×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the how-the-interwebs-work dept.

Google 676

hhavensteincw writes "YouTube has declined a request from Sen. Joe Lieberman remove videos from terrorist organizations. Lieberman said that the videos made by groups like Al-Qaeda show assassinations, attacks on US soldiers leading to injuries and death, and weapons training, 'incendiary' speeches, and other material intended to 'encourage violence against the West.' YouTube said that while it removed some of the videos highlighted by the Senator, most were allowed to stay because they did not violate YouTube's community guidelines. YouTube went on to note that they are strong supporters of free speech."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

676 comments

Tarrists! (5, Funny)

Bovius (1243040) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483622)

Google is clearly acting in support of terrorism and is therefore itself a terrorist organization. We need to drop some injunction on that.

Re:Tarrists! (5, Insightful)

Bovius (1243040) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484052)

Wow. I guess slashdotters don't appreciate sarcasm today. Let's see if I can be more straightforward:

By hosting videos from terrorist organizations, YouTube could be construed as providing communication for terrorists, which constitutes material support for terrorists. In some previous cases of alleged material support for terrorism, the government has acted aggressively (example) [wikipedia.org]. Of course this case will be handled differently, because Google is a well known organization commonly in the public eye, but I suspect the US would be much more aggressive about this "request" if it were a lesser known company. I think applying the law evenly to all potential offenders would expose the problems with current laws.

Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483630)

Let us decide what we can watch. Don't censor anything, please?

Re:Propoganda or not - Let the truth be viewed (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23484122)

Including (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) child pornography? Snuf films?

You sick bastard

Bravo! (3, Insightful)

azzuth (1177007) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483632)

but how long till they buckle?

Re:Bravo! (1)

azzuth (1177007) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483744)

I stand corrected, they seem to have buckled to many many other before. YouTube is just trying to show how much Google will stand up for our rights after the whole India incicent. (can't find link atm... was on /. yesterday.)

Re:Bravo! (1)

Directrix1 (157787) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483782)

I don't know but apparently they think that videos from the Angry Video Game Nerd go too far. They completely canceled his account a few days ago.

uTube Teh Dunt Be Teh Evel!!11! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23484096)

but how long till they buckle?

Since Teh YouTube is owned by Teh Googel, they have probably already provided the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the posters to the LIEberman's conservative buddies in the Schutzstaffel.

Google's "dunt be teh evel" only goes as far as PR and bumper stickers. There are a lot of people in political prisons, or dead, because of Google.

Re:Bravo! Why the hell should YouTube fold? (5, Insightful)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484284)

Hell, every single time the US apparatus kills a non-merkun, that is animosity generated SOMEwhere, and it puts a fucking bulls eye on MY back. Going to wrong place, or just having visible a US passport not only increases the risk of being accosted, grabbed, or killed (not to mention having prices jacked up at the sound of my voice or sight of my gait or clothing or body language) makes me a target, NOT solely because of the passport but for being called a 'merkun.

A life is a life, at the individual level. It's only different for those who have bigger guns, pussies for a population, and laws to jail or contain those who speak out.

LET ME DECIDE what I'll watch. So far, to my recollection, i have YET to bother watching the beheading of any nationality. Not out of respect for the dead, but just because of personal preference to not make it a thing to do or repeat.

If the USA doesn't want to see 'merkuns coming home in body bags nor be executed/murdered/butchered, then all it has to do is stop bombing, stop killing, and stop strong-arming and stop acting as if people who have grievances against the US don't have to right to get some rep. The more repugnant the public finds the ACT of murder (as opposed to recoiling over the mere existence of a video that depicts the murder) then maybe the more backbone the 'merkun people will grow out of concern for it's IMAGE.

Right now, we do NOT deserve that much respect. Plain fuckin' period. Trinkets, bravado, money, power, guns, steel, rockets, and freedom for me don't mean SHIT when some asshole decides to kill in my name, steal in my name, plunder in my name, and risk my well being to keep goods rolling and oil flowing when MOST of the bullshit is something i OUGHT not be buying in the first place, or certainly could buy less of it.

There. I speak for myself, even if others agree. Sometimes, I'll assert my opinion has a moral priority over others', and with or without agreement, i will stand my ground. Don't FUCKING KILL in MY name and expect me to ignore it or forgive it or play like every single one of the attacked was wrong or was a threat to ME or even "the system". Otherwise, the populace deserves to be wiped out by plague, pestilence, famine, nature, or even any pot-shot-taking ETs that happen to notice our repugnant leaders and, worse, our general total ineffectiveness to reign in the corrupt.

Congress and the Senate need to remember that when you tell someone NOT to see a movie, they go see it. Assigning an R-Rating to a movie or film just increases viewership. Leaving it UNRATED might do even more to increase viewership.

Good (1, Insightful)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483634)

They should have gone a step further and told Lieberman off for being a censorship nazi.

Re:Good (5, Funny)

PLBogen (452989) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483736)

Kudos for calling a Jew a Nazi.

Not that I disagree. ;-)

Re:Good (-1, Troll)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484038)

Well, Israeli is the longest-running National Socialist state -- National Socialism was just Judaism for Gentiles (what to eat, what to wear, new holiays, don't mess with non-white women, etc).

It's just that as with Highlander, there could be only one.

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

PLBogen (452989) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484244)

While I am not a Zionist, I'll forgive you mistaking Zionism for Judaism, by any means (personally I feel that Israel is not a friendly power any more than Saudi Arabia is). I do not believe that Israeli policy regarding the Palenstinians, while not innocent or guilt-free or strictly moral, is not on the same level as the unbridled evil that the NSDAP committed against the world. But hey, I'm a mischling of Ukrainian descent, so I may be a little biased.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483828)

They should have gone a step further and told Lieberman off for being a censorship nazi.
Wait till the people making these videos get in charge... you haven't begun to see censorship yet.

Re:Good (-1, Flamebait)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483858)

This is America, not France/*insertshittyeuropeancountryhere* where the muslims are allowed to run free protesting all the values of western civilization (freedom) and calling for the beheading and execution of anyone who even talks negatively about islam, let alone draws a cartoon.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484070)

This is America, not France/*insertshittyeuropeancountryhere* where the muslims are allowed to run free protesting all the values of western civilization (freedom) and calling for the beheading and execution of anyone who even talks negatively about islam, let alone draws a cartoon.
Nah, Islam's not allowed to do that, instead we just have people saying 9/11 occurred because we haven't killed / locked up all the homosexuals, atheists, and Jews. And these people are not only allowed on TV after having said this, are actually well respected members of the national community.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484104)

Yeah, damn them Europeans letting everyone in on this freedom of speech thing.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484110)

If I say the holocaust didn't happen, I go to jail. If I demand the torture and beheading of someone for merely drawing a cartoon picture of my religions prophet it's perfectly acceptable? I see an epic breakdown of logic here.

yea (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484220)

youre just allowing fethullah gulen to set up 'boarding schools' for youth all around the u.s. to easily brainwash american kids there. under fbi protection too !! muslim extremists are not allowed to run around protesting western values there yet ? well, wait 10 years and youll see.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484246)

As a European (British) I would like to point out there is no chance of most of Europe turning into a muslim state. Most of us over here supported the authors of those comics, as did our governments. There were lots of loony Muslims out campaigning for some stupid fatwa or something, but who cares. That is the joy of free speech, getting to ignore pathetic hatemongering individuals who don't understand that without it they would be unable to open their mouths at all.

If we do anything else in regards to stopping religious loonies being able to practice, march or gather in public places we begin curtailing the freedoms that we hold so dear to begin with and are no better than them. Anyway, watching them whine and burn effegies of some guy who only drew a cartoon gives alot of us even more reason to poke fun at some peoples serious lack of perspective.

