Google lists eight reasons on its “YouTube Community Guidelines” page for why it might take down a video. Inciting riots is not among them. But after the White House warned Tuesday that a crude anti-Muslim movie trailer had sparked lethal violence in the Middle East, Google acted.
Days later, controversy over the 14-minute clip from “The Innocence of Muslims” was still roiling the Islamic world, with access blocked in Egypt, Libya, India, Indonesia and Afghanistan — keeping it from easy viewing in countries where more than a quarter of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims live.
Legal experts and civil libertarians, meanwhile, said the controversy highlighted how Internet companies, most based in the United States, have become global arbiters of free speech, weighing complex issues that traditionally are the province of courts, judges and, occasionally, international treaties.
“Notice that Google has more power over this than either the Egyptian or the U.S. government,” said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor. “Most free speech today has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with companies.”
In temporarily blocking the video in some countries, legal experts say, Google implicitly invoked the concept of “clear and present danger.” That’s a key exception to the broad First Amendment protections in the United States, where free speech is more jealously guarded than almost anywhere in the world.
The Internet has been a boon to free speech, bringing access to information that governments have long tried to suppress. Recall last spring’s freewheeling Internet chatter over Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident, as he evaded arrest in a country known for its tight control of news sources.
Google has positioned itself as an ally of such freedoms, as newspapers, book publishers and television stations long have. But because of the immediacy and global reach of Internet companies, they face particular challenges in addressing a variety of legal restrictions, cultural sensitivities and, occasionally, national security concerns.
“Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter now play this adjudicatory role on free speech,” said Andrew McLaughlin, a former top policy official at Google who later worked for the Obama White House as deputy chief technology officer.
Nazi propaganda, for example, can be found on Google.com but not Google.de, the site tailored for use in Germany, where such speech is illegal. In the United States, images of animal cruelty can be found through Google’s search algorithm — which is a key tool for legitimate researchers — but are blocked on YouTube, which the company owns but strives to give a more PG sensibility, blocking pornography, gratuitous violence and hate speech.
Despite Google’s history as a steward of appropriate content, the White House outreach on the movie clip was remarkable, longtime observers of the company say.
Upset foreign governments occasionally block YouTube entirely within their borders to stop a video from being watched, as Afghanistan has done. Sometimes governments formally ask Google to block a YouTube video, which India and Indonesia have both done with the controversial movie clip. (Google said it complies with legal, written requests by governments to block videos from being viewed in their countries.)
But for the White House to ask Google to review a video that was causing trouble in a foreign land was an unusual step — and perhaps unprecedented. McLaughlin, the former Google and White House official, could think of no similar request in the past.
Both government and Google officials said the company made its own decision after the White House raised the issue of the video on Tuesday, the day that U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
“We reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and asked them to review whether it violates their terms of use,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said on Friday.
Google said it decided to block the video in Egypt and Libya because of the “very sensitive situations there” and not because the White House requested it.
A company official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal thinking at Google, said, “Dealing with controversial content is one of the biggest challenges we face as a company.”
The decision has drawn an uneasy reaction, with some civil libertarians blasting Google for essentially censoring access for some potential viewers. For critics, the decision recalled Google’s former compliance with Chinese government restrictions on a wide variety of content — before the company moved its offices and servers to Hong Kong in 2010, beyond the reach of Chinese censorship laws.
The motives of both Google and the White House drew suspicion this week, with some saying that U.S. officials might have sought to send a political message — distancing the United States from the anti-Muslim video — by revealing their efforts to have it blocked. The officials had no legal authority to demand action, legal experts say.
“It’s a little bit of censorship and a little bit of diplomacy in a difficult situation,” said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties for the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society.
Yet the controversy has highlighted how much of the world’s information is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of powerful companies. Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain said these “corporate gatekeepers” are essential to keeping free speech robust.
He praised efforts to establish guidelines for when content is removed or blocked from some viewers. Yet he said many hard decisions will come when actual cases arise.
“Anyone who says this is a no-brainer, I’m dubious about,” Zittrain said. “Because it’s not a no-brainer, and it’s not going to go away.”
Does
bangor daily news want to track my movements? Google has no free speech. Neither do freedom hating Americans allow it. I still want the monitoring device out fo my back the Reagan administration stuck there in 1982. The legal system must be destroyed to kill freedom haters.
As a matter of thoughtful discourse, would you explain what you mean by “freedom hating Americans,” and also how the legal system works to deny freedoms. What is your definition of “freedom,” and your understanding of the First Amendment, please.
