From what I can gather, the White House didn't explicitly ask for the clip to be removed. Rather, they suggested the clip might violate YouTube's own terms of service.
From the article:
> White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube's terms of service
Still, the net effect is the same. The gesture was made with the goal of having the video removed from YouTube. It's unfortunate that our administration went down this path at all.
We have to ask why on earth the White House should even care if the video violates Google's TOS. This was as close as they could get to a takedown request without violating the Constitution.
Does the Obama administration really want to enter the business of suppressing every "inconvenient" video that might offend the sensibilities of Middle Eastern mobs?
1. How frequently US administration asks Google and other content companies to pull content for political reasons?
2. Has Google ever complied with these requests?
3. How much of this content was pulled because of blasphemy reasons?
4. Is it the official policy of US government to try to censure any speech which can cause negative reaction from violent extremists abroad, or there some violent extremists that US government is more afraid of than others? If so, who takes these decisions and is his salary paid from my taxes?
Ideally, these questions would be answered by the free press. But with current state of affairs they are more likely to engage in political gamesmanship and issues like which politician's dog ran away 30 years ago and who of the politicians was a mean kid in kindergarten.
Also one must note that while White House has, so far, been powerless to remove any content, any of the RIAA members can instantly remove virtually any content from YouTube just by the virtue of claiming it's infringing. Of course, if the victim fights back fierce enough, it can be reinstated - but then it can be removed again by another claim, can't it?
On the same grounds, should the White House have asked Youtube to censor the numerous clips of Kerry and Biden praising the killing of Bin Laden at the DNC last week?
I'm sure the Islamic world might have taken offense.
We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).
What about blatantly inflammatory homophobia and holocaust denial? Those are also blatantly inflammatory speech covered by freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean they have to be socially acceptable.
Kids. Have they never heard of the Streisand effect. It's pretty much in one place now. Take it down and it'll be back up 10 fold on youtube mirrored, and then also on other services like vimeo etc. You can't kill these things.
Asking just looks native
"As we read news reports about violent responses to the video, from people who seem to be quite confused about who produced the video, it's important for all of us to remember the basic issue here. The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch person or other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind."
Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize TSA "security theater" as a meaningless reduction in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing, but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs.
I think jerf correctly responded to this issue the other day:
If I organize a riot involving thousands of people that I manage to incite into killing people, and I claim my reason is that I heard that some guy is Glasgow made fun of the American soccer team over beer... that guy is Glasgow is not the real reason. It doesn't even qualify as a metaphorical fig leaf, it's just a lie. When the excuse is this tiny, you shouldn't even give it the time of day.
AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the two replies to this comment posted as I type this edit. I will defend to the utmost your right to free speech, to be enjoyed wherever you live or travel.
I wonder if the reason that books by Robert Spencer
have not been used as a pretext for rioting is that the instigators of riots don't want to draw attention to these books, which might lead a lot of people around the world to reexamine their beliefs.
> just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions.
Give me a break - by all indications, the author of the video made it for his own religious reasons, because of his own delusions, rather than as some kind of enlightened critique, which explains why it's, y'know, so extremely crude. He made his video specifically to cause maximum insult to a culture: that doesn't put him anywhere near the lunatics who would kill diplomats over an insult, but he too is a lunatic. I'll defend to the death his right to say it, but it's hard to support it in any way.
Also, I don't know what you meant by it, and I apologize for being presumptuous, but your "people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet" suggests an image of cultural superiority, which is an awful thing to create in response to the actions of a violent few.
You can go all Fred Phelps and tell some marine's family he's in hell now at his funeral and that they are inbred hillbillies that could never have invented the internet but don't expect shock on my part if his dad and brothers decide that would be a good time to beat the shit out of you.
> If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won.
Seriously? People living in fear of terrorists is actually a feat mostly of US politicians, inciting it and using it to manipulate the masses.
If people were rational, and weren't purposely deceived by people on TV, they would be more scared of driving than terrorists, since more people die in car accidents every year, than all people ever killed in terrorist attacks.
One thing that I have not seen expressed very much is how people in other countries, especially in intolerant or oppressive ones, are not aware of the level of freedom of speech guaranteed to all citizens in the US. In turn, Americans are not aware of their lack of awareness. This causes no end of misunderstanding.
I remember seeing an interview where Chrisiane Amanpour is told by an Iranian member of parliament, "I don't think there is a place in the world where freedom means that people can say whatever they want, where they can lie or make whatever accusation they choose. For example, in the United States, can someone say or write something against their country's national interest and security?" Ms. Amanmpour replies, "Yes. Yes, they can".
I'd guess the fraudulent redubbing of these actors lines into fatwa provoking ones means the actors probably have some recourse to get the video pulled.
People in Arab countries aren't generally angry at western freedom of speech, they are angry at being denigrated and being denied the opportunities for self advancement that we safely take for granted.
