 |
 Are al-Qaeda Videos Considered 'Free Speech' According to YouTube?
1 more article on this subject:
Senator Joseph Lieberman called on Google's YouTube to remove videos produced by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, showing attacks on U.S. soldiers and civilians. YouTube removed some videos, but refused to remove others, citing "free speech."
Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., is the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman and in a letter sent to Google's YouTube, Lieberman requested that YouTube "remove Internet video content produced by terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda."
Lieberman's letter can be found at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs website and in the letter he points to videos that can be accessed on YouTube that show "assassinations, deaths of U.S. soldiers and civilians, weapons training, incendiary speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and other material intended to encourage violence against the West."
He also asserts that the videos hold the al-Qaeda logo to identify them and he called on Google to "to enforce its own community standards against videos that show gratuitous violence or people getting “hurt, attacked, or humiliated.”
The letter also points out that terror groups use YouTube to "disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training".
In other words, Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training – activities that are all essential to terrorist activity. According to testimony received by our Committee, the online content produced by al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations can play a significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack. YouTube also, unwittingly, permits Islamist terrorist groups to maintain an active, pervasive, and amplified voice, despite military setbacks or successful operations by the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
For readers unaware of who and what al-Qaeda is: Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General, the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union, the United States Department of State, the Australian Government, Public Safety Canada, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook, South Korean Foreign Ministry, the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service,] the United Kingdom Home Office, Pakistan, Russia,] the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs,and the Swiss Government. ( Reference)
Al-Qaeda's most notable recent attack was on September 11, 2001, when, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks, al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the World Trade Center in New York City, resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania after passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft attempted to retake control of their plane.
2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and presumed dead, excluding the hijackers themselves.
In Google's response to Senator Lieberman's concerns, they issued a statement on their YouTube page, saying that some of the videos that Senator Lieberman's staff highlighted did violate their terms of service and had been removed but refused to remove the other videos, saying that "YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy."
WHIR News reports that Lieberman found Google's response "unsatisfactory" and that there is "speculation that he may be seeking the means to more forcefully encourage Google to police YouTube content by way of legislation."
This exchange between Senator Lieberman and Google leaves us with the question of whether al-Qeada videos, identified with the al-Qaeda logo, is protected under "free speech" rights?
Do organizations that have been listed across the world as terror groups enjoy the protections of free speech, via video, according to Google?
-
Do organizations that have been listed across the world as terror groups enjoy the protections of free speech, via video, according to Google?
Do the rules of the United States Constitution apply to non-citizens who are not in our country? No, so Google's justification doesn't hold water, if they're hosting the video's on servers located on U.S. soil.
-
Devil's advocate here: How are foreign terrorist groups different than at-home hate groups like the KKK? Freedom of speech is touchy in all these cases because they involve one group hating on another. One group's freedom is hate or terrorism to the other group.
So at what point do you go from being a hate group to a terrorist group? And how can one group be allowed to post video and not the other? Who gets freedom to speak?
-
If Google owns their servers it should be completely up to them what videos they allow to be uploaded there. Its not really a free speech issue so much as a private property issue
-
The problem is, when you give a forum to someone you are legitimizing them. There are just some things that shouldn't be legitimized, and others that are subjectable based on your personal view points.
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
The problem is, when you give a forum to someone you are legitimizing them. There are just some things that shouldn't be legitimized, and others that are subjectable based on your personal view points.
I'm stirring the pot here, I realize, but shouldn't freedom of speech be granted to none or all? Al-Qaeda is no doubt a terrorist organization, but if the KKK were to do the same videos why would that be OK? Rules can never be subjective in this case; you have to allow none or all, not who you like or don't, IMO. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
The problem is, when you give a forum to someone you are legitimizing them. There are just some things that shouldn't be legitimized, and others that are subjectable based on your personal view points.
Then Google should decide that. If you dont like what they put on their site then you probably shouldnt visit them. -
Over all I agree, but if indeed thier servers on on American soil they are bound by American laws that do not condone hate speech and inciting violence as far as I understand. That is still something to consider.
