Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-protests-google-idUSBRE88D1MD20120914

by tomio • 14 years ago

188 195 14 years ago

reuters.com

IbJacked• 14 years ago

Good. The request shouldn't have even been made.

braum• 14 years ago

Exactly.

awa• 14 years ago

Well Google voluntarily pulled the video from Libya and Egypt

andreasvc3• 14 years ago

It said in the article that it was to comply with local laws.

naeem• 14 years ago

Why is the White House even making that request? At which point does religious appeasement start to become institutionalized through fear?

spindritf• 14 years ago

It's not religious appeasement, you don't see them appeasing Buddhists or even Christians.

vacri• 14 years ago

As a non-American, I see religious appeasement of Christians all the time when I see US politics.

rayiner3• 14 years ago

Appeasement is the policy we've adopted towards trying to keep Israel and the Islamic countries from fighting. Do you remember the shitstorm at the DNC when they forgot to put "and Jeruselem shall be the capital of Israel" on the platform? What is that if not appeasement?

gfodor2• 14 years ago

What a joke. Obama et al just lost a lot of my respect.

wtracy• 14 years ago

Yeah.

If Romney had made his little spiel about "not apologizing for American values" after this development had been made public, I would have agreed with it.

grandalf• 14 years ago

He already had lost all of mine due to the drone strikes, rendition, and other atrocities, ... but this certainly doesn't help.

tomstokes• 14 years ago

From what I can gather, the White House didn't explicitly ask for the clip to be removed. Rather, they suggested the clip might violate YouTube's own terms of service.

From the article:

> White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube's terms of service

Still, the net effect is the same. The gesture was made with the goal of having the video removed from YouTube. It's unfortunate that our administration went down this path at all.

cheald• 14 years ago

We have to ask why on earth the White House should even care if the video violates Google's TOS. This was as close as they could get to a takedown request without violating the Constitution.

Really disgraceful, IMO.

Karunamon5• 14 years ago

Tapping someone on the shoulder and saying "Hey, could you take that down" is disgraceful? This was handled completely honorably and amicably as I can see. WH made a request, Google declined.

Save the outrage for things that need it, IMHO.

paulsutter• 14 years ago

I guess killing diplomats is the new way to get White House assistance for your special interests project.

Rewarding a behavior is the best way to get more of it.

roboneal10• 14 years ago

Does the Obama administration really want to enter the business of suppressing every "inconvenient" video that might offend the sensibilities of Middle Eastern mobs?

bksenior• 14 years ago

I don't understand this request. Doesn't this lead to every organization having a case for pulling down any video they deem to be in violation of bad taste.

The white house has a beautiful 250 year old document they can get behind that makes the issue black and white (free speech) and absolves them of looking like they played favorites to either side. How is this publicly sterilizing solution the best option?

dandelany• 14 years ago

It was not a legally binding request, they just asked them to review the video for violations of their terms of service, and "please" remove it if it was found to be in violation. Any other organization is and has always been free to do the same, just as Google is free to decline the request.

nostromo3• 14 years ago

It was just a request. A request they are free to make and Google is free to decline.

One (edit: four) of Obama's civilian employees was killed by an angry mob, ostensibly because of this video, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask. I'm also glad Google declined.

xanados• 14 years ago

It's not appropriate for the Executive branch to make requests to remove content that is political for political reasons. This has a chilling effect[1] and can thus be rightly judged by the populace as being against our shared reckoning on free speech.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29

kigster• 14 years ago

I think it's a mistake to say "employee was killed because of the video". They were killed because of barbaric rules that extreme version of Islam promotes, and those who take it seriously enough to blow themselves up and other people. I applaud Google.

powertower4• 14 years ago

> ostensibly because of this video

That video had nothing to do with anyone being killed. It was an excuse used by the mob to justify their desire for murder and violence, so they would not appear as complete savages.

I've watched that video, and the worst I can describe it is with words: "silly" and "amateurish". It wouldn’t even pass the litmus test for the type of speech that incites violence.

It’s clear that those people were egger and willing to kill Americans and Westerners long before this video was made.

> so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask

It's completely unreasonable to ask the American people to throw out parts of the Constitution to try to appease clearly incompatible religious and juvenile groups half a world away.

protomyth8• 14 years ago

"It was just a request"

And one that not only shouldn't have been made, but one that shouldn't even of crossed the mind of anyone in the White House. The oath is to protect the Constitution.

