8 ms·

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

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

bksenior 14y ago
I don't understand this request. Doesn't this lead to every organization having a case for pulling down any video they deem to be in violation of bad taste. The white house has a beautiful 250 year old document they can get behind that makes the issue black and white (free speech) and absolves them of looking like they played favorites to either side. How is this publicly sterilizing solution the best option?
- dandelany 14y ago
  It was not a legally binding request, they just asked them to review the video for violations of their terms of service, and "please" remove it if it was found to be in violation. Any other organization is and has always been free to do the same, just as Google is free to decline the request.
  - gfodor 14y ago
    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.
    - Steko 14y ago
      "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.
      - bbrian 14y ago
        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.
nostromo 14y ago
It was just a request. A request they are free to make and Google is free to decline. One (edit: four) of Obama's civilian employees was killed by an angry mob, ostensibly because of this video, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask. I'm also glad Google declined.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- xanados 14y ago
  It's not appropriate for the Executive branch to make requests to remove content that is political for political reasons. This has a chilling effect[1] and can thus be rightly judged by the populace as being against our shared reckoning on free speech. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29
  - mef 14y ago
    The WP article specifies that there must be threat of legal sanction. There was no threat in this case, only a request.
    - roboneal 14y ago
      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".
      - Steko 14y ago
        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.
rdl 14y ago
I'm very pro free speech, but I actually wouldn't mind if the video went down for a couple of days ("under review") while security at embassies was improved, and for time for the mobs to settle down a bit. I would absolutely be against pulling it, but delaying or putting it in context wouldn't hinder free speech and would potentially save lives. I'd also like to see Google run a clickthrough redirect preroll or ads on the page explaining that they don't support the content, it doesn't represent Google or the US, but that free speech is valued. Google did something similar with an anti-Jewish/Nazi googlebombing of "Jew" in search results (http://www.google.com/explanation.html http://www.google.com/explanation.html)
- roboneal 14y ago
  "I'm very pro free speech, but...." Let's expand on your thought process a bit....how about we just suppress all video that criticizes Islamic sensibilities just on the anniversary of 9/11? Well and maybe through Ramadan too. Just temporarily of course. Until "they" settle down and we get our security stuff straightened out. Yeah, that's what the framers of the Constitution thought when the wrote the FIRST Amendment.
  - rdl 14y ago
    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.
    - roboneal 14y ago
      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.

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

bksenior 14y ago

I don't understand this request. Doesn't this lead to every organization having a case for pulling down any video they deem to be in violation of bad taste. The white house has a beautiful 250 year old document they can get behind that makes the issue black and white (free speech) and absolves them of looking like they played favorites to either side. How is this publicly sterilizing solution the best option?

dandelany 14y ago
It was not a legally binding request, they just asked them to review the video for violations of their terms of service, and "please" remove it if it was found to be in violation. Any other organization is and has always been free to do the same, just as Google is free to decline the request.
- gfodor 14y ago
  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.
  - Steko 14y ago
    "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.
    - bbrian 14y ago
      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.

nostromo 14y ago

It was just a request. A request they are free to make and Google is free to decline. One (edit: four) of Obama's civilian employees was killed by an angry mob, ostensibly because of this video, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask. I'm also glad Google declined.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
xanados 14y ago
It's not appropriate for the Executive branch to make requests to remove content that is political for political reasons. This has a chilling effect[1] and can thus be rightly judged by the populace as being against our shared reckoning on free speech. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29
- mef 14y ago
  The WP article specifies that there must be threat of legal sanction. There was no threat in this case, only a request.
  - roboneal 14y ago
    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".
    - Steko 14y ago
      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.

rdl 14y ago

I'm very pro free speech, but I actually wouldn't mind if the video went down for a couple of days ("under review") while security at embassies was improved, and for time for the mobs to settle down a bit. I would absolutely be against pulling it, but delaying or putting it in context wouldn't hinder free speech and would potentially save lives. I'd also like to see Google run a clickthrough redirect preroll or ads on the page explaining that they don't support the content, it doesn't represent Google or the US, but that free speech is valued. Google did something similar with an anti-Jewish/Nazi googlebombing of "Jew" in search results (http://www.google.com/explanation.html http://www.google.com/explanation.html)

roboneal 14y ago
"I'm very pro free speech, but...." Let's expand on your thought process a bit....how about we just suppress all video that criticizes Islamic sensibilities just on the anniversary of 9/11? Well and maybe through Ramadan too. Just temporarily of course. Until "they" settle down and we get our security stuff straightened out. Yeah, that's what the framers of the Constitution thought when the wrote the FIRST Amendment.
- rdl 14y ago
  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.
  - roboneal 14y ago
    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.