Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Youtube Communications Electronic Frontier Foundation Google The Internet Politics

YouTube Refuses To Remove Anti-Islamic Film Clip 622

Posted by Soulskill
from the people-will-be-mad-whatever-you-decide dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that Google officials have rejected the notion of removing a video that depicts the prophet as a fraud and philanderer and has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. Google says the video does not violate YouTube's policies, but they did restrict viewers in Egypt and Libya from loading it due to the special circumstances in the country. Google's response to the crisis highlighted the struggle faced by the company, and others like it, to balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events. 'This video – which is widely available on the Web – is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,' Google said in a statement. 'However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt, we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.' Underscoring Google's quandary, some digital free expression groups have criticized YouTube for censoring the video. Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says given Google' s strong track record of protecting free speech, she was surprised the company gave in to pressure to selectively block the video. 'It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint,' says Galperin. 'I'm not sure they did the right thing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Refuses To Remove Anti-Islamic Film Clip

Comments Filter:
  • by AmazingRuss (555076) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:34PM (#41339479)

    ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

    • by ackthpt (218170) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:02PM (#41339837) Homepage Journal

      ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

      Doesn't matter anyway, most of these protesters are taking it word of mouth from word of mouth from word of mouth. Few have likely seen it. Few even stop to consider if it even has merit (being seen to think for yourself can be hazardous to your health in some circles.)

      It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical (to say nothing of the internet trolling) wringers. Perhaps there would be some good if it got some people to think, but see above. The people who tell these people to be angry like their control over them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Having actually seen the movie, it much ado about nothing. Yes, it is offensive in a Monty Python sort of way. Think of the movie "Life of Brian" but done on a shoe string budget with bad acting, horrible editing, and obvious overdubbing.

        Heck, that is giving too much credit to the producers and making the "Life of Brian" seem worse than it really is. Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

        • by ackthpt (218170)

          Having actually seen the movie, it much ado about nothing. Yes, it is offensive in a Monty Python sort of way. Think of the movie "Life of Brian" but done on a shoe string budget with bad acting, horrible editing, and obvious overdubbing.

          Heck, that is giving too much credit to the producers and making the "Life of Brian" seem worse than it really is. Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

          You might get a kick out of the crazy people and their idea behind the film, to smoke out terrorists in southern california. [latimes.com]

        • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Saturday September 15, 2012 @12:47AM (#41343753)

          Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

          Wikipedia pointed out a subtlety about that scene

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#Religious_satire_and_blasphemy_accusations [wikipedia.org]

          The Pythons unanimously deny that they were ever out to destroy people's faith. On the DVD audio commentary, they contend that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern organised religion, but that it does not blasphemously lampoon the God that Christians and Jews worship. When Jesus does appear in the film (on the Mount, speaking the Beatitudes), he is played straight (by actor Kenneth Colley) and portrayed with respect. The music and lighting make it clear that there is a genuine aura around him. The comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statements of peace, love and tolerance ("I think he said, 'blessed are the cheese makers'"). Importantly, he is distinct from the character of Brian, which is also evident in the scene where an annoying and ungrateful ex-leper pesters Brian for money, while moaning that since Jesus cured him, he has lost his source of income in the begging trade (referring to Jesus as a "bloody do-gooder").

          So in Life of Brian the comedy comes from idiots not understanding the message of peace and tolerance.

          Then again of course, Jesus discouraged stoning - "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Unlike Mohammed

          http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/082.sbt.html#008.082.809 [iupui.edu]

          Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

          A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

          "I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess". How chilling is that?

          And it's clear that if Muhammad hadn't have been there the couple would have got a token punishment of face blackening, not be killed horribly.

          In fact if you don't think either Jesus or Muhammad were divine these sorts of differences in their morality make it pretty clear that Jesus as a historical figure is owed a more respectful portrayal than Muhammad. Muhammad not only had sex slaves, he actually enslaved them himself after killing their husbands.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayhana [wikipedia.org]

          Rayhana was originally a member of the Banu Nadir tribe who married a man from the Banu Qurayza. After the Banu Qurayza were defeated by the armies of Muhammad in the Siege of the Banu Qurayza neighborhood, Rayhana was among those enslaved, while the men were executed for treason.