The video is not the cause of the deaths. The actions of people who made personal decisions to be murderous killed people. The world would be a better place if we started blaming people instead of some stimulus or tool.

kzrdude• 14 years ago

> Obama's civilian employees

A strange way to put it. One of USA's civilian employees was killed.

kfinley• 14 years ago

I'm more concerned by this:

>U.S. authorities said on Friday that they were investigating whether the film's producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year old Egyptian Coptic Christian living in Southern California, had violated terms of his prison release. Basseley was convicted in 2010 for bank fraud and released from prison on probation last June.

This sets a bad precedence. "If you create something that we disagree with, you will be investigated". With the ever expanding number of laws we have in this country -- we are all, most certainly, guilty of something.

mynameishere• 14 years ago

ostensibly because of this video

And actually because of policy, hence the "request".

smsm426• 14 years ago

He wasn't killed because of the video. He was killed because he was representing the US, aka Big Satan. It amazes me how anybody watching the news for last 20 or so years can still talk about it being about specific video or cartoon or poem or whatever and if only it wasn't there everything would be peachy. It wouldn't.

And it wasn't "just a request". It was a request from US government - the body created to represent all US citizens and protect their rights, including free speech, which is in the First Amendment of US constitution. When Obama is a private citizen again, then his requests will be close to "just a request". Now, nothing he says or does is "just a" - it's always "US president's".

InclinedPlane• 14 years ago

Praytell, how does a video operate a firearm? Should we now blame rape victims for inciting their rapists?

rdl2• 14 years ago

I'm very pro free speech, but I actually wouldn't mind if the video went down for a couple of days ("under review") while security at embassies was improved, and for time for the mobs to settle down a bit. I would absolutely be against pulling it, but delaying or putting it in context wouldn't hinder free speech and would potentially save lives.

I'd also like to see Google run a clickthrough redirect preroll or ads on the page explaining that they don't support the content, it doesn't represent Google or the US, but that free speech is valued. Google did something similar with an anti-Jewish/Nazi googlebombing of "Jew" in search results (http://www.google.com/explanation.html)

roboneal10• 14 years ago

"I'm very pro free speech, but...."

Let's expand on your thought process a bit....how about we just suppress all video that criticizes Islamic sensibilities just on the anniversary of 9/11? Well and maybe through Ramadan too. Just temporarily of course. Until "they" settle down and we get our security stuff straightened out.

Yeah, that's what the framers of the Constitution thought when the wrote the FIRST Amendment.

guelo• 14 years ago

Good for Google. Unlike Visa, Paypal, et al. who blocked payments to Wikileaks at the government's request.

bilbo0s• 14 years ago

In fairness to Visa and Paypal...

The government was a good deal more serious about the WikiLeaks thing. This is a one off film... WikiLeaks was going to keep releasing the 'news' for as long as it existed. The nature of that threat merited more robust action.

The US Government, Google, Visa and Paypal are no worse than any of the world's other governments or corporations. Little better... I grant you that... but no worse.

grecy• 14 years ago

Can we get a link to the video?

nostromo3• 14 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

css771• 14 years ago

I'm surprised I had to scroll this far down for a link to the video. Thanks.

aklofas• 14 years ago

That movie is terrible. I think it should be censored based on quality and acting alone.

stfu• 14 years ago

I was expecting some sophisticated propaganda piece. And not some crappy community theater actors doing some play for a public service television show. "Somebody" is really easy to troll.

ladzoppelin• 14 years ago

Wow Youtube comments really bring humanity down a notch. I wish Google would just end the comment system for a while and see what happens. Between Youtube comments and Android market app reviews, Google could own the two biggest pools of idiocy on the internet.

Its good they left the video on line but the lunacy in the comments makes me wish they would just pull it.

ktizo• 14 years ago

So the guy who produced the video is Egyptian? And is apparently facebook friends with the Metropolitan Seraphim of Glastonbury http://www.policymic.com/articles/14762/nakoula-basseley-nak...

When there is a situation this awful, why does it have to be so utterly ridiculous as well?

I'm not sure whether the inability of many fanatics to think before they aim makes them more, or less scary.

nostromo3• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect hasn't been translated into Arabic yet.

jlgreco9• 14 years ago

@seanmcdirmid Your comment is dead so I cannot respond to it directly.

"Arabs protesting the video didn't make the video more visible in the western world (the video is trash anyways)."

I would have never heard of this video were it not for the protests.

roboneal10• 14 years ago

On the same grounds, should the White House have asked Youtube to censor the numerous clips of Kerry and Biden praising the killing of Bin Laden at the DNC last week?

I'm sure the Islamic world might have taken offense.

