comScore
Uncategorized Monday, September 17th 2012 at 2:35 pm

YouTube Denies White House Request to Remove Clip Behind Libyan Protests

By ( ) Comments

YouTube walks a fine line between hate speech and protected speech. The problem exists in determining between what constitutes unpopular speech and what’s outright hatred. The clip that ostensibly caused the protests in Libya that resulted in attack on the United States consulate is one of these items. After a request from the White House to review whether the video violated YouTube’s terms of use, the video giant refused to take it down.

They issued a statement this past Friday saying that the clip is absolutely within the company’s guidelines and will remain on YouTube. The short film, titled “Innocence of Muslims,” is what supposedly instigated the violent outbursts in the first place. YouTube, for their part, has censored the clip in Libya and Egypt, due to the attacks, and removed it from India and Indonesia as it violates their laws.

YouTube’s statement, courtesy of Phys.Org, is pretty clear on the matter:

We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions,” the YouTube statement said. “This can be a challenge because what’s OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere. This video—which is widely available on the Web—is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, we’ve restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indonesia as well as in Libya and Egypt, given the very sensitive situations in these two countries. This approach is entirely consistent with principles we first laid out in 2007.

For now, the clip remains, but it wouldn’t be surprising to see YouTube revisit this decision in the near future.

(via Phys.Org, image via Scott Beale)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under | • • • •
  • Nordanen

    Wouldn’t it be more effective to send a take-down request due to alleged copyright violations? Seems to work on virtually everything else.

  • http://www.facebook.com/SeijinDinger Tom Allmendinger

    if the claim is false then the person issuing it can face federal perjury charges

  • Stephen Streeter

    How does a Request to review, because Request to Remove?

  • Jack Bond

    I’m sorry, but I don’t remember hate speech being banned in US law. Moreover, even if there is such a law, it’s not legal because the bill of rights overrides that. Our freedom of speech means we can make people feel bad or angry if we want to, and we deal with the consequences.

  • Bill oh right

    I think it’s only speech that could incite a riot. Like yelling fire in a movie, or bomb in a plane.
    Not sure about the actual law. But I think that’s the only type of speech that is censored/limited.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-E-Screws-Jr/5200506 Bruce E. Screws Jr.

    I think that it is scary the government would make such a “request.” Anyone but a major corporate like Google would probably give in for fear of retribution. The first amendment is pretty clear that they cannot legally force them to take it down, so they must resort to more nefarious means There need not even be a law passed. Just the threat from the administration of some department issuing regulations to punish them would have the result. I think it is great that Google is standing by their decision.