Beta
×

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 Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the power-to-the-people-marty dept.

Censorship 488

jamie writes "On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."

cancel ×

488 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ah! The mystery of post 16777216 has been solved! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796618)

It was obviously "CmdrTaco is gay"

WTF (5, Insightful)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796632)

Why should any politician step down because they are gay? It's ridiculous.

Re:WTF (5, Funny)

heauxmeaux (869966) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796670)

Because I refuse to take it in the ass twice from the government.

Re:WTF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796686)

His very existence threatens the sanctity of marriage being restricted a man and a woman.

Re:WTF (1)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796736)

Who said anything about that?

Re:WTF (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796828)

He isn't stepping down because he's gay, he's moving to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign.

You're making assumptions (3, Insightful)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796832)

You might not have noticed, but he's the head of a political party that just lost a huge election. It's natural that he'd be resigning because of the defeat. The absurd notion that he's resigning because of this random (and wholly unsubstantiated) comment on CNN is totally stupid. You're jumping to conclusions that aren't necessarily warranted.

David

Re:WTF (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796844)

Because the Democratic Party is the party of gay people. Any gay Republican is the same as an "Uncle Tom" - in other words, a gay person who sells out his own people's interests to help people who are opposed to his lifestyle. It's the same with black Republicans, female Republicans, Muslim Republicans, and pretty much any Republican who's not a male college-educated Caucasian (or a pro-military redneck chickenhawk). It's self-degrading, and one can only imagine what kind of psychological damage someone had to endure to make them debase themselves like this.

Re:WTF (4, Insightful)

CrashPoint (564165) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796968)

Because the Democratic Party is the party of gay people.


Which is why Bill Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act?

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16797028)

Modded Flamebait for uncomfortable truth.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16797076)

"Muslim Republicans"

Most of them were, before 9/11.

Re:WTF (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16797126)

Wow, what an absurd demonization (and bigoted statement)! I suppose the point of your statement was to imply that only 10% of people should be in the 'closed' Republican Party while the rest should be Democrats because they are the party of openness. In reality, the vast majority of people who identify themselves as aligning with the Republican Party do so because of economic reasons not social policies. It is a terrible irony that the majority of gay outings of Republicans occur by Democrats using McCarthy style gay lists, not Republican investigating their staffs sexual orientations.

The pain in the ass problem is that those of us who dislike socialistic economic policies also have to join up with the crazy fundamental Christian nuts (who make up perhaps 25% of Republicans). There are gay Republicans only because the Libertarian Party has no power. Personally, I am very happy that we have a divided government right now. Perhaps it will allow the Republican Party to purge these idiotic socially ultra-conservative nuts and return to being economically conservative instead (which is the *real* base of the Republican Party).

Ladies and gentlemen, we've succeeded in taking Congress away from the Republicans. The only problem is that we've given it to the Democrats. Economically conservative gays will continue to be pounded in the ass regardless of what party they choose.

Re:WTF (4, Funny)

chundo (587998) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797314)

Economically conservative gays will continue to be pounded in the ass regardless of what party they choose.

Well, at least they'll enjoy the next few years!

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796878)

He is a Republican politician. His party just put sponsored about 10 anti-gay ballot measures in Tuesday's election. You come out in the Republican party, apparently you are not welcome anymore. Much like racism, in that these anti-gay measures involve discrimination based on an innate characteristic, the anti-gay agenda is fueled by hate. To put it in persepctive, one's sexual orientation is about as easy to control as who looks attractive to you in the hallway. That is, it is not easy. In fact, it is not really even possible. And it is certainly is not for someone else to tell you whom you find attractive.

Re:WTF (0)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797018)

His party didn't sponsor "anti-gay" ballot measures... they sponsored "anti-gay-marriage" ballot measures.

And before you say you can't distinguish between the two, might I point out that Bill Maher (a self-proclaimed heterosexual) is against heterosexual marriage.

Re:WTF (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797308)

These "marriage" amenedments are written to specifically deny any status to any couple, which is not one man and one woman, which imitates or substantially provides the same or similar benefits as those afforded to those legally married. They are anti-gay just as whites-only hotels and restaurants were anti-black. Most people who vote for these measures can't tell you what specific harm will come to them or their families (other than their sensibility) should gay people be allowed to marry.

Personally, I voted against my (VA) amendment because I know more unstable heterosexual married couples than homosexual couples (as numbers or percentages). Of course, the amendment passed, because Virginia ia filled with homophobes. My father in law won't even go into the local Michael's craft store, and I'm pretty sure it's because he was helped by someone who he believed was gay - and there are lots of people just like him around here. They're not bad people (the homophobes, that is), they just have no ability to empathise.

