Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
YouTube rebuffs senators's demands to remove Islamist videos
arstechnica.com — On Monday, Sen. Joe Lieberman demanded that Google remove videos created by Islamist organizations from YouTube. Google responded that it had removed videos depicting or advocating violence, but argued that removing all videos originating from Islamist groups would run counter to Google's commitment to free speech.
MrBabyMan- 1362 diggs
- digg it
- chrissku, on 05/21/2008, -37/+218It's called freedom of speech Joe. You probably remember hearing about it back when you were a Democrat. I'm sure that word doesn't come up nearly as much hanging with your new homeboys....the Republicans.
- kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -14/+78Both parties are bought and paid for.
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -7/+6I heard they are leased. Bought AND paid for? No rental agreement? Who let the black man in?
- kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -5/+3You know Obama is Cheney's distant cousin and has Bryzinski as an advisor correct?
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4Distant cousin, discovered by the press! Proof! Proof I tell you!
Jesus, do you even read what you write?
The Brzezinski thing tells me even more that you are jerking yourself off to any possible conspiracy theory. You just believe what yo uread, don't you? Been spoon fed long?
“I know Brzezinski,” Obama told the Jewish community members in Cleveland. “He’s not one of my key advisers. I’ve had lunch with him once, I’ve exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce me for a speech on Iraq. ... I do not share his views on Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally.”
So, plan to apologize? - ncairns, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4OH NO NOT BRYZINSKI!
(How ***** daft do you have to be to claim the fact that Obama and Cheney are distant, distant cousins is evidence of a conspiracy? Well, I guess daft enough to support Ron Paul, at any rate.) - kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Top donors to Obama:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycl ...
Top donors to Clinton:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycl ...
Top donors to McCain:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N ...
Top donors to Paul:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N0000 ...
Remember that old Sesame Street skit, "One of these is not like the other"? - Infidelcastr0, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4Can't "reply" for some reason... as such this is directed at kemp34, notice all the Arms manufacturer's on Paul's list? Military-Industrial Complex much? Doesn't that bother you just a tiny little bit? And that's to say nothing of the telecoms.
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2And that has WHAT to do with you lying, kemp? Just desperate to change the subject? Why can't you say "sorry. I was wrong"?
- kemp34, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Lying? Please apologize for your false charge.
Obama is Cheney's 8th cousin:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21340764/
And as far as Obama and Brzezinski, maybe the Huffington Post isn't a reliable resource, but then Digg politics are all unreliable:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/12/obama-adv ...
@Infidel: I would surmise that arms manufacturers support Paul because certain insiders at those companies know more about the shady MIC and know Paul is the man to change that. Who knows why they support him, but do you think they think he will start more wars or something?
- soomprimal, on 05/21/2008, -6/+14Thank you. I'm tired of people pretending like we have two parties that want different things. It's called controlled opposition, people, it's the illusion that someone or some party opposes the other- and it works great for the corporations and interests that are funding both.
- gthyb, on 05/21/2008, -0/+10I credit Lieberman with sparking my interest in politics. One 11 year old never forgot his stand against free speech when he attempted to ban Mortal Kombat and crappy Sega CD games. Thanks, Joe.
- eLuminx, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6Lets just hope more people start to realize this before is too late. Imo it has like this for a veeeery long time...
But thanks for pointing it out.
- jrizzo, on 05/21/2008, -5/+4Thank you. Every person who claims one party is better should be shot. Such things are so ignorant they must be prefaced with a lobotomy.
- ncairns, on 05/21/2008, -2/+7Gee, what an original, edgy, subversive sentiment. That's so original, edgy and subversive that it should be on a shirt, and maybe it should be in a speech bubble coming from a sheep. That sure would 'Show' the 'Man'. People - NAY, *sheeple* - would be all like 'gee, what a subtle and original poke at American politics!' They definitely wouldn't be like 'well, that's a pretty stale, pseduo-intellectual, flatly stupid claim buoyed by ignorant tools on the Internet convinced they're the damn Lone Gunmen because they read Alex Jones and know that Bilderberg is really a super-secret front for Sasquatch and the Easter Bunny's attempt to control the Western economy by holding off the gold standard and marginalizing Ron Paul'.
Nope, they'd never think that.- kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -3/+3Well I suggest you get a nice witty shirt with "Proud Tool" emblazoned across the front.
- ncairns, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3A tool... FOR THE MAN!?!@?
OH NOES. - kemp34, on 05/22/2008, -3/+1For the established oligarchical structure. Or do you believe people in the US really have self-determined political control?
- ncairns, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Tell ya what kiddo, I'm only a year older than you, but in experience I've got you dwarfed. I've lived all over this world - on every continent except Antarctica and South America, in fact. I saw real, actual corruption and collusion when I lived in mainland China, and then again - except among corporations instead of the government - when I lived in Hong Kong. And you don't have it in the States. Not even close. Terribly sorry, but your fate is not decided by the arbitrary whims of a group of old men in a smoke-filled room. It just isn't. There is no 'established oligarchical structure'. To find anything like that, you need to go to Africa or one of the undeveloped parts of Asia. If you want to have a legitimate reason to be a conspiracy nut, move there. Otherwise you're just railing against paper tigers in what is *indisputably* one of the freest societies ever in existence.
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -7/+6I heard they are leased. Bought AND paid for? No rental agreement? Who let the black man in?
- jkwong1, on 05/21/2008, -42/+4So you want to see G.I.'s being killed? Real classy.
- lex0nyc, on 05/21/2008, -3/+21Who are you talking to?
- Fafnir43, on 05/21/2008, -2/+16Hmm. So supporting the right to express unpopular viewpoints is equivalent to delighting in the slaughter of American troops. What an /interesting/ (if unpopular) viewpoint...
(Just to be crystal clear about this - videos depicting and advocating violence are ALREADY banned under Google's ToS, as you would know if you had read the article or even the summary. So, for example, a terrorist recruitment video would violate the ToS and Google would remove it as soon as it was brought to their attention. Also, the obligatory disclaimer when speaking with righttards: I am not a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser.) - insanebrain, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6please, enlist yourself and I will agree with you.
- pintomp3, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5if lieberman was so against G.I.'s being killed, he wouldn't support the war. he just wants it brushed under the rug.
- KevinRWright, on 05/21/2008, -14/+17He may be more conservative then you like, but he's not a Republican. He is officially listed in the Senate as an "Independent Democrat".
I know what you are implying, but I just wanted to clear that up for the idiots on digg who refuse to do any reading and research of their own and will spout off to their friends about Lieberman being a Republican, when, in fact, he's not.- lex0nyc, on 05/21/2008, -3/+19Might as well be.
- caboosemoose, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Yup, he's a total Republican now. Oh wait, he's voted with the Democratic party majority 86.4% of the time in the 110th Congress. The guy's an *****, but he's still definitely a Democratic *****.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/se ...
- caboosemoose, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Yup, he's a total Republican now. Oh wait, he's voted with the Democratic party majority 86.4% of the time in the 110th Congress. The guy's an *****, but he's still definitely a Democratic *****.
- lex0nyc, on 05/21/2008, -3/+19Might as well be.
- chanop, on 05/21/2008, -2/+14Since Conneticut has gotten their demands (which were not unreasonable) from Myspace and facebook, they think they can censor and pretty much do whatever they want with the internet these days......
- usgovterrorists, on 05/21/2008, -5/+7"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even tacitly take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machines will be prevented from working at all."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw - 26thUSMC, on 05/21/2008, -17/+6Well freedom of speech doesnt mean squat here buddy. i know several people banned here for bashing muslims. So if digg.com can ban people for bashing under freedom of speech, I think google should as well... Plus I actually agree with ole Joe. Banning anything muslim is a good thing. If you stop them from advertisiing, their sales will drop :) So I say if you cant kill them all, starve them all..
