The White House will obviously argue that it’s not asking YouTube to censor the anti-Islam video per say, but simply asking it to review its policies and see if the video can be construed as a terms of use violation. But that’s a distinction without a difference. “Hey, can you remove this video?” is pretty much undistinguishable from “Hey, can you remove this video as a violation of your terms of services?” — after all, it’s not like the White House can force YouTube to pull the film, and whatever the website does is its own prerogative:
The White House has asked YouTube to review an anti-Muslim film posted to the site that has been blamed for igniting the violent protests this week in the Middle East.
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House has “reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use.”
WaPo reports that YouTube already said the video didn’t violate its terms of services on Wednesday, but it has restricted access to the film in Libya and Egypt.
The spokesperson added, however, that the site restricted access in Libya and Egypt because of the unrest. “We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions. This can be a challenge because what’s OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere,” the spokesperson said.
Earlier today, White House spokesman Jay Carney reiterated that the administration found the video “offensive and reprehensible and disgusting,” but added, “we cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.” When a reporter asked whether the White House ever asked YouTube to remove the video, he said that he wasn’t sure and punted on the question.
If the White House believes the video is “freedom of expression” that it “cannot and will not squelch,” then why is it asking YouTube to see if it can remove the film from its website?
This is a result of the dangerous precedent the Obama administration has set. Last year, administration officials personally petitioned a fringe pastor in Florida not to carry out a Koran burning they said would endanger our troops. There was a small public outcry, but not much — probably because many Americans are instinctively uncomfortable with book-burnings, even if they are protected expression.
But now the administration’s efforts to suppress free speech have spread to a YouTube video. A video that is admittedly moronic and offensive, but certainly no more so than thousands of other clips on the website.
Where does this lead? The list of things that offend radical Islamists is long. What happens next time fanatics riot and murder innocents over a film or a picture or a book? Is the White House going to make it a policy to condemn any mockery of Islam that radical clerics exploit to gin up outrage across the Muslim world?
By trying to get the video pulled, the White House isn’t just acknowledging that the film is offensive. It’s taking the posture that the film is illegitimate expression because it offends — and that violent rioting is a logical response to simply viewing the film. That U.S. policy has the potential to become a dangerous tool in the hands of Islamists.
This is the path that this administration is taking us on……Now, can you see why Romney was so right in his comments Monday night? But, of course, the lame main street media will blindly follow the Administration's example…..America, you are seeing the abrogation of your rights in front of your own eyes!
Waitaminute, weren't all the liberals and their press minions getting on Romney for defending free speech, claiming that there's no way, no way at all our brave leader would try to restrict speech?
This sets a very dangerous precedent and it is a first step down the slippery solpe of goverment censorship.
This ain't free speech;this is incitement to riot,a felony in every country,and it's been deadly. Free speech doesn't cover the ability to send our trash over the internet to our enemies.
I am sure King George felt the same way about the Federlist Papers . You can take comfort, in that, King Obama, shares your views on free speech.
Um: The "Federalist Papers" were written years after we won our independence. King George probably had no opinion on them. n n
Maybe you believe that Manbla should have access under free speech to the children of Libya.
Look, this video was a PRETEXT for planned violence. If the Muslims had not found this silly video, they would had claimed the works of Dr Suess to be an affront to their Prophet
Maybe,but the INTENT of the video was to incite violence,and that makes its dissemination a felony in all nations.
Repeating an ignorant opinion does not make it any less ignorant. You cannot cite a single SCOTUS opinion that supports the nonsense you just posted. (Although if Obama gets a second term and can appoint more justices, all bets are off.)
Then Arab madrassas in the United States have to be shut down immediately, as their religious doctrine systematically inculcates the violent suppression of those outside the umma. And, actually, nations such as France ban public manifestations of Islam, under the logic that if they permit it, then everything else the French hold dear will eventually be banned by religious fanaticism.
Actually, rexford, as many have told you before, free speech DOES mean the ability to say stuff on the internet that gets our enemies angry. incitement means telling our enemies that they should riot; it does not mean making fun of them or their religion. It is clear that you are not a lawyer and do not have the slightest idea of what the terms you like to throw around actually mean. n nBefore you embarrass yourself by pronouncing legal opinions that are no more than your own ignorant prejudices, try getting at least some familiarity with US law. It's been more than 32 years since my law school course in Constitutional Law, but our constitution still does not recognize the right of heckler's veto. Didn't they cover this stuff in your high school civics class?
These are International law issues,not US law.
Are you out of your mind?
Thanks for simultaneously showing that you have no regard for the 1st ammendment, free speech or national soveriegnty in the same short sentence. n nYou realize that the 1st ammendment is not something to defend or support out of some legalistic approach to the matter of individual rights? The first ammendment is an eternal truth made manifest into the law but would exist even if the constitution and America never existed. Every person has the right to say what they like, blapheme or worship as they like and no government has the moral authority to take that away. n nSo, even if we threw out the constitution or decided to let the U.N. control our justice system it might be legal but it would be wrong. The fact that your sense of jurisprudence is also flawed is just icing on your stupid cake. n nI am amazed that so many of the people who decried Bush's supposed disrespect for the constituion are lining up like this. Well, the anti-war movement dissapeared right after the 2008 election so it should come as no surprise that these people have no actual enduring values or beliefs beyond factionalism.
