Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip | Hacker News Reader

Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

reuters.com

188 pointstomio197 comments

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Nobody said they weren't "free" to do it. The point is that the message it sends is that they are anxious about the availability of the video, and the implication is that they would prefer that it be removed.

"Nobody said they weren't "free" to do it."

You and a host of other people have brought up the Constitution as if it had any relevance here.

"The point is that the message it sends is that they are anxious about the availability of the video"

We can argue messages all day. One message it might send is a signal to muslim audiences of disapproval for the video. If that makes local governments do more to contain potentially explosive riots maybe a tiny request like that is worth it even if YT keeps the video up.

"the implication is that they would prefer that it be removed."

I'm sure they would tell you straight up that they'd prefer YT to remove it. The implication you're making is that there's something improper in their wanting YT to remove it.

People don't like that the organisation purporting to represent them, based on a document that exalts free speech, is inhibiting it in any way.

"We can argue messages all day" is a lame point.

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.

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

The WP article specifies that there must be threat of legal sanction. There was no threat in this case, only a request.

They could have quietly clicked "Flag as inappropriate" as anyone else.

Instead, they made a public "request" whose intent was to put pressure on Google outside it's normal "review process".

They could have done lots of things. Using soft pressure in various ways is not something that's new to governments or generally detrimental or something that's ever going to go away.

I guess Obama could also have written an anonymous letter to the editor instead of having a speech announcing and advocating his jobs programs. But that's not how the real world works. Obama openly and strongly advocating X, Y and Z is not tyranny.

They also asked the pastor not to do the Koran burning. If there is no implied legal threat, what is the big deal? The difference in this case is going after a third party host rather than the original poster.

They made a public request whose intent is at least partly to persuade people in the Middle East that the American government does not support the bigoted views of the filmmaker. The government has an entirely legitimate wish to dissociate itself from this film and dispel the perception that it is intended as a piece of propaganda.

"for political reasons"

I would say this is more of a security issue. If the protests had been peaceful, and had there been no deaths, I doubt this request would have ever been made.

>If the protests had been peaceful [...] I doubt this request would have ever been made //

So USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists but does what they want as long as there's a threat of violence?

When did violent mobs become terrorists?

What's the approved definition of terrorist that you are using?

From Collins, via dictionary.com - "systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal". Seems to fit?

The key word there is systematic. A mob is not methodical in its plans nor has any regularity, therefore, it does not systematically use anything.

The mob was the specific instrument in this instance. Mobs are used regularly for similar purposes.

IMO the question at hand is whether as soon as some group threatens violence the USA kowtow. This appears to be the case here - the USA administration intervening in the free speech of a citizen in order to further the aims of a group because that group has threatened (and acted) violently.

I don't agree with the request, but I can understand where he's coming from. Obama is personally responsible for the lives of every government employee working overseas. Directly or indirectly, it is his orders that put them there. When the protests started, I'm sure it crossed his mind that somewhere, some of his people were going to die in retaliation for the movie. If I was in his shoes, and I thought that the voluntary removal of the video might save some American lives, I would have asked too. I mean seriously, a phone call or an email to save a person's life.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamental flaw with his reasoning. The extremists who actually conduct such attacks have no intention of backing down if their demands are met, so once the video was out, someone was going to die anyways.

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.

> 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.

My understanding of how mobs work might be wrong, but I think it cannot be that that mob used it as an excuse. It could be the case that there was a political/religious leader who used the video as an excuse as masses are not eager and willing to kill anyone.

> ...masses are not eager and willing to kill anyone.

    Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob 
    on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get 
    out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ...Voice or no 
    voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being 
    attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and 
    exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

    ― Herman Goering

Many think that you can make the masses eager to kill.

Additionally, the effects of the anonymity that mobs naturally provide even without the influence of leadership should not be ignored.

I love anonymity, I really do. I think the ability to have it is vital in any free society. Even so, I cannot deny that it has its downsides, and lowering social inhibitions is one of the more serious ones.

But what do the nazis and the [x] have in common that we dont here? isn't the answer they had dictatorial/failed states? You can counter-example us southern lychings but that seems to be the exception that proves the rule. the demos in western democracies is not the mob of the [x] street.

[edit: subject is mob violence leading to murder, etc]

Mob mentality can be seen in things as minor as riots over football matches.

It is one of many aspects that can contribute to violence in situations like these. I wouldn't say it is even a primary cause of the violence in this particular case, but I would say it plays a role.

You're getting into dangerously ignorant territory with those words, and you haven't even done your research. Stop. That has no place here.