- enclaved, on 05/21/2008, -1/+11There is a difference between Kevin Rose saying don't talk ***** on Muslims on my website, and a united states senator demanding a corporate citizen remove whatever they want removed.
That difference: one violates the constitution, one merely annoys trolls.- 26thUSMC, on 05/21/2008, -5/+3but is there really much of a difference here than the dem nominee's wanting windfall taxes on corporations? It isnt ok for someone in congress to tell a company to do one thing, but others can tell another company another thing? it works both ways. nowhere in the constitution does it state congress controls the capital market. i am just stating for argument reason that congress will do what it wants, and you and I, can never stop it...
- enclaved, on 05/21/2008, -3/+8Yes, there is a difference.
The government has the power to collect taxes.
The government is prohibited from infringing upon free speech.
Your response just told me everything I need to know about you, and that's sad. Try staying on topic and not defaulting to "BUT BUT BUT X DID THIS SO ITS OK THAT Y DID THAT"
- kevin_qnn, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4based on your username, i sincerely hope you're a former member of the military and not a current one. having your kind over there would only make things worse. enjoy your impending ban, you disgusting fascist
- 26thUSMC, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2yes I am former, and hope they will call upon me soon again :) poor kevin, are you upset? got your panties in a bind? do you need a hug today? my impending ban...funny.. oh wait, are you becoming alot like the topic here? freedoms of speech is a right remember, dont lose topic here, you are becoming what you are against... and having my kind in a fight to defend this country is exactly what you need... and to think for 1 minute that most dont think like me, is typical of someone that didnt serve... you take our handme downs, just smile next time when you get your freedoms :)
- Morgonslak, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2So you're basically saying you'd like to go back there with hopes of killing or starving off every muslim you encounter, be it civilian or non-civilian?
You must really be proud of yourself.
"Hi hun, how was your day? Practise any genocide today?" - enclaved, on 05/22/2008, -0/+126thusmc, um in an article about OUR OWN politicians removing our rights, your jump to overseas deployment being necessary to fight for these rights is asinine. Go ***** yourself.
I can't remember the last time my rights were violated by a foreign entity but I could rattle off endless accounts of it happening domestically by agents of our own creation.
America is great because it lets ***** wads like you speak without fear of being forced to shut up, for now.
While you're over there fighting against people who don't give a ***** that you live in a country where your dumb ass is free to spew forth whatever drivel you so wish to spew, I'll stay here an oppose an unjust war while watching the same people who claim we're fighting against people who 'hate our freedom' take away my freedom.
Thank you, have a nice ***** off and die.
- enclaved, on 05/21/2008, -1/+11There is a difference between Kevin Rose saying don't talk ***** on Muslims on my website, and a united states senator demanding a corporate citizen remove whatever they want removed.
- TheUngod, on 05/21/2008, -3/+15If he were really a republican, he'd be more interested with keeping his nose out of other peoples business. But, he's neither republican nor democrat. He's just...Joe.
- BabyWookie, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6He is actually a typical zionist neocon.
- mfc5200, on 05/21/2008, -2/+16I heard the videos he was trying to take down were these.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hGc8tYbte4w
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xbbULLpriuo
They are messages from one of Iraq's resistance groups that considers our presence over there an occupation. They are critical of Israel in the videos and our policies which they claim are driven by Israel. I guess that's why Lieberman wants them taken down. - JointVenture, on 05/21/2008, -7/+1THis is the guy you all wanted to be VP last election.
Democrats are really funny, first the turn on Hillary who they defended for 16 years and now they turn on Lieberman who they elected to run for VP 4 years ago.
I almost hope Obama wins so we can see the lynching in 4 years.- barandon0D9, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3John Edwards was actually the VP candidate 4 years ago, Lieberman was Gore's VP in 2000. Anyways, it doesn't surprise me that many democrats no longer support Hillary and Lieberman. A lot of people don't like how Hillary has run her campaign, and a lot of people don't like Lieberman's increasingly conservative stances.
Republicans are also funny, in that they will defend and support President Bush 100%, despite the massive amounts of fail he's been collecting these past eight years.
- barandon0D9, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3John Edwards was actually the VP candidate 4 years ago, Lieberman was Gore's VP in 2000. Anyways, it doesn't surprise me that many democrats no longer support Hillary and Lieberman. A lot of people don't like how Hillary has run her campaign, and a lot of people don't like Lieberman's increasingly conservative stances.
- paulvq, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3He's been like this since before he officially became an independent. He's one of the video game industry's most vocal critics.
- shady8x, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1You do know that most of the people that try to ban games are democrats right?
Some republicans are in there too but the Dems are leading the fight against freedom of speech when it comes to games...
So your argument would make him be more of a democrat...- paulvq, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2I was just pointing out the fact that he's been promoting anti-free speech no matter what "party" he was in.
- paulvq, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2I was just pointing out the fact that he's been promoting anti-free speech no matter what "party" he was in.
- shady8x, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1You do know that most of the people that try to ban games are democrats right?
- AnarchoGoth, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Many Democrats have been the leaders in the call for censorship.
Remember Al and Tipper Gore?
When Al Gore became Vice President, Lieberman replaced him as the leading advocate for censorship in the Senate.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have also advocated in favor of government censorship. - qXdc, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1It's not a free speech issue. He's not suggesting making it a crime.
- kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -14/+78Both parties are bought and paid for.
- Subacious, on 05/21/2008, -17/+148It's sad that free speech means nothing to this man. He's supposed to be protecting it, not openly attacking it.
- Dynamis, on 05/21/2008, -31/+6That's funny. I was under the impression that it would be a very sad day when people start advocating equal rights for non citizen terrorists and general enemies of the State.
- Anpheus, on 05/21/2008, -4/+19Ah hell guys, screw due process or any sort of real investigation too, let's just bomb the ***** out of the brown people until we don't hear any more complaints from that part of the world amirite?
- Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -17/+5@Dynamis
Oh come on! This is Digg, you know damned good and well they think so poorly of the military and it's soldiers that they will defend Islamic terrorists from using youtube as propaganda while they cut heads off.
Then, when we start bombing them, they will defend them some more about how we're an imperialistic nation and how we're all going to wither up and die. - 26thUSMC, on 05/21/2008, -8/+2i agree, lets bomb them all :)
- stranglethorne, on 05/21/2008, -9/+2Semi-off topic but this is the most crazy 'U.S. Army vs Insurgent' video on the net,
WARNING: It is for graphic and mature audiences only
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BQx-YNNOsg
Spoiler: The good guys win!!! The Islamic propaganda machine takes an absolutely massive blow!! If you play with fire you might just get burnt.- freakk123, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Huh, that shows violence. That violates YouTube's ToS, as Senator Lieberman would no doubt be able to inform you.
So shouldn't that be taken down?
- freakk123, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Huh, that shows violence. That violates YouTube's ToS, as Senator Lieberman would no doubt be able to inform you.
- Pstmann, on 05/21/2008, -3/+9Israeli's don't believe in freedom of speech, and neither does their little boy-toy Joe'L.
- EmporerTitus, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1They sure don't. Look at their seething hate and contempt for anything outside of their narrow, archaic primitive worldview: http://digg.com/world_news/Israel_Jewish_youth_bur ...
- metric7, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7It seems his job is to put Israel first.
- jabberwolf, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2Lieberman is saying that if Google is going to ban OTHER stuff that GOOGLE feels offensive, why aren't they removing things that fall under their own rules?
WTF is wrong with you people, do you even read?!?- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Did you even read it? Google says if they feel it is actually advocating violence or depicting it they would probably remove it.
What they won't do is apply some subjective standard to what is and is not ok to watch. What's the problem?
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Did you even read it? Google says if they feel it is actually advocating violence or depicting it they would probably remove it.
