Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

UK Pressures the US To Takedown Extremist Videos

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-fit-to-see dept.

Youtube 629

chrb writes "BBC News and the Telegraph are reporting that the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos, particularly on YouTube. The request follows the conviction of a 21-year-old woman who attempted to murder MP Stephen Timms after watching YouTube videos of radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube hosts more than 5,000 videos featuring al-Awlaki, but has begun to remove them following the British government's complaints. The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK. They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good. If they were hosted in the UK then we would take them down but this is a global problem. Many of these websites are hosted in America and we look forward to working even more closely with you to take down this hateful material.'"

cancel ×

629 comments

The election is over (4, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117408)

So they're already stopping the 24x7 broadcast of extremist videos.

Lol, no worries. (4, Insightful)

cfalcon (779563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117410)

This will be a nonstarter. The US government isn't going to start attacking "hate websites" or otherwise poop on the first amendment. Companies like Youtube will certainly comply with the British government. Net result: such content won't be on the most popular avenues of the net, but it'll still be out there for those who are "interested" in such things. So you and I won't be able to browse to it on google video, but it'll be hosted on, I dunno, hatetube or something.

Re:Lol, no worries. (4, Informative)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117478)

It depends. Not all speech is protected:

# Obscenity
# Fighting words
# Defamation (includes libel, slander)
# Child pornography
# Perjury
# Blackmail
# Incitement to imminent lawless action
# True threats
# Solicitations to commit crimes# Obscenity
# Fighting words
# Defamation (includes libel, slander)
# Child pornography
# Perjury
# Blackmail
# Incitement to imminent lawless action
# True threats
# Solicitations to commit crimes

Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=15822 [firstamendmentcenter.org]

Re:Lol, no worries. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117516)

"You said rape twice"
"I like rape"

Re:Lol, no worries. (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117542)

For those who aren't familiar with Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles [wikipedia.org] that's a great reference.

Re:Lol, no worries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117544)

He said his entire list twice.

Re:Lol, no worries. (2, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117620)

"Not all speech is protected:"

Oh, of course. I didn't know they could just interpret the constitution as they like. I don't recall seeing that wording in there...

# Obscenity
# Fighting words

Wow, yeah. Obscenity. As defined by who? What if someone finds the word "the" obscene? Does that not count because others would deem it 'silly'? The only opinions that count are those of the majority or a few judges? Such a great idea!

Re:Lol, no worries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117702)

While the Constitution is the law of the land how you individually read and interpret it is not.

Re:Lol, no worries. (5, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117716)

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the case of Miller v California, which laid down the rules for obscenity. And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.

To qualify as obscenity, it has to meet all three of the following requirements: it has to, by the standards of the community, appeal to the prurient interest; it must depict patently offensive sexual behavior; it must lack any and all artistic and scientific value.

Re:Lol, no worries. (2, Insightful)

pantheonwhaley (1933610) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117836)

What community am I in? My city? My state? Slashdot? This is the internet, and we are putting things out there that can reach across the world. Same goes for "patently offensive sexual behavior", and I'm pretty sure that we're still debating the merits of video games as art despite what I consider inarguable instances of games as art. Obscenity is about as clearly defined as anything 1/0.

Re:Lol, no worries. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117906)

This is why, in obscenity cases, jurisdiction-shopping is a good way to win. Should a case be tried in the publisher's state of residence, the state of the person bringing a complaint, a third state specified by the publisher in a license agreement, or anywhere at all where the material was accessible from? Both sides will try to pick the one they have the best chances in.

Re:Lol, no worries. (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117740)

Not all speech is protected:

Yeah? Where under "no law" are any of those things specified? Court decisions don't count. As far as I'm concerned they are in violation. If you want to restrict speech, you need to amend the actual law in the manner specified. You can't just say, "Oh, they didn't mean that..." and then substitute your personal feelings. It couldn't be more clear.

Re:Lol, no worries. (3, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117914)

Not all speech is protected:

Yeah? Where under "no law" are any of those things specified? Court decisions don't count. As far as I'm concerned they are in violation. If you want to restrict speech, you need to amend the actual law in the manner specified. You can't just say, "Oh, they didn't mean that..." and then substitute your personal feelings. It couldn't be more clear.

Correct.

Any restriction of any speech is 100% unconstitutional, and nothing beyond a constitutional amendment or a new constitution can change that.

