I know Google famously censored political speech in China until Sergey Brin made his stand [a], and it continues to censor videos in e.g. India [b] (blocking content which could provoke Hindu-Muslim violence). But in those places, the courts of those countries force them to censor; here, the censorship is voluntary, seemingly of their own initiative. Is there a precedent for this?
They censored the DNC speech and who knows how many thousands or hundreds of thousands other videos. It may have been "automatic censorship" because of their idiotic system, but that's not exactly a very good excuse for such important (political, no less) videos and on such a large scale, is it?
There's always a delay between the end of a livestream and the point where you can watch the prerecorded video. In this case, YouTube merely displayed the wrong error message during that delay.
Free speech was a founding idea of the U.S. now we can't produce, protest, or say anything that upsets a certain group of people. That is not in any way shape or form "free speech". My comment was directed at that idea, not google or youtube.
This isn't "erosion of free speech" in the conventional sense. Google isn't saying "you can't make this video." They are just saying they aren't going to deliver it.
The principal of free speech never implied you have to repeat every communication that someone asks you to repeat.
Meta Comment: pstuart is technically correct, but I think it's much more useful to explain why something is the case than to simply accuse someone of willful ignorance. There's always the possibility that they, or someone else, genuinely does not know.
I was expecting something a little more convincing. That's a complete red herring; you never have the choice not to hear something once you've heard it. Does it help if I don't insult you unless you make eye contact with me? After all, if you didn't want to hear what I think about you, you didn't have to catch my eye.
You'd shout that if you hated the persons in that building, and you'd be the one affected in the end.
Youtube self-censoring "for the right reasons" now can easily lead to them censoring things in the future not only on the basis that it's "for the right reasons", but also because "we did it before, why not now?", which is among the worst excuses/reasons to do anything...
And Google will not not affected - it will be the thousands/millions of people who will not be able to watch the video (which will most likely be somewhat important - they wouldn't censor a cat playing with a tennis ball).
That's a straw man, because the grandparent probably does not feel inclined to shout that regardless, so no censorship is necessary. What's more, the troubling aspect here is that a third party is doing the censorship. IMHO they shouldn't legitimize the outrage over this video which is nothing more than amateurish satire.
The gp probably does not feel inclined to shout that, but why? Is it because they've lived a life where they condition themselves to self-censor to some degree? Do we just blurt out everything we think when we meet people?
"Hello Bob. My word you're fat! And really rather ugly!"
No. We live our lives self censoring to some extent. We don't want to go out of our way to insult someone. There are some exception. We don't mind insulting people for humour. We really don't care about insulting people when politics is involved.
There are real reasons why religions need to be challenged. Some bits of religion do very great harm to many people.
Doesn't that mean we need to be careful with the offence we cause? Not to avoid any offence, but to make sure it serves some purpose? Causing offence to achieve a goal is probably acceptable. Otherwise you're just yelling "HELLO CUNTS!!!".
And to suggest that Youtube is censoring something is -in my opinion- vaguely ridiculous. They're choosing not to distribute a video. They're an international business and they suppress many videos every day. There are very many other online video services which could carry this film. I can't display nipples on Youtube. I can't display HoboFights on Youtube. Why should this video be any different?
I think self-censorship is somewhat of a misleading term. Self-control is central to human psychology, but it is different from the idea of censorship where one party prevents the voice of another to be heard because it is against the interests of the former.
I certainly agree that this video is not prudent, and hence will not achieve anything. It is quite another question whether this means a company like Google should judge this and take action on it without a court order.
The reason to call this censorship is because the decision not to distribute is probably politically motivated. Compared to the examples you cite, this video is very much relevant to public interests, i.e., people will want to know what all the fuss is about. This does not hold for your examples of 'hobo fights' and nipples.
That analogy is false because what YouTube is doing is blocking video clips that were posted by other people.
In your analogy, only you are censoring yourself. Nobody else is censoring you from shouting whatever you want to shout. It would be perfectly fine if individual users voluntarily chose not to upload certain clips.
An accurate rhetorical question would be: Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building and before a single sound has emerged from your mouth someone gags you?
> An accurate rhetorical question would be: Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building and before a single sound has emerged from your mouth someone gags you?
Don't property rights trump free speech rights? (IANAL) I.e., it's ok for you to shout whatever you want in public, but I get to throw you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying? Aren't Google just exercising their property rights in this case, common carrier considerations aside?