- Dynamis, on 05/21/2008, -31/+6That's funny. I was under the impression that it would be a very sad day when people start advocating equal rights for non citizen terrorists and general enemies of the State.
- reflex768, on 05/21/2008, -9/+57Totally counterproductive effort on Lieberman's part. Sunlight is always the best cure for sinister and violent political ideologies. Ideologies which almost always thrive on the perception of repression and the promise of rebirth through censored, forbidden knowledge. Why facilitate the argument for them? Make their videos *easier* to see if anything. For every person who finds them persuasive, fifty or a hundred will conclude they're the work of barbaric lunatics.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -21/+6You are assuming that everyone but a relatively few radicals will look on these videos with disdain and then condemn this entire Islamic terrorist movement.
I say that most in the Muslim world will either be emboldened by these videos or not be changed at all.
Keep in mind that citizens of most Islamic nations are not free like the Western countries are. Their education and media systems are controlled, censored, and wholly biased towards radical Islam.
Don't think so? Try carrying a Bible in Saudi Arabia. Try telling others about Christianity in Iran. Try wearing a cross in Indonesia.- WiseWeasel, on 05/21/2008, -4/+13Look, it's one of Bush's children left behind! Seriously, you think Youtube videos are going to embolden terrorists? You think potential terrorists spend their time on the net watching Youtube? This is clearly meant for US, not for some people living in a cave in Pakistan...
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -9/+31) I don't support Bush. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome has warped your view of reality.
Seek help.
2) You are naive to think that terrorists and their supporters do not use the internet to their advantage. Where have you been for the last 5 years?
You fail on both counts. - Lazydriver, on 05/21/2008, -0/+71) So?
2) YouTube is blocked by a lot of Mideast ISPs, just like in China. When they do communicate, it's on closed-boards, and their minds are already ***** warped. When we see it, we go "what a bunch of ***** savage barbarians". - WiseWeasel, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2@Jimmy: You don't have to support Bush to be an idiot, but it helps... : P
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -9/+31) I don't support Bush. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome has warped your view of reality.
- lgfaphile, on 05/21/2008, -10/+2@JimmySpaza: You are absolutely correct. These videos are often recruiting tools in a society that makes a mockery of rights that we in the West hold dear...while at the same time uses the western language of victim hood and rights violation in a systematic way. In other words, they take advantage of our belief in freedom to spread their fascistic, racist, intolerant and totalitarian beliefs.
- weech, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0Actually Christian churches are allowed and do exist in Iran, and there are plenty of cross-bearing missionaries in Indonesia. And "their education and media systems are controlled, censored, and wholly biased" ???? Ours aren't, right?
- WiseWeasel, on 05/21/2008, -4/+13Look, it's one of Bush's children left behind! Seriously, you think Youtube videos are going to embolden terrorists? You think potential terrorists spend their time on the net watching Youtube? This is clearly meant for US, not for some people living in a cave in Pakistan...
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -21/+6You are assuming that everyone but a relatively few radicals will look on these videos with disdain and then condemn this entire Islamic terrorist movement.
- BevHlsHousewife, on 05/21/2008, -17/+151If Sen. Lieberman wants to reduce the flow or recruitments into terrorist organizations, he should stop supporting the Bush policies instead of attacking free speech.
- kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -5/+39They (Lieberman and Co.) hate us for our freedoms.
- quesi, on 05/21/2008, -3/+8good answer, good answer
- lex0nyc, on 05/21/2008, -0/+7He seems to have misjudged which way the wind was blowing.
- DesertDude, on 05/24/2008, -1/+1Forget it. This ***** lives to promote censorship. I remember his attacks on the video game industry in the mid 90's.
- kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -5/+39They (Lieberman and Co.) hate us for our freedoms.
- cquilliam, on 05/21/2008, -14/+51What is america fighting this "war on terror" for exactly? Freedom you say? ahem.
- quesi, on 05/21/2008, -3/+12War OF Terror-
ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.- Vermifax, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Wow, that just ... summed up the Ku Klux Klan.
- 1337Einstein, on 05/21/2008, -6/+5Last time I checked, oil.
- insanebrain, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4War FOR terror.
- Bilabrin, on 05/21/2008, -1/+13You know, people say that george bush is an idiot. He's not an idiot he's a genius! He has stated over and over that the terrists hate us for our freedoms. What better way to protect America than to eliminate our freedoms! That's how you keep Americans safe from terrorists!
/Steven Colbert style satire
- quesi, on 05/21/2008, -3/+12War OF Terror-
- drwho9437, on 05/21/2008, -20/+108Lieberman: ***** off.
I will wait for the police van now. That is where we are headed. Land of the Free.- aliengoods, on 05/21/2008, -1/+10I'm with you that Lieberman can ***** off and that this land is headed towards that of a regime, but Google(owner of Youtube) set themselves up for this. They're censoring themselves for China, and now everyone wants to pick and choose their content.
- stranglethorne, on 05/21/2008, -12/+2I am going to take the role of devils advocate here and agree with Lieberman.
Youtube is full of pro-islamic extremist videos glorifying jihad and projecting the insurgency as a glorious and justified fight. It depicts videos of unaware U.S. soldiers being sniped and 100's upon 1000's of IED attacks. The sniper attacks even transformed into the creation of a mythical (debatable) Islamic Freedom fighter named Juba (google him), who is soley responsible for 80+(not sure exact figure) lone soldier kills in Iraq.
I mean you need to ask yourself what messages are the videos sending and what affects do they have?
These vids which glorify the successes of Jihad in the middle-east send out an inspirational message to young Muslims around the world. The message is, the U.S., the worlds greatest superpower can and is being defeated by muslims, and it is a muslims obligation to defend it's holy land against the invaders.
These videos which inspire young individuals do have detrimental effects on the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. These videos become recruiting tools which funnel more and more fighters to the warzone to take up arms.
More videos = more inspiration = more recruits = more insurgents = more U.S. deaths
If you take these videos offline you can decrease the number of insurgent recruits from abroad.
Propaganda is a large part of war, and I think the necessary actions must be taken to help the U.S. win the war and to save American troops.- OUberLord, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2On one hand, I don't disagree with a thing you said. On the other I also take those videos as a means of the public to get more of idea of who exactly these terrorists are, what they are doing, and what our troops are actually facing over there. I would make a counterpoint that for every montage insurgent video there is on US troops getting killed, I wonder how many videos there are that our government isn't releasing regarding insurgents getting wiped out due to their disadvantages in traditional firefights with US ground forces?
I personally would rather these videos stay up, if only to be insight from the horses mouth as it were as to what exact threat we are facing as a country in the region. For every individual that is inspired by them there are probably 10 that are disgusted and informed. That, and even if YouTube no longer displayed the content it would not be long before such videos simply sprung up somewhere else. - eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3"More videos = more inspiration = more recruits = more insurgents = more U.S. deaths"
This is pure conjecture. You have no idea how realistic the "threat" of this is.
If you got your way, where does it stop? What if the government decides tomorrow that videos about marijuana should be illegal? Or staging protests?
I think the risk to my freedoms far out-weigh the risks to our soldiers from YouTube videos. I don't want to live in your world where the government gets to decide what is and is not ok to talk about. They make stupid decisions every day, and this would be unbelievably abused.
- OUberLord, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2On one hand, I don't disagree with a thing you said. On the other I also take those videos as a means of the public to get more of idea of who exactly these terrorists are, what they are doing, and what our troops are actually facing over there. I would make a counterpoint that for every montage insurgent video there is on US troops getting killed, I wonder how many videos there are that our government isn't releasing regarding insurgents getting wiped out due to their disadvantages in traditional firefights with US ground forces?
- xtinamo, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5I'm seriously tired of this *****. Revolution anyone? Revolution...?
- itsthebrod, on 05/21/2008, -1/+10Can it wait? The American Idol finale is tonight.