There is no interpretation needed to come to this conclusion. You just have to read simple English.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10 simple words.

Re:Lol, no worries. (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117744)

Of course.. there's nothing stopping the US from punching more holes in the 1st amendment for the sake of global 'community cohesion.' I believe that's the british newspeak term for justifying censorship of expression.

Re:Lol, no worries. (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117852)

Defamation isn't illegal per say in the United States. It can get you sued but won't get you criminally charged.

Re:Lol, no worries. (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117938)

Actually, all speech is protected. There are no exceptions in the constitution. It's quite specific:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

See? "NO law." There you go. Not "some laws when we don't like speech", but NO LAW.

What you have done here is confuse the illicit, usurped power to attack speech, which the US government has taken, with the authority to exercise power to attack speech, which has never, ever been extended to the US government by the people.

Also, BTW, the supreme court has no legitimate authority here other than to reject any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Article III authorizes absolutely no power to carve out exceptions; that's limited to article V, and is authorized ONLY to the people.

Re:Lol, no worries. (1)

reemul (1554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117508)

Some of the sites are for designated terrorist entities - it is already illegal to do business with them. (In fact there is a large fine attached.) No 1st Amendment protection in that narrow case, it just isn't enforced worth a damn (hello YouTube and WordPress, I'm looking at you), so maybe British pressure will raise the temperature a little.

Otherwise, no, there probably won't be anything done as lunatics and creeps of all stripes are generally allowed to say whatever the heck they want here in the US. It isn't freedom if only the right kind of speech is protected.

Re:Lol, no worries. (5, Funny)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117760)

I checked, and hatetube.com is apparently already taken. It's not really what I was expecting. So now, half an hour later, I thought I'd drop by here again just to let everyone know.

Re:Lol, no worries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117786)

If they start censoring content, they are no longer covered by the "safe harbor" laws... correct? Meaning they are liable for everything on there. If they are a safe harbor, they can't remove offensive material, only obscene. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too.

Sounds like Youtube is opening themselves up for a lawsuit by removing the material.

Dystopia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117418)

Dystopia is so far off, but around the corner...

Categorically not be allowed in the UK (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117448)

We are not the UK anymore.

Re:Categorically not be allowed in the UK (2, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117498)

Obligitory Mr. Mackey

"We are not the UK, mkay?"

Re:Categorically not be allowed in the UK (0, Offtopic)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117894)

We are not the UK anymore.

They used to say "the sun never sets on the Brittish empire". Now there's no empire hance no K in UK. I never did understand the united (what with the troubles and such) part either so it's just as well they did away with that.

Sounds like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117462)

We should get them to do the same thing to Joe Baptista and his "Assassination Politics". Guy is the stupidest troll ever. Look him up.

So what you're saying is: (1)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117464)

that it's alright for elected officials to protect their positions from being challenged through democratic processes like anything on the internet/media to "protect the social good"?

maybe I'm just a little crazy, but that screams of a corrupt government to me.

Re:So what you're saying is: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117574)

that it's alright for elected officials to protect their positions from being challenged through democratic processes like anything on the internet/media to "protect the social good"?

maybe I'm just a little crazy, but that screams of a corrupt government to me.

To be fair, the elected official in question had his 'position as a living person' challenged by a nutter who came to his constituency office and stabbed him with a knife. He was not "challenged through democratic processes". Over in the UK we have these things called elections to do that. I don't really think that this move is necessarily a good idea, but to say it is corrupt for people to be upset over the case is ridiculous. Also, he is (now) an opposition MP, and is not part of the government.

Re:So what you're saying is: (2, Insightful)

feldicus (1367687) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117908)

The proper response to what happened to him is to lock up the "nutter", as you crazy Brits say. Trying to block access to the material said nutter watched before doing something stupid is shifting the blame. The person did something stupid because they're crazy. Saying that "the video made them do it" is removing personal responsibility. Someone is crazy enough to think they can stab an MP in broad daylight? They go to jail.

Know Your Enemy (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117470)

If the enemy is willing to tell you their plans, pay attention.

