YouTube Bans Terrorism Videos; Don't You Feel Much Safer?
from the I-know-I-don't dept
Back in May we wrote about Senator Joseph Lieberman demanding that YouTube remove a bunch of videos of terrorists. At the time, YouTube reviewed the videos in question, and took down the ones that violated the site's terms of service, but left most of them up, noting that the ones they left up did not promote hate speech nor show violence. As we pointed out at the time, trying to ban terrorists from posting videos to YouTube seems incredibly short-sighted. First, it won't work. Those videos will quickly pop back up on other sites that won't take them down. Second, most of those videos are preaching to the choir. It's unlikely that very many people are being recruited to the terrorists' causes by a grainy video on YouTube. Third, letting terrorists post their videos to a mainstream site like YouTube should help authorities figure out who's posting the videos and where they're coming from. Fourth, and most important, one of the key founding principles of this country is the right to free speech, no matter how much one might disagree with that speech. But, part of that principle is that it allows people to respond. So, yes, the videos may be pure propaganda, but there's no reason that people can't respond to the videos and show why they're propaganda and wrong. Confronting your critics is a reasonable stance. Demanding that they cannot speak is not.Yet, a bunch of folks have been sending in links to a story claiming that Google has now caved to Sen. Lieberman, and will now ban terrorist videos on YouTube. The article says that YouTube's new terms of service will ban footage that "advertises" terrorism or "extremist causes," which seems pretty broad, and certainly open to abuse. The article describes some videos that show how to commit violent acts -- but those were already banned by YouTube, so that's rather misleading. These new terms are more disturbing. It's not going to stop the videos, it's just going to make it harder to keep track of them, harder to counter them -- all while making the terrorists feel more legitimate.
Terrorists should be tracked down and stopped -- absolutely. But we should be dealing with the actual problem of terrorists, not some videos they made.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: joseph lieberman, propaganda, terrorism, videos
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
YouTube Bans Terrorism Videos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe I'm misunderstanding but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"will now band" should be "Will now ban" perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oops! You're right. Sorry. Fixed now. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone came and posted a sign in my yard, that sign becomes my property and I have the right to take it down regardless of whether the public thought it should stay up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These precedents were defined after the original defining document- Bill of Rights, *NOT* the Constitution as you referenced.
For too long, we in the USA have been misled to believe we actually have totally 100% freedom to say what we want, when we want, where we want and about anything or anyone we want.
Huh? I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
That is not the case although compared to EVERY other nation on the globe, we are more free to exercise our opinions than the rest.
Isn't Democracy Grand?
Maybe that's why we have been so misled. Secondly, youtube (Google) being a private company can post or remove anything it sees fit seeing as though once uploaded the content become their property.
I agree and that is a problem because it limits free speech. The problem is that the Government doesn't prosecute, or publicly mame Businesses anymore, so the only law that matters seems to be Business Law. It's called DEREGULATION. Enron anyone? How did that go on for so long without checks? So we got Sarbanes Oxley out of that, but the problem didn't go away- how about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Problem is that the government departments in charge of protecting consumers and citizens haven't had budgets to maintain current workload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now where, exactly, does the CONSTITUTION impose any limit on how "free" free speech can be? Either impliedly or explicitly?
Article 1 gives the LEGISLATURE the authority to make laws which regulate things, including free speech, so long as the right of free speech, expression, etc., is not abridged.
And Article 3 gives the judiciary the right to declare those laws unconstitutional, given standing and justiciability.
Don't attempt to foster a Constitutional argument unless you know what you're talking about. There's a REASON the First Amendment is FIRST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sen. Lieberman is just another "extremist"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sen. Lieberman is just another "extremist"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment says nothing about a private entity or an individual prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech.
If the government passed a law that prohibits YouTube from showing terrorist videos, then it becomes a free speech issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sen. Lieberman is just another "extremist"
That's a good point -- and I had meant to make it clear in my post, but didn't do a very good job of it. I was *not* saying that YouTube's actions were a violation of free speech. My point was that it seemed to go against the very American principle of encouraging open discussions.
And, considering that this change was made under the threat of legal action from Sen. Lieberman (and the DOJ investigation), I think it's a stretch to claim that this wasn't at the behest of the gov't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And frankly, I feel like my home country's about another five million layoffs and another five percent on the rate of inflation from descending into anarchy or fascism. Anything that might make it even a little bit harder for some nutjob to nudge us in that direction looks pretty good to me right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If, on the other hand, you rely on the government to police erroneous, malicious or destructive thinking then you are obliged to return to them when new and unanticipated thinking arises. On the web this can be overnight. Furthermore, you subordinate all future ideas to what governmental committees deem acceptable.
But it's really the loss of critical thinking, the first step, that is so damaging. Are we really prepared to give all that up just for a few thousand extremist terrorists? I see a whole lot of crap on the internet, no surprise if you just look at the world that spawned it, lot of crap there too, but the most encouraging development on the internet is critical thinking and debate. If we stop discussing the rights and wrongs of terrorism, people will forget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Was the BBC inciting crime when it showed video of the Ruwanden genocide? I kinda thought they were trying to inform people and maybe even raise awareness? Silly me . . . showing something is NOT a tacit endorsement of it, come on, use your brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Annonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Annonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
Ah Yeah, I want more of my money going to Washington, they have such a great track record of spending it wisely"
I don't plan on the government helping to protect me. And if you do, you will be sorely disappointed!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious Question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious Question...