Of course, the amendment in VA will also prevent non-married heterosexual couples from gaining rights. Who would that be? How about all the retired couples who are living together, but have decided - for whatever reason - not to get re-married. There are more in that situation that you might expect. We'll see if it ever actually comes up as a problem.

I think if they wanted to really protect marriage, they should outlaw divorce.

Re:WTF (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797336)

And before you say you can't distinguish between the two, might I point out that Bill Maher (a self-proclaimed heterosexual) is against heterosexual marriage.

I'm against heterosexual marriage too. Only gays should get married.

Obviously though a ban on gay marriage is a law respecting a particular subset of religious institutions and thus unconstitutional. It also restricts freedom of expression and is this unconstitutional. But more to the point, a law recognizing the christian expression of marriage is unconstitutional under the first amendment. The law should simply not recognize marriage at all. There are two ways to handle this problem.

One of them is to replace all the assumptions that society makes about your spouse with explicit contracts. Right now, your spouse is the only one the hospital can't stop from seeing you, for example. Why should that be? You should simply be able to sign a paper designating anyone who you choose. Maybe I don't want to see my spouse. Maybe my spouse is the one who put me in the hospital.

The other solution is to entirely eliminate the legal concept of "marriage" and replace it with the concept of a "civil union", which disregards gender entirely. This is a fairly reasonable concept and also one I would support. It is simply wrong for heterosexual couples to be afforded the benefits of marriage, and homosexual couples to be prevented from them.

One last thought for the homophobes out there: just like the racists, you are doomed to eventually become a footnote to history. You'll be in the same chapter as the Nazis; the chapter will be entitled "poor misguided dumbfucks". Each new generation is typically more accepting and barring the religious right somehow taking over the world - virtually impossible considering that their numbers are declining, while the population is growing - this is an absolute certainty. Even WITH your brainwashing your kids are going to be more tolerant than you are, and theirs still more tolerant, until gay people can hold hands walking down the street without having to fear persecution.

Re:WTF (5, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796896)

Why should any politician step down because they are gay?

Because the party he belongs to has a strong anti-gay agenda and a strong anti-gay electorate. Politicians may not mind being blatantly hypocritical but once their election chances are jeopardized then they will scramble to avoid that.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796930)

wiki entry [wikipedia.org]

He's head of the equal-rights-long-as-you're-straight party.

Read This for Facts -(btw is parent post a troll?) (1)

fortinbras47 (457756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797064)

Ken Mehlman is NOT stepping down because he is gay.

Looking at the the history [wikipedia.org] of RNC chairmen, the RNC gets a new chairman every one or two election cycles.

Ken Mehlman says he was stepping down at the end of the election cycle, regardless of the outcome.

If you want to speculate, the "thumpin" the Republicans took increased the likelihood the RNC would switch leadership.

Not that it is particularly important, Ken Mehlman has denied being gay. Just because Bill Maher says something, doesn't make it is true. (Bill Maher says a lot of wacko things on a lot of topics. That's how he gets ratings.)

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16797140)

Don't worry, they're not going to give up without a fight.

Those who have been once intoxicated with power can never willingly abandon it.

-- Edmund Burke

Re:WTF (4, Insightful)

tji (74570) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797152)

The way the article here on /. was worded, it sounds like the two things are related.. But, I don't know that this is true.

I thought his resignation had more to do with the Republicans getting their collective asses handed to them in the recent midterm elections.

I don't know/care whether he's gay, and would certainly not count Bill Maher as a credible source. But, if he were in fact gay, he would almost surely be pushed out of that position very quickly. The Republicans have done their best to whip up anti-gay sentiment, to "energize their base". Although flaming hypocrisy does seem to be the norm in D.C., a bogey man is more effective when you don't also provide a counter example to discredit your own claims. So they would have to push him out of the public eye.

Re:WTF - Depends on your definition of "should" (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797242)

It depends on what your definition of "should" is. No really...

From a political standpoint, a gay person who (while following party lines) advocates banning same sex marriages, is too easily attackable. It creates a political risk to the party.

From an ethical stand point, should someone be required to or feel obliged to stand down from any post because of their sexual orientation? No (imo at least), and this seems to be what you're getting at.

However, if one is a high-visibility figure in a political party who's sexual orientation is likely to cause resentment/concern/feelings of ickiness among the party's voter base ("Eww, two men kissing!! Won't somebody think of the children?!?!"), the good thing for the party is for the person to step down. It doesn't make it the right thing to do, in the ethical sense, but it makes it the right thing to do for the good of the party.

