• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Google says it won't take down anti-Muslim clip (at White House request)

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is a pretty disturbing event, that the White House is trying to censor speech. Where does it end? If someone posts an anti US govt rant which results in protests, will the White House ask to take that down too? So what if muslims dont like our speech. They can piss off. And so can the White House. As if the video hasnt been copied all over the net already.

WASHINGTON — Google is refusing a White House request to take down an anti-Muslim clip on YouTube, but is restricting access to it in certain countries.

The White House said Friday that it had asked YouTube to review whether the video violated its terms of use. Google owns YouTube, the online video sharing site.

YouTube said in a statement Friday that the video is widely available on the Web and is "clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube."

The short film "Innocence of Muslims" denigrates Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. It played a role in igniting mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Middle East. And it has been blamed for playing a role in violence in Libya, where the U.S. ambassador and three others were killed though the exact cause of the attacks is under investigation.

U.S. and Libyan officials are investigating whether the protests in Libya were a cover for militants, possibly al-Qaida sympathizers, to carry out a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and kill Americans. Washington has deployed FBI investigators to try and track down militants behind the attack.

While the protests intensified over the video, YouTube blocked access to the clip in Libya and Egypt. YouTube cited "the very sensitive situations" in those two countries. Later YouTube also blocked access to the video in India and Indonesia after their governments told Youtube the video broke their laws.

The controversy underscores how some Internet firms have been thrust into debates over the limits of free speech.

Google says it won't take down anti-Muslim clip
 
I don't see where they were asked to take it down. They were simply asked to look into the terms of use
 
Actually, a few months ago or less Google had produced a report detailing the number of removal requests they get from various entities. In particular, Google focused on reporting the number of requests it had received from governments to remove content. Google had every reason to promote itself as an independent party that "does no evil," nevertheless, it reported that it granted governments a very small portion of the requests. It's not so disturbing so much as expected practice by numerous parties, including nation-states.
 
we've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indonesia as well as in Libya and Egypt, given the very sensitive situations in these two countries. This approach is entirely consistent with principles we first laid out in 2007."

They've even limited access to it.
 
I don't see where they were asked to take it down. They were simply asked to look into the terms of use

They mean the same. This was a way to ask them to take it down but still have plausible deniablility since they didn't say so directly. The result would be the same.
 
They mean the same. This was a way to ask them to take it down but still have plausible deniablility since they didn't say so directly. The result would be the same.

Much as I'd love to hate on the government for this one, they didn't ask. They made it clear that it would be nice, didn't push and accepted the answer. I'm okay with wishful thinking when this video is being blamed (possibly rightfully) for starting massive violence.

No lines crossed imo.
 
They mean the same. This was a way to ask them to take it down but still have plausible deniablility since they didn't say so directly. The result would be the same.

There is a big difference between leaving the decision in google's hands and actually telling them to take it down. You have clearly injected your own paranoia and your desire to anger people into your conclusions. Your opinion is clearly your opinion in this case, and until the US government actually tells them to take it down or suffer consequences they have not crossed any lines in censorship.
 
Much as I'd love to hate on the government for this one, they didn't ask.
As I said. They didn't ask directly. But it would have had the same effect if Google would have taken it down. And I'm not hating on the government.

They made it clear that it would be nice, didn't push and accepted the answer.
Of course they did. To do otherwise would be to go against the Constitution.

I'm okay with wishful thinking when this video is being blamed (possibly rightfully) for starting massive violence.
Freedom of speech in this country is more important than the feelings of anyone that may potentially be offended by that speech. To say that it is rightful for people to destroy property or even kill based on what a person says, is not a reasonable position to defend (not that that is what you said). The fact that people in this world feel it is reasonable to destroy property and kill over just words, can never be defended, accepted or rationalized in any way by our society.

However, we cannot judge ourselves by others, and we cannot judge others actions by ours. We can only judge ourselves by our cultural values and standards.

Cultural differences make it impossible.

We can and must hold ourselves responsible for maintaining those standards, like freedom of speech, that set us apart from other parts of this world. Do do less, is unthinkable.

