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

101–110 of 213 posts

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

#101

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pyoung wrote: post #40
xanados wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"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.

>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?

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

#102

Post by Steko »

gfodor wrote: post #52
dandelany wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

"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.

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

#103

Post by lotharbot »

saalweachter wrote: post #28
andreasvc wrote: post #22

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…

Just a heads up on your link:

The guy wasn't charged for pointing out "this isn't a miracle". He was charged for following it up with a series of accusations -- claiming that it was a scam set up by local priests (defamation), and making comments about how religious people are "gullible", "regressive", "irrational", etc. (provocation). He went well beyond debunking and into the realm of conjecture/speculation, and ended up violating a number of local laws by doing so.

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

#104

Post by phaus »

xanados wrote: post #25
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'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

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.

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

#105

Post by twelvechairs »

People in Arab countries aren't generally angry at western freedom of speech, they are angry at being denigrated and being denied the opportunities for self advancement that we safely take for granted.

I wish that the media focus was truly on the broader issues behind this anger than placing so much focus on one ridiculous video.

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

#106

Post by Steko »

tokenadult wrote: post #100

As I commented on this issue earlier, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4511247 "As we read news reports about violent responses to the video, from people who seem to be quite confused about who produced the video, it's important for all of us to remember the basic issue here. The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speec…

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences.

You can go all Fred Phelps and tell some marine's family he's in hell now at his funeral and that they are inbred hillbillies that could never have invented the internet but don't expect shock on my part if his dad and brothers decide that would be a good time to beat the shit out of you.

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

#107

Post by InclinedPlane »

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.

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

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

#108

Post by powertower »

koko775 wrote: post #70
powertower wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're getting into dangerously ignorant territory with those words, and you haven't even done your research. Stop. That has no place here. 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…

You're talking about 1 small part, of a much larger picture. The protests are still going on strong and spreading, and while they might have been started by 1 specific covert agenda, they are now being driven by anti-American and anti-Western sentiment, which appears to be deep seated.

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

#109

Post by ladzoppelin »

grecy wrote: post #16

Can we get a link to the video?

Wow Youtube comments really bring humanity down a notch. I wish Google would just end the comment system for a while and see what happens. Between Youtube comments and Android market app reviews, Google could own the two biggest pools of idiocy on the internet.

Its good they left the video on line but the lunacy in the comments makes me wish they would just pull it.

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

#110

Post by rayiner »

protomyth wrote: post #92
Steko wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The oath is to protect the Constitution." Are you insinuating they've violated the Constitution somehow?

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.

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.

Post reply on HN