Steko13• 14 years ago

Did you mean "could" because you said "should" which makes the whole thing read like nonsense.

roboneal10• 14 years ago

Not sure what confused you. It's a rhetorical question using essentially the White Houses "incitement" argument.

roboneal10• 14 years ago

No I didn't mean "could".

Of course, the White House "could" ask for any video to be censored/suppressed. The question is "should" they on the same "it incites" Middle Eastern mobs premise.

protomyth8• 14 years ago

Given what the BBC was reporting the crowds in Tunisia were chanting, these are the more likely stimulus.

That being said, murder should not have been the result and anything other than personal responsibility is a crock.

dscrd• 14 years ago

You really think the Islamic world, over 1.5B people, think of Bin Laden as a hero?

Steko13• 14 years ago

I'd guess the fraudulent redubbing of these actors lines into fatwa provoking ones means the actors probably have some recourse to get the video pulled.

waterlesscloud2• 14 years ago

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on their contracts. If such documents even exist.

mindstab• 14 years ago

Kids. Have they never heard of the Streisand effect. It's pretty much in one place now. Take it down and it'll be back up 10 fold on youtube mirrored, and then also on other services like vimeo etc. You can't kill these things. Asking just looks native

slurgfest4• 14 years ago

What you may not have considered is that it is more important that Obama be seen to do something about the offensive videos, than actually to achieve anything by it.

Pretty sure the administration knows they cannot kill the video. Explaining this to people we have to deal with diplomatically is another issue.

salimmadjd5• 14 years ago

YouTube should have removed the video based on their own guidelines. This can be classified as a hate speech.

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines :

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).

mbell2• 14 years ago

How does this video meet that definition?

salimmadjd5• 14 years ago

How it doesn't? This brings in an interesting issue, google based on their own guidelines are in the position of interpreting what is hate speech and what isn't. Who at google makes that decision? Who are these people? Do they have a biased?

moskie• 14 years ago

Exactly.

Now, my question is, why _doesn't_ this video violate that guideline? Isn't its entire purpose to denigrate Islam?

malandrew4• 14 years ago

AFAICT it is because:

  Individual != Group

even if the group considers that individual to be someone who represents them.

salimmadjd5• 14 years ago

Google is just pissed off they were not credited for any kind of revolution like twitter was and now they don't want to lose their opportunity.

effinjames3• 14 years ago

google is run by jews, nuff said.

malandrew4• 14 years ago

I haven't spent the time to watch the video, but from what others have said, the video is about a person (Mohammed) and not about a group of people. That being said, I don't see how it could be hate speech. The most it could be is slanderous/libelous. A similar video about Jesus or any other individual, involved with a religion or not, would be the same. Were the video about a group of people with some common identifying characteristic such as race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation, it could be considered hate speech.

salimmadjd5• 14 years ago

The makers of this video have admitted the purpose of the video was to denigrate Islam. Shouldn't that be enough in itself to classify this as hate speech. Also this issue bring a very interesting point. How google make these type of judgment. Do they have legal experts viewing these videos and making decision as such?

There is a lot of important issues being brought up as a result. How do we identify hate speech, who makes that kind of a judgement, what's the role of distribution channels in these cases, how much power the government has, is there a bigger responsibility for unseen cases?

sharjeel• 14 years ago

There is a huge difference. Saying that the video is just about a person and not about a group of people is incorrect in this particular context. Muslims have a huge affection, emotional attachment and love for their prophet which you wouldn't observe in followers of other religions. Unfortunately western cultures don't understand these deep ties and consider mockery here equivalent to any other common mockery. Although there are some other sensitive topics, such as Holocaust, which are treated responsibly in the west, but for some reason the topic under question is always given free hand in the name of freedom of speech rather than classifying it as hate speech.

cwisecarver3• 14 years ago

They should probably start by looking through the comments on their site. I'd say +70% of them qualify as hate speech.

belorn2• 14 years ago

Hate speech is/should have a very narrow definition. If we define hate speech as "anything anyone might take offense too", we make the term useless.