The following quote is one I have always identified with in matters such as these:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Re:Good (0, Troll)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483886)

That still doesn't excuse jewish lawyers from being the first to defend these people.

You know, a lot of fundies like to make noises about how the US is founded on the Bible/Xianity.

Where do you think all that stuff came from to begin with? ...so yeah, Lieberman is due for a dressing down from his rabbi.

Re:Good (1)

readin (838620) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483962)

Wait till the people making these videos get in charge... you haven't begun to see censorship yet.

Sigh, and here I sit without mod points.

The worst part is, the excellent karma this should get will go an anonymous poster!

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484290)

Have to destroy the village (personal freedoms) to save it, eh?

To claim that allowing repugnant political views to be published and discussed should be prevented to better preserve political freedoms is hypocritical in the first degree. Moreover, full and frank disclosure and discussion is useful: To let terrorists disclose their arguments in public, and to allow those arguments to be debated and defeated in public, introduces appropriate counterarguments into the public consciousness, ensures that those same arguments can no longer be used as convincingly in private (where the lack of public debate might otherwise make them convincing), and makes claims of coverup and large-scale media conspiracy less convincing. As such claims of conspiracy reduce credibility of non-terrorist-controlled information sources, any action which might lend them credence should be clearly avoided whenever possible.

The military battle should be as asymmetric as possible; the public relations battle, on the other hand, should be fought fairly, convincingly, and in full view of the public if it is to be effective. Just as we should not practice waterboarding even if the other side does beheadings, we should not practice even mild censorship of political speech; we need not do either to win, and taking any such actions reduces our credibility and moral standing in the eyes of the world -- including those who might be recruited to either side.

Re:Good (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484098)

They should have gone a step further and told Lieberman off for being a censorship nazi.
Wait till the people making these videos get in charge... you haven't begun to see censorship yet.
Yes, yes, because we all believe that some random stone-age twits who got lucky are going to somehow stage a coup. Get real, you pathetic fear-monger.

you fool (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484248)

it doesnt happen with 'coup'. it happens with 'boarding schools' which take in children of ages 7 to 18. they run these 'charities' for children who cant afford a good education. they brainwash kids there. also they tell their supporters to multiply like madmen. results are phenomenonal.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484156)

And if we don't let them make these videos, then it's moot because we've already lost

Think that they're wrong? Say something, don't prevent them from saying something

Hypocritical? (5, Interesting)

amrik98 (1214484) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483640)

They seem to have no problem removing videos related to Scientology.

Re:Hypocritical? (5, Funny)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483658)

Are you surprised? They're the one group more messed up than the terrorist organizations.

Re:Hypocritical? (3, Interesting)

de Selby (167520) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483894)

I think you misunderstand. They remove videos critical of Scientology. I remember seeing one video produced by the "religion" featured on the YouTube homepage.

Featuring such a video does look nearly hypocritical to me. A related problem fresh on my mind is YouTube's habit of suspending good accounts. It looks like most everything is automated, so people need only attract a few malicious trolls to get the boot. With so many people getting suspended and so many videos being pulled under false pretenses, it's just strange to see them taking a stand like this. It's strange to see them paying attention to the content they're hosting.

Re:Hypocritical? (0)

kentrel (526003) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483706)

Because many of those do break their policy. They might be a fucked up evil organization but the Church are entitled to DMCA like everybody else.

Re:Hypocritical? (1)

b96miata (620163) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484006)

And the DMCA has nothing to do with youtube unless they're responding to a takedown notice. You might be interested in reading these articles

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/24/mark_bunker_you_tube_account_axed/ [theregister.co.uk]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/youtube_scientology_channel/ [theregister.co.uk]

Where youtube rolls over and does tricks when an organization with some actual teeth throws its weight around.

Re:Hypocritical? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484198)

Joe Lieberman probably knows a few lawyers. Its only a matter of time 'till they find a way to invoke the DMCA to take down those terr'rist videos. Ahhh, the DMCA...is there anything it won't do?

