Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 213 posts

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#81

Post by cma »

roboneal wrote: post #46
mef wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WP article specifies that there must be threat of legal sanction. There was no threat in this case, only a request.

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".

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.

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#83

Post by cwisecarver »

Google is a business and it has every right to operate as it sees fit. Being a company that is headquartered in the US, I can't believe it would censor this video at all in any jurisdiction. It's not out of character for them considering the lengths it went to appease China but I don't think that was the right decision either.

I would hope that if I was ever faced with a similar situation I would choose based on my conscience not on ignorant local laws, what was best for the business, or what seemed to be the easiest choice at the time.

Edited for grammar.

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#84

Post by Steko »

protomyth wrote: post #47
nostromo wrote: post #17

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.

"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.

"The oath is to protect the Constitution."

Are you insinuating they've violated the Constitution somehow?

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#85

Post by mynameishere »

nostromo wrote: post #17
roboneal wrote: post #12

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

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

And actually because of policy, hence the "request".

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#86

Post by tzs »

cheald wrote: post #72
[deleted] wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I haven't missed the news. I'm well aware of the video and what it's been used as an excuse to do. I'm also aware that this request is effectively the White House requesting that content be repressed on political grounds, which is wholly antithetical to one of the core principles by which our government is run. It's trivial, by watching the video and by reading Google's TOS to say "oh, that's clearly not a violation"…

So people aren't confused as to what you are responding to, it was a comment of mine. A lot of people apparently completely misunderstood the point, so I deleted it. Sorry for orphaning your response.

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#87

Post by anigbrowl »

roboneal wrote: post #46
mef wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WP article specifies that there must be threat of legal sanction. There was no threat in this case, only a request.

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".

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.

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#88

Post by tvladeck »

powertower wrote: post #33
nostromo wrote: post #17

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…

> 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.

This is crazy hyperbole. Can you please explain how the Administration's request (not demand) to take down the video is even remotely similar to your description?

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#89

Post by cwisecarver »

salimmadjd wrote: post #35

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…

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

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#90

Post by smsm42 »

What I would like to know here is:

1. How frequently US administration asks Google and other content companies to pull content for political reasons?

2. Has Google ever complied with these requests?

3. How much of this content was pulled because of blasphemy reasons?

4. Is it the official policy of US government to try to censure any speech which can cause negative reaction from violent extremists abroad, or there some violent extremists that US government is more afraid of than others? If so, who takes these decisions and is his salary paid from my taxes?

Ideally, these questions would be answered by the free press. But with current state of affairs they are more likely to engage in political gamesmanship and issues like which politician's dog ran away 30 years ago and who of the politicians was a mean kid in kindergarten.

Also one must note that while White House has, so far, been powerless to remove any content, any of the RIAA members can instantly remove virtually any content from YouTube just by the virtue of claiming it's infringing. Of course, if the victim fights back fierce enough, it can be reinstated - but then it can be removed again by another claim, can't it?

Post reply on HN