money on people to review content.

If they want to use a more active standard, they are free to do so.

Now if the question is "Why doesn't the government force Youtube to take it down?" that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[msanthrope]

37. Yes. Thank you for reiterating my Con Law class to me. nt

[MrBig]

16. Nothing of the Sort

The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example is a situation where a bunch of people are confined to a small space and inciteful words are shouted at them, without their permission or prior knowledge, for the purpose of creating chaos.

In this case, we have a video. Presumably, one will only watch that video under their own volition. They have a choice whether to watch the video or not. The individual has a choice to then react to the content of that video in a violent or non-violent manner.

In the fire example, there is chaos as people are presumably trying to save their own life from a fire. In this example, any act of violence is a one not through self-defense, but rather an affirmative choice that is made.

[FreeJoe]

28. I strongly disagree

I haven't seen the film, so I'm working on some assumptions that may prove false.

The film didn't cause normal people to panic. It caused people that disagreed with its contents to go on a rampage. If we use that as the standard for censorship, imagine where that would lead. Today, we protect flag burning under the first amendment. If people responded to flag burning by going on violent rampages, your logic would lead to banning flag burning. The same would be true of anti-Christian expression if even a small subset of Christians responded like this subset of Muslims. Do you really want a system where we ban speech because the people that don't like it overreact?

[joeglow3]

30. Should abortion be made illegal?

After all, people who perform them cause fundies to murder people.

[Xithras]

34. Not even remotely close.

By that standard, any speech that is highly controversial should be illegal. In truth, it is often the most indefensible speech that must be defended and protected.

The film didn't attack any people, but it insulted a religion. A worldview. An OPINION. If we are not free to criticize the opinions of others, what is the point of having free speech in the first place?

Personally, I think that Mormonism is stupid. It is a made-up religion created by a pervert with mental issues who believed that God is an alien and had visions while staring into the bottom of an empty hat. I rate it right up there with Scientology when it comes to "neat shit people made up".

That's just my opinion. I expressed it. There are 14 million Mormons in the world...is it a hate crime for me to express my opinion about them? Should it be illegal to express my opinion about them? Or should the prohibitions only apply if the Mormons are violent about their prophet? Should it be OK for me to insult the founders of Mormonsim, because they're peaceful, but prohibited for me to insult Mohammed (who really was a pedophile...the Muslim religious texts describe how he played with his 8 year old wife and her toys both before and after he had sex with her) simply because they are violent about it? Do we allow the "acceptability" of speech to be limited by the potential behavior of those being discussed?

This isn't a slipperly slope. It's a vertical effing cliff!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. Not even close...Google is a private company and will do what it chooses.

[Nye Bevan]

4. What rule should they use in circumstances like this?

"You may not post a video that ridicules or makes fun of any religion or group that has a history of rioting and committing murder when ridiculed or made fun of"?

[Nye Bevan]

31. Ooooh. Such meanness from such a cute little pony (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Made A Post Making Fun Of Magic Undergarments At DU.

Should I have been censored?

As an aside I am still conflicted over it. Is getting a cheap laugh more important than respecting someone's religion but it's my decision.

[Nye Bevan]

32. The general rule is, if it's a religion that doesn't riot and blow stuff up, cheap laughs are fine.

So feel free to make Magic Underwear and Pedophile Priest jokes.

However, if it's a religion with a history of violence, expect solemn lectures on how we should not offend people by ridiculing their religious beliefs.

[-..__...]

8. Why should they?

Censorship sucks regardless of the subject matter.

Even if they did pull it, it's a little too late for that now.

Any resulting damage has already been done, and as soon as it's pulled, someone will re upload it again.

[Egalitariat]

9. The reaction to the film has been irrational. I'd hate to see a precedent set that if one group

behaves irrationally while pointing the finger at another, then that other must change its otherwise legal and constitutionally protected behavior.

[we can do it]

10. Because no corporation has been offended or killed?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Res Ipsa Loquitur

[slackmaster]

19. The film is not the real issue. Pulling it would solve nothing.

[Scootaloo]

38. If anything it would enthuse bigots to just make more

And would thus be a counter-productive gesture anyway.

[rollin74]

20. I don't like the film but censorship isn't the answer

there shouldn't be a crackdown on expression (even if it's offensive) to appease mobs and violent religious nuts

[glacierbay]

23. Censorship is never the answer

besides, it's too late to close the barn door, the horse is already out.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Once Something Goes Viral...

I doubt many people in Eygpt or Libya were seeing the "flim" on YouTube...instead they saw it via television and other sources. Pulling the video down now does little as the horse has left the barn...copies are all over and can and will be exploited.

We've seen these situations in the past...the outrage is intense but subsides after a week. The real story here is whose behind this "film"...who funded it and what their motives are...

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. I doubt that most of the imbeciles who attacked the embassies have actually seen the video

[Rabid_Rabbit]

27. How quickly

some are willing to give up freedoms for a little bit of security.

Maybe youtube should have a 'This hurts my feelings' button and then whenever somebody is offended by a video they can just click it.

[FreeJoe]

29. What kind of precendent would that set?

Gee, I find that content objectionable. Maybe I should riot and then people will take it down. Part of the price of free speech is letting jerks speak. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't condenm, mock, and otherwise speak out against those jerks, but we shouldn't censor them just because some people were offended.

[RepublicansRZombies]

39. they have removed politicial films that expose the truth about the events of 9/11

n/t