Re:Hypocritical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483778)

...or videos that other governments demand censored.

Re:Hypocritical? (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483846)

> Hypocritical?
> They seem to have no problem removing videos related to Scientology.

That's not hypocritical - that's not wanting to be sued for infringement of other people's intellectual property.

Re:Hypocritical? (5, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483934)

The DMCA (or specifically, DMCA Title II, OCILLA [wikipedia.org]) legally requires them to take down the material when a copyright claim is put forward, such as the ones the Church of Scientology / RTC sends, in order to avoid any legal liability due to the safe harbor provisions in the law. The person who then posted the video can send a counter-notice to YouTube to get them to put the video back up; it's then a matter for the courts to decide (and if the person claiming infringement does go to the courts, the material stays down until they have ruled on the matter).

IANAL, this is not legal advice, this is just how I understand it. You can't blame YouTube for wanting to keep their service provider safe harbor limited liability; otherwise, they'd be sued out of existence every time someone posted a music video.

Re:Hypocritical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23484080)

Great... so why doesn't Mr. Leiberman simply assert a copyright claim on each of these videos and have them taken down? If the "terrorists" want to argue in US courts that this is wrong, then they are welcome to come and have a free extended stay at the Guantanamo Bay Hotel while they are here!

Re:Hypocritical? (2, Funny)

flamingnight (234353) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484164)

so why doesn't Mr. Leiberman simply assert a copyright claim on each of these videos
Because that would out him as the terrorist he really is.

Re:Hypocritical? (1)

PLBogen (452989) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484132)

Yes, because those are anti-Scientologist videos. Not pro-Terror vidoes. The "anti-" is the key.

Re:Hypocritical? (0)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484148)

the problem here may be that it is the US government is making the request. While I don't think this particular issue treads on the freedom speech clause as the posters are not in this country if they submit the videos from here they may have a case. That being said comparing the videos in question to Youtubes own stated rules the videos don't exist. I would not put it beyond someone keeping them there or being a snot simply because of political differences with the current administration. If so, it is a really tasteless way to express their view. It is expected of a terrorist organization, not a public company.

Nngngngngn! (-1, Troll)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483646)

They still remove the SMTV Live: Wonkey Donkey videos, the Kuricorder Quartet videos and the Angry Video Game Nerd though, don't they.

CURSE THEM ALL.

The guidelines (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483656)

Directly from youtube's guidelines:

# Don't post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making.
# Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.
# YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and similar things.

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

Free speech hypocrites

Re:The guidelines (4, Interesting)

Carthag (643047) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483742)

perhaps the removed videos were the ones with beheadings and the ones that are still there are the ones with i dunno terrorist training camps & osama bin laden speeches & other anti-american propaganda.

kinda hard to tell without a list of them, but if this is the case, i dont see a problem at all.

Re:The guidelines (5, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484286)

perhaps the removed videos were the ones with beheadings and the ones that are still there are the ones with i dunno terrorist training camps & osama bin laden speeches & other Anti-American propaganda.

I think the ones with the beheadings and stonings and abuse of women are the most important to keep. They show the true face of Militant Islam and Sharia Law. It's easy to make a convincing Anti-American propaganda video, we make lots of mistakes and some of them are quite shameful (Gitmo and Katrina come to mind) but let not forget to closely examine what our critics are proposing to replace our imperfect America with.

Someone needs to pull Lieberman aside explain to him meaning of "the only thing you have to fear is fear itself." Fight lies and propaganda with truth and transparency, not secrets and censorship.

Phew.. (3, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483670)

At least I'm still able to post terrorist videos. I was starting to get worried when I had all my anti-scientology videos removed.

Re:Phew.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483758)

Is there a YouTube for free speech? As in the real kind, where you can say and otherwise express super critical things about tax-evading cult organizations without fear of reprisal or your video being taken down? Does WikiLeaks do this sort of thing? Or is there another place?