          According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took her as a maiden slave and offered her the status of becoming his wife if she accepted Islam, but she refused. According to his account, even though Rayhana is said to have later converted to Islam, she died as a slave.[1] According to Marco SchÃller, Rayhana either became the Prophet's concubine or, was married to him and later divorced

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:58PM (#41340643)

        It IS pretty offensive.

        It's also pretty damn hilarious. These protesters must be simply being told what to do, because I can't see anyone taking this seriously if they had actually seen it. Sure, the movie completely trashes Mohammed, but in the most cartoonish way possible. I liked the part where he was like "Everyone but Muslims must die" and then there's an explosion as he puts his sword up. Sort of like he's an action hero.

        If they made the same sort of movie about Jesus, I probably wouldn't be able to stop laughing.

        This is like if they made a sequel to Borat, but where he was teleported back to 7th Century Arabia and founded a religion.

      • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Friday September 14, 2012 @06:10PM (#41340845)

        It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical

        Except that Christianity doesn't expressly forbid depictions of jesus etc. Muslims don't have free speech, it's a foreign concept to them. It was, for a long time, a foreign concept to the christian world too after all, the Christian, Asian Orthodox and Catholic and protestant churches (see what I did there, I implied eastern orthodox as the real christians not anyone else, you didn't go burning an embassy down over it?) all disagree over who's interpretation is right. But that's kind of the point. By steel and gunpowder they got themselves to the point of simply disagreeing, and not making any more of a fuss over it. Part of that of course comes from the balance in power between the state and religion, and the eternal conflict between the Catholic church particularly as a state and as a religion.

        Just about everything one christian denomination stands for one of the others disagrees with, about the only thing they agree on are that a god exists and that jesus is his son, and none of them are too fond of people pointing that out as being obvious nonsense. But beyond that, they've long since fought their wars and revolutions, inquisitions and witch hunts over it and it's just not worth it. Free speech isn't some grand ideal about why it's great to hear everyone's opinion, it's a grand ideal because I know I don't have to listen to other people's opinions. The new islamic movements are going to find it very hard to get anything done if they want to waste a week every time someone of no importance says something they don't like, but that will take some growing pains because for years they've been like sheltered children by their authoritarian states, and they just discovered that the world has porn and gays and they don't like that. Eventually they'll figure out that there are a lot of people in the world who say a lot of offensive things, and most of the time no one cares, and making a fuss over it just gives attention to people who don't deserve it.

        Granted, it may well be that we need to extend the principles of Augsburg (1555) and Westphalia (1648), importantly 'Cuius regio, eius religio' through the UN. Your state can set its own damn rules about religion but keep your nose out of anyone elses so to speak. That would require leaders in muslim states to go along with it, and they're not there yet, or at least, not all of them, but they're getting there.

        • by tnk1 (899206) on Friday September 14, 2012 @06:24PM (#41341031)

          Cuius regio, eius religio worked for another time. Censorship used to actually work. Now, it really doesn't, even where they try to implement it. That means that you can't keep the other countries' infectious ideas from getting in your own nice dictatorship and you can't keep your extremists from getting their hands on this stuff and inciting people over it either.

          Other than that, I have to agree that certain liberties are earned by a lot of effort, frequently with blood involved. These people don't understand that the US Government does not go around telling people what they are allowed to say. That's something they are not used to in their own countries, so they believe that since the US Government allows it to exist, it is because the US Government supports it 100%.

          They have a lot to learn about freedom of expression now that they have the chance at it. Some will hate the idea even when they see it in action and long for the days of a strongman to keep people in their places.

    • by Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:04PM (#41339867)
      Nor should they. There is freedom of speech in the US, and Google is a US based company. I have little sympathy for those "revolting" in other countries over stuff like this. Muslims who kill because their beliefs are mocked by others are horrible. Catholics who bomb abortion clinics and kill workers there are horrible. Germans who supported ethnic cleansing back in the day were/are horrible. In short, once you start to affect other people with violence, you turn horrible.
      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        There is freedom of speech in the US, and Google is a US based company.

        You are confusing "US" and "company".

        If google decides they don't want to have people inciting religious violence, it does not violate any constitutional right to free speech. Last time I checked, Google was not the US government. At least it wasn't yesterday, but things change quickly.

        • So you think companies have no responsibly to act morally or ethically? Why is that? It is my strongly held opinion that all people, even the ones running companies, should hold themselves to the highest moral standards at all times.

          Freedom of speech is such an important right that all people, the companies made up of people, and the governments of these people should uphold this important right.

