6 ms·

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 htt

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 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).

mbell 14y ago
How does this video meet that definition?
- salimmadjd 14y ago
  How it doesn't? This brings in an interesting issue, google based on their own guidelines are in the position of interpreting what is hate speech and what isn't. Who at google makes that decision? Who are these people? Do they have a biased?
  - mbell 14y ago
    > How it doesn't? Well, lets start with the fact that it doesn't say anything about a group of people at all. It specifically speaks to only a few individuals. No where in the content of this video does it advocate any sort of physical or political action against Muslims at large. The fact that some people have decided to take it as a personal attack is immaterial and reading more into what was actually said than is there. If Google got into the business of pulling any content some group of people may find offensive the site would be empty.
    - Torgo 14y ago
      The video strongly implies that Muslims as a group are violent (watch the part with the father and daughter early on). It presents Islam's founder as a horrible human being, and a religious fraud. This is not quite as mild as it gets with regard to criticism of religion, but it's pretty close. If this particular video were to be legally actionable, no criticism of a religion where it intersects with testable reality (making positive claims about nature contrary to science, claims of historical fact) would be safe without fear of prosecution. I am sorry that so many people have died, but I cannot blame this video without completely throwing out the American version of free speech. I guess we're just going have to solely blame the killers instead.
      - infinitex 14y ago
        "The video strongly implies that Muslims as a group are violent" Well, they walked right into that one, didn't they. Mobs rioting, setting embassies on fire and killing people etc.
moskie 14y ago
Exactly. Now, my question is, why _doesn't_ this video violate that guideline? Isn't its entire purpose to denigrate Islam?
- malandrew 14y ago
  AFAICT it is because: Individual != Group even if the group considers that individual to be someone who represents them.
- salimmadjd 14y ago
  Google is just pissed off they were not credited for any kind of revolution like twitter was and now they don't want to lose their opportunity.
- effinjames 14y ago
  google is run by jews, nuff said.
malandrew 14y ago
I haven't spent the time to watch the video, but from what others have said, the video is about a person (Mohammed) and not about a group of people. That being said, I don't see how it could be hate speech. The most it could be is slanderous/libelous. A similar video about Jesus or any other individual, involved with a religion or not, would be the same. Were the video about a group of people with some common identifying characteristic such as race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation, it could be considered hate speech.
- salimmadjd 14y ago
  The makers of this video have admitted the purpose of the video was to denigrate Islam. Shouldn't that be enough in itself to classify this as hate speech. Also this issue bring a very interesting point. How google make these type of judgment. Do they have legal experts viewing these videos and making decision as such? There is a lot of important issues being brought up as a result. How do we identify hate speech, who makes that kind of a judgement, what's the role of distribution channels in these cases, how much power the government has, is there a bigger responsibility for unseen cases?
  - malandrew 14y ago
    Interesting. That changes things. Do you have a citation of what the video's authors said?
    - salimmadjd 14y ago
      "Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location....he intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion" http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/israeli-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-anti-islam-movie-sparks-deadly-libya-egypt-protests-1.464459 http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/israeli-filmmaker-in...
      - orangecat 14y ago
        If "condemning" a religion is "hate speech", then a substantial portion of the commentary on liberal, skeptic, and atheist sites would qualify.
cwisecarver 14y ago
They should probably start by looking through the comments on their site. I'd say +70% of them qualify as hate speech.
belorn 14y ago
Hate speech is/should have a very narrow definition. If we define hate speech as "anything anyone might take offense too", we make the term useless. There is a difference between someone goes around shouting for the extinction of a race, and someone doing bad and amateurish satire. Trying to combine the two, and you are indirectly making the first type more acceptable.

mbell 14y ago

How does this video meet that definition?

salimmadjd 14y ago
How it doesn't? This brings in an interesting issue, google based on their own guidelines are in the position of interpreting what is hate speech and what isn't. Who at google makes that decision? Who are these people? Do they have a biased?
- mbell 14y ago
  > How it doesn't? Well, lets start with the fact that it doesn't say anything about a group of people at all. It specifically speaks to only a few individuals. No where in the content of this video does it advocate any sort of physical or political action against Muslims at large. The fact that some people have decided to take it as a personal attack is immaterial and reading more into what was actually said than is there. If Google got into the business of pulling any content some group of people may find offensive the site would be empty.
  - Torgo 14y ago
    The video strongly implies that Muslims as a group are violent (watch the part with the father and daughter early on). It presents Islam's founder as a horrible human being, and a religious fraud. This is not quite as mild as it gets with regard to criticism of religion, but it's pretty close. If this particular video were to be legally actionable, no criticism of a religion where it intersects with testable reality (making positive claims about nature contrary to science, claims of historical fact) would be safe without fear of prosecution. I am sorry that so many people have died, but I cannot blame this video without completely throwing out the American version of free speech. I guess we're just going have to solely blame the killers instead.
    - infinitex 14y ago
      "The video strongly implies that Muslims as a group are violent" Well, they walked right into that one, didn't they. Mobs rioting, setting embassies on fire and killing people etc.

moskie 14y ago

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

malandrew 14y ago
AFAICT it is because: Individual != Group even if the group considers that individual to be someone who represents them.
salimmadjd 14y ago
Google is just pissed off they were not credited for any kind of revolution like twitter was and now they don't want to lose their opportunity.
effinjames 14y ago
google is run by jews, nuff said.

malandrew 14y ago

I haven't spent the time to watch the video, but from what others have said, the video is about a person (Mohammed) and not about a group of people. That being said, I don't see how it could be hate speech. The most it could be is slanderous/libelous. A similar video about Jesus or any other individual, involved with a religion or not, would be the same. Were the video about a group of people with some common identifying characteristic such as race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation, it could be considered hate speech.

salimmadjd 14y ago
The makers of this video have admitted the purpose of the video was to denigrate Islam. Shouldn't that be enough in itself to classify this as hate speech. Also this issue bring a very interesting point. How google make these type of judgment. Do they have legal experts viewing these videos and making decision as such? There is a lot of important issues being brought up as a result. How do we identify hate speech, who makes that kind of a judgement, what's the role of distribution channels in these cases, how much power the government has, is there a bigger responsibility for unseen cases?
- malandrew 14y ago
  Interesting. That changes things. Do you have a citation of what the video's authors said?
  - salimmadjd 14y ago
    "Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location....he intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion" http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/israeli-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-anti-islam-movie-sparks-deadly-libya-egypt-protests-1.464459 http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/israeli-filmmaker-in...
    - orangecat 14y ago
      If "condemning" a religion is "hate speech", then a substantial portion of the commentary on liberal, skeptic, and atheist sites would qualify.

cwisecarver 14y ago

They should probably start by looking through the comments on their site. I'd say +70% of them qualify as hate speech.

belorn 14y ago

Hate speech is/should have a very narrow definition. If we define hate speech as "anything anyone might take offense too", we make the term useless. There is a difference between someone goes around shouting for the extinction of a race, and someone doing bad and amateurish satire. Trying to combine the two, and you are indirectly making the first type more acceptable.