Hypocracy much? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483690)

But they are quick and happy to remove XenuTV and XenuTV1's accounts. Thanks, YouTube.

This is bullshit. (3, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483698)

Bullshit, not because they won't remove videos, but because youtube is notorious for removing "offensive" material--whether it's insulting women or even something like bashing religion, presumably because people don't like having their dogmas trampled-- or just plain removing material on rather spurious grounds, and I'm not even talking about removing videos wrongly due to DMCA complaints.

Of course they'll leave up terrorist videos because it'll get them more hits.

Re:This is bullshit. (1)

WastedMeat (1103369) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483776)

...or they will leave it up because it allegedly offends a group that is tolerant of free speech. Offending intolerant demographics with media frequently turns into much more of an ordeal.

Re:This is bullshit. (3, Interesting)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484036)

YouTube has removed many anti-Jihad videos and videos critical of Islam, which means that they have a political agenda. A very fucked up one.

refuses? yet removed (some)? (5, Interesting)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483718)

Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Terrorist Videos
Summary: YouTube [...] removed some of the videos

Did the same person actually write both, or what?
New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Some Terrorist Videos

or...

New Title: YouTube Refuses To Remove Most Terrorist Videos

Then again, wth is a "terrorist video"? A video with terrorists in it? A video with a religious leader spouting extremist ideas in it? What?

Anyway... the ones that -were- removed where apparently removed for violating YouTube's own community 'rules';
"Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines." - http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/16037 [axcessnews.com]

Sounds 'sane' enough (not too sure about the hate speech thing, but if YouTube comments are any indication, I wouldn't want to see the insult-and-flamefest that youtube would become if every 13-year old could spout their hatred for another YouTube user in a video.

I'm sorry... (1, Offtopic)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483724)

...but when did assassinations become free speech? Did I miss a memo?

Can I kill my annoying neighbors now and claim free speech protection? I need a ruling here.

Re:I'm sorry... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483922)

A record of an event is not the illegal event -- why don't you ban the fucking news while you're at it?

> Can I kill my annoying neighbors now and claim free speech protection?

Not unless you're a rich Saudi, in which case Bush will be pleased to assist.

Re:I'm sorry... (2, Insightful)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483928)

No, but I can certainly call you a moron for doing it, and even mock you for it. I could even shoot a recreation of the events and mock you. Or I could also post the actual video and call it news.

PS. I think you missed a few memos.

Re:I'm sorry... (-1, Flamebait)

bizitch (546406) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484008)

no no no - you've got all wrong

as long as it's anti-american then its "free speech" and protected ....

Re:I'm sorry... (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484114)

as long as it's anti-american then its "free speech" and protected ....
Or anti-Israel, anti-WASP, anti-Heterosexual, anti... well, anything good, wholesome and normal.

Re:I'm sorry... (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484106)

...but when did assassinations become free speech? Did I miss a memo?

Of the videos that YouTube elected not to remove, were any showing killing of any kind? Do you know what you're talking about?

No nudity, but graphic, real violence is OK (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483732)

Way to go Google. Why is is indecent for a naked human to be shown, but free speech when it comes to videotaped attacks against our soldiers. Please, someone explain this one to me.

Re:No nudity, but graphic, real violence is OK (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484196)

You don't need it explained. You speak English well and have access to the internet, so I have a feeling you're probably living in a culture that these very morals are espoused. Cultural agreements and identities are almost never based upon logic and reason - only upon what makes people uncomfortable and what's always worked.

If you really want to know, it's because the US has fairly strong Puritan Christian roots, in which sinful sex (being a root of pleasure, and thus an outlet for the Devil slash Evil slash Getting Along with Infidels), is looked down upon far more than violence and hatred. And besides, you can't have a good war or burn heretics if your populace abhors violence. To keep those cultural traditions going, we can't change now, right?

Not to say I don't agree with you, but you need to look around and realize that this is hardly just a "Google/Youtube problem". It's a "Western Civilization" problem (excluding a decent amount of Europe, before I get flayed alive).