- metric7, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5It's off to the re-education camp for you.
- orlandogeek, on 05/21/2008, -9/+16Everyone here so far including myself seems to agree with Techdirt's opinion on the matter. Not surprising considering it's the logical one. Keep the recruiting style videos up so people can make their dissenting voices regarding them heard. Without a doubt, those who disagree would be many times more vocal than those that agree with the backwards viewpoints of terrorists. We should handle criminals posting videos of crime in a similar fashion. Let them incriminate themselves if they are less than intelligent and inclined to do so.
- akirashimablue, on 05/21/2008, -20/+9Google has standards and is not the tool of the government. Way to go. Stay strong and don't be evil and you will be at the top of my Companies to support.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -3/+3Yeah, tell that to the Chinese people who now have a censored internet per the Beijing government thanks to cooperation from Google.
Google has been doing evil for a long time now. Their motto is worthless.- nstanosheck, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Google simply removes blocked sites from its search engine. It does not block the sites themselves, that would be Cisco's Great Firewall of China. If you cannot go to a site, it makes sense that you do not want that site in your directory as it causes customer dissatisfaction.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1Well, I guess that makes everything alright then. I guess it's not wrong if you only do a little censoring, huh?
- nstanosheck, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Google simply removes blocked sites from its search engine. It does not block the sites themselves, that would be Cisco's Great Firewall of China. If you cannot go to a site, it makes sense that you do not want that site in your directory as it causes customer dissatisfaction.
- Fafnir43, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I'm guessing you must have missed this story: http://valleywag.com/344918/indian-police-beat-man ...
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -3/+3Yeah, tell that to the Chinese people who now have a censored internet per the Beijing government thanks to cooperation from Google.
- meuse, on 05/21/2008, -51/+11A Jew trying to censor the Internet. Is anyone surprised?
It was Jane Harmon who introducted the most recent piece of thought crime legislation that seeks to censor the Internet.- Dynamis, on 05/21/2008, -7/+4How is curbing terrorist propaganda considered thought crime legislation?
- dn11, on 05/21/2008, -3/+3wait, I thought Jews were all commie pornographers corrupting the minds of our youth. make up your minds on the scapegoating and the stereotypes already won't you?
- Vermifax, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4Lieberman is NOT a Jew. He's a Zionist. Big difference.
www.jewsagainstzionism.com
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -46/+20Google proclaiming that it loves free speech?!?
Yeah, like they were all about free speech and free internet access when they were helping the Communist Chinese government censor web access for its people.
Money-hungry, anti-freedom, and far leftwing hypocrites. That's all they are.- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -4/+13China doesn't have a guarantee of free speech - Google is operating in China and has to abide by their laws. Would you advocate foreign companies operating in the U.S. disregarding our laws?
- Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -6/+2He's pointing out hypocrisy. Obviously a point you missed.
- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -2/+11and I'm pointing out that it is not hypocrisy to obey the law in the country you're operating in. Obviously a point you missed.
- bdiggitty, on 05/21/2008, -3/+6Google doesn't HAVE to do business in China. If China's laws violate Google's ethics, then the real solution would be to not do business in China. I guess that potential lost revenue made Google modify its ideals.
- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7@bdiggitty, that's a valid point, altho since they are a public company they would likely open themselves up to a stockholder lawsuit.
- jaxcs, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2There is also the classic argument used by every business throughout history. If not us, then someone else. If Google walked away, then yahoo or ask or some other organization would step in.
- Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -6/+2He's pointing out hypocrisy. Obviously a point you missed.
- WiseWeasel, on 05/21/2008, -3/+12From your vantage point, EVERYTHING must seem far leftwing... Better watch out, the boogey man is gonna get you! Ooh, what was that noise outside? Better get your shotgun and investigate...
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -15/+1Not everything, just liberals like you.
And I usually don't use a shotgun. 9mm up close all the way to .50 cal. depending on the target. Maybe a knife.
Cry me a river, you liberal baby. :-)- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -0/+10Prediction: Jimmy will die someday of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. :)
- WiseWeasel, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6I'm actually a libertarian, but thanks for playing. Not everyone who thinks our current foreign and domestic policy is a sham is a liberal. Despite what the National Review would have you believe, the world of US political thought is not divided between neo-conservatives and liberals.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/21/2008, -15/+1Not everything, just liberals like you.
- Tebixan, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8You were so close to making a good comment! I was nodding in agreement up until the last line. Then you ruined the whole thing.
Funny how the past 8 years of right wing rule in America has seen the nations wealth fall even more tightly into the grip of the top 1%; and how right wing laws have had more freedoms erased than ever before. Yet people like you still refuse to admit that your leaders have fallen, an no longer care about you, or they people the pledged to serve.
Now all they serve is the dollar- wendelgee2, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Damn right.
Jimmy, you need to find ways of making your point that doesn't involve insulting the very people you're trying to persuade. You had us...we were with you...- JimmySpaza, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1My posts are not designed to persuade anyone. They are merely my thoughts.
And Google is run by political liberals. They love money and, given the Chinese censorship, are against freedom when there is business to be done.
Check out their bios some time.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1My posts are not designed to persuade anyone. They are merely my thoughts.
- jaxcs, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Comments like spaza's makes my head spin. I can't figure out if I'm supposed to support big business like google or condemn them.
Companies in foreign lands can't demand that those governments accept the standards of our culture. So, they have to either live by the standards of those foreign countries or not do business there at all. Yet, we are told that supporting business is the most proper and effective agent of change and that it is business that creates jobs and drives the economy. But, companies in foreign lands can't demand that those governments accept the standards of our culture. So...- JimmySpaza, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Principle trumps money. Morality is more important than good business.
Pretend that you have $100 billion in the bank (to get money out of the equation)...and then ask yourself what you'd do different. - jaxcs, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2You say that with such unambiguity I have to question your commitment to principle. Is it simply the freedom of speech that sparks passion? Do you limit responsibility to google? What role do you have in enabling bad action by using google products? Is it even possible to invest in china without sacrificing morality? Do your principles extend to other marginal countries?
- JimmySpaza, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Principle trumps money. Morality is more important than good business.
- wendelgee2, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Damn right.
- nstanosheck, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Again, Google simply removes blocked sites from its search engine. It does not block the sites themselves, that would be Cisco's Great Firewall of China. If you cannot go to a site, it makes sense that you do not want that site in your directory as it causes customer dissatisfaction.
- Chassit, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7You're an imbecile.
- jaxcs, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5What the heck is wrong with you? I mean do you believe the words that are coming out of your own mouth or are you as surprised as everyone else? Do you ever look at your own posts from a month ago and scratch your head in amazement? People like you say liberals are conspiracy nuts but look at you! If someone takes a position that you don't like, it's because they're loony libs.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1"People like you say liberals are conspiracy nuts"
No, no. Not all liberals. Just some, like the guys that run Google.
And many people takes positions to which I disagree. Sometimes, it's their liberalism that makes their position seem like a good idea to them. In such cases, I point out such liberalism.- jaxcs, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2By your standards, liberal complaints are therefore also valid. libs, when they see something to which they disagree are entitled to question whether it is the actors conservatism that makes them think it's a good idea. This is not crazy action and will not be impugned by you.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1"People like you say liberals are conspiracy nuts"
- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -4/+13China doesn't have a guarantee of free speech - Google is operating in China and has to abide by their laws. Would you advocate foreign companies operating in the U.S. disregarding our laws?
- Berkana, on 05/21/2008, -8/+114Yet Google/YouTube removed Mark Bunker's anti-Scientology activism channel and is giving him a hard time as he tries to get his channel re-instated. As far as I know, Mark Bunker has not been able to reinstate his account at YouTube, even though everything on there was his own content. What gives? Hypocrisy!
- burninthepyre, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3I was coming here to post the same thing, only you beat me to it.
