Is this a first? Google voluntarily censors anti-Islam video in Libya, Egypt

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtube-blocks-access-controversial-video-egypt-and-libya

by uvdiv • 14 years ago

46 86 14 years ago

uvdiv5• 14 years ago

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?

[a] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Censorship_of_Googl...

[b] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/net-us-india-viole...

mtgx• 14 years ago

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?

uvdiv5• 14 years ago

Yes, but in this case it's overtly political -- they are blocking videos on the basis of their speech content.

raldi• 14 years ago

The DNC thing never actually happened:

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.

calibraxis2• 14 years ago

Does Google/YouTube proactively restrict content based on notions of intellectual property or other US interests?

leephillips• 14 years ago

"Is there a precedent for this?"

There are many. Here's one from a few years ago:

http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/

DamnYuppie2• 14 years ago

I believe the license for the film was revoked. Which means it can't be distributed. So I am not sure this was all Google's idea.

Regardless I find the erosion of free speech to be sad. We must never say or do anything to upset the Muslims...please...

Cushman7• 14 years ago

What free speech? When has YouTube ever proposed not to censor videos on the basis of content?

DamnYuppie2• 14 years ago

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.

dbecker3• 14 years ago

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.

doktrin2• 14 years ago

This disturbs me on the grounds of "bad habit" precedent alone. Getting accustomed to self-censorship is almost as bad as having it mandated.

DanBC4• 14 years ago

Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building?

Why is that form of self-censorship acceptable to you?

pstuart4• 14 years ago

That's different and you (should) know it.

jakeonthemove• 14 years ago

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).

andreasvc3• 14 years ago

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.

brianchu• 14 years ago

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?

anamax• 14 years ago

When I don't yell "HELLO CUNTS", it's not because someone 1000 miles away might be offended.

As far as this particular offense goes, "piss Christ" and so on....

Some animals are more equal than others.

nateberkopec• 14 years ago

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.

andreasvc3• 14 years ago

That 'literally' is much too strong. The video was used as a convenient excuse for an attack which was probably already being prepared. Cf. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-w...

Dirlewanger• 14 years ago

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?

nhebb2• 14 years ago

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.

theorique• 14 years ago

This video is clearly hate speech,

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".

dak12• 14 years ago

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.

Robin_Message• 14 years ago

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.

ppod3• 14 years ago

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.

LostInTheWoods2• 14 years ago

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.

mbell• 14 years ago

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).

tomjen32• 14 years ago

The video has not caused the death of a single person.

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.

s_henry_paulson• 14 years ago

If Google was a government, or youtube was a service that you were paying for, this would be a valid argument.

ori_b• 14 years ago

There's nothing wrong with debating what the most moral course of action for a private company is, even if you have no right to demand them to change.

doktrin2• 14 years ago

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.

vixen99• 14 years ago

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.

bradleyland4• 14 years ago

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.

uvdiv5• 14 years ago

So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it:

* Is demonstrably untrue

* Endangers the public

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion.

ppod3• 14 years ago

Lets suppose that a group of atheists (and I am one) get together and make the following announcement:

* 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.

icebraining3• 14 years ago

Who decides what's the "truth"? Who decides the criteria for qualifying something as demonstratively false?

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.

rada• 14 years ago

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.

othermaciej• 14 years ago

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).

ActVen3• 14 years ago

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.

Cushman7• 14 years ago

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.

calibraxis2• 14 years ago

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?

ActVen3• 14 years ago

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.

anuraj• 14 years ago

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.

stevoski• 14 years ago

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.

nhebb2• 14 years ago

If it's straight-out political censorship, then they should rename it OurTube instead of YouTube.

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.

tomjen32• 14 years ago

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.

pfortuny• 14 years ago

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...').

ck23• 14 years ago

In the USA there are limits to free speech.

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.

twoodfin2• 14 years ago

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.

ck23• 14 years ago

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?

Symmetry• 14 years ago

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.

dak12• 14 years ago

There is a difference between encouraging violence and people reacting violently to protected speech.

If a group of people started rioting because you were espousing the virtues of Zorastrianism, that would not make your speech unprotected.

pstuart4• 14 years ago

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.

vannevar• 14 years ago

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.

pagejim• 14 years ago

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.

option_greek• 14 years ago

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.

Is this a first? Google voluntarily censors anti-Islam video in Libya, Egypt

Related Stories