RSSYouTube answers Sen. Lieberman's request to remove terrorist videos
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published May 20, 2008, 3:51 PM
Terrorism may be unpopular, but speaking one's mind about the subject is free speech: That's the basis of a response this morning to one prominent US senator's call for YouTube to remove terrorist-oriented videos.
"While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view," answered the YouTube Team, after Google, the company that owns YouTube, received a letter from US Senator Joseph Lieberman (I - Conn.) asking for removal of all videos on YouTube produced by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.
"Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training," the Senator wrote in his letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
"YouTube also, unwittingly, permits Islamist terrorist groups to maintain an active, pervasive, and amplified voice," according to Lieberman, who has previously supported other censorship initiatives around video games, movies, and other entertainment, and is Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
In a blog entry posted on both YouTube and Google, the YouTube Team responded by saying the members have looked at numerous videos pinpointed by Sen. Lieberman's staff as potentially violating YouTube's policies.
"We examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because the depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech," according to the blog entry.
However, most of the videos identified by the Senator's staff did not contain violent or hate speech content and "were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines," wrote The YouTube Team.
Team members also noted that hundreds of thousands of videos are uploaded to YouTube every day.
"Because it is not possible to pre-screen this much content, we have developed an innovative and reliable community policy system that involves our users in helping us enforce YouTube's standards. Millions of users report potential violations of our Community Guidelines by selecting the 'Flag' link while watching videos."
According to Community Guideline policies, videos "flagged" by users are then reviewed by YouTube, YouTube staff determines whether to take down the flagged videos.
Those Community Guidelines also include the following paragraph: "We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity)."
In his letter to Schmidt, Lieberman also referenced a report his committee released last week entitled "Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat."
"The report explains, in part, how al-Qaeda created and manages a multi-tiered online media operation that produces content intended to enlist followers in countries all over the world, including the United States. Central to this media campaign is the branding of content with an icon or logo to guarantee authenticity that the content was produced by al-Qaeda or allied organizations like al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Islam (a.k.a Ansar al-Sunnah) or al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb. All of these groups have been designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) by the Department of State," according to Lieberman.
A check of the report itself this afternoon revealed that, while it did include examples of videos of extremist material located on the Internet at large, YouTube itself was only mentioned -- if it can be called a mention -- once, by way of a URL in a footnote that points to, essentially, a pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah rap video.
"Searches on YouTube return dozens of videos branded with an icon or logo identifying the videos as the work of one of these Islamist terrorist organizations. A great majority of these videos document horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Others provide weapons training, speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and general material intended to radicalize potential recruits," the Senator contended, in his statement which refers to YouTube more often than his committee's report.
BETACHECK
For more:
- YouTube's Community Guidelines.
- "Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat." from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (PDF file).
- Text of S. 2126, the Family Entertainment Protection Act, co-sponsored by Sen. Lieberman (then serving as a Democrat) in the 109th Congress.
"In other words, Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training -- activities that are all essential to terrorist activity. According to testimony received by our Committee, the online content produced by al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations can play a significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack."
Lieberman, however, has backed government censorship initiatives before. In 2005, he introduced the Family Entertainment Act, together with Sens. Hillary Clinton (D - N.Y.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).
Although this bill never became law, it would have authorized the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to "(1) publicize the results of an annual secret audit of businesses to determine how frequently minors who attempt to purchase video games with a Mature, Adults-Only, or Rating Pending rating are able to do so successfully; and (2) [launch] an investigation into embedded content in video games that can be accessed through a keystroke combination, pass-code, or other technological means to estimate certain data about video games with embedded content."
During the 2000 campaign for the US Presidency, Lieberman -- who was then a Democrat -- served as vice presidential running mate to Al Gore.
In an editorial published on September 20, 2000, The New York Times took Gore and Lieberman to task for their plans to take action against the movie industry around the marketing of so-called adult material to children. "In threatening to aim punitive legislation at the entertainment industry, Vice President Al Gore has crossed a line that no Democratic presidential candidate should ever cross. His party has a tradition of protecting free express. Gore and his running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, betray that tradition by advocating what would amount to government censorship," according the the Times' editorial.
