YouTube Voluntarily Blocks Muhammad Video in Egypt and Libya

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

YouTube Voluntarily Blocks Muhammad Video in Egypt and Libya


news.softpedia.com

In a rare but not unprecedented move, YouTube has blocked offending videos of prophet Muhammad in Egypt and Libya where people were already rioting because of them.

The move is designed to calm spirits and put an end to the violence, but it's still voluntary censorship any way you look at it....

Still, the EFF is concerned that self-censorship is never a good idea. "Once YouTube has made the decision to pro-actively censor its content, they start down a slippery slope that ends in YouTube Knows Best moral policing of every video on their site. It is disappointing to see YouTube turn it
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Staff and crew of film that ridiculed Muslims say they were grossly misled




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Youtube has the right to do this, but should they?

Is the EFF right about this being a step on a slippery slope that leads to "YouTube Knows Best moral policing of every video on their site?"

It seems like they do moral policing already so I don't think this is such a huge step on the slippery slopes but I'm interested in your thoughts.

I noticed that someone uploaded the video to Vimeo which has not yet blocked it in Egypt and Libya, so will the youtube block really be effective in that case?

Will Vimeo end up blocking it in Egypt and Libya also?

news.softpedia.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Well another option would be for Youtube to start gathering customer's religious data, and offer the option to censor videos that are offensive to the person's religious values.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 

I suppose if it's completely voluntary that would fly.

Google is already considered somewhat "big-brother-ish" so I expect some people wouldn't like to submit their religious beliefs...me for one.

But I have no problems with others doing it if they want to, nor with Youtube using that information to filter videos...it may not be a bad idea.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


How about a link to the video? I want to see what all the fuss is about.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Bit like closing the barn door after the horse is gone isn't it???

I don't agree with this. Offensive material censoring, who decides? Radical elements within a society don't really need an excuse to go off, if they feel they do, then I'm sure one can be found and trying to tip toe around so as not to upset anyone is ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 

I haven't seen the whole video but the trailer was too long already. It's really pathetic with the lame voiceovers that are referenced in the other thread on this I linked to, so I believe that other thread that the actors may not have known the final script with the voiceovers.

Go to vimeo.com and try searching for Muhammad Movie Trailer and see if that works.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamschist
 

Certainly censoring it in a free-speech country would be unacceptable.

But the article said something about the laws in Egypt and Libya possibly not allowing free speech? So the other question that comes up is, even if Youtube didn't want to censor it, is the video legal there? I don't know the answer, however just asking the question made me glad I live in a country where free speech is legal. It may get you on a Fatwah hit list if you make the wrong fanatics mad, but at least it's legal.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Is the EFF right about this being a step on a slippery slope that leads to "YouTube Knows Best moral policing of every video on their site?"


What do you mean "policing"? It's THEIR OWN SITE! Of course they have the right to censor their own stuff! Are you serious? It's not like they're forcing their decisions on other video hosting sites. If they want to block certain people from their stuff, it's absolutely acceptable. We don't own YouTube and they owe the world nothing.

If I go delete some pictures from my photobucket site, I'm not "policing" anyone. It's my business.
edit on 9/13/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I am torn on this.

I don't like censorship in any way unless it involves criminal activity or the abuse of others. But, having said that, this video is directly resulting in the injury and death of innocent people.

A part of me thinks that we need things like this to move forward too. I hate all religion with a passion, I believe it is the most dangerous form of control ever created. It convinces people to end the lives of others, and all based on a fantasy.

It's the equivalent of murdering someone because they disagree with the color of Dorothy's shoes or the length of the yellow brick road.

How are we supposed to move forward as a species if an opinion on something causes others to kill? Nothing will change unless this is confronted.

But, people are dying.

YouTube is not a public service, it is a business. This is something people often seem to forget when it comes to Google and Facebook too. People have the choice of whether to use these services or not.

Ultimately it is their decision, and if people don't like it, tough! We don't get a vote on the decisions of a private company.

As for my personal opinion, I'm mostly undecided. But I have to concede that preventing further violence and death should be the priority here.

I like the idea of filtering through choice, but I don't think that will change anything. Extremists will use it to promote violence and hatred whether people choose to see it or not. Those who would cause such violence themselves are obviously watching this video through choice, allowing it to offend them and then acting on that.

If I were Obama, right now I would be doing the following things...

1. Secure all US sites in all Muslim nations to the best of my ability.
2. Order a government investigation to track down and arrest, interview and charge those responsible for creating or funding this video - it was done under suspicious circumstances, funded by religious extremists, and many of those filmed were lied to in order to get them to participate - that is fraud, and it has put their lives at risk.
3. Release a public statement making it clear that those responsible for creating that video are being investigated and that it is the creation of a religious extremist group.

Obama needs to identify and hold accountable the people who created this video. I'm not saying that he should do it to placate a violent mob, I'm saying he should do it because they are themselves extremists, they have created something INTENDING to cause violence. From what I have read about those involved, they knew exactly what they were doing and they did it to create this violence against all Americans around the world. That doesn't excuse those perpetrating the violence, but it does lay blame at the feet of those who intended it.

The identity of those involved in creating it is vitally important here. They need to find out who the writer/producer is and have a list of those who funded this creation.

I firmly believe there is a lot more to this than we know right now.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It seems that the crime is already done.... word is out... the Arab World are going crazy over it and acting like the man himself has just been killed by a US Drone!!
edit on 13-9-2012 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Does Libya and Egypt have a constitutional right to free speech like we do in the U. S.?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If I go delete some pictures from my photobucket site, I'm not "policing" anyone. It's my business.
True, but you don't allow access by people in some countries and deny access to people in other countries, do you? I think that's what the EFF was on about and policing was their choice of words, as you can see from the quote marks.

The youtube spokesperson I believe said the video fully met youtube guidelines so they had no reason to remove it.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terminal1
Does Libya and Egypt have a constitutional right to free speech like we do in the U. S.?
I don't know the laws there. However, the source I linked to in the OP says this:


But, of course, free speech, in the US at least, protects offensive speech and does so even if it has no merit, artistic or otherwise. That said, the same free speech rules don't apply in Egypt or Libya. What's more, Google has offices in Egypt and may have run afoul of laws there.
The wording is a but nebulous to me. It raises the question, but I don't think it really answers it. It may just be a PR trick by youtube to deflect criticism, but I don't really know.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I'm torn as well. As a private organization, YouTube reserves the right to show what they want, and after what's happened, I can fully understand their decision to block the movie for certain countries. I say this, being someone who believes down her core that the truth will set us free. I'm not sure this is the way to break the truth to people, and I despise organized religion.

That said, this will not be wasted. My current concern is whether this will feed the designs to censor the internet. Will there be a YouTube review system? I can't remember a time when free speech resulted in deaths on the other side of the world. Am I forgetting? I could need more coffee...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I see a lot from you Benevolent, that I disagree with, but here it's 100% full agreement.

Lets go back 30 years. No internet. People were aware of the world, but when things mattered, boy did they get off their arse.

Now, with the internet.. they sit back, and think everything is owed to them.

If people were now given what the internet started as, they'd cry looking at flash content. "My god, it's not text that takes 5 minutes to load!"...

So they want the world on a platter. And when it's not presented.. Who is hiding my news!!!!1



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So what? How much do you pay youtube for their service to host your videos?

You know ATS is the same. As soon as it hurts the pocket, you're out.

And SO WHAT! I know damn well if I ran a server and hosted forums, your freedom of speech means sweet fat zero. I run MY website. You choose to participate.

Not hard really, to grasp.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Terminal1
Does Libya and Egypt have a constitutional right to free speech like we do in the U. S.?
I don't know the laws there. However, the source I linked to in the OP says this:


But, of course, free speech, in the US at least, protects offensive speech and does so even if it has no merit, artistic or otherwise. That said, the same free speech rules don't apply in Egypt or Libya. What's more, Google has offices in Egypt and may have run afoul of laws there.
The wording is a but nebulous to me. It raises the question, but I don't think it really answers it. It may just be a PR trick by youtube to deflect criticism, but I don't really know.


There ya go then. It's pretty clear cut to me. Free speech rules do not apply there and it could be even breaking their laws. If it was being restricted here in the U. S. then you would have an issue.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
1. Secure all US sites in all Muslim nations to the best of my ability.
2. Order a government investigation to track down and arrest, interview and charge those responsible for creating or funding this video - it was done under suspicious circumstances, funded by religious extremists, and many of those filmed were lied to in order to get them to participate - that is fraud, and it has put their lives at risk.


Those are good points, if they confirm that the actors were lied to and fraud was involved, which seems plausible to me. But it may not be that clear cut if the actors signed contracts that said they allowed voiceovers, in which case it could be just sleazy but not technically illegal, so I'm not ready to convict somebody in the court of public opinion. But an investigation is warranted, I agree.

edit on 13-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Is this why the article I linked to says:


YouTube is well within its rights to block videos anywhere it sees fit.


If that's your point, nobody is questioning if they have the right to do it, because obviously they do.

The question is not can they do it, but rather, should they do it?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join