          Personally, I would not have blocked the video at all, as it will have no effect one way or the other on rel

    • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:52PM (#41340587)

      It's not about the Ed Woodesque film anyway. These folks would just find other reasons . . . real or imagined . . . to storm anything with a whiff of America about it.

      "Hey, Abdul! America says, 'Tastes Great!' Islam says, 'Less Filling!' Let's riot!"

      These folks are in a permanent state of outrage against the US. They are just looking for any reason whatsoever to vent their unfounded anger.

      Sorry to break the news to you, America, but Islamic folks don't love you. Never have, never will.

      Maybe if someone made a Reality TV Show about it, ordinary folks would finally understand this.

  • Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)

    by i kan reed (749298) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:35PM (#41339483) Homepage Journal

    If only the religious zealots realized all they had to do was lodge a false DMCA claim through a bot...

    • Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:53PM (#41339711)
      Unfortunately, the religious zealots are not the problem here. Religious zealots are a minority, both of the rioters and in general. The religious zealots certainly would be content to see the videos removed, and much as I would criticize them for that sort of censorship, at least nobody would be killed.

      The rioters were angry before the video was posted. The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior; it could just as easily have been a book, idiotic comments by some preacher, a bomb dropped by the air force hitting a day school, etc. I doubt that most of the rioters had even heard of the video prior to hearing of riots elsewhere, and I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.
      • by mwvdlee (775178) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:59PM (#41339793) Homepage

        The religious zealots certainly would be content to see the videos removed

        No they wouldn't. The video was just a vessel to guide their anger. And only one in a long succession at that. If the video had never been made they would have found some other reason to be offended.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:10PM (#41339949) Journal

        Unfortunately, the religious zealots are not the problem here. Religious zealots are a minority, both of the rioters and in general.

        If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

        The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior

        Anyone who uses offense to their religion as an excuse to commit violence is a religious zealot.

        I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.

        That's even worse. If "hey, I heard some guy in another country made a video that insults our prophet" is enough to get you to storm the embassy and murder people, that's not just religious zealotry that's extreme religious zealotry.

        • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Informative)

          by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:15PM (#41340029)

          If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

          Hm...what might people in those countries be angry about...

          • Wars in their countries.
          • Wars next to their countries.
          • Foreign governments exploiting their countries.
          • The lack of democracy.
          • The lack of democracy following a hard-fought revolution.
          • The lack of democracy following a revolution against a government installed by foreign countries that wanted to exploit them.
          • The general realities of living in those countries.

          Really, do you need this list made for you? Do you think the rioters were sitting on their lounge chairs beneath some palm trees in their own personal gardens, and then suddenly saw this video and went nuts?

          • by Hatta (162192)

            And what about that made them target the US embassy? Is the US responsible for the lack of democracy in Libya?

          • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare@NOSpam.gmail.com> on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:30PM (#41340293) Homepage Journal

            they are specifically angry about this video. they say, not me

            why are you making excuses for this kind of behavior?

            this is where you reply to me and continue to insert your worldview into the motivations of other people who are clearly not rioting because of the reasons you think they are

            you are just as blind as they are

          • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@wSLACKWAREorf.net minus distro> on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:34PM (#41340333)

            If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

              Hm...what might people in those countries be angry about...
              Wars in their countries.
            Wars next to their countries.
            Foreign governments exploiting their countries.
            The lack of democracy.
            The lack of democracy following a hard-fought revolution.
            The lack of democracy following a revolution against a government installed by foreign countries that wanted to exploit them.
            The general realities of living in those countries.

              Really, do you need this list made for you? Do you think the rioters were sitting on their lounge chairs beneath some palm trees in their own personal gardens, and then suddenly saw this video and went nuts?

            Riots are infectious. You can easily generate a whole mob to riot with some encouragement. After all, last year we had a huge riot in Vancouver, Canada over a hockey game. Or so they claim.

            None of the list are true (when you have bunch of kids wearing $300+ clothes...) - it was just a riot fueled by alcohol and a bunch of drunken idiots who felt like having a good time destroying stuff. It was, as they say, remarkably easy. And once it started, others poured in to join in the fun.

            All you need is someone to go apeshit and others will follow. Hell, who knows why the riot started - perhaps afterwards someone claimed they rioted because of the video - finding the reason after the fact to justify what they did.

