Pages

Jump to bottom

7 comments

1 Bob Dillon  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 9:37:06pm

The Internet is a double edged sword.

2 jogiff  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 11:13:08pm

No, they should not. I hate to bring up this old platitude, but if you do this then the terrorists win. It's one thing to remove the video because it violates the rules, but if you make an exception for this video and remove it because you're scared then you're abridging freedom of speech in order to appease religious fanatics because of their violent and illegal actions. That is exactly what terrorism is about.

3 researchok  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 1:06:52am

How about self censorship?

If something offends, don't watch/read.

4 Lobengula  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 2:46:14am

Of course it should be censored. And so should every other video that offends. Makes sense, right?

5 Decatur Deb  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 3:19:29am

Youtube operates in an electronic 'nation' that has not yet developed its constitution. It has every right to present anything the market will bear, however irresponsible.

I will not have a sad if the families of our dead successfully sue their asses off. That's the market, too.

6 Curt  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 6:27:35am

re: #5 Decatur Deb

I'm sure there will be plenty of lawyers lined up to do this, but.....at the end of the day, who was it who took the lives?

The line of propaganda is the movie made them do it. Can the victims of the midnight shooting in CO be able to sure the makers of the Batman film? Can the victims familys in 9/11 sue the architects of the WTC for facilitating a symbol of American weatlh that basically calls the shots in the World's financual markets (described because that was the presented rationale of the OBL organization for picking it)?

The bigger question then: Who will be appointed to lay out international (since you indicated YouTube is that - not so, they are a business, not a government) law on what constitutes "offense?" What will be the measure? "If any one person is offened" is the standard, just know, there will be at least one person in almost 7B that will be offended over anything...nothing is unanimous, ever, on that scale, I think you'd agree.

Then what to do with The Constitution? For example, people who have been oppressed for their political view seek asylum here, in this United States, because of the 1st Amendment, so as to express their views and tell the World, in this case of political oppression. We hail them as heros...but the Chinese governemts wants them back.... Do we turn them over to be punished for their "offensive" views? Can soverign governments decide the nature of "offense?"

Will there be a recognized method of being able to register your group of like minded people, so you can have a path for organizational offense? What about legally established business? Can paint companies be offended if someone makes a video using spray paint as a cheap flame thrower? If someone does, can the burn victims sue the paint company for selling spray paint to the billions of actually responsbile, intelligent, properly educated users of said product? Yep...toss it...it may keep the "offended" from getting away with murder rationalized by "my feelings were hurt."

We regularly read the news of crime committed here: Parent beats baby for crying resulting in death for example, and the comments in such news article and in the media are mostly unamimously to "bring the killer to justice" (talk about code: "execute them!" is the real unpolite translation of the emotional responses). In this case, we'd be blaming the crying baby for their own death, and let the man walk because if hurt his feelings.

Like most crime, locally, nationally and internationally, there is more to the story when the details are combed through by the LE/Intel organizations.

Massive piots in two countries on 9/11/12...yep...had to be an obsure little clip on YouTube that did it...positively, without a doubt made them bring military tactics and RPGs to the party....and Flash mobs with hundreds of dancers just sorta...you know...happen with out more than a "hey, let's dance now, k?"

Used to be the invasion of a country's embassy/consulates was treated like attack on that nation's soil. It wasn't done to us now for the first time. Happened to Carter 79, Regan in 83 (just read a book discussing that and the response was poor, much like today, and is a reason this has become a more acceptable method of venting their hate of the US, without having to come up with a $1.5T defense department. It also, by observing our actions over a few decades (specifically since the Islamic Republic of Iran declared (an ongoing to this day) war on the US, and know their risk of massive retailation is almost completely off the table. And the "wink, wink!" methods of the Pakistaini Government prove that out in great detail....

And it's noit just the US that should stand up. Every nation who wants to be acceptable in the community of nations in this internationally interwoven world need to condemn and prevent their citizens from this behavior, for it will become an "acceptable" process with humans....it's how we are wired.

7 Curt  Sat, Sep 15, 2012 6:51:28am

re: #5 Decatur Deb

I will not have a sad if the families of our dead successfully sue their asses off. That's the market, too.

Another line of thought: Now that these "protests" are being replicated around the world, can the other victims families sue the international media for braodcasting the story to those who would otherwise not have knowledge of the events and decide to copy cat the actions in their own nation (knowing there were no straffing runs by F/A-18s or clouds of B-52s at 40K ft to indicate that America was offended by the brutal murder of a diplomatic official?

The news media, print, radio and TV are all "international" entities by the same standard as YouTube. Are they complicit in deaths, as now in Tunisia, and all future events that, in interviews of "press releases" proclaim they are acting with their brothers in arms over the movie? And who will tell the press to keep a lid on it?

When the BP spill happened, we {locally on the west coast of FL, south of the panhandle by quite a bit) were inundated with many times a day, the stories of how the spill would destroy all of our beaches, and those all the way to Cape Hatteras. Guess what: Businesses saw immediate loss of traffic/revenue. Tourism dropped to a tricikle. Guess what also: There was oil, it was cleaned up, but it never got here in any visually recognized amounts, and only a slight indication of a little bit above the norm in water samples. Months later, the same local media stood on the beaches decrying how bussinesses went under, scaled back, let employees go...but there was never any oil here...they were awesomely and freakishly at a loss of the ability to analyse their own part in helping to strangle the busineses to death , in some cases, by reporting the most unlikely case and doing it with a stright face...like get your emergency supplies before massive floating, burning oil spills come and burn your beaches down.

So: Can we sue them for being irresponsbile, or is it great those businesses and jobs were lost just on a overblown perception?

The talking heads sit around taking millions (at least the top names) while condeming those who offend someone, and will be baffled while more are killed, and, most likely, locals caught up in the moment and/or in the crossfire. Who will stand for those is a no kidding "wild, wild west" scenario? Not the press, in my observation, they will blame the maker of a crappy little YouTube clip...and YouTube for not censoring it.

BTW, I had a friend who's weight loss product video testimonial before and after slides of about 8 men and women, who were dressed, but some in swim suit like attire, much the same as scads of others on YouTube was deleted, with no ability to reclama beacuse "A member of the community found it offensive." Not copyright, not illegal use of a person's images for marketing without permission, and not over gatutious gore or actual law breaking acts, but due to "offending" of one person. Not only was it taken down for viewing, it was deleted from their account. No way to recover it (didn't have to, but for some on YouTube, that has been an issue), no way to determine if it was a competitor using YouTube to take out my friend's line....just gone. You want that world? They have it, just funny how OBL wanna be videos stay up with hundreds if not thousands of complaints.

Now, reconsider your ideas on how YouTube plays the crowd. They certainly do....

They have standards


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Yesterday
Views: 125 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 387 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1