|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2007 : 08:33:41 [Permalink]
|
I read about this on SlashDot...
They pulled his videos after people complained about one talking about Islam, and he supposedly refused to play ball. Oddly enough, his videos about Chrisitanity did not generate any complaints.
Talking negatively about Islam is not PC, but talking negatively about Christianity is okay apparently. (For the record, I think you be able to talk negatively about any religion, cult, etc.)
YouTube is a private business and can allow/deny anything they want.
Is this really censorship? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 08:48:01 [Permalink]
|
pleco wrote:quote:
YouTube is a private business and can allow/deny anything they want.
Is this really censorship?
Since when does it have to be a public or government agent doing the deleting of publications/correspondences/art for it to be "censorship"?
I'm not sure why you would respond in this manner. Neither I nor Nick Gisburne suggested that the deletion of his account was unlawful, only that it was unfair, and from him there was an appeal to sympathetic viewers to write to YouTube and ask that they restore his account. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2007 : 09:54:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Since when does it have to be a public or government agent doing the deleting of publications/correspondences/art for it to be "censorship"?
I'm not sure why you would respond in this manner. Neither I nor Nick Gisburne suggested that the deletion of his account was unlawful, only that it was unfair, and from him there was an appeal to sympathetic viewers to write to YouTube and ask that they restore his account.
I apologize, I should have made myself a bit clearer.
Yes, I agree it was definitely unfair. If enough people are upset by the action of any corporation, then you do what you can - sign up and voice your opinion, or quit using the site altogether so they do not recieve ad revenue (which is what I will do.)
I was looking at a broader topic...
Would the outcry be as great if (when) youtube starts pulling radical islam videos that have started to pop up? Is this unfair also? I'm not trying to equivacate Gisburne's video content with fundy Islam hatred, but some might.
Perhaps YouTube should not allow any religious videos at all, since most people have a thin-skin about them? I would say no of course, but a corporation with an eye toward ad revenue might think about it...
The other side of the coin is that a corporation may welcome any controversy in order to attract page hits. Could they try to create controversy intentionally? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 02:21:22 [Permalink]
|
Maybe Youtube is as intimidated as the press was when they copped out and said the Danish cartoons of Mohamad were disrespectful so they wouldn't show them? That was a pretty inconsistent reaction. On the one hand no one wanted to see more riots, but on the other hand, the cartoons were free speech, a more important issue to me even if the cartoons being shown was a more important issue to the rioters being stirred up by the Imams clearly taking advantage of the situation for their own gains.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 18:42:03 [Permalink]
|
pleco wrote: quote:
Would the outcry be as great if (when) youtube starts pulling radical islam videos that have started to pop up? Is this unfair also? I'm not trying to equivacate Gisburne's video content with fundy Islam hatred, but some might.
Personally I'd draw the line at speech which is likely to incite violence, such as a video of someone urging viewers to kill a certain person or group of people. That's where US law supposedly draws the line, and I think it is a good place to the draw the line in general. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 13:50:42 [Permalink]
|
They are a private company, they can censor whatever they want, allow or disallow any content, and so on.
This is in no way a freedom of speech issue, unless YouTube is somehow connected to a government agency...
If, for example, somebody here went off the deep end and had their posts deleted and account banned... it would not be a freedom of speech issue. Same for YouTube on this issue. Private site, arbitrary rules that are subject to change at the whim of the site owner, etc.
Is it unfair, and possibly discriminatory? Maybe.
(spelling edit) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 02/15/2007 13:52:52 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 15:52:07 [Permalink]
|
The video linked to in the opening post has now been taken down, "due to terms of use violation."
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
They are a private company, they can censor whatever they want, allow or disallow any content, and so on.
This is in no way a freedom of speech issue, unless YouTube is somehow connected to a government agency...
If, for example, somebody here went off the deep end and had their posts deleted and account banned... it would not be a freedom of speech issue. Same for YouTube on this issue. Private site, arbitrary rules that are subject to change at the whim of the site owner, etc.
Is it unfair, and possibly discriminatory? Maybe.
(spelling edit)
Dude, why did you post this? What made you think that someone was arguing free speech? I'm not trying to insult or anything along those lines, but I seriously can't figure out why you and those who responded on YouTube started talking about freedom of speech.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 15:30:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
pleco wrote: quote:
Would the outcry be as great if (when) youtube starts pulling radical islam videos that have started to pop up? Is this unfair also? I'm not trying to equivacate Gisburne's video content with fundy Islam hatred, but some might.
Personally I'd draw the line at speech which is likely to incite violence, such as a video of someone urging viewers to kill a certain person or group of people. That's where US law supposedly draws the line, and I think it is a good place to the draw the line in general.
There is a great difference between hurtful speech that may incite the hurt to react violently and actively trying to incite and incourage violent acts or reactions.
I should be able to say "Allah is an evil bastard god." I should even be allowed to say "Someone should kill all Islamists." But I should not be able to stand on the street or use video to recruit people to kill Islamist or anyone else. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 16:31:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
I should be able to say "Allah is an evil bastard god." I should even be allowed to say "Someone should kill all Islamists." But I should not be able to stand on the street or use video to recruit people to kill Islamist or anyone else.
In principle I agree. However, where you're standing at the time, and who's potentially listening will have some impact on how much simply saying it is recruiting, albeit implicit.
Remember, it isn't always dark gray and light gray.
 |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
