as awful as that video may be, if it doesn't violate YouTube's TOU, then it must stay. There are a lot of reason's for the protests in the ME and though they are being directed at the US, it's not all about the US.

dictate terms of service. We all know that DU has a process - alert/jury - that will lead to removing things that violate the TOU. This does not violate freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not extend to being able to force others to propagate what you want to say.

but youtube looked at it and determined that it didn't violate their TOU and let it stand. As much as I abhor this video, I agree with youtube's decision, for better or worse.

to rewrite the terms of use - unless they don't have a problem with carrying hate speech.

I believe in freedom of speech, but I think there are things that a mainstream company like youtube should consider beyond the pale. I assume they already need to exclude things like child pornography.

hate porn...

It's up to YouTube to make it's terms of use. If they are okay with a vile video that condemns the muslim religion, then that's their call. There is a lot of crap on YT that doesn't violate their TOU but that doesn't make it any less crap and it doesn't make the 1st amendment any less important.

Might not like the so called mkvie but they have the right to make it.

Should those people be arrested too?

the video didn't call for riots. In this country, while it's a vile POS video, we do have the right to mock and ridicule religion. Hate speech is protected speech as is this video.
I am 100% against any censorship and this idiot is entitled to slander Muslims, however vile it is, precisely because of the 1st amendment.

so they must think it doesn't.

they aren't a government entity so they may censor people for whatever reason they choose.

However they should not be forced or coerced to do so by the government.

I was searching around for a video of the closed Cortland/World Trade Center station, which I saw riding in the tunnels, for a friend. I found one video which was taken of the platform end of September 2001. The poster said that it was "cleaned up", as in, the human remains had been removed. The poster also said that years before there were videos of bodies all over the platform and tracks. He said YOUTUBE removed those videos.

It seems YouTube can remove whatever they want if enough of their viewers complain. Free speech? Free speech has LIMITS, and if a service or company get enough complains from the public, they will remove it.

All hail the corporations!!!!!

As I said there are limits to free speech. There is also a matter of DECENCY in the public domain. The PUBLIC did not want to see videos of dead bodies, blood, guts, and gore. Would the families of the deceased want their loved ones pictures blasted over the Net because a "filmmaker" have to right to film it? Sure, they could film it, but there would also be the right for others to not SHOW IT. People would have SUED the media that showed them. It is much the same as the media did not show the jumpers or the First Responders picking up body parts of the dead. There are limits. The PUBLIC determines what that is. Except for a small minority, these images go beyond the domain of public decency.

The ONLY reason I searched for videos was to show a friend in another state what the structural damage of that station and tunnel was that I saw. I did not see anything else and had no desire to look for blood and guts. I knew someone who jumped from the 104th floor. I would not want to see a picture of him, or anyone else, in the media.

Free Speech has LIMITS even here in the USA. That was the point I was trying to make.

On Wednesday, the Google-owned site said the film, "Innocence of Muslims," was within the firm's guidelines and would not be taken down, though access to it was temporarily restricted in Egypt and Libya.

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

.....stupid move imo.

to see if there's an easy way to nip this in the bud.

that goes for republican and democratic whitehouses.

If you're responsible for embassies around the world you need to check all the options.

It would have been stupid if someone had pointed out "oh, by the way, it's against the youtube guidelines".

Youtube is a private business. They are under no obligation to promote anyone's material, same as here at DU, we don't have absolute freedom of speech on this site or on most other message boards.

Youtube can come to their own conclusions based on their TOS. Do you think they aren't aware?

I've worked in big companies and things have gone terribly wrong because no one asked the obvious question. They all assumed...

their ToS. The government does not need to ask them 'are you sure?"

Just to make sure that what they show is approved and only to the governments liking.

And IMO the video is de facto Al Qaeda propaganda.

but I would support youtube's right to post it.
There's a difference between supporting a message and supporting someone's right to express that message.

Sure free speech is great and all. But what if it hurts people's feelings?

Surely the right of non-Americans to never be offended trumps the right of Americans to free expression.

Maximizing personal freedoms without regard to what the rest of the world thinks is *not* what the US is about.

Mayby we need to insult all religions twenty four seven so the nuts get used to it.

well said.

You can stand on a street corner and say whatever you like but no private website is under any obligation to guarantee you freedom of speech on their site.

They shouldn't be coerced in to doing so by a government official though.

If they choose to leave it up that should be the end of it.

"Watch what you say". Don't wear the wrong t-shirt or you might be arrested etc.

But mocking religion should not be removed by a US based company if it doesn't violate their terms of use.

According to 18 USCS § 2102 "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.”

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/incite-a-riot/

(Reuters) - Google Inc rejected a request by the White House on Friday to reconsider its decision to keep online a controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East.

The Internet company said it was censoring the video in India and Indonesia after blocking it on Wednesday in Egypt and Libya, where U.S. embassies have been stormed by protestors enraged over depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as a fraud and philanderer.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in a fiery siege on the embassy in Benghazi.

Google said was further restricting the clip to comply with local law rather than as a response to political pressure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-protests-google-idUSBRE88D1MD20120914