61–70 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well Google voluntarily pulled the video from Libya and Egypt
It said in the article that it was to comply with local laws.
Google said it decided to block the video in response to violence that killed four American diplomatic personnel in Libya. The company said its decision was unusual, made because of the exceptional circumstances.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/technology/google-blocks-i...
More here:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtube-blocks-access-...
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 orien…
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you mean "could" because you said "should" which makes the whole thing read like nonsense.
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.
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 orien…
Exactly. Now, my question is, why _doesn't_ this video violate that guideline? Isn't its entire purpose to denigrate Islam?
Individual != Group
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It said in the article that it was to comply with local laws.
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... ), but Libya and Egypt were just special-cased. Does anyone know if Libya and Egypt have blasphe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what confused you. It's a rhetorical question using essentially the White Houses "incitement" argument.
So just because you ate X for lunch today you should eat X for lunch everyday? See it makes sense with could but with should it's a nonsense claim. The WH, just like you me, the GOP, ze Germans, Al Qaeda, whoever are all free to request that YT review any video. Is this the end of the world? Does making such a request ever attach a weak compulsion to review and request the same of any other video that might weakly ov…
The White House gets to use the power of the bully pulpit to make such a "request" and Al Qaeda storms a few embassies and murders diplomats to make their "request".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 thos…
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.