- wintersland, on 05/21/2008, -2/+8My thoughts exactly.
Should just become a large advertiser with Google, they seem to have double standards for them. - shazzb0t, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3It should also be noted that google voluntarily helps China censor internet searches as well.
- fani, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Google is the evil do-no-evil company.
Double standards.
Scientology may be crap to you and me, but you know what... its their freedom of religion. Thats what gets me at digg - the rampant hypocrisy.
"Tom Cruise/Will Smith - I won't agree with you, but I will fight to death your right to what you want to believe in"- Berkana, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I don't care about their faith--they are free to believe what they want; it is their abuses and their vicious reaction towards critics, their conspiratorial infiltration and manipulation in their attempts to secure power that disgusts people to the point of activism.
Inform yourself before you accuse people of hypocrisy.
The unfunny truth about Scientology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCGP-0545EU
Scientology's slave labor camps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvewKtZGq8
Missing in Happy Valley:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2742505831 ...- fani, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Learn to read and pay attention. I clearly said "Scientology may be crap to you and me".... but that's not the point here.
The point is whether you have the right to believe in what you want without fear of oppression. Thats the fundamental point.
If all atheists were constantly hounded and criticized or gays or Christians etc. for what they believe in, then wouldn't you be pissed ?
The same thing here. Yes, Scientology is not a good offering... to you and me, but then take it up against the people who're recruiting them. Why take it up with their followers ? They are adults ( or minors who've been overseen by their legal guardians for whats best for them ) and can make up their own minds. Its not for you to decide for them or constantly criticize them for their choice. Remember "freedom for them without fear" - shadywasabi, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1When does freedom of religion imply that one can't criticize another's religion? Scientologists certainly have the right to practice their religion, but claiming that folks can't criticize Scientology goes in the face of what you just misquoted:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- fani, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Learn to read and pay attention. I clearly said "Scientology may be crap to you and me".... but that's not the point here.
- Berkana, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I don't care about their faith--they are free to believe what they want; it is their abuses and their vicious reaction towards critics, their conspiratorial infiltration and manipulation in their attempts to secure power that disgusts people to the point of activism.
- JerryAscione, on 05/21/2008, -21/+66Aint freedom of speech a bitch Lieberman? you New World Order Fascist.
- coffee200am, on 05/21/2008, -11/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR1Iy190JyA&feature ...
- coffee200am, on 05/21/2008, -20/+5They should allow all videos regardless of content!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR1Iy190JyA&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXoef5BIbR0&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce0_2rssysc&feature ...- LeggoMyEgo, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Hahaha, anti-obama trolling is nothing if not bizarre and entertaining.
- Fafnir43, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Um... Yes, they should. Just because a video is stupid, inaccurate and vaguely nauseating (as those are) doesn't mean it should be suppressed. That's kind of what supporting free speech /means/.
- sryan8913, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Obama smokes cigarettes!
- bosssmiley, on 05/21/2008, -9/+22To paraphrase JimmySpaza above: "So Google, how about your commitment to free speech in, oh let's say China then?"
So much for 'Don't be Evil'- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -6/+18Does China have a right to free speech in their laws? No? Thanks for playing.
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -13/+4Why is Google bound by China's laws?
Thanks for playing...- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -5/+13Because they are operating in China. Should foreign companies operating in the U.S. disregard our laws?
- bdiggitty, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2They shouldn't be doing business in China if it violates their ethics! That's where the true test for corporations like this. The question is whether you want to immensely curb your revenue stream, for an ideal. The lure was too great for Google in that regard.
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Are you insinuating they HAVE to do business in China? An American company can make that choice.
What you are saying is Google needs to change their slogan:
"Do no evil, unless it hurts the bottom line".
No one forced them to do business with China. It was their choice. - eir574, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I'm of two minds on this one. It's easy to say that google shouldn't contribute in any way to China's efforts to censor. But, censorship is never going to be perfect. It will always be an arms race between the censors and the people trying to outwit them. Google is a good tool for finding the little corners of the internet that China hasn't yet censored.
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1@eir
I would have no problem with Google doing business with China IF they hadn't been constantly licking all our collective balls with their "do no evil" *****.
- sleepwalkers, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3Google does not have to do business in China, but they couldn't stand to lose the potential revenue, so they set aside these "morals" they have and voluntarily go along with a country who's laws violate Google's "Don't be evil." policy.
- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1As nstanosheck said below, Google doesn't block anything. They just remove the site from their search engine.
- PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Oh look, more digg anti-logic. Which is the better way to promote free speech in an area where it is not guaranteed by law...comply with local laws as much as necessary and facilitate as much communication as possible within that area...or deprive the citizens there any service whatsoever since the government won't allow total free speech? Step one: engage brain; step two: post response on digg
- sleepwalkers, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1PawnsOfJoshua: Google adhering to their own moral code doesn't deprive the Chinese of anything that isn't already accessible and searchable in China on the Internet. I fail to see how either of the options presented between our two comments "promote" free speech. Google isn't some sort of magic "enabler" of content other than the services they provide, and I understand it is not their job to promote or enable free speech in a country where it isn't guaranteed by law. Sergei Brin and company decided early on that they did not want to "be evil," but it obviously isn't enough of a moral imperative that they'll choose not to support a country that doesn't support the free, unhindered speech of its citizens and instead.
I fail to see how what I said is "anti-logic" or how it warranted the response I received.
I simply don't believe they should stick to their "Don't be evil" mantra if they're going to willfully ignore it for money.
- EnvEngineer, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Who cares? Google says that they won't respond to Sen Lieb due to GOOGLE's commitment to free speech.
- PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2@bosssmiley
You are absolutely right. Google needs to do something about this. First, they need to hire a couple million soldiers. Then they need to spend somewhere close to the gross national product of the USA for an entire year to outfit their mercenary army with sufficient enough equipment. Then, they will be ready to launch of full scale invasion on China to overthrow the communist regime so that they can continue to bring free speech to the world! w00t go Google! Clearly, this plan of action is far to superior to their current strategy of providing as liberal of service as possible in a society that desperately needs to communicate with the outside world.
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -13/+4Why is Google bound by China's laws?
- nstanosheck, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Since you are copying previous comments, let me duplicate my response: Google simply removes blocked sites from its search engine. It does not block the sites themselves, that would be Cisco's Great Firewall of China. If you cannot go to a site, it makes sense that you do not want that site in your directory as it causes customer dissatisfaction.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Or show them all that they are missing. Chinese people need to see what dicks their government are.
- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I think they probably already know.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1I don't think they already know. It has been about 10 years since the massacre at Tienanmen Square. Students who attend Peking University (a University that had several student protesters killed by the Chinese military during the massacre), have never seen the images and video of the massacre. When shown pictures of the famous guy standing in front of the column of tanks, thought it was a military parade of some sort.
Maybe we can't do much to help the people of China break free from their repressive government, but we certainly should not be helping them.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Or show them all that they are missing. Chinese people need to see what dicks their government are.
- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -6/+18Does China have a right to free speech in their laws? No? Thanks for playing.
- Wholekernalcorn, on 05/21/2008, -14/+10Nothing better than letting someone speak. Videos included. These vids show the crap that not only do troops around the world face, but civilians as well. Nothing proved how barbaric these Radical Islamics are than the vids of beheadings.
So....if freedom of speech and truth is all the rage.....and no one objects to videos showing murder and violence....
http://www.bigducky.com/videos/beheading_videos/ar ...
http://www.bigducky.com/videos/beheading_videos/be ...- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -10/+5Does beheading kill someone more dead than a lethal injection?
- coffee200am, on 05/21/2008, -5/+6Clarify why beheadings of innocent workers in Iraq and elsewhere compares to lethal injection? Also does hanging Gays in Iran "kill someone more dead than lethal injection"?