To me it nets out as a sad commentary on the policies and position of the GOP regarding gay people.

Re:WTF (3, Insightful)

coaxial (28297) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797322)

You're right. It is ridiculous, but that's what you get when you court the bigot vote.

Speech issues aside... (3, Insightful)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796648)

Censorship and speech issues aside, should we really be encouraging gay witch-hunts like this?

Re:Speech issues aside... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796728)

It's republican bigotry that is making him leave, and it should surprise noone.

And is exposing blatant hipocrisy really a witch hunt?

Re:Speech issues aside... (1, Insightful)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796814)

It's not so much that they're gay. Many people who run the Democratic party are gay too, and nobody cares. In the case of Republicans it's just worth pointing out considering the overall anti-gay stance of the party as a whole. I don't think there should be a witch-hunt--they have their right to to their privacy. But the incredible hypocrisy and self-hatred of it should be pointed out for the sake of those who have, in the past, voted Republican against their economic self-interest just because they hate gays. Or think they do anyways.

I declare a new tag (0, Flamebait)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796676)

Propoganda.

Seriously is this what Slashdot has come down to? Get your ideological news up so long as you can spin it into a technology issue?

"I just got an instant message from some [POLITICALLY DESPISED GROUP#27]. In case you didn't know [POLITICALLY DESPISED GROUP#27] believes in [IDEA#3] and [CONCEPT#14] and lately they've [GOSSIP#4], [MUDSLINGING#99]... shouldn't we all hate [POLITICALLY DESPISED GROUP#27] when they send spam?"

Zonk: That's a good point, whaddy'all think?!

Re:I declare a new tag (2, Insightful)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796808)

You're dead on. I read the guys blog. Next to promotions for his "Why Bush is Evil" NYT best-seller (not the real title) and the "keep Roe v Wade in place!" ads, we're supposed to act as though this has any relevance to technology? The entire point of the post was not, blog author's protestations to the contrary, about the behavior of the Washington Post (let alone technology) - it was about how President Bush lied and isn't that awful.

The thing is, there could be an interesting story here about how the internet catches mainstream media self-censoring. But A - that's not really news and B - that's not the focus of this story. We could even ask more politically-minded questions like "why does the media self-censor" and I think that would be worth discussing. Personally, I think it comes down to cowardice. The mainstream media is under economic pressure as the barrier to entry for their particular market has all but completely eroded and as a result they want to present sensational news, but not seriously controversial news. I can think of no other realistic reason to explain the two examples of self-censoring noted.

But oh no! We get treated to a long exposition of the Bush Lie versus the Bill Clinton Lie. It's got nothing to do with tech, and as an ethics discussion goes, it's pretty poor there too. Are we honestly going to pretend that all lies are the same now? That "Honey, of course I didn't sleep with the babysitter!" is equivalent to "No! That doesn't make you look fat!"

On every single level, this "news" article fails dismally.

-stormin

Re:I declare a new tag (1)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796918)

-1 Delusional Crybaby

Maybe time for Slashdot to branch out? (2, Insightful)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797300)

When I first started scanning the stories at Digg, people would cram all kinds of political stories in there, and they would shoot straight to the top. People would whine about it, then be called "fuck-tards" for complaining about it, invited to leave, etc. Finally, Digg introduced more categories, which you can ignore if you wish. Maybe /. is headed there too?

At least this one has something to do with YouTube. But you could tell from the story summary that we would be talking about gay Republicans.

Re:I declare a new tag (3, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797000)

Admittedly, I didn't read TFA, but I think the relevance to technology is pretty solid. The networks are making it so that ordinary people can call out the old-guard information monopolists. It is widely known that most broadcasting companies long ago internalized the values of the establishment, with the consequence that people are not exposed to criticism of the establishment ... in the absence of official censorship!. Cf. "The Propaganda Model"

Youtube's not going to save us all, but it can and should start a trend toward egalitarian broadcasting of serious content & criticism.

Overreact much? (3, Insightful)

doctor_nation (924358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797090)

The entire post except for ONE line was about media self-censoring on the Mehlman thing. And that one line was about WP self-censorship (albeit on another subject). I really have no idea how the post can be construed as being party-specific, unless you consider any post about censorship to be left-wing. Heck, even the linked article about the WP censorship was about the censorship itself rather than the lie involved, regardless of what the other content was on the site. The only ideology I see here from /. is that censorship is bad. And I don't think most of the people reading this site have a problem with that particular point of view.