Let’s review. The First Amendment speech clause prohibits the government from infringing on our speech, not Google/YouTube. We have no right to have our videos posted on Google/YouTube that is totally up to the owner of that resource which is Google. Next time spend a little more time thinking about your headline.
Is it not that the originators wished to form a republic that was free of the suppression of dissent against this government and religious practices, in order to strengthen the new “perfect” union.
There would then be the obligation on the part of government to thwart those who would act to undermine and overthrow this ideal.
Would this not mean that anything beyond those protections, is neither governed by, nor sanctioned by, the First Amendment.
Depends what was being thwarted (speech – no) and what act was imagined to undermine and overthrow (a video – no).
Then, the video could only be removed by the government if those involved with its creation were proven to have the intention of causing retaliation against the United States. (?)
There seems little doubt about the intention of the video. Google could decide that it is sufficiently harmful to the well-being of humankind to remove it. There should, at least, be a response to the video from Google. And, from the U.S. government. (?) Who decides the definition of “well-being?”
All search engines and vehicles direct away from information otherwise found by reading original source materials — and direct experience? (The weather forcast tells me it is raining, but I stand outside in the sun).
No the government shall not remove it for any reason. Congress shall make NO law… Google can do as they wish.
The concept of “intention of causing retaliation” is way of blaming the victim – e.g. “you see, your honor, I only beat my wife because she knew what buttons she was pushing with what she said to me; she had it coming because she intended to cause me to retaliate.” The intent of criminals who attack a protected speaker is real criminal intent whereas the defense that the speaker created the intent in the criminal is, again, blaming the victim for a crime committed against her. If not, then we would rationalize away 2nd degree murder (a “crime of passion” that is not premeditated).
On this, I disagree with your argument that it is remotely related to a blaming the victim scenario. In the situation you describe, I would have to hold both parties responsible, if, indeed, the provacateur had full knowledge that a verbal assault would provoke a physical attack.
No American judge would find a battered woman guilty of “asking for it.”
I have edited my reply to you in keeping with discussion.
pretty cool head you have there…..cannot .say I like what you are defending , however your defense is flawless…..I can find no holes in your argument…..even though I am heady…but your foundation as stated is beyond reproach……management has seen fit to oppress my earlier comment towards you and so I am keeping it clean…..this time……keep writing…any woman would be lucky to have a guy as you …xoxooxoxo
you would make an excellant lawyer cause you are correct…..as much as I hate to say…..cannot rule against you……you have a way of (seeing) through the frieaking (mist) which clouds others eyes……ie..you are nobodys fool…bullshit you are not…
Would anyone expect this newspaper to allow every ad to be published in it, no matter the content – even though someone was willing to pay for it? Would anyone expect a local television station, or national network, to broadcast every ad that was offered to it? This newspaper already censors the comments to its online stories.
And yet it is expected by many – including me – that private companies that provide services that allow speech to freely flow on the internet to continue to do so no matter the content.
This article raises some difficult questions, ones that are “not going to go away,” as Jonathan Zittrain notes. So we might as well start trying to answer them.
You’re absolutely right about a private entity making their own rules in regard to the type of content they’ll allow, but our government urging Google/Youtube to review a video is a problem.
Google will harass a YouTube video maker and block a video if they ‘think it is infringing on a sound that Warner or other giant companies claim to have a copyright on, they place adds on videos in retaliation for using generic sounds the giants claim to own, like waves crashing against the shore or cords played on a guitar … all out of corporate loyalty, yet they won’t block a video known for causing peoples deaths, riots and political unrest…… no compassion. They have blood on their hands.
No, the animals that killed our ambassador and three staff workers have blood on their hands.
A video about a prophet does not “cause” violence anymore than a woman in Saudi who drives a car causes her own arrest or a woman in Afghanistan who refuses to wear the burka causes her own death. You either want our nation of laws to be like Saudi and Afghanistan or you have the cajones to say that we are not an Islamic country (though one is free to practice Islam here, he must be aware that he will find non-Islamic citizens resting implementation of sharia here, and the resistance will come in most thought-provoking ways abhorrent to sharia).
An act of protest carries with it known risks. The “nation of laws…like,” or, “cajones to say we are not,” statement is a fallacy of reasoning.
No American judge would find a battered woman guilty of “asking for it.” US law is clear – while burning a flag may rile up the passions of patriots, the patriot can’t commit crimes against the flag burner and argue that the flag burning was like yelling fire in a theatre. Flag burning could only be made unlawful by Constitutional amendment now and this hasn’t passed. A Constitutional amendment to prohibit blasphemy against a prophet would likewise be required.
This is completely off course now.
As to the subject of the article, search engines/the Internet, are so powerfully directed that information is both restrictive and restricted. But it’s more than that.
