
Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip - tomio
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-protests-google-idUSBRE88D1MD20120914
======
tomstokes
From what I can gather, the White House didn't explicitly ask for the clip to
be removed. Rather, they suggested the clip might violate YouTube's own terms
of service.

From the article:

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

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

~~~
cheald
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.

~~~
Karunamon
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.

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

~~~
nostromo
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.

~~~
powertower
> 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.

~~~
koko775
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.

~~~
powertower
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.

~~~
slurgfest
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.

------
smsm42
What I would like to know here is:

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

2\. Has Google ever complied with these requests?

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
jlgreco
@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.

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

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

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

~~~
protomyth
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.

------
paulsutter
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.

------
roboneal
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.

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

~~~
roboneal
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.

~~~
Steko
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.

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

~~~
bilbo0s
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.

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

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

------
salimmadjd
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).

~~~
moskie
Exactly.

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

~~~
malandrew
AFAICT it is because:

    
    
      Individual != Group
    

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

------
waterlesscloud
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.

~~~
slurgfest
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.

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

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

~~~
awa
Well Google voluntarily pulled the video from Libya and Egypt

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

~~~
saalweachter
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...](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indian-
skeptic-charged-with-blasphemy-for-rationally-explaining-a-miracle/)), but
Libya and Egypt were just special-cased.

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

~~~
lotharbot
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.

~~~
andreasvc
And what was the verdict?

~~~
lotharbot
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.

------
mindstab
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

~~~
slurgfest
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.

------
tokenadult
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/Complete-Infidels-Guide-
Koran/dp/1596981040/)

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Muhammad-
Intolerant/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Muhammad-
Intolerant/dp/1596985283/)

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.

~~~
Steko
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.

~~~
rictic
... 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.

~~~
Steko
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.

~~~
nico
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.

~~~
paganel
> 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?

------
grecy
Can we get a link to the video?

~~~
nostromo
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM>

~~~
stfu
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.

~~~
danielweber
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."

~~~
OzzyB
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.

------
roboneal
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?

~~~
slurgfest
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.

------
ibarrac
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...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkHzljMtB4&feature=player_detailpage#t=208s)

------
Steko
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.

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

------
twelvechairs
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.

------
cntcoup
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.

------
cwisecarver
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.

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

~~~
cwisecarver
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.

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

------
roboneal
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?

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

\- can we ban it?

\- can we arrest the man who made it?

------
sidcool
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?

------
aj700
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.

------
sev
But they blocked the video in Libya and Egypt.

------
shell0x
The gov should rather forbid the islam. It isn't compatible with a modern
world.

------
ktizo
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...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/14762/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-is-
sam-bacile-and-robert-brownell-is-alan-roberts-behind-innocence-of-muslims)

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.