-
@ Chris Hogg
I'm stirring the pot here, I realize, but shouldn't freedom of speech be granted to none or all? Al-Qaeda is no doubt a terrorist organization, but if the KKK were to do the same videos why would that be OK? Rules can never be subjective in this case; you have to allow none or all, not who you like or don't, IMO.
Personally I think KKK people should have Duct Tape permanently over thier mouthes. That being said there is a bit of subjectivity. Al Qaeda puts forth videos of people getting thier heads cut off, and we find that horrible. I have seen films by others showing people dying that have been excused because they were something people agreed with. That is what I mean by subjectivity. Is it wrong to glorify death, to mock death, to encourage killing, no matter who you are? What about people who are calling for others to over throw the government, should they be protected by free speech or subject to inciting violence and threats? Like it or not, it is subjective. For the most part Americans don't think AL Qaeda should have the freedom to promote thier hate and violence. Al Qaeda members don't think we should be suffered to live at all. Google needs to figure out who they support because that is the kind of world we live in. -
pssst. Garage sale.....
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
pssst. Garage sale.....
OK Sam. But don't tell anyone that Chris said they like me addicted. I think it is something they put into their site that keeps drawing me back.
Bye -
lmao
-
@ Chris Hogg
Devil's advocate here: How are foreign terrorist groups different than at-home hate groups like the KKK? Freedom of speech is touchy in all these cases because they involve one group hating on another. One group's freedom is hate or terrorism to the other group.
So at what point do you go from being a hate group to a terrorist group? And how can one group be allowed to post video and not the other? Who gets freedom to speak?
I like that question and there is a simple answer, which I addressed by listing WHERE al-Qaeda is listed as a terrorist group and let us not forget they claimed responsibility for 9-11.
Any hate speech, such as the KKK is now against the law in many countries, so why should those groups get to hide behind the freedom of speech mantles and as Garibaldi pointed out, OUR constitution is for OUR citizens, not foreign groups.
There does need to be a clear cut line drawn in the sand and it seems that YouTube, as stated, lets their users decide what is offensive and what is not...so how is that taking any form of responsibility for a site they run?
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Personally I think KKK people should have Duct Tape permanently over thier mouthes. That being said there is a bit of subjectivity. Al Qaeda puts forth videos of people getting thier heads cut off, and we find that horrible. I have seen films by others showing people dying that have been excused because they were something people agreed with. That is what I mean by subjectivity. Is it wrong to glorify death, to mock death, to encourage killing, no matter who you are? What about people who are calling for others to over throw the government, should they be protected by free speech or subject to inciting violence and threats? Like it or not, it is subjective. For the most part Americans don't think AL Qaeda should have the freedom to promote thier hate and violence. Al Qaeda members don't think we should be suffered to live at all. Google needs to figure out who they support because that is the kind of world we live in.
WELL SAID Samantha. -
Goodness-I HATE to say this because the very thought of what they represent burns my brain but it IS free speech and should be allowed-along with the videos of actual abortions, killings, hate groups...etc.
-
@ Nikki W (karateblossom)
Goodness-I HATE to say this because the very thought of what they represent burns my brain but it IS free speech and should be allowed-along with the videos of actual abortions, killings, hate groups...etc.
Kiddie Porn and Rape too? -
That is illegal, sam.
-
@ Nikki W (karateblossom)
That is illegal, sam.
So are beheadings and shooting soldiers.
Let me expand on that. Al-Qaeda has bomb making guides online, training manuals to create cells and kidnapping manuals and that is just a small bit of what they have...that should be allowed? -
Isn't inciteful and hate speech too? or am I completely off base.
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Isn't inciteful and hate speech too? or am I completely off base.
I think it is. Be right back folks. -
My point is, free speech is allowed for some groups and OK but not for others. Now, aside from those that actually show murders and other illegal content, the group itself isn't banned-right?