Re:I declare a new tag (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797114)

I would like to know how my Internet and TV are being filtered, in fact I think it's important to know. Why do you think it's partisan? I don't see it that way, if anything a lot of people seem to complain that CNN is liberal-biased, so both parties/philosophies are implicated. Too many comments so far are about (A) homosexuality or (B) political parties, which distract from the issue of media self-censorship, which the summary correctly (IMHO) emphasized by making it the title.

I don't see how a short snippet like this, which is revealing about the media, could not be considered fair use. I also don't think the DMCA absolutely overrides fair use [law.com] .

Re:I declare a new tag (1)

meatplow (184288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797154)

I attemtped to MOD +1 underrated, but it kicked out a -1 overrated.

My apologies.

So now, I will post and undo the MOD...

Meatplow.

Re:I declare a new tag (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797318)

Oh, if only slashdot had a paper trail for mod voting... ;)

Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796678)

Censorship sucks. I seem to remember when a certain commentator's television show got cancelled for what he said on the air about the 9/11 highjackers. Seems he made a politically incorrect statement and the network felt compelled to cancel his show. Yes, this is censorship. Even if the government does not do it.

Re:Censorship (1)

phatcabbage (986219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796830)

If by "censorship" you mean a network catering to its clientele, then yeah, maybe it's censorship.

Re:Censorship (1)

Mark Maughan (763986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797084)

I seem to remember when a certain commentator's television show got cancelled for what he said on the air about the 9/11 highjackers.

And he moved to a much better show on cable called "Real Time with Bill Maher" where he isn't censored in the least.

Let them censor as much as they want, and when they are left with nothing we will have everything.

Actually... (4, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796682)

When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use).

This all seemed unlikely to me, and reading the original letter:

1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation

2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.

Re:Actually... (4, Interesting)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796732)

Actually, if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough to demonstrate that there had been an edit by CNN, and had added his own content explaining what this showed and why, it would probably fit under the Fair Use requirements for scholarship or criticism - but IANAL.

Re:Actually... (1)

milamber3 (173273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796796)

IANAL but the guy who posted the clip IS a lawyer. He states that there is a fair use right which protects short (8-10 sec) news clips. So I'm going to have to believe him over you on that one.

Re:Actually... (2, Interesting)

SEAL (88488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797014)

I'm not a lawyer either but I can tell you that he's still likely to run into trouble. See: Beastie Boys, Paul's Boutique [wikipedia.org] and the comments on how sampling has been heavily restricted in the music industry.

Re:Actually... (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797182)

Unless he's a copyright lawyer, he may be out of his depth. Fair use law is incredibly messy, with a whole stack of conflicting precedents.

In general, however, I gather that brevity is insufficient. To be fair use it has to be incorporated into a larger work, with significant value added. If he'd used the clip as part of a documentary he'd be on more solid ground.

Re:Actually... (3, Interesting)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796846)

1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation

Actually, it mentions 17 USC 512, which is part of the copyright law, which was amended in part from the DMCA. So, yes, this does involve the DMCA.

2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.

You are missing the point. He is being asked to take it down by CNN (through YouTube). They are claiming copyright violation. He is claiming his clip falls under fair use, a concept only really defined in courts, not in the law, and not very well at that. He might not have a right to post it to YouTube, but if he doesn't have a place to host from himself and his post doesn't violate Copyright Law, then he can argue Fair Use. Fair use is at the heart of the matter here since the request for removal came from the copyright holder.

Re:Actually...This is more than a takedown issue (2, Informative)

VidEdit (703021) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797050)

...this is really a censorship issue. CNN has also edited the written transcripts to reflect the new censored version as if Maher never mentioned Mehlman at all.

Re:Actually... (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797210)


When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use).

This all seemed unlikely to me, and reading the original letter:

1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation

2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.

Read it again. [blogger.com]

Also see YouTube's copyright tips [youtube.com] or Google Video's DMCA guide [google.com] for a clearer description of the same DMCA process.

CNN filed an "Infringement Notification" by snail mail to YouTube. YouTube's responsibility under the DMCA (which they did) was to immediately take down the video. The guy who posted the video can file a "Counter Notification" if he believes he did not violate their copyright, due to Fair Use or any other reason. If he filed that Counter Notification, YouTube would put the video back online, and the video poster would be liable for any lawsuits that resulted from countering the DMCA takedown.