Don't property rights trump free speech rights? (IANAL)
Legally? Free speech has a right is mostly about freedom from governmental interference. Private companies usually can censor whatever they want.
But I'm pretty sure people are discussing the moral aspect of this, not the legal. And one can consider that Google shouldn't do this, even if they have the legal right to do so.
Hm, I don't know. This video is clearly hate speech, and I'm not sure Google should be required to keep content online that has literally caused the deaths of several people.
A 'slippery slope' argument doesn't hold up for me in this particular case.
EDIT: alright, maybe not literally. But I maintain that the video is hate speech, and that a different standard on "censorship" should apply here.
I think this is indeed a slippery slope. This is a VERY slippery slope because of the aftermath. A normal situation of censorship would have a platform (in this case, Google) censoring some sort of content released through them that was critical of the platform. This is almost the opposite; Google clearly is trying to assuage the seething anger for greater good. How far does one go though?
What if you have someone release a highly critical video of a massively corrupt leader of a country and its citizens begin to rage over it when the rest of the world knows they are just uneducated and don't know any better? A farfetched situation, but still. This is essentially what is happening: masses of uneducated people in somewhat-developing countries are upset over others desecrating their sacred religion. How much longer is this kowtowing to animals going to continue?
I understand that it's anti-Muslim, but is that "hate speech"? If it were an anti-Christian video that showcased Jesus as a pedophile and philanderer, would it be labeled as such? It's free speech.
In the UK: Yes, it probably would be labelled as hate speech. If someone was subject to violence and were called insults based on their Christianity the crime would be dealt with as a hate crime and the sentence would be more severe.
Also: The UK for years[1] had laws dealing with Blasphemy (a crime that could only be committed against the Christian church) and laws that dealt with racial prejudice. Since Islam is not christian, nor a race, muslims were left unprotected.
You may argue that Christians and jews should not have those protections. I hope you'd agree that it's iniquitous for one group to be left out of the protection of the law.
I'd agree. But the fact remains that there was a discrepancy where one group was left without any protection.
> No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others.
Let's not forget that 3,500 people died (and 47,000 were injured) during "the Troubles" which had sectarian religious aspects. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)
In Canada, the slope is very slippery. Hate speech, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, is anything "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt". For better or worse, it certainly has a chilling effect.
Is that true? The video is alleged to insult Muhammad who is revered in Islam, but does it slander individual, living human beings or classes of human beings.
In other words, while so-called "hate speech" is indeed offensive, not everything that offends some people is "hate speech".
The idea that somebody shouldn't say something because it may elicit a violent reaction by somebody else seems to have dangerous logical conclusions that could include actually encouraging violent reactions to speech in order to silence it.
For example, the recent mural by the Taiwanese businessman in Oregon (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833952-china-as...) is clearly protected political speech, and obviously nobody died because of it. However, if it led to violent reactions in China that resulted in some deaths, should it be suppressed?
Now, religion could be argued to be in a different category; however, I have a hard time accepting that argument due to the politicization of religion. As long as a religion has political implications, speech critical of it should be protected in the same way other political speech is protected.
That doesn't mean you should be able to explicitly encourage violence against members of a religion, but it does mean that Southpark and a Danish cartoon should be allowed to parody religion to make a political point.
I'm not sure you can say the video literally caused several deaths.
Obviously the middle east is very complicated place, but ultimately even people in a mob should be held accountable for their actions [1], so the blame lies with the killers, not the makers of a film; nor the leaders who espouse a hateful philosophy [2] that justified the killing, although I'd certainly blame them more than some film.
[1] See the widespread rioting and looting in the UK last year, some of which was justified by the perpetrators as political, but all of which was prosecuted as criminal.
[2] I mean, if one American does something you don't like, how does that mean you can (and should) kill another one (or more)? I want to think it's more nuanced than that, but I don't see how.
Videos don't cause people to die, and definitions of 'hate speech' are difficult. Mocking Islam seems pretty hateful, since it is at the core of the belief system of a large proportion of the world's population. But what about mocking Scientology, or Mormonism? When is a belief system so ridiculous or unpopular that it no longer deserves protection?
You say that it should be taken down because it 'caused the deaths of several people' - the implication is that belief systems deserve more protection if their adherents are more willing to commit murder in retaliation.