So while someones kid dancing to Prince gets a take down notice from the RRIA, al-qaeda is ok. What a load of crap!
Score: 0
|Right on sister.
Score: 0
|Freedom of speech is not freedom without responsibility & it appears You Tube tries to honor their responsibility, but may need some reminding at times! If we as (any) society condone freedom without responsibility, we have lost our humanity & the terrorism of innocence through agendas of hate & violence has no place in public media, yet I'm sure it will sadly remain until global media accepts responsibility! That includes CNN & others as well!
Score: 0
|"Freedom of speech is not freedom without responsibility ".
Right on sister.
Score: 0
|Libs and Cons...who cares. This is were it all go to hell, because people are willing to give up their rights to squash what they don't like. This will come back to bite us in the butt. Should Google take hate video or terroristic video down, I think so...but it is not the government's place to tell them to do so. We have Cons. calling for less government, but they are first in line to complain to the govt asking it to enacting laws to stop something they don't like. The Libs are the same fricking way too. Google should police their site, because I am sure people will flag things they don't like. What else will we ask the govt to do...shut down ISPs, because they are the one linking us to the hate speeches and the porn?
Score: 0
|We have Cons. calling for less government, but they are first in line to complain to the govt asking it to enacting laws to stop something they don't like.
It's not Conservatives, it's the religious Right (now moving to the Left). Conservatives, true, core conservatives, want less government involvement in everything, including "morality" legislation.
This is why the religious affiliations are moving towards liberalism. It fits in quite well with Big Government Socialism.
Look at where most of the latest batch of "Save the Children" legislation is coming from...
Score: 0
|What this comes down to is if you're a lib, then you think anything goes, and you use intimidation to get what you want. Ever notice that when when someone from the right goes to a college for a speech or to get an honorary degree, security is there to prevent some left wing whack jobs from throwing blood or a pie on them, but it's ok for a Ward Churchill (Remember? The fake Indian) to spew hate under the guise of free speech while he hides behind the college. Libs "trumpet" free speech except when it's something they don't like, then they resort to violence to supress it.
L isn't for liberal, it's for LOSER...
Score: 0
|Here's my on take of what would be acceptable. The speaker must NOT wear a disguise or mask of any kind. He can spew as much hate as he feels necessary to promote his cause but NOT promote violence or use pictures of people being butchered. Finally, maybe we simply need a new "." for those kinds of videos. Like ".hate" or something to that effect.
I'm being have serious and half funny in the above statement but, after having seen actual beheading videos, there is no way in hell I would support ANY cause feeling the need to act as animals. That includes me being perfectly happy to see such videos banned from Youtube. For me Youtube is a source of music, entertainment, documentaries, some quite good, and art! I have no problem with political ideas spread through Youtube but I do have my limits. Comes down to simple human decency.
Score: 0
|Heh...
In your mind.
You see?
In theirs, we aren't decent humans. :)
Score: 0
|I see no problem to sinking to their own level, if not worse, to deal with them. If they can always scream foul over some stupid political cartoons or even people simply naming someone with some name, I say give them (just them) a taste of their own medicine. Yeah, it's discriminatory, and yeah not politically correct, but this is all getting tiring and boring. Time to fight a torch with a flamethrower, but not just for show, for real.
Score: 0
|Where does it stop? Sinking to their level will just make us and them the same.
Let's start banning all Muslim/Islamic content from all the internets while we're at it. Heck, why stop at Muslim/Islamic content, lets go after every other culture we don't agree with. Heck, from now on lets just have the government tell us what we should and shouldn't be watching/listen/reading/believing... Lets make the US more like China.
Score: 0
|Let's use intelligent people with good common sense, then we won't have to resort to "slippery slope" arguments based on simply "what if". We'll do what needs to be done, and not even think about what doesn't need to be done.
Score: 0
|Yes but doing what needs to be done at what cost? Should we give up our constitutional rights? Free speech, due process, privacy?