There is a difference between someone goes around shouting for the extinction of a race, and someone doing bad and amateurish satire. Trying to combine the two, and you are indirectly making the first type more acceptable.

sev• 14 years ago

But they blocked the video in Libya and Egypt.

waterlesscloud2• 14 years ago

The United States is a nation argued into existence, in part by blatantly inflammatory speech. It's in our national DNA, and it should stay there.

slurgfest4• 14 years ago

What about blatantly inflammatory homophobia and holocaust denial? Those are also blatantly inflammatory speech covered by freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean they have to be socially acceptable.

nateabele2• 14 years ago

Indeed, but in civilized societies, socially unacceptable speech is countered either by ignoring it, or by more speech. Not by rioting and killing people.

roboneal10• 14 years ago

Is the takeaway message..that the Obama administration says we have permission to put whatever we want on Youtube as long as it doesn't offend Islam?

slurgfest4• 14 years ago

The takeaway message is nothing of that sort. Let's not find dictatorships behind every bush. Google decided not to do what Obama requested, and nobody is getting concrete shoes over it. Obama is certainly not picking on you individually.

cwisecarver3• 14 years ago

Google is a business and it has every right to operate as it sees fit. Being a company that is headquartered in the US, I can't believe it would censor this video at all in any jurisdiction. It's not out of character for them considering the lengths it went to appease China but I don't think that was the right decision either.

I would hope that if I was ever faced with a similar situation I would choose based on my conscience not on ignorant local laws, what was best for the business, or what seemed to be the easiest choice at the time.

Edited for grammar.

effinjames3• 14 years ago

moral and respect towards other religions. jews is backing google, i've said enuf.

cwisecarver3• 14 years ago

This confuses and disgusts me. It also makes me wish I hadn't made the parent comment just so this casual antisemitism didn't have a parent comment to latch onto.

smsm426• 14 years ago

What I would like to know here is:

1. How frequently US administration asks Google and other content companies to pull content for political reasons?

2. Has Google ever complied with these requests?

3. How much of this content was pulled because of blasphemy reasons?

4. Is it the official policy of US government to try to censure any speech which can cause negative reaction from violent extremists abroad, or there some violent extremists that US government is more afraid of than others? If so, who takes these decisions and is his salary paid from my taxes?

Ideally, these questions would be answered by the free press. But with current state of affairs they are more likely to engage in political gamesmanship and issues like which politician's dog ran away 30 years ago and who of the politicians was a mean kid in kindergarten.

Also one must note that while White House has, so far, been powerless to remove any content, any of the RIAA members can instantly remove virtually any content from YouTube just by the virtue of claiming it's infringing. Of course, if the victim fights back fierce enough, it can be reinstated - but then it can be removed again by another claim, can't it?

jrockway• 14 years ago

This doesn't completely answer your questions, but take a look at the Google Transparency Report: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/

tokenadult• 14 years ago

As I commented on this issue earlier,

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4511247

"As we read news reports about violent responses to the video, from people who seem to be quite confused about who produced the video, it's important for all of us to remember the basic issue here. The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch person or other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind."

Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize TSA "security theater" as a meaningless reduction in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing, but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs.

I think jerf correctly responded to this issue the other day:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4510637

If I organize a riot involving thousands of people that I manage to incite into killing people, and I claim my reason is that I heard that some guy is Glasgow made fun of the American soccer team over beer... that guy is Glasgow is not the real reason. It doesn't even qualify as a metaphorical fig leaf, it's just a lie. When the excuse is this tiny, you shouldn't even give it the time of day.

AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the two replies to this comment posted as I type this edit. I will defend to the utmost your right to free speech, to be enjoyed wherever you live or travel.

I wonder if the reason that books by Robert Spencer

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-Koran/dp/15969...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant/dp...

have not been used as a pretext for rioting is that the instigators of riots don't want to draw attention to these books, which might lead a lot of people around the world to reexamine their beliefs.

Steko13• 14 years ago

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences.

You can go all Fred Phelps and tell some marine's family he's in hell now at his funeral and that they are inbred hillbillies that could never have invented the internet but don't expect shock on my part if his dad and brothers decide that would be a good time to beat the shit out of you.

jlgreco9• 14 years ago

I would expect shock on your part if somebody in another hemisphere attacked and killed a third party because of something that you said. I know I would find that shocking, to put it lightly.

rictic• 14 years ago

... and that would be illegal for them to do, and for good reason.

The solution to bad speech is not violence. It's more speech.

nateabele2• 14 years ago

You're totally right. Our skirt was too high, our top was too low, and we wore waaay too much eyeshadow. We were totally asking for it.

derleth• 14 years ago

> Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences.

The next time you use the word 'yellow', I'm going to murder someone.

Just try me. You'll see that actions have consequences.

comex• 14 years ago

> just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions.