I'll say it, because no one else seems to want to: It's time for muslims to grow the f--- up already. We have something in America called freedom of speech, its a cornerstone of our society. Sometimes people use that right to say stupid and hurtful things. It doesn't mean all Americans agree or condone what was said.
How is that video hate speech? I only saw the trailer but it struck me as a really poorly done comedy. If that video is hate speech then I can think of a large number of movies and documentaries released in the past decade that must also be hate speech (which is silly).
Google is a major provider of online content. If a major provider of online content begins restricting said content, that is potential cause for concern.
You read my post as "Google owes it to me to keep this content available", which is simply not the case.
Presumably we are not forgetting that Google is simply a business responding to the overall reaction of its customers in Libya and Egypt. Why do some people appear to believe as a subtext message that it's a community service of some kind? It is, of course, but only incidentally.
If we're headed down the 'slippery slope' of taking the microphone away from people like Sam Bassil (or whatever his real name is), then please allow me to grab some sunscreen and an inner-tube, because I'm coming along for the ride.
There's a lot of fallacious thinking going on here. There's probably some sophisticated name for this type of fallacy, but I don't know what it is. Just because the attackers were wrong for killing innocent people, doesn't make this hate video "right". False dichotomy, maybe?
Freedom of speech is about serving truth. It is an expression of the idea is that no one should be silenced for speaking about the truth. If someone is saying something demonstratively false, and that speech is endangering the public, then they should be silenced. This is the same reason you can't expect first amendment protection if you walk in to a theater shouting "FIRE".
So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it:
* Is demonstrably untrue
* Endangers the public
It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video.
Touché :) However, I will attempt a rebut (despite the fact that I am a card carrying atheist).
First, we should be clear that the two conditions above are bound by a logical "AND", not "OR". This means that both must be true in order to circumvent first amendment protection.
Also, all expressions of "freedom of religion" do not endanger the public. First amendment protection is about acts, not ideologies. Ironically, it is difficult to prove the second condition until some negative consequence has already occurred. This is the case with many of our laws. Look how hard it is to stop a stalker prior to their actual assault on a victim.
I'll evade your difficult idea with a more pragmatic rebuttal: give almost any government in the world some legal speech model like what you describe, and you will be in prison for spreading the "false, dangerous delusion of atheism". The inability of government to determine, and enforce, truth is the only thing protecting your highly unpopular beliefs from censorship.
Free speech is in principle the right to speak the truth; in practice it's the right to assert falsehoods which enables it.
You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're the ones threatening to murder someone. Even in that case, it is unlikely that any law enforcement agency would garner enough support to actually silence them until they'd gone out and hurt someone. See also: Westboro Baptist. The day that anyone associated with Westboro acts on their hateful speech is the day that they'll be shut down.
The best argument against silencing this ridiculous video isn't the fact that it's full of false claims and nut-job ideology, but that there are serious doubts as to whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks. There are suspicions that the attacks were orchestrated separately, and the video is just a red herring.
>whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks
Can't you see the analogy between my scenario and this scenario? You make it sound as though if the video was the true motivating factor, then it should be banned. This is analogous with the Catholic mass in my scenario - by following the same logic, if the mass were the true driving factor behind the atheist's violence, then the mass should be banned. You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't.
I see the correlation of the actors now, but I still don't agree with this:
"You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't."
We can, and we do. Look at the suicide of Tyler Clementi and the resulting sentencing of Dharun Ravi [1]. Look at the case of the anti-abortion wanted-posters [2].
The protection of free speech is not black and white. I understand that this makes people uneasy, but you can't have black & white distinctions in a population greater than one.
You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're the ones threatening to murder someone.
No, the parallel was accurate. The guy in California threatened no one, and his freedom of speech is on the line because other guys, who disagreed with him, committed murder.
So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it:
- Is demonstrably untrue
- Endangers the public
It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video.
Your statement is factually wrong on so many levels.
One, your understanding of what first amendment covers or doesn't cover is incorrect. Hate speech in particular is protected (which this video may or may not even be - I would call it distasteful but legitimate satire). This has been expressly addressed many, many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
Two, the words "demonstrably untrue" mean that someone has audiovisual proof of what happened. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the video's interpretation of the history of Islam but fact is, no one has the video of Muhammad getting religion. This is why it's called "faith".