The protest, by some accounts, was for the most part not violent. The violence that did happen was a planned and targeted action perpetrated by a highly trained militia exploiting the cover of the protests.

Reinforcements were delayed intentionally, and the second attack clearly accounted for the contingency of a saferoom escape by smoking them out. Indeed, several hours before the attack occurred, it's possible that the area was being scoped out, and pictures taken.

Furthermore, the group that is apparently responsible has been identified, and is being pursued.

If you want to know more, the middle-eastern thread at SomethingAwful is tracking developments.

I'm not sure why the parent is being downvoted, but it's consistent with the intelligence that's been released.

weird that this is greyed out, since it seems to match all the source my fb friends and i have found:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/13/libya-attacks-a-wake-up-...

http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/romney-jumps-the-shark-libya...

http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14332

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0912/Libya-attack-...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-fast-team/

You're talking about 1 small part, of a much larger picture. The protests are still going on strong and spreading, and while they might have been started by 1 specific covert agenda, they are now being driven by anti-American and anti-Western sentiment, which appears to be deep seated.

While there is plenty of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, and it relates to protests, I'm not sure that has so much to do with the destruction of the embassy and the murder of the Libyans and Americans there.

I don't think that the President being seen to support deliberate antagonism of deep religious prejudices (by parties interested in more and worse war) will help.

You don't see the President publicly supporting strident anti-semitism or holocaust denialism or racism or eugenics, either - though those are taboos for western society more than for predominantly Muslim societies; consider how much Ahmedinejad's casual holocaust denial has done to maintain anger about Iran in the West.

> 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.

This is crazy hyperbole. Can you please explain how the Administration's request (not demand) to take down the video is even remotely similar to your description?

That's how the government has been phrasing it so far in their responses...

The first sentence of which has been that the "Innocence of Muslims" video is some type of an abomination (rather than a silly movie), and we should all try not to offend Islam.

Then they end that paragraph with "...but wait, almost forgot, we don't condone the violence either.".

And CNN is doing the same thing with their reporting... Constantly blaming or interjecting the video; one step away from suggesting that the "protesters" are the real victims here.

It's clear there is going to be some type of a discussion about freedom of speech soon and that we Americans have too much of it. That, and the maker of the movie will most likely face prosecution.

Yes, everyone should try to not offend people. I think that much is obvious. There also, obviously, shouldn't be legal consequences for offending someone.

It seems to me like the protests are mostly peaceful – and as such, there is nothing wrong with them and freedom of speech really has nothing to do with them.

You know how as a kid, you were taught "don't believe everything you see on TV"?

Context is important. Video clips rarely tell the full story.

So you're agreeing with me, since the talking heads on TV have been telling us all that the "innocence of muslims" video is responsible for all this.

"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.

"The oath is to protect the Constitution."

Are you insinuating they've violated the Constitution somehow?

I am saying that the White House tried to interfere with someone's 1st Amendment rights which is not in keeping with the oath to the defend the US Constitution.

The 1st amendment starts: "Congress shall pass no law..."

How did the White House try to interfere with anyone's 1st amendment rights? Did the White House encourage Congress to pass a law banning the movie? No? In that case they didn't do anything against their oath.

"1st amendment rights" do not mean what you think they mean.

This is deflective. You can interfere with free speech by the way laws are enforced, which is the role of the Executive. You can also create a hostile, retaliatory regulatory environment, or etc. So, while this point of protocol is apprexiatied its neither full enough nor central enough to the actual situation to be an effective argument.

001sky is right and to go further, having the White House ask you publicly to do something is very much an intimidation particularly when they can make the operation of your business difficult if you refuse.

They asked Google to check if the video violated YT's terms of service. That is much different than what you are insinuating.

No it isn't any different. It is very much like someone coming to your business and saying "Nice business you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it..."

When it comes to the 1st amendment, Congress "shall pass no law" and the White House is the enforcement branch. They should, under no circumstances, say anything that could lead to censorship of something that isn't against the law.

Also, I'm not "insinuating" anything, I am directly saying it.

There is no 1st Amendment right to have your content hosted on YouTube. YouTube is a private, commercial venture that can remove your content for any reasons at any time. In fact, to say that YouTube must show all content and not remove any content and otherwise people's 1st Amendment rights are "interfered with" - would ironically take away the very basic right of YouTube to do as it deems fit in its own domain, YouTube itself.

YouTube is free to remove content, and others are free to ask YouTube to do so. To say otherwise is to limit their freedom.

