7 ms·

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 mo

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.
    - cma 14y ago
      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.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      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.
- pyoung 14y ago
  "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.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >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?
    - Aloisius 14y ago
      When did violent mobs become terrorists?
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        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?
        Aloisius 14y ago
        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.
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        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.
- phaus 14y ago
  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.
kigster 14y ago
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.
powertower 14y ago
> 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.
- mayanksinghal 14y ago
  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.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > ...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.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      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.
protomyth 14y ago
"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.
- Steko 14y ago
  "The oath is to protect the Constitution." Are you insinuating they've violated the Constitution somehow?
  - protomyth 14y ago
    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.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      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.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        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.
        protomyth 14y ago
kzrdude 14y ago
> Obama's civilian employees A strange way to put it. One of USA's civilian employees was killed.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
drhowarddrfine 14y ago
And this is something that just mystifies people in many foreign countries.
kfinley 14y ago
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.
mynameishere 14y ago
ostensibly because of this video And actually because of policy, hence the "request".
smsm42 14y ago
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".
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >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".
  - smsm42 14y ago
    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.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      >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?
      - 14y ago
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Praytell, how does a video operate a firearm? Should we now blame rape victims for inciting their rapists?

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.
  - cma 14y ago
    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.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    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.
pyoung 14y ago
"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.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >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?
  - Aloisius 14y ago
    When did violent mobs become terrorists?
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      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?
      - Aloisius 14y ago
        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.
        pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        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.
phaus 14y ago
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.

kigster 14y ago

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.

powertower 14y ago

> 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.

mayanksinghal 14y ago
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.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > ...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.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    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.

protomyth 14y ago

"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.

Steko 14y ago
"The oath is to protect the Constitution." Are you insinuating they've violated the Constitution somehow?
- protomyth 14y ago
  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.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    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.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      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.
      - protomyth 14y ago

kzrdude 14y ago

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

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

drhowarddrfine 14y ago

And this is something that just mystifies people in many foreign countries.

kfinley 14y ago

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.

mynameishere 14y ago

ostensibly because of this video And actually because of policy, hence the "request".

smsm42 14y ago

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".

Karunamon 14y ago
>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".
- smsm42 14y ago
  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.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >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?
    - 14y ago

InclinedPlane 14y ago

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