If he believes the 1 min 20 sec version is too long and posts the 10 sec version instead, it sounds like he will be filing the Counter Notification and fighting in court any lawsuit that results from posting the short video.

DMCA confusion (5, Informative)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796730)

a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use)

You're confusing two very different parts of the DMCA.

One part deals with circumvention of copy protection devices. That part does not recognize a fair use exemption. It doesn't apply here since the content was not copy-protected.

The other part deals with take-down notices. The way it works is:

Entity A posts some content to service C.
Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
A files a counter-notice with C that he believes the content does not infringe the copyright because of fair use or any other reason. The reason doesn't matter: having received the counter-notice, C is required to restore the content.
C then restores the content and provides B with the name and address of A (required in the counter-notice).
B then sues A under the old pre-DMCA copyright infringement laws.
A and B go to court.

Re:DMCA confusion (1)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796944)

1) A and B go to court.
2) ???
3) Lawyers L profit!

Re:DMCA confusion (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797112)

Step 2 is "A/B gets their way."

As far as step 3 is concerened, lawyers are skilled individuals who deserve compensation for their services. Your sophmoric remark makes as much sense as:

1) A floods basement.
2) ????
3) Plumber P profits!

Yeah. Damn that plumber for taking the buisness and providing service.

Re:DMCA confusion (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797294)

Your comparison to plumbers would only be valid if they broke into the house, wrecked all the plumbing, then came around to get paid for fixing it. Lawyers created the system under which they profit, hence why they are scum.

Re:DMCA confusion (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797332)

According to your argument, then, the comparison is valid. Most pipping(even shitty pipping) is installed by plumbers.

I'm confused (again). (5, Funny)

gklinger (571901) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796752)

Towards whom am I suppose to direct my geek anger here, YouTube, the DMCA or the Republicans? I'm looking forward to being indignant, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else.

Re:I'm confused (again). (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796822)

You should be aiming your anger at CNN, for using the DMCA to remove commentary critical of it from the Net.

Re:I'm confused (again). (1)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796838)

I'd direct it towards CNN for censoring themselves in the first place.

Re:I'm confused (again). (1)

Retardican (1006101) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796860)

With Republicans being in the pockets of media giants who wanted DMCA, and YouTube (aka Google) succumbing instead of fighting for our fair use rights, I would say you are supposed direct all of your anger to the Retardicans [retardicans.com] .

Re:I'm confused (again). (1)

Sassinak (150422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796942)

I think you have that backwards... The 'pubs and the Media groups in each other's pockets.. The media groups want the officals in office because they will favour them. (read: special interest groups) and the officals enjoy the media groups because of the exposure it gives them.

Trust me, its a circle jerk of the first order.

Re:I'm confused (again). (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797266)

With Republicans being in the pockets of media giants who wanted DMCA, and YouTube (aka Google) succumbing instead of fighting for our fair use rights, I would say you are supposed direct all of your anger to the Retardicans.

Here's an idea. Why don't you fight for your rights? It's not YouTube is not a party to the alleged crime. If you have your material subject to a a takedown notice, it's your place, no one else's, to fight for it. If you think any third party is going to fight you're battles for you, you're incredibly naive.

Re:I'm confused (again). (1)

Sassinak (150422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796864)

To all three..

YouTube for being spineless

The DCMA which is written so broadly that almost anyone can sue for anything. (just waiting for the thought police, then we will round up those people who are silently thinking of TV shows)

And the Republicans for using this to try and censor everything that does not show them in the best possible spotlight.

So break out that Flakgun Sparky.. Its time for a good old fashion splay.

Re:I'm confused (again). (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797188)

I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else.

I thought Foley already left town? And to be fair, I think Bill was on an intern, not a page. I expect you can choose whatever young idealistic assistant you want.

Re:I'm confused (again). (1)

Cunk (643486) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797290)

Don't forget about CNN.

Im shocked! (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796772)

You mean the press might not be giving us the honest scoop? I cant believe it.

And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is? If you need to know, perhaps you need to get a life. Judge a person on his job performance, not what he/she does on their own time, which is really none of your business anyway.

Re:Im shocked! (1)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796888)

You're absolutely right, and you should be telling that primarily to Mehlman's gay-hating colleagues.

As for his job performance, you may have noticed that Republicans just lost pretty badly in the midterm elections. As chair of the RNC, it was his job to prevent that from happening. He's one of the many people who are taking a fall as a result of this.

Re:Im shocked! (2, Insightful)

milamber3 (173273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796934)

And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is? If you need to know, perhaps you need to get a life. Judge a person on his job performance, not what he/she does on their own time, which is really none of your business anyway.