Illegal activity-yes, banned. Non illegal, protectected is it?
-
@ Nikki W (karateblossom)
My point is, free speech is allowed for some groups and OK but not for others. Now, aside from those that actually show murders and other illegal content, the group itself isn't banned-right?
Illegal activity-yes, banned. Non illegal, protectected is it?
Nikki, this is a group that admitted to slaughtering 3,000 in a terror attack... do you think murderers, still being hunted are entitled to any type of free speech? Seriously?
We are not talking about people who "might" have committed crimes...we are talking about people, an organization that proclaimed, proudly, that they murdered 3,000 on 9-11 as well as having taken credit for other massive terror attacks around the world.
How can anyone justify giving them "free speech" in any form or fashion? -
@ Sue D.
Nikki, this is a group that admitted to slaughtering 3,000 in a terror attack... do you think murderers, still being hunted are entitled to any type of free speech? Seriously?
We are not talking about people who "might" have committed crimes...we are talking about people, an organization that proclaimed, proudly, that they murdered 3,000 on 9-11 as well as having taken credit for other massive terror attacks around the world?
How can anyone justify giving them "free speech" in any form or fashion?
Point noted and hard to disagree with that. But I still bring up a group like the KKK who publicly say they are superior and many have served time for murder, etc. They peacefully protest, sure, but they also promote hate on other people. They publicly acknowledge that too.
If they produced a video saying death to ___________, or why (insert race) should not be in America how is that different? -
I think the point is that the group Al-Qaeda has not been banned therefore is not illegal to advertise and are protected by "free speech".
My question would be: What really is the meaning of "free speech" on the internet anyway?
-
@ Chris Hogg
Point noted and hard to disagree with that. But I still bring up a group like the KKK who publicly say they are superior and many have served time for murder, etc. They peacefully protest, sure, but they also promote hate on other people. They publicly acknowledge that too.
If they produced a video saying death to ___________, or why (insert race) should not be in America how is that different?
It isn't and I don't think you will find many people who would excuse it either.
For example
In the 1920s, regional chapters of the Ku Klux Klan targeted Niles because of its large Catholic population. The nativist organization marched through the center of Niles in May 1924, and attempted another march in June of the same year. When violence forced the Klan to cancel the second march, the event was rescheduled for November 1, 1924. The local mayor's ultimate decision to issue the Klan a permit for the march outraged many of the community's Italian- and Irish-American residents.[3]
In response to the scheduled Klan march, an anti-Klan organization, the Knights of the Flaming Circle, pledged to hold their own parade of 10,000 participants on the same day. On October 29, the mayor's house was bombed, due to his refusal to revoke the permit. Tensions escalated from this point on, and the city gained national attention due to the impending marches.[6] Despite the city's pleas for assistance from the militia, they were denied. The result was 18 hours of full-blown rioting. Control was brought to the town, requiring 10 days of martial law.[7] Between the Klan and anti- Klan participants, 104 people were indicted. The conflict was a turning point in long-running hostilities between nativists and immigrants in the Mahoning Valley, and in its wake, the Klan's influence gradually subsided.
Who was wrong? -
@ Chris Hogg
Point noted and hard to disagree with that. But I still bring up a group like the KKK who publicly say they are superior and many have served time for murder, etc. They peacefully protest, sure, but they also promote hate on other people. They publicly acknowledge that too.
If they produced a video saying death to ___________, or why (insert race) should not be in America how is that different?
Is shouldn't be, then again, when they have murdered someone and are on the run, they are not producing videos and having them blasted across the Internet are they?
Same thing for while they are IN jail, they are not given equipment nor access to make videos to spread out there...they cannot do that until they get out of prison, if they do.
Hate speech is supposed to be banned by the guidelines and TOS, therefore it should be banned across the board.
Sam good example, and exactly why I said a line must be drawn and implemented across the board.