Three, inflammatory words = violence equation is no more valid than slutty dress = rape equation. Violence is always squarely on the perpetrators, however provocative the trigger may be. I don't see why Muslims - or people of other faiths - should get special treatment when it comes to their religious feelings being offended.
First amendment law is pretty clear that there is no "heckler's veto" - the angry reaction of others does not make speech unprotected (except in the case of "fighting words" that are intended to and likely to cause imminent violence).
Violence should never be allowed to become a useful weapon against free speech.
When a company has built tools for self-expression that are widely used, they have a responsibility to commit to broad principles under difficult circumstances. Free speech principles aren't as widely protected across the globe as they are in the US, but that doesn't mean they are not very important to the advancement of society.
You're clouding the issue. "Free speech principles" as you describe them are not weakly protected elsewhere, they are not held. In particular, many -- most? -- enlightened Western democracies hold that hateful speech is not deserving of protection. Not because they're wishy-washy, but because they believe that's right.
You're being closed-minded if you're not willing to accept the possibility that they're right.
Yes, as someone from the US, I feel embarrassed when our free-speech rights are lorded over others. After the 1960's Civil Rights struggles, we probably do in fact have the best free speech protection. But it's kind of academic since we (for example) also imprison ourselves the most. (Both in rate and total. A severe stripping not only of speech but freedom and dignity too. And of course it's "political", whatever that means. It keeps many from voting post-slavery.)
There's different forms of social control; it's multi-dimensional. In a top-down democracy with elected kings, it requires consistent struggle to improve things. We're very privileged, and unfortunately arrogant and militantly violent too. I mean, what are we doing in the middle east anyway, handing out flowers? Or killing people, breaking things and making sure we're their boss?
Your argument that I am being "closed-minded" because I believe in the value of free speech is amusing. Valuing broad free speech rights is a characteristic of an open mind.
I never said that I didn't "accept the possibility that they're right". I just don't believe that an organization should be in charge of deciding what is "hateful" and what isn't. I happen to believe that free expression is critical to our moral and scientific growth as a species.
So, again, on this issue you disagree with many very thoughtful, compassionate people, including most famously democratic governments who have lived through actual totalitarian dictatorship.
(Many of the less thoughtful and compassionate of these would look at American standards of public assistance, education, and criminal justice, hear you talk about "our moral and scientific growth as a species", and laugh in your face.)
Consider that they may be right and you may be wrong.
I'm not sure how you made my comment about growth as a species equate to "American Standards". Also, its very "closed-minded" of you to believe that the actions of a country exactly mirrors the values of each of its citizens. Oh well, I wish you the best.
(The disagreement and dialogue in this conversation has been brought to you by Free Expression.)
> The disagreement and dialogue in this conversation has been brought to you by Free Expression.
Much to the contrary-- try having a conversation like this on a "free" forum like 4chan and see how far you get. This kind of respectful dialogue is brought to us by pervasive peer moderation and social opprobrium, with a dash of outright censorship to taste.
I think they censored the video because US interest is involved. The more Islamic world engages this video as a rallying point, the greater the security threat to US. Free speech has its costs too.
In my opinion, Google (as YouTube) is not obliged to show a video. The owners of the video still have the option to upload it elsewhere, or to host it themselves, or to distribute it via a torrent.
It is basically horrible acting, insanely bad stories, worse CGI effect (really, you could not afford to have the actors walk on actual sand so you just bluescreened the entire scene???).
Oh and the content is essentially right wing christian propaganda.
I think calling it "right wing christian propoganda" is generous. It isn't trying to be persuasive... it is just a few scenes depicting Muhammad as an idiot and philanderer.
I shall not try to say this is an easy problem but it reminds me of people blaming the shopper for getting their cashbox robbed after leaving money there ('it is your fault...').
These videos are inciting riots, not a theory, it's a fact (though anything would have triggered these riots, they just wanted an excuse and it's a tiny minority who are the most vocal).
"free speech" is an illusion in the USA, it doesn't actually exist as an unrestricted right - if you disagree, try screaming "fire" in a packed movie theater and see what happens to you, or do something as asinine like threaten the president or make a joke about the TSA while waiting in line at the airport.
You have a profound misunderstanding of free speech rights in the U.S.
Yes, you cannot incite a riot. You cannot say "My followers: Riot! Smash everything!" But because something you say could or does cause a riot is not reason enough to ban your speech. Otherwise you get something like the so-called "Heckler's Veto", whereby people who merely disagree with your speech can make themselves enough of a nuisance to have it silenced.