That's a very nice sentiment and would be fine if the person in question did almost anything except politics. In the case of politics, specifically republican politics, there is a platform of most things gay being "wrong, bad, perverted, or evil, etc." If a top member of this group is gay then you run into quite a few dilemmas. The laws that the GOP push affect everyone, all the time, so it very much matters what someone does "on their own time."

Self-censorship can be a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796778)

Self-censorship can be a good thing when it involves slander.

CNN is a whore (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796790)

When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing.
CNN is a whore. They've had their place swarming [counterpunch.org] with Pentagon's PsyOps [wikipedia.org] agents for years and there is question they are a part of the US government's propaganda machine. If you want to get "real" news you have to look for it, perhaps comparing several (abroad) sources, you'll never get it from the US "free", "democratic" media.

Just remember everyone (2, Insightful)

twfry (266215) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796794)

That outing gay repulicans is good because they are all evil.

Outing anyone else though is a hate crime and the democrates will see to it that you will go to jail if you do so.

Re:Just remember everyone (1)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797026)

Outing gay Republicans who have been activly fighting for and pushing an agenda of hate toward gays, however, I have NO problem with. Hypocrisy on a level that influences the law and well-being of Americans certainly has a place as a national story, needs discussion, and warrents this.

Issue here is privacy (1, Insightful)

sdnick (1025630) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796800)

Even if Ken Mehlman is gay, and even he's being a hypocrite, I don't see what business Bill Maher has attempting to out Mehlman or anyone else. Any individual should have the right to some basic privacy concerning his/her private life, regardless of whatever position they hold. IMHO CNN and YouTube did exactly the right thing - enabling gross violations of privacy can't be considered OK.

Re:Issue here is privacy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796936)

That is funny you say that....considering how many people had their say about what President Clinton did while in office. Whether he screwed someone or got a blow job was his own personal/family problem. However, the republican propaganda machine didn't stop, did it? When it is the same news about republicans however, "Oh. Everyone needs their privacy and has a right to it". Typical republicans.....What is good enough for the goose is not good enough for the gander.

Re:Issue here is privacy (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797052)

No, they didn't. You rerun the interview or you don't, and you don't ask Bill Maher back because he acted like an asshole in an interview. It's that simple. You don't just edit it out because it's not politically correct, especially if it's billed as the original interview.

Now, I haven't a clue who Ken Mehlman is, but if he is a politician, or political operative, who creates or influenced policy on issues affecting homosexuals, then his orientation may indeed be salient.

I'm not trying to say Bill Maher is wrong or right (back when I was born, it used to be a free country), but a news organization altering facts and then using copyright law to cover up that modification is certainly not okay.

Re:Issue here is privacy (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797072)

Any individual should have the right to some basic privacy concerning his/her private life, regardless of whatever position they hold.
Not if they use their position tell other people what to do in their private lives. Being a member of an organisation that does so is near enough the same.
 
I remember a UK politician, Cecil Parkinson, who was always preaching about family values. He clearly practicesd what he preached, he valued families so much he had one with his wife and another with his secretary.

If turnabout is fair play, hypocrites are fair game.

First it was the Commies, then Pink Commies, now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16796812)

First it was the Commies, then Pinko Commies, now it's Pinko Fairies. The Americans have it rough, what with all the unstableness of their gubment being infiltrated by the subversives. I'm proud to be an Iraqi from Bahgdad - we don't got no pinko fairies here - all the subversives here are straight, as Alah intended.

Slow News Day??? (1)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796840)

I really don't see this as much of a big deal. Bill Maher was talking out of his ass. The Media company made the edit without anyone truly complaining. This is typical of big media. Oh yeah....just TRY pullingit off of YouTube.....it will continue to show again and again like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwWZFG6k8QM [youtube.com]

Not enough context... (1)

Jewfro_Macabbi (1000217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796848)

Bill Maher certainly isn't encouraging gay with hunts. He was speaking of what he perceives as hypocrisy, a party run by gays that actively campaigns against gay rights which he himself seems to support. The actual point and validity of the main post is a bit fuzzy even...

Rewrite fullwise (2, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796858)

> jamie writes
>
>On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."

Slashdotter tackhead unbellyfeel oldspeak rewrite newspeak:

Slashdotter jamie unbellyfeel Amsoc. refs unhappenings. Render unperson.
Oldthinker Maher CNN reporting ungood refs sexcrimes Mehlman rewrite fullwise antefiling. Oldthinker youtube refs unhappenings malquote maher. DMCA quickwise vidmove memhole. Plusgood duckspeakers Wapo rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McDgMrN0DHE (1)

cypher_soundz (845523) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796866)

Self-censorship to self-immolation (1)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797220)

Poignant question from Larry: "Why would someone who is gay take public anti-gay positions? Why would you do that?"