Saying I hate someone or something is one thing, allowing video of innocent human beings to be killed or video showing people HOW to kill innocent people, shouldn't even be a question of free speech in my mind. -
This is a great subject for debate.
I have my own qualms about giving Al Qaeda a forum in which to disseminate propaganda, but at the same time videos like the Zarqawi beheadings have also done a great deal to show just how savage they really are.
It doesn't help their cause. And anyone who buys into it and becomes a jihadi was inclined toward that direction to begin with, IMHO.
I direct you all to LiveLeak, the bastion of 'extreme free speech.' Be you Nazi or jihadi or anyone in between, you can have your say, whatever it is.
Also, we can have our say too. Whether jihadis post on YouTube or LiveLeak, we can give them an eyeful in the comments section.
It's not very hard to push jihadis' buttons. Just break out the ham and bacon.
In summation, I say we go after them when they're plotting attacks. That's self-preservation. But as for propaganda videos, let the world see them for who they are: a bunch of subhuman bloodthirsty animals who make the SS look good by comparison.
That helps our cause, not theirs.
Lastly, I would also not want to put myself in the position of shutting down LiveLeak or YouTube for broadcasting jihadi videos.
Isn't that really the flip side of jihadis threatening LiveLeak over Fitna?
Let freedom reign, in all its distaste and ugliness.
Kinda gives the Internet character, don't you think?
Great Post, S.D.!
-
AS I PULL POISONED DARTS OUT MY SKULL.....LOL
Thanks sam for the beautiful illustration on child porn and rape, takes me back to the 11 years I suffered at the hands of my step father.
no I don't by anymeans personally feel than any hateful murderer or rapist or drug dealer or child abuser or pedophile should have a voice.
it is a battle and a flaw with the due process of our system that enables a repeat pedophile to live on the same street as kids in some states and murders to be set free on technicalities.
Are they denied the rights to speak or express?
The horrors of 9/11 are real.
All I was saying was that IF they allow hate groups to air their videos and do not have a code of conduct for said hate groups, then I would find it a violation of free speech. offensive personnaly, yes.
Same goes for any other group. I don't know a whole lot about youtube so I'm not fully aware of their codes of conduct and legalities.
Would I stop using or viwing youtube videos or allowing my children to view them if in the end, they refused to stop allowing AlQ? you bet.
Ok, back to the dart game....it hurts so you know. (me and my damned opinions especially when anwering a question).
-
@ Chris Hogg
Point noted and hard to disagree with that. But I still bring up a group like the KKK who publicly say they are superior and many have served time for murder, etc. They peacefully protest, sure, but they also promote hate on other people. They publicly acknowledge that too.
If they produced a video saying death to ___________, or why (insert race) should not be in America how is that different?
I would think that there would be a difference in saying death to a race or they don't belong in America.
I know every once in awhile a neighborhood here in lower Michigan will be flooded with hate pamphlets about blacks. If the ones that are distributing them are found I think they can be prosecuted.
The headquarters of the KKK was at one time in Howell Michigan. Their target was blacks, Jews and Catholics. -
@ Johnny Simpson
This is a great subject for debate.
I have my own qualms about giving Al Qaeda a forum in which to disseminate propaganda, but at the same time videos like the Zarqawi beheadings have also done a great deal to show just how savage they really are.
It doesn't help their cause. And anyone who buys into it and becomes a jihadi was inclined toward that direction to begin with, IMHO.
I direct you all to LiveLeak, the bastion of 'extreme free speech.' Be you Nazi or jihadi or anyone in between, you can have your say, whatever it is.
Also, we can have our say too. Whether jihadis post on YouTube or LiveLeak, we can give them an eyeful in the comments section.
It's not very hard to push jihadis' buttons. Just break out the ham and bacon.
In summation, I say we go after them when they're plotting attacks. That's self-preservation. But as for propaganda videos, let the world see them for who they are: a bunch of subhuman bloodthirsty animals who make the SS look good by comparison.
That helps our cause, not theirs.