You tube has 1st amendment to do what they want is the point, they are interferering via pr and public peer pressure. Why is it not like hosni mubarik asking twitter to please STFU during arab spring?

If I remember correctly, Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt during the uprising there. That's different than politely asking a single privately-owned website to please remove some stuff.

Not really. sort of proves the point. intention not polite.

And...look at this, what 48 hours later?

"One of the men behind an anti-Muslim film was taken in for questioning by federal probation authorities."

-- New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/man-linke...

"YouTube is free to remove content, and others are free to ask YouTube to do so. To say otherwise is to limit their freedom."

YouTube is free to listen to anyone, but the executive branch of the government should not be the one asking. If it is illegal or top secret content, then fine and dandy, there are rules for that. Otherwise, it is an attempt to intimidate YouTube and squelch their 1st amendment rights.

I'm not sure how this was intimidation? It was a request, and YouTube declined it. That proves that YouTube's is free to act as it chooses. (YouTube could also have decided to remove it, regardless of the request to remove it, and that would be within YouTube's rights as well - and not contrary to the video poster's rights.)

> Obama's civilian employees

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

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.

ostensibly because of this video

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

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".

>And it wasn't "just a request". It was a request from US government

Which, unless there's some force of law or promise of reprisal behind it, is still "just a request".

No it is not. There is a difference between random person asking you something and US president asking you something, even if you won't be immediately jailed if you refuse. US president has an elevated stature given to him by the fact he is elected by American people as their ultimate representative, and he (and his administration) also has vast powers to benefit and hurt individuals and companies beyond direct imprisonment or other direct violent actions. Pretending not to know this does not benefit your argument but rather betrays ignorance, real or feigned.

>Pretending not to know this does not benefit your argument but rather betrays ignorance, real or feigned.

If you're going to insult me, spit it out already.

Humor me. What possible negative action will the US government take against Google for their refusal to take down a video?

Be less sympathetic to their lobbying efforts, for example.

Google spends almost 10M per year on lobbying: http://allthingsd.com/20120123/googles-2011-lobbying-expense... obviously there are many areas where good relationships with the govt are important. If they piss off wrong people, then part of these 10M will be wasted, since they won't listen to what Google has to say.

So the problem is some nebulous undefined possible fear of reprisal (note that I specifically excluded that above..), not the fact that a request was made in the first place.

Sorry but you don't get to extrapolate that far.

Facts: WH asked Google to see if a video violated their ToS.

Google said it did not.

That's all. Anything else is conjecture.

No, the problem is that the request was made by the government. If you choose to deliberately ignore vast powers that federal government has, and by which company of Google's size can be directly influenced, you are free to do so, but as I said, it just betrays ignorance, feigned or genuine. That does not change the fact that these powers exist, and the fact that these powers give every request coming from the government special weight compared to a request by ordinary citizen.

>That does not change the fact that these powers exist

And it doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence that is about to happen. Having the power to do something and doing it are two different things.

Your argument would be more compelling had not the Muslim world also went crazy over a certain cartoon. Unless you're suggesting the Dutch are also the Great Satan.

And no offense, the US government makes quite literally, thousands of requests to private companies every year and always have. It isn't more threatening because it is the White House instead of the FBI or State Department. Clearly Google had no problem ignoring it.

There's always something to go crazy about. In the same vain, UK and Germany embassies are under attack, though they had absolutely nothing connecting them to the film:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/witnesses-police-fire-o...

But if not film, there's always something more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7121025.stm Teddy bear named Muhammed - riot!

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132513576.html False accusation of Koran desecration - riot!

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/22/rushdie-update-its-fri... Rushdie knighted - outrage!

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008/02/seething-musli... Snack may have traces of alcohol - outrage!

http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/wikipedia-refuses-to... Wikipedia pubishes fotos of 14-th century relics - offense!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576554/posts Valentine's day - violent protest!

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2006/03/01/77857/Police-f... Playing cards - violence!

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_worl... Watching soccer? Death to you!

There's always something, and pretending it is always only the immediate excuse for violent outrage does not make much sense. The Satan here is everybody that does not conform to their very narrow, very fundamentalist, very oppressive medieval version of Islam. The reason-du-jour will be different, the cause is always the same - you should not behave in ways they do not approve, and if you do - they are justified to violently suppress you, or at least hurt somebody they associate with you.

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

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)

"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.

No, I meant that Google would be within their rights as a private company (who is doing business in Egypt, etc.) to pause a video for a few days. The government wouldn't be the one compelling this.

