4 ms·

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. T

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.

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.