
Is this a first? Google voluntarily censors anti-Islam video in Libya, Egypt - uvdiv
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtube-blocks-access-controversial-video-egypt-and-libya
======
uvdiv
I know Google famously censored political speech in China until Sergey Brin
made his stand [a], and it continues to censor videos in e.g. India [b]
(blocking content which could provoke Hindu-Muslim violence). But in those
places, the courts of those countries force them to censor; here, the
censorship is voluntary, seemingly of their own initiative. Is there a
precedent for this?

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

[b] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/net-us-india-
viole...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/net-us-india-violence-
internet-idUSBRE87K0NM20120821)

~~~
mtgx
They censored the DNC speech and who knows how many thousands or hundreds of
thousands other videos. It may have been "automatic censorship" because of
their idiotic system, but that's not exactly a very good excuse for such
important (political, no less) videos and on such a large scale, is it?

~~~
raldi
The DNC thing never actually happened:

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/05/michelle_...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/05/michelle_obama_dnc_speech_why_did_youtube_flag_it_for_copyright_infringement_.html)

There's always a delay between the end of a livestream and the point where you
can watch the prerecorded video. In this case, YouTube merely displayed the
wrong error message during that delay.

------
ActVen
Violence should never be allowed to become a useful weapon against free
speech.

When a company has built tools for self-expression that are widely used, they
have a responsibility to commit to broad principles under difficult
circumstances. Free speech principles aren't as widely protected across the
globe as they are in the US, but that doesn't mean they are not very important
to the advancement of society.

~~~
Cushman
You're clouding the issue. "Free speech principles" as you describe them are
not weakly protected elsewhere, they are _not held_. In particular, many --
most? -- enlightened Western democracies hold that hateful speech is not
deserving of protection. Not because they're wishy-washy, but because they
believe that's _right_.

You're being closed-minded if you're not willing to accept the possibility
that they're right.

~~~
ActVen
Your argument that I am being "closed-minded" because I believe in the value
of free speech is amusing. Valuing broad free speech rights is a
characteristic of an open mind.

I never said that I didn't "accept the possibility that they're right". I just
don't believe that an organization should be in charge of deciding what is
"hateful" and what isn't. I happen to believe that free expression is critical
to our moral and scientific growth as a species.

~~~
Cushman
So, again, on this issue you disagree with many very thoughtful, compassionate
people, including most famously democratic governments who have lived through
_actual totalitarian dictatorship_.

(Many of the less thoughtful and compassionate of these would look at American
standards of public assistance, education, and criminal justice, hear you talk
about "our moral and scientific growth as a species", and laugh in your face.)

Consider that they may be right and you may be wrong.

~~~
ActVen
I'm not sure how you made my comment about growth as a species equate to
"American Standards". Also, its very "closed-minded" of you to believe that
the actions of a country exactly mirrors the values of each of its citizens.
Oh well, I wish you the best.

(The disagreement and dialogue in this conversation has been brought to you by
Free Expression.)

~~~
Cushman
> The disagreement and dialogue in this conversation has been brought to you
> by Free Expression.

Much to the contrary-- try having a conversation like this on a "free" forum
like 4chan and see how far you get. This kind of respectful dialogue is
brought to us by pervasive peer moderation and social opprobrium, with a dash
of outright censorship to taste.

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

~~~
nateberkopec
Hm, I don't know. This video is clearly hate speech, and I'm not sure Google
should be required to keep content online that has literally caused the deaths
of several people.

A 'slippery slope' argument doesn't hold up for me in this particular case.

EDIT: alright, maybe not literally. But I maintain that the video is hate
speech, and that a different standard on "censorship" should apply here.

~~~
ppod
Videos don't cause people to die, and definitions of 'hate speech' are
difficult. Mocking Islam seems pretty hateful, since it is at the core of the
belief system of a large proportion of the world's population. But what about
mocking Scientology, or Mormonism? When is a belief system so ridiculous or
unpopular that it no longer deserves protection?

You say that it should be taken down because it 'caused the deaths of several
people' - the implication is that belief systems deserve more protection if
their adherents are more willing to commit murder in retaliation.

~~~
dbecker
I agree that the murderers are obviously to blame. But the film is like a kid
who pokes a beehive with a stick with all his friends around.

We know you can't control all the bees once you get them riled up, so you're
still an asshole if you intentionally put others at risk.

Free speech may give the film-maker the right to be an asshole, but it doesn't
change the fact that he's an asshole.

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

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

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

~~~
DamnYuppie
Free speech was a founding idea of the U.S. now we can't produce, protest, or
say anything that upsets a certain group of people. That is not in any way
shape or form "free speech". My comment was directed at that idea, not google
or youtube.

~~~
Cushman
You have never had speech protections of any kind in any private forum. This
is nothing new.