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -4/+6Are dead civilians who were working for an occupying military more dead than civilians sleeping at home when a US bomb dropped on them?
Capital punishment is ALWAYS wrong. But killing innocent civilians in a country that never was a threat to our country puts the USA in the wrong here. We invaded THEM. Remember?
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -4/+6Are dead civilians who were working for an occupying military more dead than civilians sleeping at home when a US bomb dropped on them?
- Dynamis, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5@chico
You are making the case that a criminal given due process in the courts, allowed to defend himself and judged by a jury of his peers and then sentenced to death for his crimes is somehow comparable to terrorists abducting and slaughtering innocents? They are night and day.- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -4/+4No I'm not. Those are two different situations.
I'm making the case that in the Muslim world capital punishment is accomplished with a beheading. In Texas it is with a lethal injection. They are the same.
Deaths of Iraqi civilians are also the same whether they accomplished by a bomb from a US plane or by a criminal terrorist beheading a captive. Both situations illegally deprive the victim of their life. The USA has no more right to murder Iraqis with bombers than the terrorists have to kidnap them and cut off their heads on video. Both are immoral, illegal and just plain wrong. - Dynamis, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4Only one deliberately targets innocents. Both are horrible but in my opinion those situations are night and day also.
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -3/+5"Only one deliberately targets innocents"
Dropping bombs on a city is deliberately targeting innocents. Crime is crime. - Dynamis, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2Well I know I'm not going to convince you that we don't target innocents because apparently it's what you want to believe. It is just my opinion that we do not target innocents. We have different opinions.
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2"apparently it's what you want to believe"
It's not really debatable. Well over 650,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the USA started dropping bombs on them.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releas ...
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -4/+4No I'm not. Those are two different situations.
- Jaablaze, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2You really need to step into reality my friend. The beheadings are meant to inflict maximum amount of pain and to scare others into backing off. And while I agree that no man has the right to take the life another, a beheading is far worse than a lethal injection. You can't view them as even.
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1"You can't view them as even"
Let's ask the corpses what they think.
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1"You can't view them as even"
- coffee200am, on 05/21/2008, -5/+6Clarify why beheadings of innocent workers in Iraq and elsewhere compares to lethal injection? Also does hanging Gays in Iran "kill someone more dead than lethal injection"?
- Fafnir43, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Um... You see, just because you have (and should have) the legal right to do something doesn't mean you can actually do it without being a douchebag. Congratulations for illustrating this simple point in such an effective manner.
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -10/+5Does beheading kill someone more dead than a lethal injection?
- duggtodeath, on 05/21/2008, -17/+21These are not recruitment videos, as some ***** think they are. Secondly, it's called freedom of speech. Maybe if you stopped ***** with them, they'd stop ***** with you.
- Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -7/+3Yeah we were all ***** with them...we started it....riiiiiiight.
- Kaethre, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4We kinda did. History's a bitch, ain't it?
- mzx639, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1And we are gonna finish it too.
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1er... yeah.
Unless your claim is that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
In which case you really need to do more reading...
- Kaethre, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4We kinda did. History's a bitch, ain't it?
- Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -7/+3Yeah we were all ***** with them...we started it....riiiiiiight.
- Wholekernalcorn, on 05/21/2008, -24/+9Here's some more freedom of speech...
Who will complain about these not being freedom of speech? Who will censor me? Who will dare tell me I shouldn't post such things after they complain about someone stifling freedom of speech??
http://www.bigducky.com/videos/beheading_videos/be ...
http://www.bigducky.com/videos/beheading_videos/be ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzsJFsdEW-M&eurl=ht ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRLLPvQ9vOM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH07oS4aIL0&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq2SWEfgoVk&feature ...- swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -2/+12Read the article description you ***** halfwit -
"Google responded that it had removed videos depicting or advocating violence, but argued that removing all videos originating from Islamist groups would run counter to Google's commitment to free speech."- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5What is this "read the article" you speak of? Digg users are expected to actually read before posting?
HERESY!!!!
- ssn697, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5What is this "read the article" you speak of? Digg users are expected to actually read before posting?
- metric7, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4WAAHHHH!!
- Heem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Post em up man, do all you will. I'm going to exercise my right not to click on/view them.
- swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -2/+12Read the article description you ***** halfwit -
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -12/+17At least google hasn't pulled Fitna yet:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968 ...- coffee200am, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5Excellent short.
- coffee200am, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4Waiting for the hypocrites to digg you down for posting this.
- swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4You mean Geert Wilder's campaign ad? Why would google want to pull that?
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4Death threats, beheading threats, bombing threats, etc.
- swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2If I remember correctly (very forgettable ad, IMO) none of those things were actually shown in the video.
- chicofaraby, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3WMD...
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4Swrostmore, Google: Live Leak Pulls Fitna Because of Death Threats
Chico, Google: Red Herring - swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Oh, so your point is that Lieberman's call to censorship has precedent, because extremist Muslims also try to get videos pulled off of social networking sites? Gotcha.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4My point is that places like Live Leak are quick to display the most disgusting jihadi death porn imaginable and then claim freedom of expression when they know people like Lieberman will respect the rule of law. However, they are quick to give up that "freedom" when threatened with violence by people who have no respect for life or the fundamental rights of man.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4Death threats, beheading threats, bombing threats, etc.
- Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1In case they ever do, here's a copy, in it's original form:
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2008/05/fitna-on-y ... - Daedalus81, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4Do yourself a favor and read the actual passages that is quotes from the Quran and see if you can match the words up. I bet you'll have a hard time.
- sonnybobiche, on 05/21/2008, -29/+10This story will not reach the front page, because Joseph Lieberman is a member of the Democratic Party, and they have a free pass on Digg.
- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8Looks like you lost that bet.
- postalblowfish7, on 05/21/2008, -2/+10lieberman is a *****. it's not a partisan issue.
- sonnybobiche, on 05/21/2008, -5/+2Of course, if he were a Republican, it would be a partisan issue.
- rjn17960, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Not a Democrat. In fact, he'll probably be McSame's running mate.
- sonnybobiche, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2Man, you should read lieberman.senate.gov, cause it says otherwise.
Also, what's with this trend of making up really lame nicknames for candidates we don't like? It's so unbearably childish.- swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2You should read lieberman.senate.gov, cause it says Lieberman isn't a democrat (he's Independent)
- sonnybobiche, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1WRONG. He calls himself an Independent Democrat (capital I, capital D, in his own words), and caucuses with the Democrats.
He is not independent, and he is not a republican. - swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Bernie Sanders calls himself an Independent Democratic Socialist, but when people identify his party affiliation they say "Independent" ( I ) and not Democratic Socialist (or Democrat). Bernie also caucuses with the Democrats. Likewise, Lieberman is identified as an Independent. He was not elected on the Democratic ticket.
- sonnybobiche, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2Man, you should read lieberman.senate.gov, cause it says otherwise.
- Fafnir43, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5Actually, we tend to get /more/ pissed when a Democrat expresses Republican views, not less.
- MrFurious2k, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1Democrats require a purist leftist view. If one of them steps out of line, leftists are hardest on them. They're not the "big tent" party they used to claim to be. However, I believe the very fact that they've been so successful in maintaining their purity is the reason they're doing so well. The Republicans can't seem to provide a focused message and that's why they're floundering so badly right now. Republicans have a much, much wider diversity of thought in their party and it's tearing them apart. Without a cohesive goal and message, the party fractures and falls out of favor.
- sonnybobiche, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Yeah, we wouldn't want anyone expressing a dissenting opinion.
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Are you high?
Republicans are the ones united. If you have a republican congressman/senator you can make lots of fairly accurate guesses about where they stand on most issues.
All democrats have in common is that they aren't republicans. But just knowing someone is a Democrat gives you little to no clue as to how they actually vote on issues.
