YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship

jamie writes "On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."

Re:Actually...

[kalidasa]

Actually, if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough to demonstrate that there had been an edit by CNN, and had added his own content explaining what this showed and why, it would probably fit under the Fair Use requirements for scholarship or criticism - but IANAL.

Re:Actually...

[thebdj]

1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation

Actually, it mentions 17 USC 512, which is part of the copyright law, which was amended in part from the DMCA. So, yes, this does involve the DMCA.

2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.

You are missing the point. He is being asked to take it down by CNN (through YouTube). They are claiming copyright violation. He is claiming his clip falls under fair use, a concept only really defined in courts, not in the law, and not very well at that. He might not have a right to post it to YouTube, but if he doesn't have a place to host from himself and his post doesn't violate Copyright Law, then he can argue Fair Use. Fair use is at the heart of the matter here since the request for removal came from the copyright holder.

It's not about being gay

[Slipgrid]

Being gay is a non-issue. Being a hypocrite should be huge issue in politics. Censorship is even a bigger issue.

Here's the clip [crooksandliars.com]. Note in the comment section of that post, they mention a few other hypocrites.

Here's the image [1fp.us] that CNN showed on their censored rebroadcast of their 9/11 footage. I guess they didn't want people to wonder why their were reports of bombs in the building, and start doing research [google.com].

Fact is censorship is everywhere. We only get half the story, if that.

CNN is simply being responsible

[DavidinAla]

If random Person A goes on a live show and makes a COMPLETELY UNSOURCED accusation that Person B is gay, it would be completely unethical and irresponsible for CNN to leave it in a subsequent broadcast of the show. I used to be a journalist, and I guarantee that most reasonable (non-ideological) journalists would make the same decision. It's not censorship. It's a responsible editorial decision regarding an completely unsubstantiated charge. The guy may or may not be gay. I haven't a clue (and don't care), but you don't broadcast something like that without having some reasonable basis for believing it's TRUE.

David

This should be exposed

[CorSci81]

'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.'

The point of Maher doing this is to expose the blatant hipocrisy that is going on. The current Republican leadership has been hostile towards gay and lesbian people and their rights. They pander to an audience of religious fundamentalists on a platform that alienates a minority group while being part of that group themselves. If they kept their own internal struggles and self-loathing private then I'd say they have a right to privacy. However, as it stands their public actions and policies have the potential to make life miserable for a group of people so their hipocrisy deserves to be brought under public scrutiny. Just because the minority group happens to be gays doesn't make this ok, there would be an uproar if you had a black man advocating segregation or making interracial marriages illegal, for example.

Re:Actually...

[SEAL]

I'm not a lawyer either but I can tell you that he's still likely to run into trouble. See: Beastie Boys, Paul's Boutique [wikipedia.org] and the comments on how sampling has been heavily restricted in the music industry.

Re:CNN is simply being responsible

[xenocide2]

Journalists have an obligation to present to the public a factual depiction of events. Here, the event is the interview. Bill Maher is not the host of this show, and is not depicted as a reporter on events within the context of the show. If he was the host or depicted as a reporter, this would be a sound decision. But Larry King Live is an interview show; is it ethical to edit an interview to remove statements someone made?

Also, can they still call themselves Live? ;)

Re:I declare a new tag

[timeOday]

I would like to know how my Internet and TV are being filtered, in fact I think it's important to know. Why do you think it's partisan? I don't see it that way, if anything a lot of people seem to complain that CNN is liberal-biased, so both parties/philosophies are implicated. Too many comments so far are about (A) homosexuality or (B) political parties, which distract from the issue of media self-censorship, which the summary correctly (IMHO) emphasized by making it the title.

I don't see how a short snippet like this, which is revealing about the media, could not be considered fair use. I also don't think the DMCA absolutely overrides fair use [law.com].

It's the hypocrisy, stupid

[scheming daemons]

The reason that there is a different standard for Democratic gays (Barney Frank, etc) and Republican gays (Mehlman, Drudge, Haggard, etc) is because the Republican gays are actively trying to demonize gays.