The government not restricting free speech doesn't mean private companies are compelled to rebroadcast, republish, and distribute anything.

Google already has a Terms of Service and felt that this video did not violate it. A position the Obama administration disagreed with. Ultimately, I'm glad that they had a broader view of free speech than the current Administration.

And for the record, delaying or shifting speech is "hindering" it.

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?

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

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

@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.

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

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

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

There's a major difference between pandering and appeasement, I think. I'm not American but my perception is more that politicians pander to religious groups to sway large voting blocks, not with any actual intention of treating religious bodies with any future political reward.

You haven't followed some of the news from the health care debate and pressure on family services from the government. The rule making would not be described as "appeasement".

People don't see how much groups like Catholic Family Services or ELCA help in a lot of places the government has ignored. They don't advertise how much they do.

Appeasement is different from addressing the concerns of constituents in a democracy.

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?

I think that is a perfect example of what jat850 is saying. It was pandering not appeasement, which backfired quite a lot with the booing.

Pandering is the usual "Israel is one of our greatest allies" lip service. Changing the DNC platform is something, impliedly promising to use the power of the US to protect Israel's interests goes beyond that.

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.

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.

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

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

So just because you ate X for lunch today you should eat X for lunch everyday? See it makes sense with could but with should it's a nonsense claim.

The WH, just like you me, the GOP, ze Germans, Al Qaeda, whoever are all free to request that YT review any video. Is this the end of the world? Does making such a request ever attach a weak compulsion to review and request the same of any other video that might weakly overlap the criteria claimed in the first video? That's laughable. That's not how logic or anything in the world works.

I have to disagree. You and I are pretty much stuck clicking "Flag" on Youtube.

The White House gets to use the power of the bully pulpit to make such a "request" and Al Qaeda storms a few embassies and murders diplomats to make their "request".

I may not have made this clear but my argument wasn't that we all have the same way to report things but that we're all free to advocate for YT to do anything we want to advocate for.

I'm sorry you're not as powerful as the president but that's just reality. If I don't like the leather iCal in OS X I get to say that in comments 100 people read. If John Gruber doesn't like it he gets a million Apple users and employees to listen to him. Jony Ive's opinion even more powerful. Things aren't equal.

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.

And like you said it was rhetorical. And the implication was clearly that asking for review of X implies they "should" ask for review of all things that weakly resemble X. Which your point was to make the initial request seem dumb but I'm pointing out is logically incoherent.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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).

How does this video meet that definition?

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?

> How it doesn't?

Well, lets start with the fact that it doesn't say anything about a group of people at all. It specifically speaks to only a few individuals. No where in the content of this video does it advocate any sort of physical or political action against Muslims at large.

The fact that some people have decided to take it as a personal attack is immaterial and reading more into what was actually said than is there. If Google got into the business of pulling any content some group of people may find offensive the site would be empty.

The video strongly implies that Muslims as a group are violent (watch the part with the father and daughter early on). It presents Islam's founder as a horrible human being, and a religious fraud.

This is not quite as mild as it gets with regard to criticism of religion, but it's pretty close. If this particular video were to be legally actionable, no criticism of a religion where it intersects with testable reality (making positive claims about nature contrary to science, claims of historical fact) would be safe without fear of prosecution. I am sorry that so many people have died, but I cannot blame this video without completely throwing out the American version of free speech. I guess we're just going have to solely blame the killers instead.

"The video strongly implies that Muslims as a group are violent"

Well, they walked right into that one, didn't they. Mobs rioting, setting embassies on fire and killing people etc.

Exactly.

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

AFAICT it is because:

  Individual != Group

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

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.

google is run by jews, nuff said.

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.

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?

Interesting. That changes things. Do you have a citation of what the video's authors said?

"Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location....he intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/israeli-filmmaker-in...

If "condemning" a religion is "hate speech", then a substantial portion of the commentary on liberal, skeptic, and atheist sites would qualify.

Do you think Monty Python films should also be classified as hate speech?

There is a difference between making fun of an religion (Islam), and incite violence or prejudicial action against a group who are practicing the religion (Muslims).

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.

Apples and oranges.

Mohammed can most similarly be likened to Jesus or Moses, not the Holocaust.

Mohammed, Jesus and Moses, among other religious historical figures may or may not have existed. There really is no proof. All apparently were responsible for miracles in the eyes of people back in the day with little understanding of science, so it's possible that if any of those three existed, after you discount the growing of "tall tales" that what they are credited with performing are natural phenomena.