It's not about being gay (3, Interesting)

Slipgrid (938571) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796868)

Being gay is a non-issue. Being a hypocrite should be huge issue in politics. Censorship is even a bigger issue.

Here's the clip [crooksandliars.com] . Note in the comment section of that post, they mention a few other hypocrites.

Here's the image [1fp.us] that CNN showed on their censored rebroadcast of their 9/11 footage. I guess they didn't want people to wonder why their were reports of bombs in the building, and start doing research [google.com] .

Fact is censorship is everywhere. We only get half the story, if that.

Good Journalism NOTEQUAL to Censorship (1, Insightful)

fortinbras47 (457756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796892)

News organizations have a great deal of editorial discretion in what they include an interview, what they don't include etc... Interviews are edited all the time for all kinds of reasons! Obviously some editors at CNN didn't think it was informative to include Bill Maher's weirdo comments that he thinks the head of the RNC is gay. Maybe they wanted to keep the interview focussed on Maher's other topics.

It's not like CNN is run by some right wing conspiracy. I think you have to be pretty far out on the political fringe to get all excited about CNN's minor editorial decision.

CNN is simply being responsible (4, Interesting)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796910)

If random Person A goes on a live show and makes a COMPLETELY UNSOURCED accusation that Person B is gay, it would be completely unethical and irresponsible for CNN to leave it in a subsequent broadcast of the show. I used to be a journalist, and I guarantee that most reasonable (non-ideological) journalists would make the same decision. It's not censorship. It's a responsible editorial decision regarding an completely unsubstantiated charge. The guy may or may not be gay. I haven't a clue (and don't care), but you don't broadcast something like that without having some reasonable basis for believing it's TRUE.

David

Re:CNN is simply being responsible (3, Interesting)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797024)

Journalists have an obligation to present to the public a factual depiction of events. Here, the event is the interview. Bill Maher is not the host of this show, and is not depicted as a reporter on events within the context of the show. If he was the host or depicted as a reporter, this would be a sound decision. But Larry King Live is an interview show; is it ethical to edit an interview to remove statements someone made?

Also, can they still call themselves Live? ;)

Re:CNN is simply being responsible (4, Insightful)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797224)

That is a terribly naive statement. If a journalist just presented whatever interview subjects told them -- without regard to what's fair or accurate -- they would be terribly irresponsible. When I was a journalist, I was routinely told things about people I covered. Almost all of what I heard was unfair and inaccurate rumor. A responsible journalist tries to make sure what he is putting out there is factual. Otherwise, there is even less credibility than there already is (for the news media).

David

Re:CNN is simply being responsible (3, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797036)

Bill Maher is a political satirist. Assuming that anything he says is factually precise is going to get you into a world of trouble.

Besides, for public political figures, the standards for proving libel/slander are very high. They would have to prove that CNN knew that the statement was not true and that it was published in a deliberate attempt to malign them. Short of deliberate lies by the media organization itself (not by an interviewee), there is very little harm that this material could do to CNN if re-aired.

Re:CNN is simply being responsible (3, Insightful)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797172)

You seem to be missing the point. It's not about CNN not getting sued. It's about being RESPONSIBLE with an explosive charge when CNN doesn't know the facts.

David

Re:CNN is simply being responsible (2, Insightful)

Stalyn (662) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797216)

But why is calling someone gay such a terrible declaration? People on TV accuse others of all kinds of things but they rarely get censored for it. Yet when someone suggests someone else is gay they censor it? Also can you really "accuse" someone of being gay? Normally "accuse" is attached to doing something wrong. It just reflects society's judgment that being "gay" is wrong or odd. Imagine someone "accused" someone else of being straight would there be the same reaction?

Re:CNN is simply being responsible (1)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797296)

If you don't understand this -- in the context of modern society and politics -- nobody's going to be able to explain it to you. Watch the edited portion and you'll know exactly why it's an issue. Maher was the one using it for political advantage (trying to paint Mehlman as hypocritical). If the charge is true, it would be newsworthy, but WE HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER IT'S TRUE. That is the point. We don't know the truth and neither did CNN, so it was irresponsible to air it.