Score: 0
|Somehow it would seem that a lot of these things are probably not coming from US, so all of that is moot anyway in those cases.
Score: 0
|I see no problem to sinking to their own level, if not worse, to deal with them.
Not entirely germane. I am more than happy killing them, torturing them to get information, etc. They are *not* protected by the Geneva Convention, and thus, all options are open.
However, they aren't restricting our freedom of speech, so it doesn't really equate well with "using their tactics against them".
If they can always scream foul over some stupid political cartoons or even people simply naming someone with some name, I say give them (just them) a taste of their own medicine.
...and that's the Senators right. I'm not saying the letter was wrong. I am not saying outcry is wrong. If YouTube receives enough complaints, they'll take it down. That simple. Works both ways.
My issue is with the folks saying it should be done regardless, without thought, and without prudence.
Score: 0
|What if a non terrorist average Joe by the name of Allen Qaeda post a video. Will Youtube remove his video?????
Score: 0
|Depends on the number of complaints.
Score: 0
|YouTube really can't be serious.
"While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view...Because it is not possible to pre-screen this much content, we have developed an innovative and reliable community policy system that involves our users in helping us enforce YouTube's standards. Millions of users report potential violations of our Community Guidelines by selecting the 'Flag' link while watching videos."
Yeah right. YouTube's pattern has been to squelch anything that remotely criticizes Islam, while leaving terrorist propaganda on the site.
A few examples:
http://michellemalkin.co.../04/banned-on-youtube-3/
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184875.php
http://michellemalkin.co...mitude-at-youtube-again/
YouTube has also gone to great lengths to protect corporate interests by ignoring the typical fair use clause. Case in point: Al Gore:
http://michellemalkin.co...-ad-yanked-from-youtube/
Score: 0
|All this means is that Lieberman could have simply urged his cronies to spammed the video's in question with complaints.
Nice blog-spam, by the way. (that was sarcasm)
Score: 0
|You can support the rights of free speech on a website and still not promote terrorist propaganda if its privately owned. If the US govt forced them to remove the videos then there is an issue. But a request and a valid reason is not a move of force.
Shame on Google who "does no evil". Those turds on the left coast have no real connection to what is free speech and what is straight up propaganda from our enemies.
Score: 0
|And you can tell the difference? [rolleyes]
Score: 0
|"While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view,"
Yeah right you suck, Youtube.
That isn't free speech, you morons, it's propaganda. Forget the videos, I'd like to remove the terrorist's heads.
Score: 0
|be careful... they may feel the same way about you.
Score: 0
|Judging by some of the videos, they do, in fact.
;)
That said, his Country was founded on free speech.
The furby is more than welcome to post his/her own video detailing what he/she would like to do with the terrorists.
...as is the esteemed Sen. Perhaps someone should post a reading of the Constitution under the name: "Allah Killing Sen Lieberman".
...that way he might actually get a look at it, since it seems has has yet to.
Score: 0
|Freedom of speech even includes speech you don't approve of..... Especially the speech you don't approve of.
Remember, this standard could be applied to you as well. It turns out that some people are their own worse enemy.
I can understand why Lieberman would want this since he is, after all, a Jew.
Score: 0
|Free speech is one thing. Promoting terrorism is another.
If one yells fire in a crowded theatre they can be taken to task.
The Terrorists are using the very things they hate about us to continue their hate campaign.
If the politically correct, blind socialists of this country cannot see this - they better not go crying to those who respect freedom, love our country and will lay their lives down to ensure this country remains successful.
YouTube at one time appeared to have a brain behind it. Now it has joined ranks with the Google socialists. Sad.
Score: 0
|Free speech is one thing. Promoting terrorism is another.
No, they are the same.
If one yells fire in a crowded theatre they can be taken to task.
This creates eminent danger.
The Terrorists are using the very things they hate about us to continue their hate campaign.
So what? You're not suggesting we limit our own freedom of speech or that of others in the name of terrorism, are you?