Re:Know Your Enemy (4, Insightful)

Albinoman (584294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117614)

My thoughts exactly. I've watched a few interview from a British Muslim guy named Anjem Choudary (mostly arguing with Richard Dawkins over the inherent danger in religion), and I find it enlightening to know just how crazy some people are out there. We're talking the kind of guy that thinks everyone should be converted to Sharia law, forcefully if necessary. Someone who thinks people should be put to death for leaving Islam. It's strange to watch someone debate a topic, when that debate would not even be allowed if he had his way. Also, by banning these people is makes them harder to find for those needing to detain these freaks.

Re:Know Your Enemy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34118018)

You're right, forcing other people to be in your religion *cough*Christian Ministries around the world*cough* is ridiculous. I mean, even killing people not part of your religion is just so insane and extreme *cough*the crusades*cough*

Sometimes others are not as extreme as you think until you examine yourself buddy

Hell no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117492)

FUCK YOU for telling us how to manage "free speech". It's why we are Americans and not British.

Next they will say all Republican activity is hate related and must be censored. Oh hell, just let the British government choose our politicians for us. It will be like the good-ol days all over again. Never mind that previous revolution and all that...

Re:Hell no (2, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117972)

FUCK YOU for telling us how to manage "free speech". It's why we are Americans and not British.

Actually, I thought that was because you were better than us Brits at getting out of paying taxes.

The British are now like the Terrorists... (0, Troll)

d474 (695126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117496)

...they hate us for our freedom.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117566)

Unlike the Taliban (freedom is a sin as it's an act of hubris and afront to Allah's will), the British Gov doesn't hate freedom. They fear it!!! Their actions and the laws in place make that notion crystal clear.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117582)

Not one to cast stones, but I'd say the US gov fears freedom too.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117772)

All governments have a love-hate relationship with freedom. Human livestock is more productive the more freedom you give it, but at the same time with more freedom comes more recognition that the farmers aren't necessary.

Ideally governments want to give their livestock just enough freedom to maximize profits and no more.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117844)

Ideally governments want to give their livestock just enough freedom to maximize profits and no more.

Very true. A perfect example of that is China. The CCP knows that their members will become richer if people have more freedom needed to grow the GDP. But not so much freedom as to be a threat to CCP power.

It's looking like Raul Castro is starting to acknowledge giving Cuba more freedom in order to jump-start its failed economy. If that nation collapse, he'll be king of nothingness.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (-1, Troll)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117604)

That's insulting. The 'terrorists' aren't nearly as bad as the British government.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (-1, Flamebait)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117748)

That's insulting. The 'terrorists' aren't nearly as bad as the British government.

No kidding; have you seen their teeth? Talk about terror! "No, please mister MP, I'll do whatever you say; just quit smiling on TV!"

(is it just me, or does making fun of British dental hygiene never get old?)

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (3, Insightful)

kill-1 (36256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117696)

It's a widespread misbelief that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They don't. They hate us for *political* reasons. Using them against the Russians, invading their countries and so on.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (4, Funny)

srodden (949473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117718)

That may be so, but the British govt are less likely to hijack a plane and fly it into a landmark.

Now? (0, Troll)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117766)

I seem to recall that the British had a problem with the US's freedom before anyone else did.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117910)

We hate you for many many reasons. The delusional belief that your country is somehow more free than any other is quite low on a long list.

Re:The British are now like the Terrorists... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34118014)

This is the sort of thing that gets on my nerves. I am all for defending freedoms, but freedom must be exercised responsibly.

This is a case where a Member of Parliament -- roughly the counterpart of your Representatives in the US -- was attacked and nearly died, while performing his fundamental constitutional duty to meet a member of his constituency supposedly to hear her concerns. Your President walks around protected by the most high profile private army in the world because of that sort of threat, and the danger it poses to the effective functioning of government.

There is nothing responsible about such attacks, nor about advocating them. At some point, the MP's right to do his job safely outweighs someone else's right to freely advocate harming him, and if you get to the point where someone is getting stabbed then you have gone waaaaay over that line.

Free Video Cameras? (-1, Flamebait)

hackus (159037) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117506)

So since the British now are making our content decisions, are they also going to be putting governmental cameras in our homes too?

Oh, can't wait.

-Hack

Re:Free Video Cameras? (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117522)

Odd, I'm British and I haven't noticed any government cameras in my house. Or on the road outside it for that matter. Maybe they're just very well hidden.

Re:Free Video Cameras? (0, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117916)

How are those gun rights working out for you chaps across the pond?

