The Obama Administration has formally asked YouTube “to review” the anti-Muslim film “Innocence of Muslims.” In a perfectly incoherent position, White House press secretary Jay Carney stressed that the White House was not asking for it to be removed . . . only “reviewed.” I have been discussing this controversy on NPR and CNN. The latest White House move appears to be an effort to get YouTube to remove the video without taking responsibility for expressly asking for the removal. For civil libertarians, the announcement leaves an uneasy — and all-too-familiar — feeling with this Administration. The White House has repeated compromised on civil liberties in favor of political advantage in areas like torture, immunity, and surveillance policies.
Carney announced that “The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use.” Despite asking for such a review, Carney insisted “We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.”
We have seen this type of double talk before — in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon violence. The Administration has joined Muslim allies in trying to develop what has been called an “international blasphemy” standard. (For prior columns, click here and here). The West has steadily yielded to the demands of religious groups that free speech must be curtailed in the name of faith. At the same time, Western governmental and religious leaders have denounced agnostics and atheists as one of the greatest threats facing the West (here and here and here and here). President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been facilitating this trend by working with Muslim nations to develop an international standard allowing for the prosecution of those who insult religion. The Administration has drawn a dangerous line with Muslim countries in first supporting the concept of an international blasphemy standard. As I have mentioned before, the efforts of the Obama Administration to work with these countries on an international blasphemy standard is a threat to free speech around the world. After first supporting an international blasphemy standard, the Administration sought to get Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries to adopt the Brandenburg standard as the basis for such prosecutions. This case also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence. Past cases show that even the suggestion of blasphemy is enough to trigger violent riots in some Muslim nations. Because any joke or image of the Prophet can trigger violence, the standard is immediately satisfied in countries like Egypt and Pakistan, which can then claim some legal legitimacy under the standard created with the United States.
YouTube should resist such efforts to withdraw the video in my view. Today in an exchange with Howard Kurtz on CNN is disagreed with his view that the video should be at least withdrawn from the sites on other countries. This suggests that free speech is an American value. Civil libertarians believe it is a basis human right. YouTube does not produce cars or widgets. It supplies a unique forum for a global dialogue. While it clearly has the right to remove material from its site, such an act (even with the obvious encouragement of the White House) would be an act of private censorship. If this video is removed, then why not any video that is deemed insulting to a given religious or religious figure. These deaths were not caused be any film. They were caused by religious extremism. It is not a question of whether the film is “worth” these lives. It isn’t. Free speech is.
The request from the White House reflects the same dishonest approach of some of our closest allies who refused to punish the Danish cartoonists while then quietly cracking down on anti-religious speech. The correct and only answer is that he filmmaker has a right to express his views of Muhammad and Islam. Muslims have a right to respond in kind. However, we cannot allow murderous mobs to turn this into a debate over free speech. These mobs are in countries that have long killed and arrested those who speak out against their beliefs. We cannot yield to such demands.
Source: Politico
The thing about it is that concurrently, at the same time, the Mars Rover Opportunity discovered strange objects that scientists do not understand.
It is like answers to law exam questions …
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-290&cid=release_2012-290
“Just keep em outta my theatre”
That’s what the ocean is for.
What if I am in a crowded theatre and there is a time bomb in the aisle and I look down and it is ticking down to ten seconds before lift off. Do I quietly say, leave now in good order or do I yell FIRE! ? There is a fire in the theatre of the world and it is called Islam. But, you all knew that already and are not owning up to it. Now there are good Nazis and bad Nazis, good Communists and bad Communists. Just keep em outta my theatre. All of em.
But, getting back to the notion of uTube and some anti Christian films, and anti Jewish films– can someone get on it? I dont have a camera.
“legitimize a religious/political world view that resorts to spontaneous as well as planned and formalized violence and murder to impose a delusional ideology on entire nations? I don’t think so.”
We’re talking stuff like invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan here right?
.
“a religious/political world view that ..” GOP? – as an extreme form of DEMs.
.
Western civilisation (bringing-you-the-best-of-delusional)
Abduction to secret CIA prisons for torture. Renditions for torture. But-we-were-only-following-orders-so-it’s-OK. GITMO
Indefinite imprisonment without trial (by the military – even of US citizens – but-relax-Obama-says-he-won’t-do-it-but-he can’t-speak-for-the-next-guy-or-anyone-who-follows)
Seventeen and a half years for translating a document.
Drone strikes that take out funerals on the basis that there might be somebody nasty attending and-sorry-about-the-kids-that’s-just-colatteral.
Groping autistic kids in airports. Dragging autistic kids out of schools in handcuffs.