The worst offense a politician can incur is to be a hypocrit. If you're going to blast others for their lifestyles and actively work to pass laws to limit their lifestyles, all the while participating in the exact same lifestyles yourself... then you are:

A. A hypocrit
B. A masochist

and... it *IS* different for Democrats, because Democrats are NOT the ones trying to demonize the gay lifestyle.

ps. Preachers like Haggard claim that homosexuality is a "choice" and not an inate character trait. Then he writes an apology letter to his congregation saying "I have been at war with these inner demons most of my adult life". Sounds like he's admitting that it WASN'T a choice... it's just who he is and he's forced to come to grips with it. And his followers offer HIM forgiveness, meanwhile their still bashing OTHERS like him.

um, what?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Mentioning youtube makes the contents of the DNC daily fax a technology story?

Re:WTF - YFI

[Maxo-Texas]

They are not a hypocrit if they disagree with the catholic church that abortion is wrong.

They are only a hypocrit if they .. say make public speeches against abortion, have laws passed against abortion, and then it turns out they are having abortions themselves or supporting abortion actively in secret.

However, hypocrisy just doesn't have the sting it did 20 years ago. People have no shame any more.

Except maybe republicans *once* they are caught.

Re:Maybe time for Slashdot to branch out?

[theStorminMormon]

I actually *like* politics stories on Slashdot. By politics I mean things like, oh, network neutrality. Or stories about IP legislation in congress. You know: politics that relates to tech? Even the odd major news story that makes it on here is fine. Say when Rumsfeld resigned or the blue dogs helped the democrats take both houses. There's no reason to stick our heads in the sand and say "no politics allowed". That stuff is going to have relevance to tech too.

But this piece wasn't just political, it was polemical. That's where I get annoyed. I don't want to have to stop reading politics stories that are relevant just 'cause some political troll managed to get their "I hate Bush" (or "I hate Clinton" or "I hate Pelosi" or "I hate Ghandi") rant on slashdot. It's the same with religion. If there's a story on Slashdot about say religion and science (how evolution is taught in school, for example), that's fine. It's newsworthy and it relates to science (which is close enough to tech). And if a fun flamewar breaks out over whether the Mormon God can beat up the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so be it. But don't be posting sermons (atheist or evangelical) as stories.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

-stormin

Re:WTF

[TerranFury]

>...any Republican who's not a male college-educated Caucasian...

Hey! I'm a male college-educated Caucasian! You think the Republican party supports my interests? Pfft. White men are no more all bigoted Republicans than black men are all thuggish gangsters.

Re:Fiscal conservativism doesn't have a party.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to check out what is going on in the Democratic party these days because we are all about fiscal responsibility now. Clinton showed that we can balance the budget and even run a surplus. Even Howard Dean who is allegedly a radical liberal is a full supporter of fiscal responsibility, look at his record as governor and read his statements about economic issues. For us, the concern is about running a competent and sustainable government. The past years of Republican misrule will not be repeated. We will burn anyone in our party who tries to pull that kind of crap. It's going to take us some time to put things back in order, but at the end of it we will be back on track to start paying down the debt.

Re:Not necessarily ... Dick Cheney

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cheney was one of only 13 representatives to vote against the landmark 1988 bill that initiated federal funding for AIDS testing and counseling -- putting him to the right of even Tom DeLay and Dick Armey, both of whom voted for it. He was one of only 29 House members to vote against the 1988 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which merely allowed the federal government to collect data on violent crimes based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and he voted for an amendment that added gratuitously anti-gay language to the bill. He supported measures to cut federal AIDS research and to allow health-insurance discrimination against people with HIV in the District of Columbia. As defense secretary, despite once describing the ban on gays in the military as an "old chestnut," Cheney solidly backed the old policy of harassment of gay soldiers and their ejection, however distinguished their records, from the Armed Forces."

Re:Im shocked!

[arcmay]

The reality is that the GOP has only limitted expanding rights of gays, which is very different than taking them away. It has never been legal for the gays to marry...

Wrong. It is legal for "the gays" to marry in Massachusetts, right now. The Republican govenor (now a lame duck) and some Republican members of the state legislature want to now make it illegal.

...in a sense the GOP position is status quo.

Segregation, slavery, the right to vote belonging to white males only...these are all examples of the status quo at one time in the USA. Does that make positions supporting them any less bigoted? Those who wish to create OR maintain an inferior class of citizen deserve to be demonized.