Lastly, I would also not want to put myself in the position of shutting down LiveLeak or YouTube for broadcasting jihadi videos.
Isn't that really the flip side of jihadis threatening LiveLeak over Fitna?
Let freedom reign, in all its distaste and ugliness.
Kinda gives the Internet character, don't you think?
Great Post, S.D.!
Thanks and you do make good points, but I say the difference between the Jihadi threatening LiveLeak over Fitna is those images Fitna used are public domain at this point and not new material showing. I maintain Fitna was showing images to make the point about the violence where these videos with the al-Qaeda logo are teaching people how to kill, maim, bomb, kidnap and commit terror acts.
If Fitna had included any of that, I would have come out against it in a second.
I cannot see a comparison between man charged with nothing and a group that admittedly committed mass murder on the scale of 9-11.
You say the people that would join the Jihad were predisposed...I agree... but some of these videos show them how to take that predisposition and make it a reality which will costs hundreds of lives?
Where does the line get drawn on what people can do while hiding behind the mantle of free speech?
Great thread everyone, great comments whether I agree with some or not and thank you very much.
Pool time...see ya'll later. -
I would just like to add in conclusion that there are many fine videos on Liveleak and YouTube of jihadis buying it in the worst ways.
Here's one jihadi that deserves the Darwin Award.
Go ahead, laugh your buttocks off. I did! -
@ Nikki W (karateblossom)
AS I PULL POISONED DARTS OUT MY SKULL.....LOL
Thanks sam for the beautiful illustration on child porn and rape, takes me back to the 11 years I suffered at the hands of my step father.
no I don't by anymeans personally feel than any hateful murderer or rapist or drug dealer or child abuser or pedophile should have a voice.
it is a battle and a flaw with the due process of our system that enables a repeat pedophile to live on the same street as kids in some states and murders to be set free on technicalities.
Are they denied the rights to speak or express?
The horrors of 9/11 are real.
All I was saying was that IF they allow hate groups to air their videos and do not have a code of conduct for said hate groups, then I would find it a violation of free speech. offensive personnaly, yes.
Same goes for any other group. I don't know a whole lot about youtube so I'm not fully aware of their codes of conduct and legalities.
Would I stop using or viwing youtube videos or allowing my children to view them if in the end, they refused to stop allowing AlQ? you bet.
Ok, back to the dart game....it hurts so you know. (me and my damned opinions especially when anwering a question).
*takes out the peroxide and the neosporin with pain relief* Need some fixin up hun? * hugs* -
@ Nikki W (karateblossom)
AS I PULL POISONED DARTS OUT MY SKULL.....LOL
Thanks sam for the beautiful illustration on child porn and rape, takes me back to the 11 years I suffered at the hands of my step father.
no I don't by anymeans personally feel than any hateful murderer or rapist or drug dealer or child abuser or pedophile should have a voice.
it is a battle and a flaw with the due process of our system that enables a repeat pedophile to live on the same street as kids in some states and murders to be set free on technicalities.
Are they denied the rights to speak or express?
The horrors of 9/11 are real.
All I was saying was that IF they allow hate groups to air their videos and do not have a code of conduct for said hate groups, then I would find it a violation of free speech. offensive personnaly, yes.
Same goes for any other group. I don't know a whole lot about youtube so I'm not fully aware of their codes of conduct and legalities.
Would I stop using or viwing youtube videos or allowing my children to view them if in the end, they refused to stop allowing AlQ? you bet.
Ok, back to the dart game....it hurts so you know. (me and my damned opinions especially when anwering a question).
Ok, so I peeked before going...always a bad idea...Your opinions are always welcome and here are YouTubes "guidelines".
Decide for yourself if the videos go against what they say and if they are moderating as they should according to their own guidelines.
Good example Picasso and thanks.