Bonkers stark staring mad police actions complete with cover-ups. The kind of stuff that graces this blog and others.
.
Yes. There is a fire. But it’s not over there.
Why do people insist on leaving out the most important part of Holmes’ reasoning: you cannot FALSELY shout fire in the theater. Read the actual case law if you’re going to quote it. (Schenck v. US.) And the fact that a bunch of people have decided to murder numerous folks and storm embassies in response to someone making fun of their religion tells me that there is a fire. We get to yell all we want.
TL;DR: Know the law before you cite it.
Not good! I understand that the administration is trying to make a swift attempt at ensuring “justice is served” as they’ve promised, but this may not be the best option. Regardless of how we feel or whether or not we agree with a particular view, we can’t let even a small ounce of censorship disguised as an investigation, slide. Not good.
This is not even close to the “yelling fire in a crowded theatre.” When in the hell are the alleged smart people in this world going to realize that there is a dedicated group of people who hate us and want to detstroy western civilization. If you wanted to know what Hitler was going to do all that was required was to read Mein Kamp. If you want to know what these crazy people are going to do just listen to their words, they want a pure Muslim world just like Hitler wanted a pure Aryan world. Why the hell aren’t there any riots by Muslims in this country? The answer..they’re not crazy.
First video evidence of Mali amputations
By Agence France-Presse
Friday, September 14, 2012 14:55 EDT
BAMAKO — The first video evidence of amputations carried out by Islamic extremists occupying northern Mali was on Friday obtained by AFP.
[Under Sharia Law for theft- right hand, left foot]
Srsly, the West should placate this extremism? We should modify – at the President’s thinly veiled request no less – our rights (such as are left) further to mollify and legitimize a religious/political world view that resorts to spontaneous as well as planned and formalized violence and murder to impose a delusional ideology on entire nations? I don’t think so.
” ‘Carney insisted “We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.” ”
—————————–
Julian Assange
Timothy Manning
and anyway, this movie was a prop….somebody wants the US to clear another Country for developement….
Youtube takes stuff down all the time. (The JFK secret society speech comes to mind. People had to keep putting it up in new places, and I think they finally gave up and left them!) I have looked for stuff lots of times and found it has been removed. Normally it is stuff that is criticizing government or corporations (or both).
I find this quote astounding:
” ‘Carney insisted “We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country.” ”
Since WHEN has this administration been for freedom of expression in this country?
Raff,
Believe this or not but things are already censored on YouTube…..
If I recall the Germans have censored nazi propaganda…… The Chinese….the Russians…. The Muslims……
I am not a fan of censorship, whether it is done by Youtube themselves or on the behest of the government or any organization. Would YouTube consider this kind of video akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater? I don’t think they need the President to suggest that they review the video. My guess is that they have already done so.
Obviously when movies like the D’Souza movie are allowed to lie about Obama and the Democrats on the big screen, why shouldn’t we allow anti-Islam radicals to stir up trouble internationally with hateful videos? The timing is interesting.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/apr/19/39-ways-limit-free-speech/
Seventeen and a half years for translating a document? Granted, it’s an extremist text. Among the “39 ways” it advocates include “Truthfully Ask Allah for Martyrdom,” “Go for Jihad Yourself,” “Giving Shelter to the Mujahedin,” and “Have Enmity Towards the Disbelievers.” (Other “ways to serve,” however, include, “Learn to Swim and Ride Horses,” “Get Physically Fit,” “Stand in Opposition to the Disbelievers,” and “Expose the Hypocrites and Traitors.”) But surely we have not come to the point where we lock people up for nearly two decades for translating a widely available document? After all, news organizations and scholars routinely translate and publicize jihadist texts; think, for example, of the many reports about messages from Osama bin Laden.
In 2009, Tarek Mehanna, who has no prior criminal record, was arrested and placed in maximum security confinement on “terrorism” charges. The case against him rested on allegations that as a 21-year old he had traveled with friends to Yemen in 2004 in an unsuccessful search for a jihadist training camp in order to fight in Iraq, and that he had translated several jihadist tracts and videos into English for distribution on the Internet, allegedly to spur readers on to jihad. After a two-month trial, he was convicted of conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization. The jury did not specify whether it found him guilty for his aborted trip to Yemen—which resulted in no known contacts with jihadists—or for his translations, so under established law, the conviction cannot stand unless it’s permissible to penalize him for his speech. Mehanna is appealing.
Under traditional (read “pre-9/11”) First Amendment doctrine, Mehanna could not have been convicted even if he had written “39 Ways” himself, unless the government could shoulder the heavy burden of demonstrating that the document was “intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action,” a standard virtually impossible to meet for written texts. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established that standard in ruling that the First Amendment protected a Ku Klux Klansman who made a speech to a Klan gathering advocating “revengeance” against “niggers” and “Jews.” It did so only after years of experience with federal and state governments using laws prohibiting advocacy of crime as a tool to target political dissidents (anarchists, anti-war protesters, and Communists, to name a few).