------
stevoski
In my opinion, Google (as YouTube) is not obliged to show a video. The owners
of the video still have the option to upload it elsewhere, or to host it
themselves, or to distribute it via a torrent.

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

I say "if" because I'm not familiar with the video. I've seen a lot of meta
reports about it, but I haven't seen a summary of the video's content.

~~~
tomjen3
It is basically horrible acting, insanely bad stories, worse CGI effect
(really, you could not afford to have the actors walk on actual sand so you
just bluescreened the entire scene???).

Oh and the content is essentially right wing christian propaganda.

~~~
dbecker
I think calling it "right wing christian propoganda" is generous. It isn't
trying to be persuasive... it is just a few scenes depicting Muhammad as an
idiot and philanderer.

------
pagejim
Internet, being the most widely reaching medium along with the ease of
publishing, becomes quite attractive to anyone who hasn't got the means (
money/influence ) to get content published on more traditional mediums like
Newspaper, Magazines and TV.

Hence you will find all kinds of material on the Internet including all kinds
of hate speeches against all the religions, ideologies, personalities etc.
Google being an indexer of Web would naturally present such material if you go
looking for it. It's not Google's fault nor should it be its worry. After all,
you can't really blame or shoot the messenger.

In a way, Internet has had more of a leveling effect on the kind of content
and information that is available to common people in the world ( at least for
those who have some kind of access to it ).

If for any bizarre reason, Internet starts to become more censor prone, it
would loose its magical value. It is the most important invention of our
times. It's somehow better if we don't have control over it. Just sit back and
try to recollect the amazing pace with which it has changed and how
beautifully it has sustained itself. It has a evolution path of its own.

The logic inside my head says that it was correct when Google removed the
video from Libya/Egypt. But there is something in my heart that says that we
would loose the innocence of Internet we go down this path too often.

Remember how reckless, carefree and full of possibilities we were when we were
children. Then we came of age and learnt to how behave and think and do things
like Adults. On the way, we somehow became ... well, just boring.

Remember, Internet is still a child. Hope we don't force it into becoming just
another boring adult.

------
anuraj
I think they censored the video because US interest is involved. The more
Islamic world engages this video as a rallying point, the greater the security
threat to US. Free speech has its costs too.

------
ck2
In the USA there are limits to free speech.

You cannot incite a riot, that is a crime.

These videos are inciting riots, not a theory, it's a fact (though anything
would have triggered these riots, they just wanted an excuse and it's a tiny
minority who are the most vocal).

"free speech" is an illusion in the USA, it doesn't actually exist as an
unrestricted right - if you disagree, try screaming "fire" in a packed movie
theater and see what happens to you, or do something as asinine like threaten
the president or make a joke about the TSA while waiting in line at the
airport.

~~~
twoodfin
You have a profound misunderstanding of free speech rights in the U.S.

Yes, you cannot incite a riot. You cannot say "My followers: Riot! Smash
everything!" But _because_ something you say could or does cause a riot is not
reason enough to ban your speech. Otherwise you get something like the so-
called "Heckler's Veto", whereby people who merely disagree with your speech
can make themselves enough of a nuisance to have it silenced.

~~~
ck2
So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then
decide what punishment you should inflict" ?

Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right
to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is
that censorship okay and not youtube?

~~~
twoodfin
_So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then
decide what punishment you should inflict" ?_

Now you're starting to shade things into a gray area. At some point you need a
judge or jury to decide whether speech is incitement to violence or not. And I
don't believe the video in question is (even obliquely) advocating any
particular action. It's just grossly offensive to some people.

 _Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right
to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is
that censorship okay and not youtube?_

Like your other examples of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or
threatening the President, there are certain forms of "expression" that can be
restricted or punished, not because they're expressing particular ideas, but
because they have a direct, causal connection to harm. You can come up with a
thousand examples: It's not "free speech" for a doctor to write you a
prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. It's not "free speech" for a police
officer to tell you you're obligated to talk to him without a lawyer. It's not
"free speech" to lie on the witness stand.

"Free speech" doesn't mean you can't be punished or restricted from saying
_anything_ , but it does mean that absent any _direct_ harm to the rights of
others, you're free to express ideas in any reasonable manner. This shouldn't
be too hard to understand.

~~~
ck2
What's the direct harm if I post naked pictures of consenting adults on my
porch for the neighborhood to see?

There's no direct harm right? But it's not protected free speech - it has
limitations.

You do realize the video in question was heavily edited to change dialog and
things like blackboards were switched out. So it was purposely tailored to
cause a reaction - incite a physical reaction.

------
pfortuny
I shall not try to say this is an easy problem but it reminds me of people
blaming the shopper for getting their cashbox robbed after leaving money there
('it is your fault...').

------
option_greek
Considering the fact that this "innocent" video has cost 4 innocent lives and
unrest at countless places, this is more about preventing anarchy than
stifling free speech.