So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ?
Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube?
So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ?
Now you're starting to shade things into a gray area. At some point you need a judge or jury to decide whether speech is incitement to violence or not. And I don't believe the video in question is (even obliquely) advocating any particular action. It's just grossly offensive to some people.
Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube?
Like your other examples of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or threatening the President, there are certain forms of "expression" that can be restricted or punished, not because they're expressing particular ideas, but because they have a direct, causal connection to harm. You can come up with a thousand examples: It's not "free speech" for a doctor to write you a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. It's not "free speech" for a police officer to tell you you're obligated to talk to him without a lawyer. It's not "free speech" to lie on the witness stand.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can't be punished or restricted from saying anything, but it does mean that absent any direct harm to the rights of others, you're free to express ideas in any reasonable manner. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.
What's the direct harm if I post naked pictures of consenting adults on my porch for the neighborhood to see?
There's no direct harm right? But it's not protected free speech - it has limitations.
You do realize the video in question was heavily edited to change dialog and things like blackboards were switched out. So it was purposely tailored to cause a reaction - incite a physical reaction.
IANAL, but I think the test is "intended to cause, and likely to cause, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action". In which case deliberately showing this video to a crowd of already angry Muslims might qualify, but just putting it up on YouTube wouldn't.
No. No. No. This is not anything like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
> These videos are inciting riots, not a theory, it's a fact (though anything would have triggered these riots, they just wanted an excuse and it's a tiny minority who are the most vocal).
You just contradicted yourself. This is manufactured incident.
I'm not sure that the mere presentation of offensive material is enough to trigger the 'incitement to violence' limitation. I think there needs to be some kind of explicit call to action.
Internet, being the most widely reaching medium along with the ease of publishing, becomes quite attractive to anyone who hasn't got the means ( money/influence ) to get content published on more traditional mediums like Newspaper, Magazines and TV.
Hence you will find all kinds of material on the Internet including all kinds of hate speeches against all the religions, ideologies, personalities etc. Google being an indexer of Web would naturally present such material if you go looking for it. It's not Google's fault nor should it be its worry. After all, you can't really blame or shoot the messenger.
In a way, Internet has had more of a leveling effect on the kind of content and information that is available to common people in the world ( at least for those who have some kind of access to it ).
If for any bizarre reason, Internet starts to become more censor prone, it would loose its magical value. It is the most important invention of our times. It's somehow better if we don't have control over it. Just sit back and try to recollect the amazing pace with which it has changed and how beautifully it has sustained itself. It has a evolution path of its own.
The logic inside my head says that it was correct when Google removed the video from Libya/Egypt. But there is something in my heart that says that we would loose the innocence of Internet we go down this path too often.
Remember how reckless, carefree and full of possibilities we were when we were children. Then we came of age and learnt to how behave and think and do things like Adults. On the way, we somehow became ... well, just boring.
Remember, Internet is still a child. Hope we don't force it into becoming just another boring adult.
Considering the fact that this "innocent" video has cost 4 innocent lives and unrest at countless places, this is more about preventing anarchy than stifling free speech.
87 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] thread[a] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Censorship_of_Googl...
[b] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/net-us-india-viole...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/05/michelle_...
There's always a delay between the end of a livestream and the point where you can watch the prerecorded video. In this case, YouTube merely displayed the wrong error message during that delay.
There are many. Here's one from a few years ago:
http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/
Regardless I find the erosion of free speech to be sad. We must never say or do anything to upset the Muslims...please...
The principal of free speech never implied you have to repeat every communication that someone asks you to repeat.
Why is that form of self-censorship acceptable to you?
You should research the "goatse" case right now for more information about this.
Youtube self-censoring "for the right reasons" now can easily lead to them censoring things in the future not only on the basis that it's "for the right reasons", but also because "we did it before, why not now?", which is among the worst excuses/reasons to do anything...
And Google will not not affected - it will be the thousands/millions of people who will not be able to watch the video (which will most likely be somewhat important - they wouldn't censor a cat playing with a tennis ball).
"Hello Bob. My word you're fat! And really rather ugly!"
No. We live our lives self censoring to some extent. We don't want to go out of our way to insult someone. There are some exception. We don't mind insulting people for humour. We really don't care about insulting people when politics is involved.