- xenex11, on 05/21/2008, -16/+9Joe Lieberman is a republican *****.
- Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6He's an independent idiot.
- swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5He's an Independent Democrat douchebag.
- EmporerTitus, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Joe Lieberman is a *NEOCON* *****.
- awtripp, on 05/21/2008, -9/+15Joe Lieberman, you sir, are ***** *****. You have no regard for what America stands for and it is obvious you are only out to better yourself in the eyes of the all to real, internal, evil that seeks to belittle and ultimately destroy the foundations upon which America was built.
- bowens44, on 05/21/2008, -9/+13the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper"
- FeartheKnighted, on 05/21/2008, -8/+10You ***** dumbass submitter, these weren't just "Islamist" videos, unless your definition of Islamist is: bomb making, weapons training, attacks against US soldiers showing them being killed and dismembered.
http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/05/20/224218.shtm ...- bangerznmash, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4Did you read the ***** story? They ban all violent videos, whether it is terrorist operations or otherwise.
- dswinscoe, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1well, except videos where the "good guys" are slaughtering the "bad guys": http://www.asterpix.com/console?as=1211387826081-c ...
- connieLingus, on 05/21/2008, -8/+7freedom of speech is great and all that...but remember you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.
- soccernamlak, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1This isn't about yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is about blocking the speech from that same person's public statement about the incident.
The senator wants to remove ALL videos coming from Islamic organizations, even if they advocate peace, bunnies, and rainbows.
ANY video depicting violence, etc. would be removed via Google's policies REGARDLESS of religious group.
So please, RTFA before you comment - eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1...or "i'm muslim" apparently...
- soccernamlak, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1This isn't about yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is about blocking the speech from that same person's public statement about the incident.
- skeletorcares, on 05/21/2008, -17/+8BABYMAN = BURY!
- knm123, on 05/21/2008, -10/+2Freedom of speech is a two edge sword - but I agree with the sediment - I had a newsfeed showing a video of a muslim retual where they toss their babies off a 15 foot tower - with no explinantion the video was removed. It had no race,religouse or any kind of bashing - politically correct if you ever saw it- but it was removed..........
- nblsavage, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Sentiment, not sediment, and you're a moron.
- Bilabrin, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Freedom of speech is not a two edged sword. People are too thin-skinned. Take responsability for your insecurity! Don't fear the airing of opposing views!
- postalblowfish7, on 05/21/2008, -7/+2i'm almost glad Gore didn't win in 2000 so we didn't have to put up with 4-8 years of getting an endless stream of anti-freedom and censorship activism from the office of the VP. then again, i suppose between war mongering and speech silencing, censorship is the lesser of two evils...
- shadygrove, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2actually, gore / lieberman not only won in 2000 but we still had to put up with an endless stream of anti-freedom and censorship activism from the office of the VP. you don't really think dubya was smart enough to craft the cheney / bush policies, do you? plus, lieberman and lynn cheney, together, suggested that colleges be censored for teaching history that instructs students on the "causes" of 9/11. if you think 9/11 was about anything more complex than "they hate us because of our freedom" then you should not be permitted to teach at a university according to joe lieberman and lynn cheney. what a pair those two make!
- qXdc, on 05/21/2008, -16/+5This is not a 'free speech' issue. Telling people to shut up is not the same as making it a crime to say certain things.
So to all you guys out there claiming that a websites decision to control the content on it's site 'anit-freedom'
Shut up.- shadygrove, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2even still, joe lieberman is a schmuck and should be ignored if the democratic party gains fillibuster proof control of congress and the executive branch in '08.
- Framnk, on 05/21/2008, -9/+9Joe Lieberman or Joe McCarthy?
- overtoke, on 05/21/2008, -16/+23Joe Lieberman is a piece of ***** and a traitor.
- georgemason01, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1No, it's just an insult to *****.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/21/2008, -17/+5The terrorist United States Government wants a monopoly on advocating violence, as they try to take over the Middle East based on lies!
United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.
Where's the evidence that kerosene fires melted steel?
How did the huge molten pools of metal get under the twin towers and building
7?
9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to
building 7?
Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!
Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!
Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of
biofuels.- Versh, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I'm probably not the first person who has told you this, but,
You're a lunatic. Proclaiming wild accusations without evidence is fun, and in your case, an ironic right protected by the United States.
- Versh, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I'm probably not the first person who has told you this, but,
- 55mph, on 05/21/2008, -11/+22Lieberman is part of the problem, certainly not the solution. He's been bought and paid for by special interests protecting Israel.
- ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6He and Clinton were the thought police in the 90's, why are we surprised he's just carrying out his particular brand of fascism again?
Anyone remember Mortal Kombat? Grand Theft Auto? This *****'s going down!
- ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6He and Clinton were the thought police in the 90's, why are we surprised he's just carrying out his particular brand of fascism again?
- duckyinc, on 05/21/2008, -14/+7I want to kill all of you!!! You can't digg me down because of freedom of speech LOLOLOLOL! -.- seriously, tell real terrorists to stfu is now evil?
- Chassit, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Technically speaking. Your death threat is an act of terrorism, making you a "real terrorist".
- randersontt, on 05/21/2008, -6/+15keep in mind that our government doesn't even want us to see news coverage of the coffins coming home from Iraq. And why is it okay for us to see government-provided news stories depicting U.S. forces attacking insurgents, but not okay for us to see videos of insurgents attacking U.S. forces? Does our government think that we will switch our allegiance? Does the government want to completely sensor what we see? Also, I'm not sure that J.Liebermann is the most objective voice in this matter.
- richiewrt, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Because seeing coffins of Americans coming home is bad for moral. It isn't about switching sides or anything like that, it is so people will not have to see the real effects of this war on Americans.
- pintomp3, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1it's all about propaganda. they would prefer to make the war look like a video game with no actual costs. that's why they try to suppress death tolls, injuries and costs. if people were made fully aware of the human and financial costs of the war, support would have dried up within months. color tv partly helped end the vietnam war. seeing red blood on the news really hit home. that's why they imbed the reporters now, so they won't air that type of carnage.
- BlackholeStorm, on 05/21/2008, -7/+10Wow. And this guy's a close friend of John McCain...
- shadygrove, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2i hope mccain picks him for VP. nothing says love like a guy who'd be the two time vice presidential "loserman"... losing from both major political parties... what a beauty that would be.
- Hetman, on 05/21/2008, -3/+10The government should not even be involved. YouTube is a private company. They have the right to allow or censor anything they want on their private website.
- Chassit, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2This is about the only intelligent post on this thread as far as I can tell.
- source1984, on 05/21/2008, -7/+9Honestly. Theres nothing wrong with this. Youtube is an AMERICAN company and as an American company who is fighting people who are considered your enemies, its perfectly acceptable to filter out their information. Now, the INTERNET is an international affair and these people should be able to operate their websites... but not they shouldn't have permission to post their videos on an American youtube website. I think you guys take your "free speech" thing way too far. I mean, free speech is good, but free speech for enemy propaganda??? wtf??? I'm a Muslim and I absolutely abhor neocons and what they stand for (basically they're anti-muslim), but I see nothing wrong with calling for youtube to ban these videos. You wanna watch these videos, there's tons of websites that have it.
- trer, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3If it was regular Joe Lieberman from Hoboken, then you'd be right. However, there is a "Sen." in front of his name which means he represents the Federal Government in all his actions and words. Using his pull as a government official and calling for removal of videos (in effect silencing speech) is dangerously running counter to the first amendment (Congress shall make no law..you know the rest). This is why this issue needs to be addressed and rectified.
- bangerznmash, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2He was asking for a ban on all islamic content. As far as I know, we weren't at war with a religion.
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1...and when they outlaw all muslim content next year who will you cry to?
