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

91–100 of 213 posts

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

#91

Post by rdl »

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?

I'm very pro free speech, but I actually wouldn't mind if the video went down for a couple of days ("under review") while security at embassies was improved, and for time for the mobs to settle down a bit. I would absolutely be against pulling it, but delaying or putting it in context wouldn't hinder free speech and would potentially save lives.

I'd also like to see Google run a clickthrough redirect preroll or ads on the page explaining that they don't support the content, it doesn't represent Google or the US, but that free speech is valued. Google did something similar with an anti-Jewish/Nazi googlebombing of "Jew" in search results (http://www.google.com/explanation.html)

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

#92

Post by protomyth »

Steko wrote: post #84
protomyth wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

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.

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

#93

Post by malandrew »

salimmadjd wrote: post #80
malandrew wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 identif…

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, wh…

Interesting. That changes things. Do you have a citation of what the video's authors said?

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

#94

Post by smsm42 »

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.

He wasn't killed because of the video. He was killed because he was representing the US, aka Big Satan. It amazes me how anybody watching the news for last 20 or so years can still talk about it being about specific video or cartoon or poem or whatever and if only it wasn't there everything would be peachy. It wouldn't.

And it wasn't "just a request". It was a request from US government - the body created to represent all US citizens and protect their rights, including free speech, which is in the First Amendment of US constitution. When Obama is a private citizen again, then his requests will be close to "just a request". Now, nothing he says or does is "just a" - it's always "US president's".

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

#95

Post by belorn »

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…

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.

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

#96

Post by coryl »

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…

You know how as a kid, you were taught "don't believe everything you see on TV"?

Context is important. Video clips rarely tell the full story.

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

#97

Post by belorn »

salimmadjd wrote: post #80
malandrew wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 identif…

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, wh…

Do you think Monty Python films should also be classified as hate speech?

There is a difference between making fun of an religion (Islam), and incite violence or prejudicial action against a group who are practicing the religion (Muslims).

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

#98

Post by Torgo »

mbell wrote: post #71
salimmadjd wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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…

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.

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

#99

Post by joshAg »

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…

weird that this is greyed out, since it seems to match all the source my fb friends and i have found:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/13/libya-attacks-a-wake-up-...

http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/romney-jumps-the-shark-libya...

http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14332

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0912/Libya-attack-...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-fast-team/

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

#100

Post by tokenadult »

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 speech throughout their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch person or other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind."

Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize TSA "security theater" as a meaningless reduction in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing, but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs.

I think jerf correctly responded to this issue the other day:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4510637

If I organize a riot involving thousands of people that I manage to incite into killing people, and I claim my reason is that I heard that some guy is Glasgow made fun of the American soccer team over beer... that guy is Glasgow is not the real reason. It doesn't even qualify as a metaphorical fig leaf, it's just a lie. When the excuse is this tiny, you shouldn't even give it the time of day.

AFTER EDIT: Thanks for the two replies to this comment posted as I type this edit. I will defend to the utmost your right to free speech, to be enjoyed wherever you live or travel.

I wonder if the reason that books by Robert Spencer

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-Koran/dp/15969...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant/dp...

have not been used as a pretext for rioting is that the instigators of riots don't want to draw attention to these books, which might lead a lot of people around the world to reexamine their beliefs.

Post reply on HN