We settled this in 1776 (1, Troll)

Patrick May (305709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117510)

We have freedom of speech. The UK is just going to have to deal with it.

Re:We settled this in 1776 (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117558)

Britian asked Google to take down the videos. Google can do what it wants with it's site.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech because the US government isn't making them.

Re:We settled this in 1776 (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117618)

The British government is pressuring the government and private entities. Some private entitites may cave, but that doesn't mean the US government is going to do anything those that don't.

Re:We settled this in 1776 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117780)

quick, compile all those videos into a DVD, release it for $10 a pop, then file DMCA takedown notices on Youtube.

I guess the US doesn't care much about people inciting, say flying planes into towers, but when it comes to not making money off stuff.. you better watch out.

Re:We settled this in 1776 (3, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117952)

Apparently you can't read.

The UK government wants the US government to pull this sort of thing off the net.

Google can do what they like, but the US Govt. has rules it must follow in that regard, and they are nothing like the UK's rules (which are more like suggestions for them anyway).

Obvious response to British interference: (0, Troll)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117540)

Dump a bunch of Youtube videos into Boston harbor.

...

Doesn't have the same dramatic kick as it did in the late 1700s.

Re:Obvious response to British interference: (2, Insightful)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117596)

Actually, it's the British who should dump a bunch of Youtube videos into the Thames. This time, they're the ones being forced to consume stuff they don't want by an overbearing empire. ^_^

nobody is forcing them to watch it (2, Insightful)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117632)

If the UK doesn't want it, they can put up a firewall. Like China.

Re:Obvious response to British interference: (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117636)

Are you claiming somebody is forcing British citizens to watch videos of 'extremists'

Re:Obvious response to British interference: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117888)

The Colonists wanted the tea. They didn't want to pay the tax imposed on the tea and have the tea sourced by only one company. America isn't taxing the british for every YouTube video they watch.

Maybe the UK should take notes from China (0, Troll)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117546)

...and set up the Great Firewall of Britain. Err. The United Firewall Kingdom. The Duchy of Cornfirewall? The sun never sets on the British Firewall? Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday firewall? Robin Hood, setting the walls of the castle on firewall?

Anybody got any better names for it?

Re:Maybe the UK should take notes from China (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117554)

William Firewallace, as played by Mel Gibson, shouting, "FIREWALL!"

Re:Maybe the UK should take notes from China (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117570)

We are not keeping the "evil out", we are keeping the "stupid in" firewall.

Re:Maybe the UK should take notes from China (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117634)

The UK, Australia. Lets call it the Commonwealth firewall:- Keeping the convicts in check since 1984.

Re:Maybe the UK should take notes from China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117886)

Oh, it's been going on a lot longer than 1984 ;)

If ever there were a problem it was that masses forgot that they are in control and let others control them, let's just hope they don't find out anytime soon shall we? I'd hate to get the mobs all riled up and have us another revolution, we lost a lot of resources last time that happened and it's been all down hill since.

  “If the people knew what sort of men statesmen were, they would rise and hang the whole lot of them.” - John Bright

Have a jolly day!

Re:Maybe the UK should take notes from China (2, Insightful)

JackDW (904211) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117768)

Re:Maybe the UK should take notes from China (1)

DaltonRS (825261) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117808)

Hadrian's Firewall

Re:Maybe the UK should take notes from China (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117944)

Hadrian's Firewall? I guess Hadrian's wall is the British equivalent of The Great Wall of China.

Not the way it is done. (2, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117548)

How it works in the US is,

You find someone with deep pockets associated with the video and sue the hell out of them. Repeat until everyone takes down the video/article/link.

The government can't suppress speech but businesses do it all the time.

I'm sure it's legal free speech. And who ever uploaded it could probably be fined for something. And You Tube could definitely be sued for hosting it after it was a known danger (probably before). Might not win, but they would likely fold under mild pressure for something repugnant like this.

not incitement (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117552)

Can someone show me a specific example of where he incites violence in his videos?

Re:not incitement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117776)

Find an example yourself. I'm getting really sick and tired of people needing to be spoon fed knowledge.

Re:not incitement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117884)

Congratulations for falling back on the default method of filibustering a discussion on Slashdot, you lazy sh*t.

Just File DMCA Claim (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117578)

YouTube will instantly pull the video and once it is reuploaded do it again.

1st Amendment doesn't work abroad (1)

cffrost (885375) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117586)

The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK.'

Those websites would categorically not be allowed in China, either. UK government, please don't look to China for legal inspiration.

The government is not our father. (5, Insightful)

quag7 (462196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117590)

The First Amendment issues are obvious here, but I have to say, we relegare ourselves to a pack of dumb animals if we make the point that watching something or reading something or playing violent video games means we're going to freak out and imitate or otherwise follow the directions of anything contained within.

We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.

The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.

The United States needs to ignore the UK's demand, and the UK, if it insists, can certainly petition google to take action on this.

But unless we rely on the idea that free people in a free society can think critically, why not just invite the government into our lives completely? Why even have a free society, if we're really just animals, a few videos away from going on some kind of horrible killing spree? Why go through the pretense of insisting that human beings are capable, through independent thought and taking responsibility for their actions, of liberty?

The "categorically not allowed in the UK" bit could not, as an American, concern me less -- and should the United States attempt the same kind of argument with the UK in the future, the UK can and should ignore the United States's demands to infringe the right of people to say and read/watch what they like.

The alternative, where the government makes this decision that there's just stuff we can't watch, is scary.

Re:The government is not our father. (3, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117858)

we relegare ourselves to a pack of dumb animals if we make the point that watching something or reading something or playing violent video games means we're going to freak out and imitate or otherwise follow the directions of anything contained within.

trouble is, some people do freak out and imitate or otherwise follow this nonsense. In fact, many people do - from TV evangelists and their millions of followers, through ponzi and 'nigerian' scammers, and massmedia-incited mobs, to fanatical nutjobs. That's what I find scary about all this. Its not the nutjbs trying to cash in in some way, it the sheeple who so easily follow the most obviously ludicrous idiocy.

Theonly answer is education, so we improve the quality of all the people's intellectual capacity. Hopefully the number of fools who fall for all of the above will drop then. (though too many of these people will *still* buy iPads :) )

might as well give up: Constitution is TP already (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117594)

US law is already subordinate to other foreign laws (ever see the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981?). So, why shouldn't the US just kowtow to the UK, or any other government?
What I want to know is: when is the Constitution brand toilet paper coming on the market?

Grammar: The takedown vs. "take down" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117610)

Can someone please be so kind and teach Mr. samzenpus grammar?

"the takedown" ... noun
"to take down" ... take=verb

Why isn't this on the news more? (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117652)

I don't know if I'm just not watching enough Fox, but I don't see many reports about domestic Islamic extremists in the US, yet I see stories about the KKK and neo-Nazis all the time. I wonder if the news networks don't report on these guys because they are afraid of them and not the white supremacists?

David Cameron actually believes his own rhetoric (5, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117662)

David Cameron (UK prime minister) has let all the rhetoric go to his head. He actually believes it when the US politicians pat him on the head and tell him that the UK and USA do indeed have a special relationship. Wake up, any balance of power between the USA and UK finished sometime before World War 2, over 70 years ago. The "special relationship" deal is that the USA expects the UK to give their requests special treatment (collude in "special renditions", help out on a war, that kind of thing), but don't expect anything in return beyond maybe the occasional tour of the White House and a signed photo from the president.

Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.

Re:David Cameron actually believes his own rhetori (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117746)

I don't know where you got this idea, but you're dead wrong. The US has given the UK the single greatest gift we can bestow on a nation, simply because we like them so much. That's right, we've sent them real American football! And yet you say they don't get anything from our special relationship, open your eyes man.

Re:David Cameron actually believes his own rhetori (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117816)

American football doesn't exist in the UK, they tried and it flopped. Rugby players are fitter, have significantly better stamina, are steroid junkies from college, and don't need armor when bumping into each other, plus they can run for more than 3 seconds without needing a break and a change of players. Oh yeah, rubgy is played in many other countries at a high level, unlike grid-iron.

Re:David Cameron actually believes his own rhetori (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117870)

American football doesn't exist in the UK, they tried and it flopped. Rugby players are fitter, have significantly better stamina, are steroid junkies from college, and don't need armor when bumping into each other, plus they can run for more than 3 seconds without needing a break and a change of players. Oh yeah, rubgy is played in many other countries at a high level, unlike grid-iron.