Only a couple years ago (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483734)

A few years ago I used to laugh at news like this coming from the US. But now, I just shake my head. It's not funny anymore.

If you want them removed... (1)

hampton (209113) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483752)

If anyone wants them removed, just find a way to get NBC to air them. Then they'll be removed from YouTube instantly!

Re:If you want them removed... (0)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484216)

I believe the thing with the NBC videos was that NBC aired them first. Also they were NBC's property. These videos certainly are not. Basically, your plan won't work.

Hypocritical Indeed (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483766)

Google didn't seem to have much support for freedom of speech when they assisted the government of India in locating a man who posted a profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji, as reported yesterday on Slashdot. [slashdot.org] Strong supporters of freedom of speech indeed - right up until the protection of a user's right to freedom of speech threatens to strain Google's political relationships with distant countries where labor and data center construction are cheap.

Re:Hypocritical Indeed (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483916)

...like Senator McCain said. We have different standards here.

We should live up to them.

That's the world we live in (5, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483768)

You can't post a video with two people having consentual sex. Yet you can post videos showing violence, inciting hatred and bragging about terrorist attacks.

Personally, I think that if we allow terrorist videos, then at the very least pr0n should be allowed, too. :-)

Re:That's the world we live in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483902)

That would kill the porn industry! :D wait...free porn..on the internet...nevermind

Re:That's the world we live in (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483950)

I have no moral objection to porn on youtube, but holy hell would the wave of flesh ever ruin the site even further.

Umm... (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483972)

Take the name "YouTube" and replace any part of it with "porn" or "x" and type it into Google. There are PLENTY of free streaming porn sites on the Internet. Most of them even use the YouTube API stuff, I'd imagine. But YouTube itself is trying to be an online community with certain standards.

Re:That's the world we live in (0)

nauseum_dot (1291664) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484138)

I have the answer...

Every time you masturbate God kills a kitten. please think of the kittens.

Google does no evil, therefore YouTube does not evil. Which means YouTube stays pr0n free :)

Re:That's the world we live in (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484170)

Every time you masturbate God kills a kitten

But what does God do when I kill a kitten?

Re:That's the world we live in (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484178)

Personally, I think that if we allow terrorist videos, then at the very least pr0n should be allowed, too. :-)
Try X-Tube [xtube.com] for all your home grown "pr0n" needs. Clicky on the "Videos" tab. Plenty of home movies...

Re:That's the world we live in (2, Interesting)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484262)

During the 1980's and 1990's, Maggie Thatcher had a policy of not reporting speeches made by terrorist leaders. The idea was to "cut off their oxygen supply of publicity". Funny how trying to do that now, would just force people to visit alternative news channels, broadcasters or websites.

political stunt (5, Insightful)

Chris Snook (872473) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483788)

This smells like a stunt. Lieberman was probably expecting them to refuse him entirely, and use that to incite outrage to further his agenda. It looks like Youtube saw through it, and took the responsible course of action by fairly applying their community standards. Now Lieberman will have to openly admit that he wants to limit free speech if he wants to push this further, because he can't claim that they're unfairly supporting one viewpoint by keeping the majority of the content which did not violate the standards.

What about american guncams? (4, Insightful)

caereth (645984) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483810)

Well, there are also many videos showing Iraqi's getting mowed down by various US weapons. Bombs, cannons, and so on. What do people who want to remove "terrorist" videos want to do with these?

Hypocritical Indeed (5, Insightful)

CorporalKlinger (871715) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483822)

Google didn't seem to have much support for freedom of speech when they assisted the government of India in locating a man who posted a profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji, as reported yesterday on Slashdot. [slashdot.org] Strong supporters of freedom of speech indeed - right up until the protection of a user's right to freedom of speech threatens to strain Google's political relationships with distant countries where labor and data center construction are cheap.