There are real reasons why religions need to be challenged. Some bits of religion do very great harm to many people.
Doesn't that mean we need to be careful with the offence we cause? Not to avoid any offence, but to make sure it serves some purpose? Causing offence to achieve a goal is probably acceptable. Otherwise you're just yelling "HELLO CUNTS!!!".
And to suggest that Youtube is censoring something is -in my opinion- vaguely ridiculous. They're choosing not to distribute a video. They're an international business and they suppress many videos every day. There are very many other online video services which could carry this film. I can't display nipples on Youtube. I can't display HoboFights on Youtube. Why should this video be any different?
I certainly agree that this video is not prudent, and hence will not achieve anything. It is quite another question whether this means a company like Google should judge this and take action on it without a court order.
The reason to call this censorship is because the decision not to distribute is probably politically motivated. Compared to the examples you cite, this video is very much relevant to public interests, i.e., people will want to know what all the fuss is about. This does not hold for your examples of 'hobo fights' and nipples.
It's not: those are also examples of censorship.
In your analogy, only you are censoring yourself. Nobody else is censoring you from shouting whatever you want to shout. It would be perfectly fine if individual users voluntarily chose not to upload certain clips.
An accurate rhetorical question would be: Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building and before a single sound has emerged from your mouth someone gags you?
Don't property rights trump free speech rights? (IANAL) I.e., it's ok for you to shout whatever you want in public, but I get to throw you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying? Aren't Google just exercising their property rights in this case, common carrier considerations aside?
Legally? Free speech has a right is mostly about freedom from governmental interference. Private companies usually can censor whatever they want.
But I'm pretty sure people are discussing the moral aspect of this, not the legal. And one can consider that Google shouldn't do this, even if they have the legal right to do so.
As far as this particular offense goes, "piss Christ" and so on....
Some animals are more equal than others.
A 'slippery slope' argument doesn't hold up for me in this particular case.
EDIT: alright, maybe not literally. But I maintain that the video is hate speech, and that a different standard on "censorship" should apply here.
What if you have someone release a highly critical video of a massively corrupt leader of a country and its citizens begin to rage over it when the rest of the world knows they are just uneducated and don't know any better? A farfetched situation, but still. This is essentially what is happening: masses of uneducated people in somewhat-developing countries are upset over others desecrating their sacred religion. How much longer is this kowtowing to animals going to continue?
Also: The UK for years[1] had laws dealing with Blasphemy (a crime that could only be committed against the Christian church) and laws that dealt with racial prejudice. Since Islam is not christian, nor a race, muslims were left unprotected.
You may argue that Christians and jews should not have those protections. I hope you'd agree that it's iniquitous for one group to be left out of the protection of the law.
[1] This was changed in 2006 with the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Blasphemy was later repealed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act...)
No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others.
> No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others.
Let's not forget that 3,500 people died (and 47,000 were injured) during "the Troubles" which had sectarian religious aspects. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
Is that true? The video is alleged to insult Muhammad who is revered in Islam, but does it slander individual, living human beings or classes of human beings.
In other words, while so-called "hate speech" is indeed offensive, not everything that offends some people is "hate speech".
For example, the recent mural by the Taiwanese businessman in Oregon (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833952-china-as...) is clearly protected political speech, and obviously nobody died because of it. However, if it led to violent reactions in China that resulted in some deaths, should it be suppressed?
Now, religion could be argued to be in a different category; however, I have a hard time accepting that argument due to the politicization of religion. As long as a religion has political implications, speech critical of it should be protected in the same way other political speech is protected.
That doesn't mean you should be able to explicitly encourage violence against members of a religion, but it does mean that Southpark and a Danish cartoon should be allowed to parody religion to make a political point.
Obviously the middle east is very complicated place, but ultimately even people in a mob should be held accountable for their actions [1], so the blame lies with the killers, not the makers of a film; nor the leaders who espouse a hateful philosophy [2] that justified the killing, although I'd certainly blame them more than some film.
[1] See the widespread rioting and looting in the UK last year, some of which was justified by the perpetrators as political, but all of which was prosecuted as criminal.
[2] I mean, if one American does something you don't like, how does that mean you can (and should) kill another one (or more)? I want to think it's more nuanced than that, but I don't see how.