Thimk,International Law,not US Law.
Think Islamic theocratic dictatorship. Don't kid yourself. Islam does not forbid incitement to riot and murder against unbelievers. It forbids defamation of the eternal truth of the Prophet and his successors. And it won't work. Eventually they will come for you and yours and shut your life down into a tiny box.
rexford, although you typed 'thimk', I believe the word you are looking for is 'think'. You should try it some time.
The Thimk was deliberate;it was a big joke from Mad Magazine,long long ago.
What a fool you are. You can't make free speech dependent on the actions of mobs. You'd have been apologizing for the Nazis too. You make me sick. Go to Egypt, etc. and grovel to those savages, see where it gets you.
So Rexford246, are you ready to toss Bill Maher in jail? Yep, the Bill Maher who donated a million dollars to the Obama campaign and is a uber-leftist favorite made a film (bashing Christanity) that spent its last 20 minutes bashing Islam. n nAnd while we are at it, why don't we toss Rexford2446 in jail because he is making me angry, his asinine (and quite incorrect) interpretation of law is inciting *me* to riot. And by his interpretation of the law "that is a felony" for which he should go to jail. n nThe United States is a sovereign country, that means that US law is the ONLY law that applies to US citizens, and the 1st Amendment supersedes all laws. n nThere actually was a legitimate case made against the Nuremberg Trials and this is it — the Nazis were operating under German law and Germany was a sovereign country at the time, and thus the supremacy of American law and the protection it gives Americans would be jeopardized. It wasn't executing the Nazis that was problematic as much as the trials, arguably they should just have been executed but in the chaos of postwar Germany we wanted to execute the right people and not just anyone who was German. n nNotwithstanding that, except when I am on the high seas, I am not bound by International law and don't intend to be. I am an American — that used to mean something.
Wrong
I don't understand why this sounds odd. Go to any far left blog and they're the most heavily moderated out there. Differ with their party line and you'll be banned forever.
The last I heard U.S. citizens are subject to U.S. Law for actions taken on U.S. soil. Has Obama gotten that changed yet
I find the video amusing, camp, and largely accurate…
agree with the "camp', but a nine year old with a Mac could produce an animated version that was at least amusing. nI thought the "dhimmi or die" issue came through very well. n nStill curious as to the real source. Maybe whoever bash-edited Rick Perry's NH Cornerstone speech is in this loop. That edit was on Youtube almost 48 hours before the full speech was available. n nNow, if only the Obama administration had spent as much effort on supplying new maps and textbooks in lieu of cash to the PalAuth, I might believe they really care about the definition of "hate speech"
I am not an attorney, but in my opinion, this is really close to a 42 USC 1983 "violation of civil rights under color of law" and is quite similar to one of the things that Nixon would have been impeached for had he not had the honor to resign. Furthermore this is incredibly clumsy, if you are making threats like this you do it privately, not publicly. And yes, this was a threat. n nAn example: A uniformed police officer, motorcycle helmet under his arm, walks into Ms. Goodman's office some afternoon and says "Alana Goodman, Driver's License Number _______, you drive a [color/make/model] of car and your license plate number is ______, isn't it?" n"I don't know if you recognize me, but I am the officer on the bike that you go by every morning, and sometimes you appear to be going a little fast, and sometimes you look like you might have rolled through that red light instead of coming to a full stop first, it's all a judgment call you know…." n n"Now I'm trying to help my little girl sell her Girl Scout cookies and I'm thinking that you might like to buy some — they are a lot cheaper than traffic tickets you know." n nNow that is clear extortion — Ms. Goodman has a civil right to her own money and the officer is de-facto taking it "under color of law" — using his authority as a police officer. The same thing is true with graft and the rest. n nIt is the same thing that Boston Mayor Menino said about the ChicFilA restaurant and how he wasn't going to give them permits because of their stand on gay marriage. And that was more of a threat to the building owner/property management company than anything else. n nSo too here. The White House is making it quite clear that Google is going to want their support on something in the future and they had best not upset them now. This is worse than outright censorship, it is levered censorship where our rights of free expression are subject to a corporation's fear of offending the government. n nIt is one thing for the White House to try to pressure me not to express myself, but to make an end run around me to deny me a podium — that is chilling….
Embassies all over the world are on fire. Obama's only response is to desperately dial up the Blame Romney to 11 and censor what is clearly not even the reason for any of this. n nIt's 3AM the phone has rung and Obama is a terrified little kid.
Empress Trudy, I am not sure that Obama is bright enough to even be terrified yet. n
The only thing that terrorizes him is losing an election.
Rush Limbaugh had an interesting point today — if he looses, will he leave?
This is of course not a BIG lie, but a HUGH GIGANTIC LIE meant to distract from the fact that this diseased Obama government is disastrously incompetent. This should be the end of this government of lies. Blaming this film for his stupid failures is like spitting on those poor fools who were murdered. And that goes for those rotten to the core comments in this column.