Re:Hypocritical Indeed (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484188)

Google didn't seem to have much support for freedom of speech when they assisted the government of India in locating a man who posted a profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji, as reported yesterday on Slashdot. [slashdot.org] Strong supporters of freedom of speech indeed - right up until the protection of a user's right to freedom of speech threatens to strain Google's political relationships with distant countries where labor and data center construction are cheap.
Now I have a new name to use on tech support.

them: hello, my name is Harold. I am very pleased to be helping you today. May I ask you your name?

me: Sure, it's Shivaji.

them: No, I am not thinking that could be your proper name.

me: If your name's Harold, I'm Shivaji.

Re:Hypocritical Indeed (2, Interesting)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484278)

Do you have any idea what would happen to Google or its employees in many of these countries if they were to refuse to obey a lawful demand for information?

Free Speech vs Right to Life (3, Insightful)

readin (838620) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483844)

Free speech is always important, but we always have limits. In a time of war, when we're asking young men and women to risk their right to life, is it too much to ask that we take away the free speech of people who are encouraging the killing of not only those men and women, but of ourselves and our friends?

Can't Youtube voluntarily add something to their guidelines like "Don't post stuff that supports terrorism or undermines the national security of the country where Youtube is located? The global economy is nice, but they're still Americans and those soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are still dying for them, and the Youtube owners are still as much targets of the terrorists as the people in the Twin Towers and the United airplanes were.

Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483948)

Well in "real war" you have a very well defined enemy. Such a
genuine war would make it much more easy to sort out who's who.
The current undeclared war against no one in particular makes
sorting out of the usual "aid and comfort to the enemy" more
difficult.

There isn't any enemy capitol for young hollywood starlets to
go to so they can pose on an enemy tank...

Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (0, Troll)

readin (838620) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484046)

Well in "real war" you have a very well defined enemy

What a relief to know that those 2500+ people didn't "really die" on September 11. I bet Theo van Gogh will be relieved to learn that he's not "really dead" either.

Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (1)

devdavad (1235386) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484022)

How do these videos undermine our national security. Youtube can't add something in their community guidelines that says videos can't support terrorism, that would be fascism.

Re:Free Speech vs Right to Life (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23484206)

...is it too much to ask that we take away the free speech of people...

Yes.

Here's another perspective if you care to read it: (5, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483856)

I spent a year in Iraq as a US soldier.

I found the insurgent videos to be, well lacking in their musical choice. However, they provided an excellent view into the operations of the insurgents. We sometimes would watch them just to get a better idea about them.

And the Uhm Kfar (spelling?) video did have some hella tight beats.

You know...once this whole world-struggle for ideologies (this really isn't about Iraq, as far as the insurgents see it) is over, we are gonna sit down, have some beers, and play our videos together, and laugh about the old times.

They are going to post their videos on some site... we certainly post ours. Why shouldn't a US company get the ad revenue?

Re:Here's another perspective if you care to read (2, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484150)

Maybe we can just settle the war by seeing who gets the most hits on YouTube...although I think an expensive and drawn-out war in the Middle East might be a friendlier competition.

Oh well if it's free speech (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483876)

Lets let Al-Qaeda have equal time on PBS! We sure don't want to hinder their free speech even if all they want to do is kill us.

You people amaze me sometimes. Liberal knee jerk idiots!

I was expecting IP log cooperation. (1)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483908)

This is brilliant, if Mr. Leiberman is really starting a public spat in order to cover a cozy relationship in which YouTube provides IP and other log information to government organizations who can then happily watch as terrorists use YouTube to telegraph their intentions and rough location.

But I kindof doubt it.

Easy. (5, Funny)

zx-15 (926808) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483914)

The US government should patent terrorism and then Liberman could sue YouTube for copyright infringement. Google would take down the videos immediately.

If I make a video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23483920)

Calling Lieberman a jewbag, and post it on youtube.... will they remove it?

this won't go down well (karma sacrifice) (2, Insightful)

CdBee (742846) | more than 5 years ago | (#23483926)

- however the battle between the USA and its allies and Wahhabist / fundamentalist islamic terrorists and their allies is essentially a political battle by other means.