        • by icebike (68054) * on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:29PM (#41340273)

          Further, in what other culture can an insult to a long dead religious figure trigger riots and murder?

          Criticize a dead Pope? Get in line.
          Criticize Buda? You get tolerant smiles.
          Criticize a Rabbi, living or dead? Yiddish curses.
          Criticize L Ron Hubbard? hmmmm, lemmie think about that one.

          But muhammad? people have to die for that, any people, just kill someone.

        • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Informative)

          by jwhitener (198343) on Friday September 14, 2012 @09:55PM (#41342835)

          I'm not sure sure you saw the most recent coverage about this, but things are a bit more complicated than one movie = lots of violent riots.

          For instance, the Libyan assault on the US consulate wasn't protestors (in fact recent reporting says that there were not protestors), but rather a well organized militia associated with al-qaeda. The arrived in jeeps that had black al-qaeda flags. And this is 24 hours after a 9/11 al-qaeda memorial type video was released about the US killing al-qaeda's second in command. His nickname was "The Libyan".

          As for the rest of the rioters, we could start with Egypt. According to Richard Engle's latest interview on the Maddow show, the protestors are motivated by religion, yes, but mostly by conspiracy theories. And keep in mind, the ones protesting are a tiny sliver of the population. Those conspiracy theories, like the US secretly funded the creation of this movie, that our troops in Afghanistan are ordered to burn Koran's, that free masons are involved to destroy Islam, etc.. have been subtly and at times not so subtly used by various dictators over the years to create suspicion of the west and unify people under that dictator. And at the same time shifting focus from real problems at home to focusing their attention on 'the real enemy' (the west).

          Like is often the case, religion makes a nice simple excuse to act out over a what is mainly a general frustration/fear/anger about the circumstances you find yourself in. Poor economy, no job opportunities, repressive society, and you've been told all your life that their is some big conspiracy that is keeping you down...

          It sure doesn't help to tamp down the conspiracy theories when we are still in a "no ends in sight" war on terror that is conducting secret operations all over the place.

  • Great Response... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:35PM (#41339491)

    Restrict the video only in places where they can't handle the freedom of speech without maniacal violence. Google got it right for the first time in a while.

    • Re:Great Response... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:43PM (#41339585)

      No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons. It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

      The actual trailer is just stupid. Better is Sam Harris Fundamentals of Islam (9 min):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE [youtube.com]

      or the full version (82 mins):
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa [c-spanvideo.org]

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:00PM (#41339815)

        I love Harris and Dawkins. But they don't get it. They think that religious belief can be disputed on a rational level.

        It cannot.

        Religion appeals to our emotional primitive brain. That is why you have people who can build atom bombs and understand the physics of it still believe in the Biblical god. They have the intellectual ability - more than I - to dispute on rational and logical grounds why the Biblical God is as likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and yet they do.

        And it's just not the Biblical God. Humans are predsposed to have magical thoughts. Whether it's making a deal with the Universe, Karma, or anything else for a better life or what have you. It's our brain that want's to see patterns where none exist it's our brains unable to accept that this is all there is. There must be something more to life than eating, fucking and shitting. Hence, for modern people the stubborn belief in God and other superstitions.

      • by jdogalt (961241)

        No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons.

        This I completely agree with, though might replace the word 'fuck' with 'damn', though please don't respond to that sentiment which would make good troll-bait if that were its intent

        It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

        This is where I think you are as wrong as the people you are calling wrong. No religion is the religion of X or not the religion of X. All religions are collections of vast individuals, that have really rather varying beliefs about such things as when to be at peace and when to be at war.

        But again, I totally agree with that fi

      • I dont disagree that Youtube has every right to show it. I do just want to point out that sometimes there is a price to pay for defending free speech, and sometimes it involves peoples lives-- other peoples lives.

        For the record, I think that while the pastor who produced the video may have been justified by the american legal system and the first amendment, and it may be a good principle, he nevertheless shares some small degree of culpability for what has happened. I wouldnt call him a murderer or anythi

    • Terrible precedent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:56PM (#41339745)
      What happens when someone says, "That video might cause people to revolt against their government!" -- does Google take that down too?

      Either we have free speech, or we do not have free speech. If Google is going to be the service provider for an important communications medium, they need to respect free speech. The video did not say, "Go out and riot." People who were already angry saw the video and exploded.