If the politically correct, blind socialists of this country cannot see this - they better not go crying to those who respect freedom, love our country and will lay their lives down to ensure this country remains successful.
I actually think you're calling me a socialist here, which is highly amusing. Tell him, sjc001...
Sad.
Yes. You considering limiting the rights of anyone in the name of "freedom" sure is.
Score: 0
|http://youtube.com/resul...*+islam&search_type=
fill in the blank.
Free speech ain't so free when it's designed to wipe you out.
Score: 0
|*laughing*
Speech cannot "wipe you out".
Sorry. Emotional rhetoric doesn't work on me.
Score: 0
|That was one great post. No seriously. It really gets to me how people just spit that Bush rhetoric out of their moth sideways like it has meaning.
Terror, Terrorists... blah blah blah. We shouldn't let them post on Youtube because Youtube should be all about America. Well, Youtube took down the videos that went against their policies and left the ones that didn't. So WTF is the problem with these people claiming Youtube effed up?
And anyone who thinks we need to restrict the rights of others, just to further Bushes agenda is an absolute traitor in my eyes. I know it might sound a bit over the top, but that is not what this country was founded upon.
Thanks PC_Tool for that post. It made my day to know others actually get it.
Score: 0
|Do you work for the Bush administration? Limiting free speech in the name of protecting freedom is like raping in the name of protecting virginity.
Your kind are your own worse enemy.
BTW, calling tool a socialist is laughable. Its an insult to us socialists. [smiles]
The USA is the least socialistic nation in the West and it is also the one with the lowest quality of life for its average citizens as well when compared to other Western nations. And it is losing many of its rights and freedoms thanks to those like you and Lieberman (He's a closet Republican).
Score: 0
|Good gravy. Our schools have absolutely failed us. Protecting terrorist propaganda is not protecting free speech. I hope Google and YouTube sink like the Hindenburg. At least we stopped that train wreck before the entire Jewish population was wiped out.
And people, don't let yourselves be brainwashed by delusional, tenured public employees...
Score: 0
|Oh boy, do you not know history.
Score: 0
|Do you? Remember McCarthyism?
Score: 0
|Retard. [rollseyes] Another CONservative misusing the Holocaust for political ends. Emotional blackmail is still blackmail.
Score: 0
|Bushes agenda? I guess 3,000 people getting wiped out by terrorists means nothing to you, and i suppose by your reasoning we shouldn't have restricted the rights of Hitler to spew his hatred then? You Liberals make me laugh. I say let these morons put their videos up, just so we can see how really stupid they are.
Score: 0
|yep name calling , the calling card of the person with no real argument.
Score: 0
|Yeah, it hurt a lot of people.
Score: 0
|Exactly. It is what happens when your way of thinking is allowed to gain power.... Anyone who questioned McCarthy were destroyed. Freedom of speech was in major danger back then.
Score: 0
|I call them as I see them. You're your own worse enemy. That is quite clear. Those, like you, can do more real damage to your rights and freedoms than any terrorist can. All they can do is kill you once.
Score: 0
|My way of thinking? Oh ok, let's just let anyone put out the worst hate speech and propaganda imaginable in the name of free speech becuase you think it's ok. Everything under the sun is not ok just because you think it should be. But then again I'm only allowed free speech, if I agree with you, that's the way you people think.
McCarthyism is nothing compared the the thought police we have today.
Score: 0
|I'd say being killed once is enough, but maybe you need more pain. I'm sure the terrorists will be able to oblige.
Score: 0
|I don't think that it is ok. The worse thing you can do is limited it. That gives them the justification they need. You truly don't realize your own hypocrisy in all of this.
Who was it that said, "I may not believe in what you say, but I would die to protect your rights to say it...'?
McCarthyism was FAR worse than you may want to realize.
Score: 0
|I love that you're calling me a Liberal.
Really.
It's just too funny.
I guess 3,000 people getting wiped out by terrorists means nothing to you
Well, it doesn't mean we should jump up and give up all of the rights we're supposedly fighting for, now does it?