David

In my day, it was Roosevelt's crutches (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796912)

The struggle between news writers/reporters and their management chain and the tendency of the management to cover their backsides and not publish anything unfavorable to {advertisers, the legal department, the higher-ups} has been ongoing ever since the invention of the newspaper. Indeed, in some form, it probably dates back even farther. This is nothing new, happens every day, and should be criticized when it occurs (particularly internally within the organization), but it's not particularly newsworthy.

The best way to handle this sort of thing is to decide what is more important---the bits from the story or your job. If you decide that the higher-ups are censoring something that needs to be heard, you tell your news director "the story airs as-is or I quit" (ideally after you have been there for a while). Sadly, most journalists don't have the stomach for that these days, but when this occurs you have to stand up for yourself or the upper management will walk all over you. Of course, this also points to a weak and ineffectual news director who doesn't have the guts to protect his/her reporters from the upper management.

However, that's probably not what happened in the case of CNN. What probably happened here is that they condensed the interview for time and cut out bits that they considered less important. This, too, happens every day. Unless the reporter was pressured to remove those pieces (and there's no reason to believe that this is the case), there's really not a story here at all. It's just the normal, day-to-day operation of a TV news outfit.

The Washington Post story, however, is very disturbing. If the reports of them changing their story are true, and if, in fact, Bush said the things claimed in the original version of the story, their editorial staff should be held accountable for their actions in turning a factually accurate story into a factually inaccurate story and deliberately removing highly relevant factual content from their story.

This should be exposed (4, Interesting)

CorSci81 (1007499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16796992)

'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.'

The point of Maher doing this is to expose the blatant hipocrisy that is going on. The current Republican leadership has been hostile towards gay and lesbian people and their rights. They pander to an audience of religious fundamentalists on a platform that alienates a minority group while being part of that group themselves. If they kept their own internal struggles and self-loathing private then I'd say they have a right to privacy. However, as it stands their public actions and policies have the potential to make life miserable for a group of people so their hipocrisy deserves to be brought under public scrutiny. Just because the minority group happens to be gays doesn't make this ok, there would be an uproar if you had a black man advocating segregation or making interracial marriages illegal, for example.

1984 (2, Insightful)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797004)

Kind of has that feel, doesn't it?

good taste, not censorship (3, Insightful)

yoha (249396) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797012)

Removing details about someone's personal life, revealed by a third party, is not censorship, it's good taste. CNN is a news network, and the fact that a station made an editorial decision to remove rumors from its newscast is not censorship.

unprecedented evile, an epidemic of the infactdead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16797030)

as opposed to becoming a member of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate? really no contest/question?

from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

Bush didn't lie.. (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797078)

..it was a feint, part of his strategery!

Is this an example...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16797118)

...of one party claiming ownership of a lifestyle ? So they create a
witch hunt of the same people they claim to represent ?

We know where Bill Maher comes from.

Fep!? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16797128)

An oPerating sysTem

It's the hypocrisy, stupid (3, Interesting)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797202)

The reason that there is a different standard for Democratic gays (Barney Frank, etc) and Republican gays (Mehlman, Drudge, Haggard, etc) is because the Republican gays are actively trying to demonize gays.

The worst offense a politician can incur is to be a hypocrit. If you're going to blast others for their lifestyles and actively work to pass laws to limit their lifestyles, all the while participating in the exact same lifestyles yourself... then you are:

A. A hypocrit
B. A masochist

and... it *IS* different for Democrats, because Democrats are NOT the ones trying to demonize the gay lifestyle.

ps. Preachers like Haggard claim that homosexuality is a "choice" and not an inate character trait. Then he writes an apology letter to his congregation saying "I have been at war with these inner demons most of my adult life". Sounds like he's admitting that it WASN'T a choice... it's just who he is and he's forced to come to grips with it. And his followers offer HIM forgiveness, meanwhile their still bashing OTHERS like him.

Ken Mehlman (4, Insightful)

fgn (200855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797262)

If Ken Mehlman resigns from the RNC Chair, it's not because he may or may not take it in the ass, it's because he was the chair when the whole party took it in the ass on election day.

dear slashdot (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797274)

it has come to the attention of the rnc that you airing a rumor that is not to the rnc's liking

you have 10 minutes to remove the story, or your site will experience a mysterious 503 error

your choice

truly yours,
the all-seeing elephant

Who cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16797310)

These days, censoring news is like censoring commercials.

Don't tell me you can still clearly distinguish between news and commercials.

News doesn't earn money, commercials do.

um, what? (3, Interesting)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16797326)

Mentioning youtube makes the contents of the DNC daily fax a technology story?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>