      The Chinese government claims their censorship is to keep the peace as well. How ironic for Google to follow that same logic, after all they went through with China...
    • Terrible Response (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:59PM (#41339801)

      Lets say you are some person in that country trying to make up your mind about how bad the video really is. Your religious neighbor says it is the worst form of blasphemy ever.

      Pre Google Ban, you could have watched it and said "well this sucks and is stupid, why should I care about this?"

      Now they have no choice but to believe the neighbor, perhaps go out and protest as a result.

      Blocking the truth from view never makes things better, especially in a situation where so many seek to inflate the importance of a single video.

    • In fact, restrict those regions from seeing *ANY* video on youtube. No insults to Muhamed, and no cats on invisible bicycles. They obviously have no capacity for happiness anyway.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tokencode (1952944)
      It shoul not be restricted anywhere. f they cannot handle watching it, let them freak out. If they kill someone or destroy something in the process, eliminate those who cause problems. Restricting information simply because a group of people are not intellectually mature enough to let others voice their opinion no matter how offensive it is, do not deserve to share this planet with the rest of us.
  • by Animats (122034) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:35PM (#41339495) Homepage

    Google is showing some spine. Good.

    I've seen the movie. It's not very well produced, but it's better than 80% of the non-pirated stuff on YouTube.

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jcaldwel (935913) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:36PM (#41339501)
    Good for Google... This should not be taken down any more than a video calling Jesus or Flying Spaghetti Monster a fraud should
  • "ethical concerns" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:42PM (#41339561)

    Either you have free speech or you do not. "Ethical concerns" is a thinly veiled word for "censor that which offends us".

    The Onion [theonion.com] has this pegged...

  • Let it be seen.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bhlowe (1803290) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:42PM (#41339577)
    Ya can't prevent Muslims from going apeshit over having their delicate sensibilities offended...

    Here is a video of an Egyptian Muslim leader tearing up and burning a Bible [weaselzippers.us]... No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...

    FYI, the Innocence of Muslims movie is also available on LiveLeak [liveleak.com] and other sites.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...

      No, all it takes for Christians to throw a tantrum is the existence of a doctor's office:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence [wikipedia.org]

      As for Muslims, what delicate sensibilities would you be referring to? I look around my town and I see Muslims going about their business, not killing anyone or burning anything. Do you think they have not heard of the video? What, are they a different kind of Muslim? Some of my Muslim friends moved to America from the very countries where these riots are

  • Icing on the cake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by br00tus (528477) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:50PM (#41339669)

    Despite Qadaffi's efforts to appease the West in recent years, as soon as he became vulnerable, the US urged NATO to help overthrow the Libyan government. Air strikes, drone strikes, CIA officers on the ground coordinating attacks - the largest military power in the world overthrew the government of this small country - a government which has been making concession after concession to the West in recent years. Apparently not enough. Can anyone imagine the US ambassador in Libya getting blown up if the US hadn't bombed the Libyan government out of existence, working to put its own regime in? You play with fire you get burned.

    Imperialism, foreign intervention, torturing Muslims in Abu Ghraib - forcing them to masturbate to the videotaped laughs of sadistic American soldiers, drone attacks, puppet governments, financing the Zionist siege of Gaza - this is what the US is doing to Muslims. Then Korans are burned, put in toilets, mocking videos are made just to rub it in. Then Americans get all indignant that their mockeries of an almost-conquered people are not taken in a light-hearted fashion.

    The real question is why is the US over there, why were they bombing Libya and arming the people who overthrew their government. If I was a Libyan patriot, and I knew US insults to Islam would help rally Libyans in an anti-imperial campaign, of course I'd use that. Libyans are responding to everything the US has done to it. The Marines hymn "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" refers to US interference in Tripoli going back to the beginning of the 19th century. None of this can be discussed of course, so it all becomes about religion, when really it has little to do with religion. Middle class Muslim Turks are nor burning down embassies. Americans are more gullible and steeped in imperial propaganda then any Muslim is in guile to religious ideas - not that Americans should talk, as the country is crawling with fundamentalist Christianity more than any other industrialized nation.

    • by FudRucker (866063)
      the USA/NATO/UN is over there to prop up the failing PetroDollar
    • Re:Icing on the cake (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kreigaffe (765218) on Friday September 14, 2012 @08:01PM (#41341957)

      shores of Tripoli refers to US *interference*? Are you fucking kidding? What sort of revisionist islamo-centric history pipe are you smoking?