No side in this war can hope to eradicate the other side.. I am British, 20 years ago I was 50 metres away from being dismembered by an IRA bomb in a london street. Now - thanks to courageous politicians - we live in peace with the Northern irish and the former leaders of terrorist organisations co-operate to run Ulster jointly

A peaceful outcome btween Wahhabism and neo-conservatism requires what we had here - both sides being willing to allow the other to speak. the American tendency to try to drown out the voice of the (few) legitimate grievances of al-qaeda pushes the day the middle east is at peace further and further away

Re:this won't go down well (karma sacrifice) (1, Flamebait)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484086)

Lol!

In 20 more years, you will be a minority in your own country. Most of your elected officials will have been replaced by Muslims. All of your liberties and socially-liberal policies will be reverted and you will find yourself living under a very real Sharia.

Cheers! (:

Re:this won't go down well (karma sacrifice) (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484270)

Ah yes, the "legitimate" grievances of Al-Qaeda, such as modernism destroying their culture. So said bin Laden wearing a Rolex, on a Modern Kidney Dialysis machine, using modern Video Cameras, distributing them to Modern television stations and the internet.

1 = 0 (1)

virmaior (1186271) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484130)

so when a terrorist posts a video, free speech is the guiding principle.

when anyone posts a video that someone else wants to make money from (e.g. DMCA), then this is the guiding principle.


I'd say I am confused, but I'll leave the explanation as an exercise for the reader.

Cost to add Vs Cost to remove: (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484174)

What I see as sort of funny in a not overly funny way is this:

Some wanker (no other term for em) posts a video where he and his mates kill or terrorize some hapless bystander in a bad bad way and says they are doing it in the name of their religion.

A US senator complains about them - likely after someone in his office has spoken to their manager, who spoke to their team leader who went to a boss who brought it up in a meeting with the senator.

Income of wanker making video: $10 a day?
Cost to post: under $50

Income of people who looked and discussed material before requesting to remove it:
Senator's lowly underling: $50,000?
Underlings Manager: $60-70,000?
Manager's Team Leader: $90-130,000
Boss: $150-200,000
Senator: over $500,000
Cost to remove: thousands to tens of thousands.

What a funny world we live in no? I would be willing to bet that if the senator put the same amount of cash into a relief effort, or a crisis fund, the amount of goodwill gained would be far far higher than the amount of "badwill" lost by removing the videos.

I mean really, is it that hard to understand that if people are angry, find out why they are angry and help them become less angry. Taking away the fruits of their anger won't curb it in the slightest.

Interesting (5, Interesting)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484176)

I hadn't even noticed that Hamas had so many videos on youtube.
Those interested should check out http://youtube.com/watch?v=U8Nj-QKQkCo [youtube.com] and related videos.

Also an interesting movie I watched recently was "suicide killers". It contains many interviews with suicide bombers right before they kill themselves, and many interviews with failed suicide bombers in Israeli prisons.

http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Killers-Pierre-Rehov/dp/B000NVHWIE [amazon.com]
http://www.mininova.org/tor/635799 [mininova.org]

Maybe I am just strange, but I find it absolutely fascinating how a group of people can have such a strong hatred of Israel. It's a really fucked up situation for both sides, but I think it is very important for both sides to be heard.

A terrorist according to the US.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23484222)

...is a freedom fighter in Iraq.

I think its only fair that youtube doesn't comply. Where did you say those WMD's were again? You know, the ones even the Mossad said they weren't there (otherwise they'd have nuked the place long before the war).

Sore Loserman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23484238)

Sore Loserman, innocent civilians are dying in Iraq, and you're worried about YouTube? Dude! Go to sleep!

free speech my ass (1)

sbmillionair (1292916) | more than 5 years ago | (#23484268)

free speech my ass, they ban people for no reason, that have made hundreds of videos criticizing the government. They were american also.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...