But in Mehanna’s case, the government never tried to satisfy that standard. It didn’t show that any violent act was caused by the document or its translation, much less that Mehanna intended to incite imminent criminal conduct and was likely, through the translation, to do so. In fact, it accused Mehanna of no violent act of any kind. Instead, the prosecutor successfully argued that Mehanna’s translation was intended to aid al-Qaeda, by inspiring readers to pursue jihad themselves, and therefore constituted “material support” to a “terrorist organization.”
The prosecutor relied on a 2010 Supreme Court decision in a case I argued, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. In Humanitarian Law Project, a divided Court upheld the “material support” statute as applied to advocacy of peace and human rights, when done in coordination with and to aid a designated “terrorist organization.” (The plaintiffs in the case sought to encourage the Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey to resolve their disputes with the Turkish government through lawful means, by training them in bringing human rights complaints before the United Nations and helping them in peace overtures to the Turkish government.) The Court ruled that the government could criminalize such advocacy of peaceful nonviolent activity without transgressing the First Amendment, because, it reasoned, any aid to a foreign terrorist organization might ultimately support illegal ends.
The Humanitarian Law Project decision is troubling enough, as I have previously explained. But Mehanna’s case goes still further. The government provided no evidence that Mehanna ever met or communicated with anyone from al-Qaeda. Nor did it demonstrate that the translation was sent to al-Qaeda. (It was posted by an online publisher, Al-Tibyan Publications, that has not been designated as a part of or a front for al-Qaeda.) It did not even claim that the “39 Ways” was written by al-Qaeda. The prosecution offered plenty of evidence that in Internet chat rooms Mehanna expressed admiration for the group’s ideology, and for Osama bin Laden in particular. But can one provide “material support” to a group with which one has never communicated?
The Supreme Court in Humanitarian Law Project emphasized, as had the United States government in defending the “material support” statute, that the law does not make it a crime to engage in “independent advocacy” in support of a designated organization’s cause. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts strongly implied that this limitation was constitutionally mandated:
The Court also finds it significant that Congress has been conscious of its own responsibility to consider how its actions may implicate constitutional concerns. Most importantly, Congress has avoided any restriction on independent advocacy, or indeed any activities not directed to, coordinated with, or controlled by foreign terrorist groups.
“Under the material-support statute,” the Court insisted, people “may say anything they wish on any topic.” But apparently not on “jihad.” The prosecutor in Mehanna’s case argued that the translation was motivated by Mehanna’s ideological support of jihadism, and of al-Qaeda in particular. But without coordination, and without delivery of the final product to al-Qaeda or any of its known affiliates, it looks like nothing more than “independent advocacy,” activity that the government said would not, and the Supreme
On the other hand this was surprising:
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/09/13/chris-hedges-et-al-win-another-round-on-the-ndaa/
Chris Hedges et. al Win Another Round On the NDAA
I should have thought that this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 would be one that the White House would like to be subject to Enhanced Review.
I suppose the problem might be that the request would involve admitting that the incident actually happened – and by extension that such incidents are common – which probably makes people “hate us for our freedoms”
Google/YouTube has rge right to take down videos it deems offensive….This is not a first amendment issue it’s the right of You Tube to not accept any and every submission…
What we need folks, and soneone on this blog can perform the task, is produce and publish on utube, some films that will counter the anti-muslim film. I suggest a sequence of trampling of the cross and perhaps a Rabbi giving Jesus a bj. Or vice versa. No pun intended. That way the Muslim world can laugh at us and not throw bombs. Then perhaps we can get The Willard to wear a turbin, Obama a yarmulka, Boner a condum and have them in the UN giving high fives to the Yemen delegation. And while everyone is busy blasting each other for mean utubes perhaps the Navy could kill all those pirates of the coast of Somalia and Yemen. There is nothing worse than a turbin head with a machine gun on a swift boat off the coast of Somalia. Gotta think positve here. Swift boats in every election cycle.
If You Tube has the right to remove any video they want then they can do it. My guess is they frown on videos with excessive violence or those that might incite violence. Who cares if the Obama administration has asked them to “review” it? Would you have been ok with You Tube removing it themselves for their own reasons professor?
“These deaths were not caused be any film. They were caused by religious extremism.”
No, the people who were murdered were killed by the people who killed them and by the killers’ own free will, not by “religious extremism.”
What the White House is looking for is an Enhanced Review.