I can find information regarding the First Amendment, choose what I think is the most comprehensive and most objective, and invest time in studying and thinking about the information with which I am presented. But the degree to which I learn, to which I process and challenge what I think I am learning, is substantially limited by the absence of intelligent discourse, and instruction, and, of course, my own significant limitations, which I have thoroughly demonstrated here. (What justifies posting an opinion, a comment, and to what end?)
But also, if I am content only with the “content” to which I am directed on the Internet, and do not seek out original source material, I fail to take adequate measure of any subject, and thoughts I might adopt as having truth, are suspect. It seems I am arguing for the necessity of education in the liberal arts and humanities, and life-long opportunities for intelligent discourse and examination.
Failing all else, decisions based on common sense and acting for the common good seem a reasonable course of action.
The right of free speech does not include a right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. This video has spewed vitriol and hatred resulting in the reckless endangerment of other people’s lives. While he may say he had no such intentions, his actions have resulted in the death and injury of many people.
Our first amendment right guarantees freedom of speech should not protect him from prosecution for reckless endangerment. But if it does, just extradite him to Egypt where their laws have little regard for such niceties. Since we can easily ship otherwise law abiding Mexicans we should have no problem getting rid of this cancer.
This is not like yelling fire in theatre – this is people yelling fire in a theatre blaming the movie they are watching for making them do it. Incitement to violence means telling people to be violent; telling a story about a prophet is not telling people to be violent – the people who react violently to your story are just plain criminals. I know you want all to be nice, but hurting feelings is not a crime.
Reference to yelling “fire in a crowded theater contained here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1bfrag1_user.html#amdt1b_hd4
A 1969 ruling cited here: “And in 1969, it was said that the cases “have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”24
While I am all for freedom of speech, there are limits that reasonable people can agree on. Google is a private company as another poster has noted. I believe Google has done the right thing in this instance.
Google has done right because of its private property rights, having nothing to do with the 1st amendment. With that said, the limits to the 1st Amendment come through the SCOTUS or by Constitutional amendment, not by what some mob thinks is “reasonable.” The 1st amendment protects the most unpopular artists, speakers, nonconformists, and dissenters from mob rule.
“We reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and asked them to review whether it violates their terms of use,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said on Friday.”
“Reached out?” U.S. government must evaluate and come to consensus as to whether the video has, in fact, incited violence that threatens the welfare of the Republic, then either direct Google/YouTube to remove the video, or not. The statement reads as though the National Security Council is abdicating U.S. responsibility for assessing potential and/or real harm, and the use of “reached out,” makes it sound as though it is Google’s opinion and law is so strong as to portray U.S. law and government as needing to plead for cooperation as one might reach out to a neighbor whose dogs are running out of control. — I take that back. Under those circumstances, the neighbor would, most likely, offer the defense that the dogs are not out of control at all, but acting as dogs do. “Reaching out,” to this neighbor, if the dogs, by public reason, are, in fact, out of control, would result in being bitten.
Freedom of speech, but also no cruel and unusual punishment. We have free speech until it becomes cruel and unusual.
I have always said that businesses are like little governments within the United States since reading a book on businesses that compared businesses to monarchies in how they run.
A question to think about–who profits from this mess? (No prophets…)
Egyptian Christians? Hardly, they are likely to suffer, be kicked out, at worst murdered. They have not done well there in the last number of years, even before the downfall of Mubarak.
I have read–and of course, have no way to confirm–that this video has many signs of the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. The CIA calls this kind of stuff “psy-ops,” as in psychological operations. It was done to us in the US most notably and recently with the run-up to Iraqi war: “BEWARE: Saddam has—WMD, uranium, chemical warfare, etc. etc.” None of that was found, but by then we had invaded, hundreds of thousands dead and injured, Americans, British, and esp. the Iraqis.
The reaction to this film is guaranteed, given the climate in many Middle East countries. Arabic and Islamic nations suffer the results of the rioting. Some Americans are harmed and killed, property destroyed. The relationships of the US and these countries are compromised.
Most importantly, what is the effect this may have on the US elections? Pushes the sitting president into either a defensive position, which will seem weak, or an imprudent offensive one, which can be seen as overreaction. The opponent can use it either way–Damned if he does, Damned if he doesn’t. (I support neither major candidate, BTW.)
The US has interfered in the elections of other countries for over a century. (Dominican Republic, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Grenada, Jamaica, Viet Nam, Philippines, Pakistan, the list is long…) Now it is being done to us. Payback, how does that feel?
ROMNEY / RYAN 2012 !!!
and so richard bunce let me take you to dinner….very impressed