You say that it should be taken down because it 'caused the deaths of several people' - the implication is that belief systems deserve more protection if their adherents are more willing to commit murder in retaliation.
We know you can't control all the bees once you get them riled up, so you're still an asshole if you intentionally put others at risk.
Free speech may give the film-maker the right to be an asshole, but it doesn't change the fact that he's an asshole.
Muslims have (I could say religious extremists, but the killers are mulims) caused the death 6 or 7 by now, plus insane property damage.
And Google should not be required to remove or keep the video online. It is their service, which means it is their property.
But removing it means that the next time somebody else can claim that 'you did it with this movie' which could result in bad PR.
You read my post as "Google owes it to me to keep this content available", which is simply not the case.
There's a lot of fallacious thinking going on here. There's probably some sophisticated name for this type of fallacy, but I don't know what it is. Just because the attackers were wrong for killing innocent people, doesn't make this hate video "right". False dichotomy, maybe?
Freedom of speech is about serving truth. It is an expression of the idea is that no one should be silenced for speaking about the truth. If someone is saying something demonstratively false, and that speech is endangering the public, then they should be silenced. This is the same reason you can't expect first amendment protection if you walk in to a theater shouting "FIRE".
So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it:
* Is demonstrably untrue
* Endangers the public
It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video.
* Is demonstrably untrue
* Endangers the public
The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
First, we should be clear that the two conditions above are bound by a logical "AND", not "OR". This means that both must be true in order to circumvent first amendment protection.
Also, all expressions of "freedom of religion" do not endanger the public. First amendment protection is about acts, not ideologies. Ironically, it is difficult to prove the second condition until some negative consequence has already occurred. This is the case with many of our laws. Look how hard it is to stop a stalker prior to their actual assault on a victim.
Free speech is in principle the right to speak the truth; in practice it's the right to assert falsehoods which enables it.
* Much of the content of the Catholic mass is demonstratively false
* If any Catholic mass is celebrated, these atheists will attempt to murder the participants
By your ridiculous interpretation of the first amendment, the Catholic mass should now be silenced.
You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're the ones threatening to murder someone. Even in that case, it is unlikely that any law enforcement agency would garner enough support to actually silence them until they'd gone out and hurt someone. See also: Westboro Baptist. The day that anyone associated with Westboro acts on their hateful speech is the day that they'll be shut down.
The best argument against silencing this ridiculous video isn't the fact that it's full of false claims and nut-job ideology, but that there are serious doubts as to whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks. There are suspicions that the attacks were orchestrated separately, and the video is just a red herring.
Can't you see the analogy between my scenario and this scenario? You make it sound as though if the video was the true motivating factor, then it should be banned. This is analogous with the Catholic mass in my scenario - by following the same logic, if the mass were the true driving factor behind the atheist's violence, then the mass should be banned. You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't.
"You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't."
We can, and we do. Look at the suicide of Tyler Clementi and the resulting sentencing of Dharun Ravi [1]. Look at the case of the anti-abortion wanted-posters [2].
The protection of free speech is not black and white. I understand that this makes people uneasy, but you can't have black & white distinctions in a population greater than one.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia...
No, the parallel was accurate. The guy in California threatened no one, and his freedom of speech is on the line because other guys, who disagreed with him, committed murder.
And what about fiction? What if the film just include(d|s) a line saying all the events are fictional? Should it still be silenced?
Maybe 1984 influenced me too much, but such arguments make me extremely uneasy.
- Is demonstrably untrue
- Endangers the public
It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video.
Your statement is factually wrong on so many levels.
One, your understanding of what first amendment covers or doesn't cover is incorrect. Hate speech in particular is protected (which this video may or may not even be - I would call it distasteful but legitimate satire). This has been expressly addressed many, many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
Two, the words "demonstrably untrue" mean that someone has audiovisual proof of what happened. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the video's interpretation of the history of Islam but fact is, no one has the video of Muhammad getting religion. This is why it's called "faith".
Three, inflammatory words = violence equation is no more valid than slutty dress = rape equation. Violence is always squarely on the perpetrators, however provocative the trigger may be. I don't see why Muslims - or people of other faiths - should get special treatment when it comes to their religious feelings being offended.
When a company has built tools for self-expression that are widely used, they have a responsibility to commit to broad principles under difficult circumstances. Free speech principles aren't as widely protected across the globe as they are in the US, but that doesn't mean they are not very important to the advancement of society.