      You fucking idiot. America attacked the Barbary pirates for the same goddamned reason we launched into the War of 1812. American vessels at sea were being captured, American sailors were being captured, and shit was not right. They were treated no better nor worse than any other aggressor. Any treaty made with them was less a treaty and more -- actually, not just more, it was ENTIRELY nothing but a protection racket.

      You've got your shit ALL wrong, son. It was the Barbary states who were interfering with the *United States*, as well as much of Europe, because the Barbary states were strong and their victims were too weak or preoccupied to do anything about it except hand them money. Well, except for the US, who decided to say Fuck That And Fuck You.

      Yeah. WE were victimized, BY the North Africans. Not the other way around.

      You can argue the tables have turned, but don't fucking misrepresent history. There's not even any question or different take on this particular point of historical significance, there's only what happened.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:51PM (#41339683) Homepage

    It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?

    Sorry, but forget the "cause" because this is merely an insult at best. Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult. If you can't contain yourself after being angered in this way, you should be destroyed in the most literal sense of the word.

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:11PM (#41339971)

      Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult

      Funny how American Muslims, even orthodox Muslims, are not rioting, even now that they know about the video and presumably have had the chance to watch it.

      Angry people do not need much to set them off, and the rioters have been angry for a long time. They live in awful places, they have seen multiple wars (no, not "seen" as in "live from a foreign country," but actually seen tanks rolling down their streets and bombs dropping from planes), and most have not lived under any sort of democratic system. The video was just a spark, and it just happened to be right next to a crate full of dynamite.

  • by Animats (122034) on Friday September 14, 2012 @04:59PM (#41339805) Homepage

    One school of thought on this is that the violence is an attempt by one of the more militant branches of Islam to get attention.

    The real cause of riots in Egypt is a steadily declining standard of living since Egypt hit peak oil in 1996. Oil production has declined 45% since 1996.

  • by funkboy (71672) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:10PM (#41339959) Homepage

    "It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint"

    You mean like them blocking Nazi videos (including Downfall parodies) from being viewed in Germany?

  • upside-down (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:34PM (#41340337) Homepage Journal

    So, insulting violent religious fanatics and inciting riots is fine, but having a 50 year-old record playing in the background of a video of your dog running around the backyard is completely outside the bounds of acceptable human behavior.

    And using the words "super" and "bowl" together will earn you permanent banishment.

    Fucking world...

  • But just let .... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Friday September 14, 2012 @05:35PM (#41340353)

    .... Lindsay Lohan's publicist issue a takedown notice for using her image without permission and watch YouTube jump.

    Just have the Muslims copyright Mohammad's image. Problem solved.

    • by cpghost (719344) on Friday September 14, 2012 @07:48PM (#41341835) Homepage
      That's the point here. To the US (Google/Youtube), Copyright is holy and untouchable. To the Muslims, it's the same for their prophet. And since Youtube/Google is a US company, they have to abide by the taboos of US society to the letter, and happily shun the taboos of other societies.

      Well, I'm half joking here, and I'm half sarcastic. But let's face it: there's a blatant double standard going on here. On one hand, lives are being threatened and people have been killed, and this silly video causing this stays on... because it doesn't violate some copyright. On the other hand, a couple of fat cats from the MAFIAA lose a couple of dollars and Youtube jumps proactively to their rescue with massive take downs or country-wide censorships (think GEMA). It's as if peoples' lives, US Citizens' lives, are less important than the bottom line of the copyright holders. THIS is disgusting, IMHO. Just as disgusting as those Muslim riots. Both sides are deeply entrenched in their ideologies, and are totally lacking reason and responsibility.

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Friday September 14, 2012 @09:39PM (#41342737)

    to balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events

    No, it's oversensitive, murderous psychopaths impacting world events. They're actively looking for a reason. If there weren't so many maniacs like them following that fake, evil religion, there wouldn't be a problem. The video itself isn't doing anything. It's just a video. It can't come out of the screen and shoot something and youtube isn't reponsible for how viewers may react. Ohhhh no, Ms Peach's legendary fried chicken music video might make someone a racist who will join the KKK. Not youtube's problem.

  • by samantha (68231) * on Friday September 14, 2012 @09:48PM (#41342787) Homepage

    Google did the right thing. There is no legitimate ethical or legal ground for restricting free speech in such a case. I would have been quite disturbed if they had taken the opposite stance.

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

Working...