You cannot restrict the rights of others merely to protect your own. If they are trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself, but tell me:
How are they restricting *your* free speech?
Score: 0
|BTW, calling tool a socialist is laughable. Its an insult to us socialists. [smiles]
I knew you'd get a kick out of that.
Surprised we're on the same side of the fence on this one?
Score: 0
|Remember what I said about emotional blackmail? BTW, how is what they would do any different than what happened at Guantanamo Bay? Is that raping for virginity again?
Score: 0
|Why don't you learn me, furby?
Who has freedom of speech killed?
...thought not.
Score: 0
|But then again I'm only allowed free speech, if I agree with you, that's the way you people think.
You realize you just called him a terrorist, right? Apparently you think he agrees with them?
How cute.
McCarthyism is nothing compared the the thought police we have today.
Like you? You are the one trying to tell everyone what should and shouldn't be allowed.
*laughs*
Wow.
That's your argument, not ours. We disagree and believe they should be able to speak. You disagree and want to restrict that right.
Nice hypocrisy.
Score: 0
|Somewhere a clock is missing its cuckoo.
Score: 0
|You better hurry home then and get back on your perch.....
Score: 0
|More emotional blackmail. The same sort that was used during McCarthyism. We have more to fear from those, like you, than we do from the terrorists.
Did you know that Bush is appeasing the Saudis over what an American soldier did to their Qu'Ran?
BTW, you just broke Godwin's Law and this means that you have automatically lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin\'s_law
Score: 0
|It sounds like inciting someone to kill (and let's face it that's what the terrorist videos really meant to incite in the end, no matter how they "hide" it) is pretty much along the same lines as inciting someone to panic (which is what yelling "fire" in a place with people when there's no fire would be).
Score: 0
|There's a difference. It's a small one, but as far as the law is concerned, it's night and day:
Fire! Presents a clear and present danger to those involved in the ensuing panic.
A video on Yuotube simply does not fall into that same category and is, therefore, protected from government enforcement of any kind (unless they can legally get it defined as "Hate Speech" as in certain forms, that, is illegal).
Score: 0
|Ok, if you nice folks think that showing a video of a US soldier being murdered is free speech then maybe you should join Al Queda. Have a nice day.
Score: 0
|I see you took the gender situation to heart ;-)
Score: 0
|I don't give a crap about Godwin's law, whatever it is and especially if it's on wikipedia. You people seem to all be victims of that delusional condition of the 21st century, political correctness, which decrees that anyone, however malicious or vile their intent, should be able to disseminate the worst kind of propaganda and hatred, in the name of free speech and get away with it. I hate to say it but you need to grow up children. Case closed.
Score: 0
|I think that was one of the videos that was removed because "We examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because the depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech"
Score: 0
|Free speech is one thing. Promoting terrorism is another.
If one yells fire in a crowded theatre they can be taken to task.
The Terrorists are using the very things they hate about us to continue their hate campaign.
Unfortunately, you would have had a great point if you left it at that. Anytime you use words like 'socialist' you're sure to divert and drive people away from your main point.
Score: 0
|Again YouTube claims they did indeed remove some of the videos in question for that reason (hate speech).
Score: 0
|...and you seem to be more than happy to take away the rights of anyone you disagree with.
And here, by your post above, I was under the impression you thought Hitler was a bad guy. Guess I was wrong?
Score: 0
|There ya go.
No government involvement necessary.
Neat, isn't it?
Score: 0
|You are an idiot.
Pure and simple.
You apparently cannot argue coherently. It's the *only* rational reason I can come up with for your delusion that supporting free speech = enjoying watching people die.
You are a sick person. Get help.
Score: 0
|Wasn't me that implied you were one or the other... ;)
Score: 0
|Don't like Wikipedia? Maybe you should spend more time on that fixing that ignorance and less time trying to get people to think you know what you're talking about. At least with Wikipedia you can see who edited what.
I'm guessing you've studied logical fallacies, since you are using plenty of them.
Score: 0
|