Google keeps film up.

[Robby999 1,024]

Looks like the White House's attempt to appease the terrorists failed!

Google will not remove the YouTube video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa, the company announced Friday.

The decision comes following a White House request for the trailer for 'Innocence of Muslims' to be reviewed under the company's policies.

The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.

"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

The company determined that the video was within guidelines.

"However, we've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indoesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situation sin these two countries," a spokeswoman said.

The trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" has been used as a rallying cry by those attacking U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Several top lawmakers, though, have questioned whether the film -- in the case of the deadly attack on the consulate in Libya -- was used as a cover to execute a pre-planned attack on American officials.

Critics have accused the Obama administration of putting too much focus on the film itself, and faulted the administration for continuing to condemn it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony Friday marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed, again described that video as "senseless" and "unacceptable." But she also called on leaders in those countries to stop the violence.

"The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts," she said.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that federal probation officials are investigating the California filmmaker linked to the video. He had previously been convicted of financial crimes.

Fox News' Wendell Goler contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz26VBuQXUX

[Dakine10 5,452]

Looks like the White House's attempt to appease the terrorists failed!

Google will not remove the YouTube video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa, the company announced Friday.

The decision comes following a White House request for the trailer for 'Innocence of Muslims' to be reviewed under the company's policies.

The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.

"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

The company determined that the video was within guidelines.

"However, we've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indoesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situation sin these two countries," a spokeswoman said.

The trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" has been used as a rallying cry by those attacking U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Several top lawmakers, though, have questioned whether the film -- in the case of the deadly attack on the consulate in Libya -- was used as a cover to execute a pre-planned attack on American officials.

Critics have accused the Obama administration of putting too much focus on the film itself, and faulted the administration for continuing to condemn it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony Friday marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed, again described that video as "senseless" and "unacceptable." But she also called on leaders in those countries to stop the violence.

"The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts," she said.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that federal probation officials are investigating the California filmmaker linked to the video. He had previously been convicted of financial crimes.

Fox News' Wendell Goler contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz26VBuQXUX

Asking google to check if the film meets their standards equates to "appeasing the terrorists"? What a fair and balanced outlook you have.

Seriously, that kind of stretch explains why you're always bent out of shape about everything.

[Confused 2 94]

Good decision. Its not the movie's fault that the brain-dead need a reason to resort to violence any moment in their sorry lives. I would love to watch this movie now and have a few good laughs too!!

[Robby999 1,024]

Asking google to check if the film meets their standards equates to "appeasing the terrorists"? What a fair and balanced outlook you have.

Seriously, that kind of stretch explains why you're always bent out of shape about everything.

Since when did the White House care about Google's posting policies? You are right though, I should added " please review this film to make sure it meets your incredibly high posting standards" HINT, HINT"! That would certainly make the request seem more legit then! I guess he could just tell them to pull the video, but then it would appear he was trying to appease the terrorist. Tough call either way!

[Dakine10 5,452]

Since when did the White House care about Google's posting policies? You are right though, I should added " please review this film to make sure it meets your incredibly high posting standards" HINT, HINT"! That would certainly make the request seem more legit then! I guess he could just tell them to pull the video, but then it would appear he was trying to appease the terrorist. Tough call either way!

They would generally get involved with something that could present a threat to military personnel or civilians overseas. I have no problem with the White House taking a stronger approach with google if they determine that the video is going to put more Americans at risk. Nothing I have seen suggests they are trying to appease terrorists.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

They would generally get involved with something that could present a threat to military personnel or civilians overseas. I have no problem with the White House taking a stronger approach with google if they determine that the video is going to put more Americans at risk. Nothing I have seen suggests they are trying to appease terrorists.

So you advocate government censorship ?

[Dakine10 5,452]

So you advocate government censorship ?

I have no problem with the White House taking a stronger approach with google if they determine that the video is going to put more Americans at risk.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

From a longer article which takes a very close look at whether the rights to "free speech" are equally guaranteed to all, but in particular:

The Reality Behind the “Free Speech” Argument

America and the Muslims

One of the limitations in the United States constitutional law to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment is the “fighting words” doctrine. In a 1942 famous Supreme Court case, the unanimous ruling held that “insulting or fighting words, are those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Applying such a principle can easily lead to the balance needed between the inviolability of the principle of freedom of speech and the narrow exception where such speech results in a serious massive injury that would rupture harmony and peace within communities, cultures, and countries.

...

Western governments and civil society institutions assert that freedom of speech, expression, and association is the bedrock of maintaining their democratic character. Whenever someone deliberately sets out to inflame the sensitivities of Muslims toward their prophet or holy book, freedom of speech is invoked in order to defend the cause of the uproar and dismiss its effects as an irrational response. Granted though that under no circumstance should violence be an acceptable answer to any attack no mater how wicked or appalling.

But on a more basic level, does the West really believe in free speech or does it apply a double standard when it comes to Muslim sensibilities? Let’s check the record.

In the private sector, when Google was asked to remove the highly inflammatory YouTube video, it immediately and correctly cited its long established policy of supporting freedom of speech, including all despised speech (though it reluctantly agreed to suspend it in Egypt and Libya.) But as the Jewish Press reported on August 1, Google had no problem removing 1,710 videos and closing their affiliated accounts because “A substantial number of those videos concerned Holocaust denial and defense of Holocaust deniers.” According to the newspaper report, Google “closed the user’s account within 24 hours” of receiving the complaint by a group that monitors anti-Semitism in Australia.