Any criticism of denial of any of those three people is very tolerated in the west. I would feel far more comfortable saying Jesus was a pedophile or Moses was a cock smoker than blurting out similar trollery about Mohammed. The reason why has nothing to do with cultural sensitivity, but with the completely irrational and sometimes disproportionately violent response from people who would be offended by such a statement (or at least the imagined expectation of such).

This isn't to say that fundamental Christians aren't capable of such asshattery. They certainly are. Photos of klan members, burned crosses and lynchings are proof of such.

The Holocaust on the other hand is historical fact, not myth, and an act of genocide. Denial of it would be similar to denying the genocide in Darfur or the Tienanmen Square massacre.

Ones degree of affection and emotional attachment to a subject largely irrelevant except insofar as how easy it makes to troll that person.

This is trollery, not hate speech. If I say something about a group of people and condemn them, it's hate speech. If I make a mockery of something that would offend that group it is trolling.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Exactly.

Well Google voluntarily pulled the video from Libya and Egypt

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

I Am Not A Lawyer, let alone an International Lawyer, but the article seemed to imply that it was blocked in some countries (eg, India) to comply with local blasphemy laws (related news: Indian Skeptic Charged With Blasphemy For Rationally Explaining Miracle: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indi...), but Libya and Egypt were just special-cased.

Does anyone know if Libya and Egypt have blasphemy laws, or just volatility?

I didn't know that. A blasphemy law sounds very bad. On the other hand, more general hate speech laws sound much more reasonable I think (although I'd still disagree); the UK has those for example.

Just a heads up on your link:

The guy wasn't charged for pointing out "this isn't a miracle". He was charged for following it up with a series of accusations -- claiming that it was a scam set up by local priests (defamation), and making comments about how religious people are "gullible", "regressive", "irrational", etc. (provocation). He went well beyond debunking and into the realm of conjecture/speculation, and ended up violating a number of local laws by doing so.

And what was the verdict?

I don't believe the case has been tried, yet. Last I heard, he was in Finland (to avoid arrest) and his lawyers launched a series of appeals, including one attempt to have the "religious provocation" law declared unconstitutional.

As far as I know, none of his appeals relate to the "scam" remarks, which even in the US would fall under defamation laws.

The ban in Libya and Egypt is voluntary:

Google said it decided to block the video in response to violence that killed four American diplomatic personnel in Libya. The company said its decision was unusual, made because of the exceptional circumstances.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/technology/google-blocks-i...

More here:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtube-blocks-access-...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

... 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.

feed the trolls?

I never said violence was the solution, straw man much?

My point is that freedom of speech doesn't mean your speech never has negative consequences.

Nonviolent, legal example: you insult a customer and your boss fires you on the spot.

What is the common thread? None of this really has anything to do with freedom of speech in the west. It's a massive red herring that people keep bringing up in this thread.

Interesting, I would actually say that all of society, almost on every country in the world, is governed by violence. Why dont people break the law? Because there are consequences to doing it, and if you don't voluntarily accept the consequences, then you'll be violently forced to take them. All of society actually ultimatly depends on violence as the mode of enforcing order.

> All of society actually ultimatly depends on violence as the mode of enforcing order.

It's funny how for the last 400 years or so all men and women who have been speaking and writing about politics and about how the world should be run in general have been trying to hide Hobbes and his ideas under a very thick rug. But his ideas keep creeping back in. Maybe because he was right?

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.

> 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.

> 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.

"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?

Socio-economic standing. Like it always is.

How do you explain socio-economic standing causing systemic misogyny without invoking culture?

You would probably note that misogyny is/was widespread among the poor across a whole host of cultures then point out that relative affluence -> female education -> breakdown of misogyny.

"Socio-economic standing" is basically a catchall answer that's almost certain to correlate heavily with whatever the more fundamental causes are (education, women's rights, property rights, strong middle class, etc.)

Moderate Islam has been compatible with science (well scientism) in the past but you can't reason from the specific to the general. A fundamentalist/hyper-dogmatic flavor of any belief system is by it's nature an intolerant breeding ground for ignorance and xenophobia.

"something is wrong"

This is where people tend to, wrongly, paint with the biggest brushes.

Listen, I'm an atheist; more to the point, I am an anti-theist. I think there is a lot wrong with religion in general, and a hell of a lot with this one in particular.

I mention this only to emphasise that I have no natural inclination to defend Islam. I just really don't see it being the root cause in this situation.