OK, gone for real now (will peek as I come in for stuff) -
Although I disagree with the notion that anyone foreign or domestic should be protected under the U.S. Free Speech act. that abuses it to promote propaganda or distribute acts against humanity as disturbing as Al-Qaeda. I believe it would be more damaging to censor the material from mature audiences as it reminds people what the real world is like outside of our FCC sheltered fairy land that is the Main Stream Media. We have more to gain keeping a company such as YouTube on U.S. soil where it can be easily accessed and monitored to track IP's and such from organizations such as Al-Qaeda.
An overzealous attempt to censor such free media outlets like YouTube will only force those companies to relocate outside of the reach of the government/people and risk losing any control and cooperation from them at all. It is almost futile to even try to regulate or censor the public's access to sites as these when there are so many ways to get around it with host masks and proxy servers and such.
The sad fact is that Americans have become naive to the world outside of our boarders with the filtered and biased media coverage imposed by the FCC and the nanny state concepts imposed by state and federal governments sheltering the youngest generations of people from any real concept of reality or responsibility. Sites like YouTube and Metacafe, etc.. are the only places you can actually experience what is truly happening without any government of any nations censoring. It is my opinion that if the content on these sites isn't what you want your children to see then that should be the responsibility of the parent not the government.
-
{huggies back} :o)
Ok-youtube nastymeds.wmv
shows an american soldier w/ 50 cal bmg picking off taliban. allowed.
czech soldier and pacistani soldier (fixen to view this one online) one cutting off the others head with a knife. acceptible content.
-
Those are the other violent contents I was talking about with the subjectivity tagent lol. I just didnt' want to describe them, seeing these things once is enough to shake you for life.
-
I'm on youtube right now and looking and comparing the free speech of war time videos allowed.
We show pretty detailed and graphic killings on youtube.
we show gas chamber killings.
I'm a bit shocked that we as americans have this content on here but it still free speech.
-
sam, i'd never seen them. I'm sitting here w/ my brother and he is enlightening me on the youtube contents! grose
-
AQ may be the most disgusting thing on the planet, not easy to do these days with so much competition, but they've managed.
Google, however, is within its rights to claim Free Speech on any content, and contest its rights as a broadcaster. If it comes to a question of trying to handle specific videos one at a time, it'd be unenforceable.
I think a more productive approach to getting this crap off YouTube would be something like the anti-Nazi legislation in Germany, active law, not a question of specific cases or content. It'd be easy enough to ban AQ content, if anything called AQ, or promoting AQ was simply made illegal.At least that way you'd get some consistency.
-
@ Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh)
AQ may be the most disgusting thing on the planet, not easy to do these days with so much competition, but they've managed.
Google, however, is within its rights to claim Free Speech on any content, and contest its rights as a broadcaster. If it comes to a question of trying to handle specific videos one at a time, it'd be unenforceable.
I think a more productive approach to getting this crap off YouTube would be something like the anti-Nazi legislation in Germany, active law, not a question of specific cases or content. It'd be easy enough to ban AQ content, if anything called AQ, or promoting AQ was simply made illegal.At least that way you'd get some consistency.
Thank you Paul, yet another angle to look at this issue from. I appreciate your view on this. :o) -
That makes sense, paul!
-
On YouTube right now there is a movie showing the murder of an American Soldier.
-
To:neocons - HANDS OFF THE INTERNET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
10,000+ hits, S.D.
WAY TO GO!!!
-
k3456789, I'm a Neo-con.
  Vote it up!
|
And you know what I say?
HANDS OFF THE MATRIX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please limit any neocon slanders to fascist neanderthal freedom-hating neocons like Joe Lieberman, LOL! -
@ Johnny Simpson
10,000+ hits, S.D.
WAY TO GO!!!
Thanks Johnny. -
yeah is good idea but after that millions of racist videos from US. have to be delete.
-
I don't have to watch snuff movies, hanging of their alleged war criminals, or other ugly stuff - and am not scroll-challenged.
As Winston Churchill said, "Better to jaw jaw than war war." Rather incendiary speeches than incendiary bombs. This comparison of slaughters (theirs and ours) leaves me in shock and awe.
Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
Email
Print
Share