...

In many criminal prosecutions since 9/11 Muslims have been convicted and sentenced to as much as life in prison for expressing their political opinions, giving fatwas (religious opinions), feeding children, providing educational materials, translating documents, uploading videos on websites, or singing in a band.

...

American officials, public intellectuals, and opinion makers revel in invoking the first amendment as an inviolable principle when Islam or its sacred symbols are attacked, and then find rationalizations and loopholes when American Muslims engage in objectionable free speech activities. However, this double standard is not lost on the majority of people in the Muslim world and across the globe.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/14/america-and-the-muslims/

[Danno 1,228]

I have no problem with the White House taking a stronger approach with google if they determine that the video is going to put more Americans at risk.

So if group "A" wants a certain video down, the best course of action is to present an climate of danger?

If you were on Googles censor board, exactly how would you write up these new TOS?

Perhaps Utube should incorporate an new metric next to the "thumbs up, thumbs down" rating system..... Sure, this one would be "threat-level" before a movie is removed.

This way various groups know how close they are to getting a movie they don't like removed.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So if group "A" wants a certain video down, the best course of action is to present an climate of danger?

If you were on Googles censor board, exactly how would you write up these new TOS?

Perhaps Utube should incorporate an new metric next to the "thumbs up, thumbs down" rating system..... Sure, this one would be "threat-level" before a movie is removed.

This way various groups know how close they are to getting a movie they don't like removed.

I am amazed that in this country we are even having this conversation. Have we lost our mind ? To me the very idea that we would even contemplate removing a Movie, because it might offend Muslims and that might incite violence is clear signal that that Terrorism is winning. So Islam is a Religion of Love, Peace and Tolerance ? They very people that are arguing that statement to be true are the same ones that are advocating censorship of the Movie, because criticism of Islam might incite members of it's own relgion to go on murderous rampages.

The Logic of that is mind blowing !

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I am amazed that in this country we are even having this conversation. Have we lost our mind ? To me the very idea that we would even contemplate removing a Movie, because it might offend Muslims and that might incite violence is clear signal that that Terrorism is winning. So Islam is a Religion of Love, Peace and Tolerance ? They very people that are arguing that statement to be true are the same ones that are advocating censorship of the Movie, because criticism of Islam might incite members of it's own relgion to go on murderous rampages.

The Logic of that is mind blowing !

What part of "fighting words" or "unequal application of the right of 'free speech'" didn't you understand ? Do you have any response to those points at all ?

[Danno 1,228]

From a longer article which takes a very close look at whether the rights to "free speech" are equally guaranteed to all, but in particular:

I often appreciate your posts WOM as you add an angle or POV no one else has.

IN the broader sense, isn't this one of the weaknesses of societies which trend toward the radically diverse? We can't even agree what is a base line of offense?

I mean within the same town you could have one group which views a sketch of Muhammad as "fighting words" and on the other side of town, an "award winning" Photo of a Crucifix displayed in a jar of urine... in a "public art gallery". (Sponsored by tax-payer money)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

The "fighting words" doctrine (which has been scaled way back) it would seem was predicated upon a typical society, one with fairly uniform or universal community standards..... we departed from that model 40 years ago.

Also, the spirit (and further defining) of the "fighting words" principle would not cover me searching Utube to find a video that offends me , the insult has to have or be a direct and personal..... such as me saying something directly to you... not to the Muslim world at large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I often appreciate your posts WOM as you add an angle or POV no one else has.

IN the broader sense, isn't this one of the weaknesses of societies which trend toward the radically diverse? We can't even agree what is a base line of offense?

I mean within the same town you could have one group which views a sketch of Muhammad as "fighting words" and on the other side of town, an "award winning" Photo of a Crucifix displayed in a jar of urine... in a "public art gallery". (Sponsored by tax-payer money)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

The "fighting words" doctrine (which has been scaled way back) it would seem was predicated upon a typical society, one with fairly uniform or universal community standards..... we departed from that model 40 years ago.

Also, the spirit (and further defining) of the "fighting words" principle would not cover me searching Utube to find a video that offends me , the insult has to have or be a direct and personal..... such as me saying something directly to you... not to the Muslim world at large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

It seems to depend on the level of political influence the aggrieved party has access to.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

From a longer article which takes a very close look at whether the rights to "free speech" are equally guaranteed to all, but in particular:

So you think the movie should be blocked by Google because members of the Religion of Love, Peace and Tolerance will go on a murderous rampage if some one makes fun of them... Uhh ..come on really ?

That is the same logic Christian wing nuts use to defend abotion clinic bombings. In their opinion it's murder and murder is wrong so they blow up a building.

[Danno 1,228]

I am amazed that in this country we are even having this conversation. Have we lost our mind ? To me the very idea that we would even contemplate removing a Movie, because it might offend Muslims and that might incite violence is clear signal that that Terrorism is winning. So Islam is a Religion of Love, Peace and Tolerance ? They very people that are arguing that statement to be true are the same ones that are advocating censorship of the Movie, because criticism of Islam might incite members of it's own relgion to go on murderous rampages.

The Logic of that is mind blowing !

BUt WOM did give one prime example of how when it comes to offending Jews and safeguarding the Holocaust , Utube has done this very thing and apparently with less to work with.

I may check later to see if there are any denier type vids up.