You're being closed-minded if you're not willing to accept the possibility that they're right.
There's different forms of social control; it's multi-dimensional. In a top-down democracy with elected kings, it requires consistent struggle to improve things. We're very privileged, and unfortunately arrogant and militantly violent too. I mean, what are we doing in the middle east anyway, handing out flowers? Or killing people, breaking things and making sure we're their boss?
I never said that I didn't "accept the possibility that they're right". I just don't believe that an organization should be in charge of deciding what is "hateful" and what isn't. I happen to believe that free expression is critical to our moral and scientific growth as a species.
(Many of the less thoughtful and compassionate of these would look at American standards of public assistance, education, and criminal justice, hear you talk about "our moral and scientific growth as a species", and laugh in your face.)
Consider that they may be right and you may be wrong.
(The disagreement and dialogue in this conversation has been brought to you by Free Expression.)
Much to the contrary-- try having a conversation like this on a "free" forum like 4chan and see how far you get. This kind of respectful dialogue is brought to us by pervasive peer moderation and social opprobrium, with a dash of outright censorship to taste.
I say "if" because I'm not familiar with the video. I've seen a lot of meta reports about it, but I haven't seen a summary of the video's content.
Oh and the content is essentially right wing christian propaganda.
You cannot incite a riot, that is a crime.
These videos are inciting riots, not a theory, it's a fact (though anything would have triggered these riots, they just wanted an excuse and it's a tiny minority who are the most vocal).
"free speech" is an illusion in the USA, it doesn't actually exist as an unrestricted right - if you disagree, try screaming "fire" in a packed movie theater and see what happens to you, or do something as asinine like threaten the president or make a joke about the TSA while waiting in line at the airport.
Yes, you cannot incite a riot. You cannot say "My followers: Riot! Smash everything!" But because something you say could or does cause a riot is not reason enough to ban your speech. Otherwise you get something like the so-called "Heckler's Veto", whereby people who merely disagree with your speech can make themselves enough of a nuisance to have it silenced.
Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube?
Now you're starting to shade things into a gray area. At some point you need a judge or jury to decide whether speech is incitement to violence or not. And I don't believe the video in question is (even obliquely) advocating any particular action. It's just grossly offensive to some people.
Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube?
Like your other examples of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or threatening the President, there are certain forms of "expression" that can be restricted or punished, not because they're expressing particular ideas, but because they have a direct, causal connection to harm. You can come up with a thousand examples: It's not "free speech" for a doctor to write you a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. It's not "free speech" for a police officer to tell you you're obligated to talk to him without a lawyer. It's not "free speech" to lie on the witness stand.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can't be punished or restricted from saying anything, but it does mean that absent any direct harm to the rights of others, you're free to express ideas in any reasonable manner. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.
There's no direct harm right? But it's not protected free speech - it has limitations.
You do realize the video in question was heavily edited to change dialog and things like blackboards were switched out. So it was purposely tailored to cause a reaction - incite a physical reaction.
If a group of people started rioting because you were espousing the virtues of Zorastrianism, that would not make your speech unprotected.
> These videos are inciting riots, not a theory, it's a fact (though anything would have triggered these riots, they just wanted an excuse and it's a tiny minority who are the most vocal).
You just contradicted yourself. This is manufactured incident.
Hence you will find all kinds of material on the Internet including all kinds of hate speeches against all the religions, ideologies, personalities etc. Google being an indexer of Web would naturally present such material if you go looking for it. It's not Google's fault nor should it be its worry. After all, you can't really blame or shoot the messenger.
In a way, Internet has had more of a leveling effect on the kind of content and information that is available to common people in the world ( at least for those who have some kind of access to it ).
If for any bizarre reason, Internet starts to become more censor prone, it would loose its magical value. It is the most important invention of our times. It's somehow better if we don't have control over it. Just sit back and try to recollect the amazing pace with which it has changed and how beautifully it has sustained itself. It has a evolution path of its own.
The logic inside my head says that it was correct when Google removed the video from Libya/Egypt. But there is something in my heart that says that we would loose the innocence of Internet we go down this path too often.
Remember how reckless, carefree and full of possibilities we were when we were children. Then we came of age and learnt to how behave and think and do things like Adults. On the way, we somehow became ... well, just boring.
Remember, Internet is still a child. Hope we don't force it into becoming just another boring adult.