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

191–200 of 213 posts

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

#191

Post by protomyth »

pyoung wrote: post #113
protomyth wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They asked Google to check if the video violated YT's terms of service. That is much different than what you are insinuating.

No it isn't any different. It is very much like someone coming to your business and saying "Nice business you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it..."

When it comes to the 1st amendment, Congress "shall pass no law" and the White House is the enforcement branch. They should, under no circumstances, say anything that could lead to censorship of something that isn't against the law.

Also, I'm not "insinuating" anything, I am directly saying it.

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

#192

Post by protomyth »

001sky wrote: post #169
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

001sky is right and to go further, having the White House ask you publicly to do something is very much an intimidation particularly when they can make the operation of your business difficult if you refuse.

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

#193

Post by dscrd »

roboneal wrote: post #27

On the same grounds, should the White House have asked Youtube to censor the numerous clips of Kerry and Biden praising the killing of Bin Laden at the DNC last week? I'm sure the Islamic world might have taken offense.

You really think the Islamic world, over 1.5B people, think of Bin Laden as a hero?

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

#194

Post by azakai »

001sky wrote: post #166
azakai wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no 1st Amendment right to have your content hosted on YouTube. YouTube is a private, commercial venture that can remove your content for any reasons at any time. In fact, to say that YouTube must show all content and not remove any content and otherwise people's 1st Amendment rights are "interfered with" - would ironically take away the very basic right of YouTube to do as it deems fit in its own domain, You…

You tube has 1st amendment to do what they want is the point, they are interferering via pr and public peer pressure. Why is it not like hosni mubarik asking twitter to please STFU during arab spring?

If I remember correctly, Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt during the uprising there. That's different than politely asking a single privately-owned website to please remove some stuff.

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

#195

Post by protomyth »

azakai wrote: post #144
protomyth wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no 1st Amendment right to have your content hosted on YouTube. YouTube is a private, commercial venture that can remove your content for any reasons at any time. In fact, to say that YouTube must show all content and not remove any content and otherwise people's 1st Amendment rights are "interfered with" - would ironically take away the very basic right of YouTube to do as it deems fit in its own domain, You…

"YouTube is free to remove content, and others are free to ask YouTube to do so. To say otherwise is to limit their freedom."

YouTube is free to listen to anyone, but the executive branch of the government should not be the one asking. If it is illegal or top secret content, then fine and dandy, there are rules for that. Otherwise, it is an attempt to intimidate YouTube and squelch their 1st amendment rights.

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

#196

Post by azakai »

protomyth wrote: post #195
azakai wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no 1st Amendment right to have your content hosted on YouTube. YouTube is a private, commercial venture that can remove your content for any reasons at any time. In fact, to say that YouTube must show all content and not remove any content and otherwise people's 1st Amendment rights are "interfered with" - would ironically take away the very basic right of YouTube to do as it deems fit in its own domain, You…

"YouTube is free to remove content, and others are free to ask YouTube to do so. To say otherwise is to limit their freedom." YouTube is free to listen to anyone, but the executive branch of the government should not be the one asking. If it is illegal or top secret content, then fine and dandy, there are rules for that. Otherwise, it is an attempt to intimidate YouTube and squelch their 1st amendment rights.

I'm not sure how this was intimidation? It was a request, and YouTube declined it. That proves that YouTube's is free to act as it chooses. (YouTube could also have decided to remove it, regardless of the request to remove it, and that would be within YouTube's rights as well - and not contrary to the video poster's rights.)

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

#197

Post by Aloisius »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #186
Aloisius wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did violent mobs become terrorists?

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?

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.

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

#198

Post by 001sky »

azakai wrote: post #194
001sky wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tube has 1st amendment to do what they want is the point, they are interferering via pr and public peer pressure. Why is it not like hosni mubarik asking twitter to please STFU during arab spring?

If I remember correctly, Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt during the uprising there. That's different than politely asking a single privately-owned website to please remove some stuff.

Not really. sort of proves the point. intention not polite.

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

#200

Post by [deleted] »

001sky wrote: post #198
azakai wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt during the uprising there. That's different than politely asking a single privately-owned website to please remove some stuff.

Not really. sort of proves the point. intention not polite.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN