YouTube Leaves Jihadi Training Video Up Until WSJ Asks for Comment

So in the security vs civil liberties debate, there is often concern that trying to get the social media giants to help out with the war on terror will erode freedom of expression. I get that. I am big on freedom of expression. I'm one of those guys that thinks there should be pretty much no limits for comics, because as soon as you start getting into what a "reasonable person" would joke about, it becomes totally subjective. For this same reason, I don't believe social media should be allowed to determine what constitutes fake news, because that is obviously subjective and whoever you try to put in charge of such censorship, their political biases will inevitably factor into their decisions.

On the other side of that, you've got things like this:

Tech firms' response to questionable content is largely to remove it retroactively after it has been flagged by users. So hundreds, if not thousands, of people could see the content before it gets pulled, researchers say. A 26-second YouTube video explaining how to carry out a truck attack was viewed more than 360 times by Monday evening since it was posted Sunday.

The video suggested using a "double-wheeled, load-bearing truck" to attack "large outdoor festivals, conventions, celebrations and parades," among other targets. The video was unlisted, meaning viewers could only find it if given a link to it, suggesting it was shared among viewers.

Rick Eaton, a researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks hateful online content, said on Monday that he flagged it to YouTube twice. The video was pulled minutes after The Wall Street Journal asked YouTube about it around 6:15 p.m. Eastern time on Monday.

I think we can all agree, that kind of # doesn't belong on YouTube. Freedom of expression doesn't extend to training people how to commit murder. Freedom of speech doesn't cover that. Freedom of religion doesn't cover that. YouTube argues they do take stuff like that down, and they have in the past. However, isn't it funny they weren't able to get to this one until coincidentally right after they were asked for comment by the media? I get it, there's so much traffic on these sites, it takes a while to get to everything. That being said, maybe if they weren't so busy censoring conservative views they would get to taking down terrorist training videos a little quicker.

Hollywood does it all the time. As for the Youtube they have the right to remove any video for any reason. I remember the controversy over "The Anarchist Cookbook".
Anyway free speech does cover this.

a reply to: face23785

Take a look at the video embedded on this site. It's what the western world is up against yet the progressives are blind to it. Maybe even worse than that, they condone it. The SJW's are just as dangerous as the Islamic extremists, if not more so.

The above video, produced by what is ostensibly ISIS’s English and German propaganda outlet, is one example of how the militants are selling the cause to young Westerners. Meanwhile, J.M. Berger unpacks ISIS’s Twitter strategy, which is among the most effective of any Jihadi organization:

Link

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Hollywood does it all the time. As for the Youtube they have the right to remove any video for any reason. I remember the controversy over "The Anarchist Cookbook".
Anyway free speech does cover this.

As I said, I am a big free speech advocate, however free speech does not cover this, at least in the US.

For most of American history, the courts held that no one has a right to advocate violations of the law. They ruled that advocacy of crime is wholly outside of the First Amendment--akin to a criminal attempt and punishable as such. Indeed, many of the judges revered as the strongest champions of free speech believed that express advocacy of crime was punishable. Judge Learned Hand, in his great 1917 opinion in Masses v. United States, established himself as a true hero of free speech by saying that even dangerous dissident speech was generally protected against government regulation. But Hand himself conceded that government could regulate any speaker who would "counsel or advise a man" to commit an unlawful act.

In the same period the Supreme Court concluded that government could punish all speech, including advocacy of illegality, that had a "tendency" to encourage illegality. Justices Holmes and Brandeis, the dissenters from this pro-censorship conclusion, took a different approach, saying that speech could be subjected to regulation only if it was likely to produce imminent harm; thus they originated the famous "clear and present danger" test. But even Holmes and Brandeis suggested that the government could punish speakers who had the explicit intention of encouraging crime.

For many years thereafter, the Supreme Court tried to distinguish between speech that was meant as a contribution to democratic deliberation and speech that was designed to encourage illegality. The former was protected; the latter was not. In 1951 the Court concluded in Dennis v. United States that a danger need not be so "clear and present" if the ultimate harm was very grave.

The great break came in the Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio. There the Court said the government could not take action against a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who said, among other things, "We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengence taken." The speaker did not explicitly advocate illegal acts or illegal violence. But in its decision, the Court announced a broad principle, ruling that the right to free speech does "not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In my opinion it's pretty obvious a video describing how to commit a truck attack would not be covered under these guidelines.

a reply to: face23785

Then Hollywood, the alt-right and the pastors calling for violence against gay people are in big trouble.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

While I don't agree with it, a pastor saying homosexuality is a sin isn't quite the same as a terrorist posting a video saying go rent a truck and run infidels over. If you read the material I posted, you'd see the Supreme Court made just such a distinction. Hating is free speech, telling people to commit violence against those you hate isn't. Now if you have an example of a pastor telling his congregation to go murder gays, I'd suggest you report him to the authorities, because that isn't free speech and that's illegal.

a reply to: face23785


It's still up there on Youtube with other videos.
There are videos on the methods and on how to kill people.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: face23785

It's still up there on Youtube with other videos.
There are videos on the methods and on how to kill people.

If there was ever a prime example for a closet gay then that Pastor is it.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: face23785

It's still up there on Youtube with other videos.
There are videos on the methods and on how to kill people.

If there was ever a prime example for a closet gay then that Pastor is it.

LMAO. Yep. 100% for sure.

a reply to: D8Tee

Ok mister "it's ok to sell terrorists weapons as long as they keep killing people away from the U.S.".

Seems a bit hypocritical to call SJW's as bad as terrorists when you are the one who said it's ok to sell terrorists weapons doesn't it?

Either you're ok with terrorists getting new stockpiles of weapons and using them how they want or you're against terrorism. You can't have it both ways.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Seems a bit hypocritical to call SJW's as bad as terrorists when you are the one who said it's ok to sell terrorists weapons doesn't it?

No. SJW's are nothing more than domestic terrorists, they care not for their own country, they are ruining it.

Saudi Arabia can do whatever they want with their new goodies as long as they keep them in the ME, I don't care.

Also on May 18, 2017, Bloomberg confirmed that the Pentagon and their Saudi counterparts would finalize a $6 billion deal with Lockheed Martin for four modified versions of the company's Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship – six percent of the total U.S. arms package. The rest of the deal will include thousands of precision guided munitions, 50 CH-47 cargo helicopters, 60 smaller UH-60 transport choppers, 115 M1A2S Abrams tanks, among other items.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: face23785

It's still up there on Youtube with other videos.
There are videos on the methods and on how to kill people.

I'm no hypocrite, that # should be reported. If I knew how I'd change my thread title to "YouTube supports Islamic and anti-gay Terrorism" but I'd probably get a lot of messages telling me my thread title is redundant.