Your problem is you can't see 5 minutes into the future. - source1984, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0I was of the understanding that he's talking about those attack videos.. the ones where the insurgents videotape roadside bombs, firefights, bombings, etc. I thought he's talking about removing those. Thats fair game. But any Islamic videos -- of course not. Thats blatant anti-Islamism.
- MendotaLee, on 05/21/2008, -4/+2man is he in the running for the Iron Cross or what...
- cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -5/+34
Then Youtube should ban Lieberman videos that show him advocating we attack Iran and otherwise fomenting violence.- DteK, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3or the thousands of videos of Americans killing so called "insurgents"
- sa9e, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1They already do. YouTube doesn't tolerate anti-Al-Qaeda videos.
- tschau, on 05/21/2008, -8/+18Go YouTube, their response was very well stated... Lieberman (D - Israel) has made a career out of meddling in places he doesn't belong.
- jbenson2, on 05/21/2008, -8/+5In other words, YouTube Encourages Terrorists Videos
- texasag03, on 05/21/2008, -1/+11Actually, the Constitution only prohibits the government from restricting free speech. Non-government entities can do it all they want. Google can have any commitment it wants to concerning free speech, but they are not "forced" into doing so.
- Hetman, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5I agree they are offering you a service. They do not have to allow you to use it. Google can censor or allow any video they like. It is their website.
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Exactly. So Liberman should shut up. The only one arguing for free speech is the one not required to do so.
What's wrong with this picture? - georgemason01, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1The Constitution yes, but what does the Knesset have to say about it? I believe their authority supercedes the Constitution now.
- bmannes, on 05/21/2008, -6/+10I'm so sick of this smug douchebag thinking he's the moral police. The people have spoken several times, Sen. Joe, and no one outside of CT wants you as a leader.
- pershingdriver, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0what makes you think anyone in CT wants him as a leader the only reason they vote for him is so that he will spend his time in Washington DC and not in CT !
- exronin, on 05/21/2008, -6/+3Sounds like standard republican philosophy: "If I close my eyes it doesn't exist"
- IslandDog, on 05/21/2008, -6/+6Digg liberals will support the "freedom of speech" for islamic terrorists, even though they are foreign and the constitution doesn't apply to them.
- ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Adam what's-his-face is a white dude from Wisconsin. GTFO.
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Ah yes. I keep forgetting that the ideals of freedom and democracy was actually only intended for a very narrow few.
We believe government has no business policing speech. Period. Ours or theirs. If you would like to move somewhere that does police speech I hear China is nice.
I think you should go experience some of your own medicine.
- msimeth, on 05/21/2008, -2/+7It is funny that Google is talking about its commitment to free speech. It has bowed to commands from the Chinese government to censor before.
And YouTube, owned by Google, also censors video's all the time. Youtube is always removing porn video's. They obviously do not consider all expression to be free speech.
However I think that YouTube is right to leave video's that do not advocate violence. This is because there is a continuum of degrees of extremity and I don't think it is up to YouTube to make the decision as to what is an 'extremist'.- Hetman, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2There a private company and they do not have to allow anyone to post videos. And they do not need a reason because they own the website. But your point about china is kind of off because in china they do not have the first amendment. And when operating on foreign soil you must obey the laws of the land. That is just how it works.
- msimeth, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2However, if they are ethically obligated to free speech they should be so regardless of where they are. You can't check your ethics at the door when doing business in another country.
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Come again?
When operating in a country they are required to follow that countries rules.
So your complaint is that Google is following the laws of the US for operations in the US?
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Come again?
- msimeth, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2However, if they are ethically obligated to free speech they should be so regardless of where they are. You can't check your ethics at the door when doing business in another country.
- Hetman, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2There a private company and they do not have to allow anyone to post videos. And they do not need a reason because they own the website. But your point about china is kind of off because in china they do not have the first amendment. And when operating on foreign soil you must obey the laws of the land. That is just how it works.
- alphonseragusa, on 05/21/2008, -5/+11Nice to see an elected official fulfilling his public duty of dicking around on the internet.
- pimpofpixels, on 05/21/2008, -8/+11He has no concern for right and wrong.
To him, if it's good for Israel it's good, and shutting up Islamists is good for Israel. - WiseWeasel, on 05/21/2008, -5/+4Everyone posting to youtube should include that "terrorist" logo watermark, and tag their videos as 'islamist'. Have fun, censors.
You can't censor a person or group as a whole, but only instances of works that violate Youtube's TOS, or incite violence. There might be some particular videos that should be removed, but to say that an entire group should be forbidden from expressing themselves is just criminal, and betrays a complete disregard for freedom of expression, and the foundations of our country. Shame on Lieberman. This chicken-hawk can't get tossed out of the senate soon enough. - kristov, on 05/21/2008, -5/+21Freedom period - is a double edged blade - FREEDOM ISNT FREE - you dont give up your personal freedoms because you think it will make it a little bit safer. Thats the price we pay.
You want to worship your god - leave other people alone who want to worship theirs.
You want to have freedom to say what you want? Respect the right of others even if you do not agree with it.
Thats how it works - I wish our modern age idiot republicans could get that through their heads.- MrFurious2k, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Technically Leiberman is an independent / ex-democrat, not a Republican. Frankly, many elected Democrats are the modern mouthpiece of fascism by wanting to squelch debate on a variety of topics. Al Gore's repeated calls that "the debate has ended" on Global Warming is nothing more than a means to silence the opposition so that he can advance legislation he supports. Advocates of banning "hate speech" all have a home with certain elected Democrats.
Pointing your fingers at Republicans seems somewhat misguided (especially in this case). Clean up your own party before pointing your fingers at others.- georgemason01, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1Independent / ex-Democrat? Or Likudnik / "Independent" / ex-Democrat?
- darkcooger, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4I would replace "republicans" with "politicians." This isn't isolated to one party or the other.
- executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Democrat FDR interned a whole bunch of japanese on the west coast. Guess he thought it was ok to take some personal freedom to make it a bit safer. And do you know what the japanese citizens did. They didn't go whine, and they didn't get the ACLU to sue the government. They joined the army and became some of the most decorated units in the war.
That is the meaning of freedom isn't free. Willing to prove you deserve it with blood and sacrifice.- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Actually we locked them in internment camps, took all their worldly possessions, and then gave them a smidgen of cash and a pat on the back when it was done.
We also apologized profusely for locking them up, because in hindsight it was a poor decision. They didn't whine because we would have killed them.
"That is the meaning of freedom isn't free. Willing to prove you deserve it with blood and sacrifice."
That's not at all what it means. Freedom means much more than that. Freedom means understanding the rights you enjoy and working to protect them. Sometimes that means violence, but not always.
Sometimes it means defending the rights of someone to say something unpopular. Only cowards are afraid of dissenting points of view.
I'm not a muslim but I would fight like hell to protect their right to speech. Same for christians. I figure if I sit back and let them take something from someone else, I'll be next on the list. Then they will come after my rights to something I like, and I won't really have a leg to stand on to argue.
If it's ok to take away his rights, why not mine?- executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Free speech is not unlimited. Take the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Dissenting opinion is one thing, it makes a republic strong, as I've heard "right wing, left wing and the bird flies". But hailing someone that attacked your country, they have a right to do that in their own country, why should we facilitate it and let it spread among our people?
- executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Free speech is not unlimited. Take the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater.
- eviltandem, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Actually we locked them in internment camps, took all their worldly possessions, and then gave them a smidgen of cash and a pat on the back when it was done.
- MrFurious2k, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Technically Leiberman is an independent / ex-democrat, not a Republican. Frankly, many elected Democrats are the modern mouthpiece of fascism by wanting to squelch debate on a variety of topics. Al Gore's repeated calls that "the debate has ended" on Global Warming is nothing more than a means to silence the opposition so that he can advance legislation he supports. Advocates of banning "hate speech" all have a home with certain elected Democrats.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by