Well thank you sir for pointing that out. I'll have to remember to use [sarcasm] brackets when I type out obvious jokes from now on.

Blatant hypocrisy. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117664)

People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.

But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.

And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing the crap out of their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.

Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.

Let's make a deal... (0, Troll)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117666)

We'll consider doing it when you get around to exempting Americans from libel tourism in your courts.

definitely a violation of the first amendment (1)

cyberidian (1917584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117680)

Removing these videos is definitely a violation of the first amendment and the material would still be available to those seeking it. I do not support the terrorists in any way, but the US or UK government forcing YouTube to remove these videos is the wrong approach. The first amendment has to be a sacred right or we will lose it. It is a slippery slope from banning terrorist videos to banning anti-government videos and then any video the government find inconvenient. There are other ways to address terrorism and murders have happened for 100s of years, with or without these videos. Shame on the Brits for even suggesting it! Governments should not concern themselves with the contents of YouTube or any other site unless a chargeable crime has already been committed.

Pressures? (2, Insightful)

trash eighty (457611) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117692)

Urges you mean, article title is a troll

the 1st amendment says we can't do that! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117708)

the 1st amendment says we can't do that!

Maybe there's a connection (0, Troll)

seanonymous (964897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117736)

Hey, UK, maybe if you stop trying to control what people are allowed to say they'll be less likely to want you to be blown up.

Devils Advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117762)

I'm not for other countries pushing in on my rights as a voter in the United States of America, and in this case, being protected under the first amendment.
However, we can't always presume the videos are posted by Americans, and therefore protected under the First Amendment.
The line grays considerably of course if an American is posting how they feel by way of a proxy video, but still, I'm of the opinion the poster should tape themselves stating how they feel/believe, not use someone elses words.

Blatant Hypocrisy. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117784)

People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.

But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.

And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.

Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.

Free speech? Hardly (2, Interesting)

ffreeloader (1105115) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117792)

There's this little thing called treason and it is defined in the constitution as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Alwaki's videos most definitely fit this description and are thus treasonous speech. Treasonous speech is not protected by the constitution. I find it pathetic that any American would support treason against their own country. No wonder the terrorists think they can win.

Re:Free speech? Hardly (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117924)

Treason is very hard to get prosecuted. You have to do something like GIVE NUCLEAR SECRETS TO ANOTHER COUNTRY to get treason charges brought against you, and even then it's got a good bit of controversy.

Re:Free speech? Hardly (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117946)

Unfortunately the US is very unlikely to prosecute for treason. Since the constitution was written there have been fewer than 40 people charged with treason, and in the last 50 years there hasn't been a single person convicted. Source: Wikipedia

Re:Free speech? Hardly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117966)

I find it pathetic that any American would support treason against their own country. No wonder the terrorists think they can win.

I find it sad that you'd consider a hundred or two camel jockeys on the other side of the world an "enemy" of the world's largest armed forces. Since you're scared shitless, the terrorists have ALREADY WON.

UK (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117806)

We're sorry. We are really trying to get them to stop, but they're just NOT LISTENING.

- U.K. Anonymous Coward

Re:UK (0, Offtopic)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117936)

Well, just get your guns and ...oh wait.

contrary to public good? (1)

ecorona (953223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117868)

The last thing we want is governments deciding what is and isn't "contrary to public good" and therefore should be censored. Freedom of speech is far too valuable to allow any "extremist" to come along, say some nasty things, and have us lose our civil rights. Ahmadinejad exclaimed that they curtail access to porn because it harms society. Once government starts making these calls, these rights will never be granted again until we colonize mars and say "fuck you" to earth's governments.

FOX brodcasts promote the same behaivor (4, Interesting)

virtualXTC (609488) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117896)

The Glen Beck show has been shown to incite mass murder plots [jackandjillpolitics.com] . If Google is going to be "forced" to remove these videos, then they should have to remove all Glen Beck videos too.

Re:FOX brodcasts promote the same behaivor (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34117968)

Glen Beck is annoying and stupid, but to be fair hes not even in the same ballpark of hate.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117902)

Trying to take down Tea Party folks? Isn't it couple hundred years too late? Or did they get confused by the name?

wait wait, did I hear that right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34117926)

Someone actually pressures the U.S.? Are you sure it's not the other way around?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...