No lines crossed imo.

I agree. I didn't say or imply otherwise. I just pointed out the fact that there was little to no difference in outcome if Google would have taken it down in response. Which they didn't. So there is no 'there', there.
 
There is a big difference between leaving the decision in google's hands and actually telling them to take it down. You have clearly injected your own paranoia and your desire to anger people into your conclusions. Your opinion is clearly your opinion in this case, and until the US government actually tells them to take it down or suffer consequences they have not crossed any lines in censorship.

Firstly, as to the portions which I have made red for highlighting: Are you saying me when you say you?

As to the rest: I never said they crossed any line. Where and how did you come to that conclusion?
 
Actually, a few months ago or less Google had produced a report detailing the number of removal requests they get from various entities. In particular, Google focused on reporting the number of requests it had received from governments to remove content. Google had every reason to promote itself as an independent party that "does no evil," nevertheless, it reported that it granted governments a very small portion of the requests. It's not so disturbing so much as expected practice by numerous parties, including nation-states.

Its disturbing for the US govt to be trying to censor content on the internet.
 
Its disturbing for the US govt to be trying to censor content on the internet.


That depends.

Honestly - when something has the capacity to start WWIII I think it's legitimate involvement. . . purely for our own interests - not the enemies. If someone is going to cause a major problem that our government and our soldiers worldwide are going to have to clean up I think it brings them into the scope of governance.

So - the question is: does this current 'video' qualify. . . maybe they'll wear their selves out - but honestly, it's just to late to 'contain' the situation by removing it - it's out, it's done - it's downloaded to every Al Qaeda ipod.
 
Its disturbing for the US govt to be trying to censor content on the internet.

No it's not. It's vital that they do censor. The only issue is what they sometimes try to censor.
 
That depends.

Honestly - when something has the capacity to start WWIII I think it's legitimate involvement. . . purely for our own interests - not the enemies. If someone is going to cause a major problem that our government and our soldiers worldwide are going to have to clean up I think it brings them into the scope of governance.

So - the question is: does this current 'video' qualify. . . maybe they'll wear their selves out - but honestly, it's just to late to 'contain' the situation by removing it - it's out, it's done - it's downloaded to every Al Qaeda ipod.

No, free speech is free speech. Thats the whole point. There is no situation in which the govt should be pressuring a private citizen to stop publishing speech. The only thing I could ever think of coming close would be state secrets, and even then, Im not for it.
 
No, free speech is free speech. Thats the whole point. There is no situation in which the govt should be pressuring a private citizen to stop publishing speech. The only thing I could ever think of coming close would be state secrets, and even then, Im not for it.

I was thinking of activities that would quickly put someone on a **** list - I don't think this qualifies as such.
 
If Google gives in. Obama wins.
 
They've even limited access to it.

In countries where it is illegal.

No, free speech is free speech. Thats the whole point. There is no situation in which the govt should be pressuring a private citizen to stop publishing speech. The only thing I could ever think of coming close would be state secrets, and even then, Im not for it.

It's not "pressure." You're using the exact phrasing you've been fed. They asked google to look into their own terms of use.
 
In countries where it is illegal.



It's not "pressure." You're using the exact phrasing you've been fed. They asked google to look into their own terms of use.

When the Executive branch of the most powerful country in the world calls you and asks you to do something, thats called 'pressure'. And since when do we support other countries censorship? They dont have to access youtube and they have no authority over youtube. Youtubes servers are in the united states. People are going to the US to get it. If youtube wants to self censor to please foreign customers, thats their own business, of course.
 
Last edited:
It's not "pressure." You're using the exact phrasing you've been fed. They asked google to look into their own terms of use.

It is most definitely pressure. You tell me when anyone you know would just ignore a request by the POTUS.
 
It is most definitely pressure. You tell me when anyone you know would just ignore a request by the POTUS.

Lots of companies when there's no legal heft behind it.

Google doesn't like the government too much - this isn't the first confrontation over something rights-related. I bet you they feel picked on only because they're the big cheese
 
Back
Top Bottom