I wish that the media focus was truly on the broader issues behind this anger than placing so much focus on one ridiculous video.
I have petition the Obama administration to "Uphold the United States Constitution. Make a commitment to not ask a corporation or organization to censor user content"
[+] [-] tomstokes|13 years ago|reply
From the article:
> White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube's terms of service
Still, the net effect is the same. The gesture was made with the goal of having the video removed from YouTube. It's unfortunate that our administration went down this path at all.
[+] [-] cheald|13 years ago|reply
Really disgraceful, IMO.
[+] [-] roboneal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|13 years ago|reply
1. How frequently US administration asks Google and other content companies to pull content for political reasons?
2. Has Google ever complied with these requests?
3. How much of this content was pulled because of blasphemy reasons?
4. Is it the official policy of US government to try to censure any speech which can cause negative reaction from violent extremists abroad, or there some violent extremists that US government is more afraid of than others? If so, who takes these decisions and is his salary paid from my taxes?
Ideally, these questions would be answered by the free press. But with current state of affairs they are more likely to engage in political gamesmanship and issues like which politician's dog ran away 30 years ago and who of the politicians was a mean kid in kindergarten.
Also one must note that while White House has, so far, been powerless to remove any content, any of the RIAA members can instantly remove virtually any content from YouTube just by the virtue of claiming it's infringing. Of course, if the victim fights back fierce enough, it can be reinstated - but then it can be removed again by another claim, can't it?
[+] [-] nostromo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naeem|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulsutter|13 years ago|reply
Rewarding a behavior is the best way to get more of it.
[+] [-] roboneal|13 years ago|reply
I'm sure the Islamic world might have taken offense.
[+] [-] protomyth|13 years ago|reply
That being said, murder should not have been the result and anything other than personal responsibility is a crock.
[+] [-] dscrd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Steko|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gfodor|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salimmadjd|13 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines :
We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slurgfest|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IbJacked|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindstab|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|13 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4511247
"As we read news reports about violent responses to the video, from people who seem to be quite confused about who produced the video, it's important for all of us to remember the basic issue here. The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch person or other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind."
Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize TSA "security theater" as a meaningless reduction in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing, but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs.
I think jerf correctly responded to this issue the other day:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4510637
If I organize a riot involving thousands of people that I manage to incite into killing people, and I claim my reason is that I heard that some guy is Glasgow made fun of the American soccer team over beer... that guy is Glasgow is not the real reason. It doesn't even qualify as a metaphorical fig leaf, it's just a lie. When the excuse is this tiny, you shouldn't even give it the time of day.
AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the two replies to this comment posted as I type this edit. I will defend to the utmost your right to free speech, to be enjoyed wherever you live or travel.
I wonder if the reason that books by Robert Spencer
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-Koran/dp/15969...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant/dp...
have not been used as a pretext for rioting is that the instigators of riots don't want to draw attention to these books, which might lead a lot of people around the world to reexamine their beliefs.
[+] [-] comex|13 years ago|reply
Give me a break - by all indications, the author of the video made it for his own religious reasons, because of his own delusions, rather than as some kind of enlightened critique, which explains why it's, y'know, so extremely crude. He made his video specifically to cause maximum insult to a culture: that doesn't put him anywhere near the lunatics who would kill diplomats over an insult, but he too is a lunatic. I'll defend to the death his right to say it, but it's hard to support it in any way.
Also, I don't know what you meant by it, and I apologize for being presumptuous, but your "people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet" suggests an image of cultural superiority, which is an awful thing to create in response to the actions of a violent few.
[+] [-] Steko|13 years ago|reply
You can go all Fred Phelps and tell some marine's family he's in hell now at his funeral and that they are inbred hillbillies that could never have invented the internet but don't expect shock on my part if his dad and brothers decide that would be a good time to beat the shit out of you.
[+] [-] nico|13 years ago|reply
Seriously? People living in fear of terrorists is actually a feat mostly of US politicians, inciting it and using it to manipulate the masses.
If people were rational, and weren't purposely deceived by people on TV, they would be more scared of driving than terrorists, since more people die in car accidents every year, than all people ever killed in terrorist attacks.
[+] [-] grecy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roboneal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ibarrac|13 years ago|reply
I remember seeing an interview where Chrisiane Amanpour is told by an Iranian member of parliament, "I don't think there is a place in the world where freedom means that people can say whatever they want, where they can lie or make whatever accusation they choose. For example, in the United States, can someone say or write something against their country's national interest and security?" Ms. Amanmpour replies, "Yes. Yes, they can".
Here is the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkHzljMtB4&feature=playe...
[+] [-] Steko|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twelvechairs|13 years ago|reply
I wish that the media focus was truly on the broader issues behind this anger than placing so much focus on one ridiculous video.
[+] [-] cntcoup|13 years ago|reply
http://wh.gov/WfFk
Apologies if this is not appropriate for HN. I just find this disturbing and felt that I need to do something.