Give me a break - by all indications, the author of the video made it for his own religious reasons, because of his own delusions, rather than as some kind of enlightened critique, which explains why it's, y'know, so extremely crude. He made his video specifically to cause maximum insult to a culture: that doesn't put him anywhere near the lunatics who would kill diplomats over an insult, but he too is a lunatic. I'll defend to the death his right to say it, but it's hard to support it in any way.

Also, I don't know what you meant by it, and I apologize for being presumptuous, but your "people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet" suggests an image of cultural superiority, which is an awful thing to create in response to the actions of a violent few.

jlgreco9• 14 years ago

"suggests an image of cultural superiority"

I think it is safe to say that something is wrong, I don't accept that it is statistically insignificant noise of crazy and misogyny. I am not sure exactly what is wrong though.

It clearly is not race, and I don't think anybody on this website would think it was. Similarly, I don't think it is religion; their religion and science/progress historically have not been mutually exclusive. The history of Islam and science is arguably more positive than that of the other Abrahamic religions.

So what is it?

genwin• 14 years ago

> He made his video specifically to cause maximum insult to a culture.

Like Team America, but no cities burned over that one. I'd like to see a continuous stream of such insulting videos, so those offended finally concede to change the channel.

onetimeuse001• 14 years ago

Who cares why he made it? The internet is full of videos and posts mocking Jesus, Buddha and virtually every sect or religion or lack of religion out there. Also people mock fat people, skinny people, black, white, green and everyone in between. Do they have to blow something up to get attention from Google?

I understand that just because you can do it, you shouldn't do it, but Google is different, they did not make the film and their platform should be open to all but illegal stuff (child pppron for example).

I am upset that certain people call me an infidel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir . Google should remove those videos that cal everyone else an unbeliever or else ;).

lloeki• 14 years ago

> I'll defend to the death his right to say it, but it's hard to support it in any way.

This does not mean you need to support it in any way.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". — B. Hall [0]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

nico3• 14 years ago

> If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won.

Seriously? People living in fear of terrorists is actually a feat mostly of US politicians, inciting it and using it to manipulate the masses.

If people were rational, and weren't purposely deceived by people on TV, they would be more scared of driving than terrorists, since more people die in car accidents every year, than all people ever killed in terrorist attacks.

001sky7• 14 years ago

If people were rational...they would be more scared of [driving] than terrorists,

This was the pre-9/11 mindset. Don't forget. Nobody wants to bother figting the terrorists. Before they came to your shores. There is a big difference between rational strategy and having your head in the sand. Its called a lack of imagination. Until flight 93, nobody bothered...just like you suggest

Turing_Machine2• 14 years ago

Intent matters. Sorry, it just does.

Car accidents are, well, accidental. Terrorist attacks are not.

Rational people understand this.

twelvechairs• 14 years ago

People in Arab countries aren't generally angry at western freedom of speech, they are angry at being denigrated and being denied the opportunities for self advancement that we safely take for granted.

I wish that the media focus was truly on the broader issues behind this anger than placing so much focus on one ridiculous video.

roboneal10• 14 years ago

How riled up will they be when they see the White House-approved full length feature film of the killing of Bin Laden? Will same principles apply?

cntcoup• 14 years ago

I have petition the Obama administration to "Uphold the United States Constitution. Make a commitment to not ask a corporation or organization to censor user content"

http://wh.gov/WfFk

Apologies if this is not appropriate for HN. I just find this disturbing and felt that I need to do something.

ibarrac• 14 years ago

One thing that I have not seen expressed very much is how people in other countries, especially in intolerant or oppressive ones, are not aware of the level of freedom of speech guaranteed to all citizens in the US. In turn, Americans are not aware of their lack of awareness. This causes no end of misunderstanding.

I remember seeing an interview where Chrisiane Amanpour is told by an Iranian member of parliament, "I don't think there is a place in the world where freedom means that people can say whatever they want, where they can lie or make whatever accusation they choose. For example, in the United States, can someone say or write something against their country's national interest and security?" Ms. Amanmpour replies, "Yes. Yes, they can".

Here is the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkHzljMtB4&feature=playe...

aj700• 14 years ago

They'd rather start WWIII and be nationalized (as many have already argued for, for different reasons, monopoly etc.) as a result than break a principle.

shell0x• 14 years ago

The gov should rather forbid the islam. It isn't compatible with a modern world.

ramblerman• 14 years ago

Really sad to see the whitehouse's kneejerk response is:

- can we ban it?

- can we arrest the man who made it?

sidcool• 14 years ago

I think if a video causes a global uproar and deaths of US diplomats overseas, it's in the best interest of the US to take it down. I know about freedom of speech etc., but at what cost?

Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

Related Stories