Yes, absolutely. I have no problem with YouTube banning pornography or hate speech.
What I have a problem with is the gov't putting pressure on YouTube to ban videos based on WHO uploaded them, and NOT the content of the videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious Question...
(There were rules against showing authority figures, such as policemen, in a negative light, portraying "miscegenation," etc.)
Videos by terrorists and hate groups, for example, might be in another category, I admit -- but still, I don't see how banning this stuff makes us one bit safer. It only makes it harder for authorities and the rest of us to keep tabs on these people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious Question...
The point being -- if everyone has a different opinion, then *everyone* is forced to tolerate the lowest common denominator, in the interest of "fairness".
That results in the current situation -- the country is split between the two major political identities (Liberal & Conservative) who are *constantly* at each others throats in any and all venues.
Impasse.
You may think a crucifix in a jar of urine is fine art. I don't. You may not have a problem with the banning of pornography and hate-speech - as long as it fits your description. Sen. Lieberman clearly defines Jihadist videos on YouTube as hate-speech. Apparently, you don't.
If neither of us agree on the definition, then we will both have to tolerate the lowest common denominator.
If you don't want to be stuck with "My" lowest common denominator and I don't want to be stuck with "yours", then the public, as a group, will have to elect some folks to represent us and argue those decisions for us.
Except, with the country split down the middle, that model tends to be less that satisfying to half the popluation with each decision reached.
So, the squeakiest wheel gets greased (assisted by special interest groups). I can't blame YouTube for placing more weight on Lieberman's request than yours or mine -- he can cause them grief faster/bigger than we can.
If we don't like it, we can always pester another congress-critter to request YouTube reverse their decision in the interest of supporting "Free-Speech".
Otherwise, like about half the population does with every decision won by the "other side", all we get is bitching rights.
Still beats the hell out of living under most any other govt I can think of. Opinions will certainly vary...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...
As a private company, it is YouTube's decision. My problem is with the gov't putting pressure on them.
The point being -- if everyone has a different opinion, then *everyone* is forced to tolerate the lowest common denominator, in the interest of "fairness".
Not at all. The problem is with the gov't putting pressure on them. Consumers can do what they want, and the company can do what it wants.
The rest of your comment is meaningless, because you have set up this false scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Question...
Then feel free to lobby another entity in the Govt to undo what someone else lobbied the Govt to do.
One of the main reasons for Govt is to regulate. It never ceases to amaze me when people get a case of the ass because the Govt does something it is tasked with doing.
Back to my point that with the population's current political/cultural split, any decision made will likely piss off roughly half the country. Perhaps this time it is your turn to get the big bowl of suck. Take heart! With the 50/50 political/cultural split, everyone will get a turn to bitch. Maybe we have finally achieved equality (in suckage) for all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious Question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actual Youtube Policy
"While it might not seem fair to say you can’t show something because of what viewers theoretically might do in response, we draw the line at content that’s intended to incite violence or encourage dangerous, illegal activities that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death. This means not posting videos on things like instructional bomb making, ninja assassin training, sniper attacks, videos that train terrorists, or tips on illegal street racing. Any depictions like these should be educational or documentary and shouldn’t be designed to help or encourage others to imitate them."
First, even though the First Amendment doesn't apply to Youtube's policies, if it did, this would very likely not run afoul of it in the least.
Second, it's much narrower than how it's being depicted in blog posts (including Techdirt's): it is directed at content that incites, encourages or helps others to engage in dangerous acts that pose an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death.
There is also a second new policy statement that, from a First Amendment standpoint, I do find more troubling:
"'Hate speech'" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality."
Even though the First Amendment does not apply to Youtube, I think this gives it too much discretion to decide what is or is not acceptable speech, and it doesn't seem very narrowly tailored to address the specific issue of terrorist support.
Moreover, there are other ways to get at speech intended to support terrorism, and the definition in the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, or the one used in the Immigration and Nationalities Act, or the one used in FISA, just to name three examples, would have provided a much narrower basis for evaluating content. If a video for instance did not openly incite others to commit violent acts, but solicited financial support for a known terrorist organization, that is already a felony offense under US law, and Youtube would have ample justification to ban that sort of content from its site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slight correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the law apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where'd we get this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shame
I'd never given it much thought, but to keep any information from people, good or bad is a strike against truth, and ultimately Lieberman did alot more damage than good.
I had never had a desire to see a hostage beheading video, but the idea of knowing that it was out there really was enough for me to know that these are savage animals who, if Americans can see them for what they are, the good senator Lieberman has nothing to worry about.
Ultimately, it's youtube's policy, and they are the ones who caved. But it brings up the interesting question...if terrorsts can't post recruitment videos, that means we're all safe from any Westboro Baptist propaganda on there too, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheneyocracy!
Two hundred years ago, these people would have been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, at the very least.
Just my two cents worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
youtube who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminals on youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who decides
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Begins . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since YouTube has said this is something they want to do, cant we assume its something they feel needs to be done (unless its just censorship for the fun of it). Since YouTube feels this type of censorship needs to be done, wont they be on much more slippery ground next time a kid jumps off a roof . . . cause he saw it on youtube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree, pull all military recruitment videos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]