It seems to me that the religion is more a product of an unhealthy culture. It is no coincidence that the wants, desires, and prejudices of gods so often resemble that of their followers. This religion did not appear out of thin air, it was borne of the culture it resembles. It is when you see the religion spreading other contexts (primarily location or time) that you see it become "moderate". People ignore the parts they don't like.

The religion isn't causing this. At best, I'll concede that it is acting as a conduit to siphon an obsolete and brutal culture from the past into the present. I do maintain that it is culture that is wrong here, regardless of where it comes from or how it got here.

I don't think we're at odds on Islam. I'm not blaming Islam was just pointing out the fallacy I saw there.

"it is culture"

Few points:

(1) Culture is a sort of catchall term for anything that's not genetics. Whatever 'this' is that we are talking about, it's going to be pretty easy to file it under culture.

(2) What exactly is 'this' we're talking about? The latest violence in Libya/Egypt and elsewhere correct? How is this fundamentally different from riots/mob violence/brutish behavior in other cultures? When we raise the flag of culture the quick litmus test should be whether other cultures (controlling for other dimensions as much as possible) also show the same symptoms.

I don't think we actually really disagree here at all. I was objecting mostly to the perceived sentiment that the idea of one culture being better than another is DOA.

> 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.

If you think Team America was made specifically to insult a culture then you may have missed the point of it.

It has subtleties: a lot of the things that seem blatantly insulting are actually poking fun in the opposite direction.

So did the people that Team America superficially appeared to make fun of refrain from violence because they picked up on the subtly of the movie?

I think that gives those people too little credit. I think they would have refrained from physical violence even if such subtly was absent.

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 ;).

> 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

> 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.

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

I'm, in no way, suggesting not to bother.

But you are suggesting 9/11 is almost the only terrorist attack or activity, and you are only talking about the US. If you actually considered the rest of the world as well, you'd see that in Spain for example, people have had to deal with ETA's terrorism for a long time, yet the Spanish government hasn't terrified people with an endless discourse about war on terror, and people don't expect their freedom or privacy to be limited in the name of it.

I'm, in no way, suggesting not to bother

I'm specifically talking about the "social engineering" the 9.11 hijackers used. they exploited the expectations of people to self-absorbed to think outside the box. The advice for the passengers in a hijacking was not not resist. the only difference between flight 93 and WTC was what? an hour or two and some more imagination...

But this was on multiple scales...(a) They exploited the unwillingness to hunt them down (ie, after mogadishu) so they operated with impunity to prepare; (b) They expoloited the social norms by using educated terrorists to fly first class and get "student" visas to be trained; (c) Nobody wanted to bother thinking through the consequences, because it was not so pleasant to imagine people might not be so nice...

Terrorism is at heart anti civillian warfare by definition, this is the problem and the challenge.

Intent matters. Sorry, it just does.

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

Rational people understand this.

I don't see how any rational person could see any difference between dying in an accident and being murdered in a random, untargeted act. Is it dishonorable or something? Would they be heartbroken by this terrorist cell show of rudeness?

Now, if I were an embassador, or judge, or some big fish, I could understand that this intent would make an attack more probable. The vast majority of people, however, will never have the luxury of a powerful enough enemy mailing a fundamentalist hit squad to their homes. We, fortunately, are the tourist-class fliers of global terrorism, lacking any kind of personal attention.

"I don't see how any rational person could see any difference between dying in an accident and being murdered in a random, untargeted act."

So you, as a rational person, don't seen any difference between someone bumping into you accidentally and apologizing, and someone deliberately shoving you? Really?

Rational people forgive accidents and punish intentional or negligent harm. The RATIONAL basis for this is that the punished offender is less likely to repeat the offense in the future.

I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.

Can we get a link to the video?

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

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

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

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.

Honestly, the first time I got linked to that video I thought it was a joke. I would swear those production values could only be that bad if done on purpose for comedic effect. Especially the random dubbing in of "Islam" or "Muslim."

Re: Production values.

Something that looks like amateur-hour to us in the West (and the video is amateur) might not look that way to someone in Egypt/Libya/Etc.

Have you seen any Middle Eastern TV? It isn't exactly high on the production value.

This might have some effect on how this film is being perceived as well.

And yes I'm being serious.

Yes, it's Spengler, but I think he makes a good point here about why this happens with Islam and not other religions (note that he wrote it 2 years ago): http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LI14Ak01.html

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

wow antisemitism, glad you brought that up, you've unmasked yourself jew.

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?

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

- can we ban it?

- can we arrest the man who made it?

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?

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.

But they blocked the video in Libya and Egypt.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com