UPDATE 1-Google blocks YouTube clip only in Egypt and Libya

Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:47am IST

Related Topics

Stocks

   

By Gerry Shih and Sue Zeidler

SAN FRANCISCO/LOS ANGELES, Sept 12 (Reuters) - YouTube, the video website owned by Google Inc, will not remove a film clip mocking the Islamic Prophet Mohammad that has been blamed for anti-U.S. protests in Egypt and Libya, but it has blocked access to it in those countries.

The clip, based on a longer film, depicts the prophet as a fraud and philanderer and has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed by gunmen in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday.

Google's response to the crisis highlighted the struggle f aced by the company, a nd others like it, to balance f ree s peech wi th le gal and ethical c oncerns in an age when so cial media ca n impact wo rld events.

A nalysts say they have seen a handful of Internet companies generally take a m ore h ands-off approach to controversial political speech, p e r haps mo tivated by idealistic and business considerations.

In a brief statement on Wednesday, Google officials rejected t he notion o f removing the video on grounds it did not violate YouTube's policies, but restricted viewers in Egypt and Libya from loading it due to the special circumstances in the country.

"This video - which is widely available on the Web - is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube," Google said in a statement. "However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt, we have temporarily restricted access in both countries."

The company added: "Our hearts are with the families of the people murdered in yesterday's attack in Libya."

The 14-minute clip is a trailer for a film called the "Innocence of Muslims," w idely attributed to a man w ho described himself as a California-based Israeli Jew named Sam Bacile.

Under Google's procedures, YouTube users can flag objectionable content. It is reviewed by a team of Google staff sc attered ar ound the world. B y late Thursday, a co py of the video had been viewed more than 122,000 times and had been flagged by users for removal, but it remained.

When videos come under review, YouTube weighs the content against " community guidelines, " w hich p rohibit h ate speech, in cluding speech that attacks or demeans a group based on religion. The guidelines can be viewed at

"They've had a number of years to be thinking about free speech issues," H arvard law professor J onathan Zittrain said.

"I can see them trying to keep an eye on the longer term and not wanting to go down the slippery slope of entertaining more and more demands to take things down. Th at can be corrosive in the longer haul."

GROWING AVERSION

O bservers say Google has grown more averse to removing videos. After its 2006 acquisition of YouTube, i t was accused of censorship in several high-profile controversies.

"They're squeezed on all sides," said Rebecca MacKinnon, a fellow at the New America Foundation. "But because of pressure from a lot of people who feel they made the wrong decisions, they now generally err on the side of keeping things up."

In recent years, Google has u sed t echnology to filter out videos in certain countries to comply with local regulations. T witter announced a similar technology to censor tweets by country th is year.

O thers say Google has not done enough and bears a responsibility to p olice hate- s peech more closely.

In 2008, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut accused Google of not doing enough to remove YouTube videos produced by Islamic militants. An Italian court in 2010 convicted four Google executives of invasion of privacy after faulting the company for not moving quickly enough to pull a video of an autistic child being bullied.

On Wednesday, Afghanistan's general director of i nformation t e chnology at the Ministry of Communications, Aimal Marjan, told Reuters: " We have been told to shut down YouTube to the Afghan public until the video is taken down."

YouTube did not respond to a request for comment on the Afghan government's move.

Underscoring Google's quandary, s ome digital free expression groups have criticized YouTube for censoring the video.

Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said g iven G oogle' s strong track record of protecting free speech, sh e was surprised t he company gave in t o pressure to se lectively blo ck in an attempt "to be seen as doing something in response to the violence."

"It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint," Galperin said. " I'm not sure they did the right thing."

Zittrain said th e dilemmas facing YouTube will persist as the flow of online content continues to balloon.

"It's a more vibrant and chaotic speech marketplace than we've ever known," Zittrain said.

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
GinBSNCO wrote:
Forty five years ago as an adolescent I became convinced that the world would come to an era of conflict between fundamentalist and moderate factions of the major religions during my lifetime, probably around the turn of the century. As time progressed, the technology for communications across the world at high speed, including video images, far exceeded what most of us ever dreamed of. The capacity for people in one country to create and transmit messages that respect and support others, or insult and degrade, is equal.

The religious conflicts have been accompanied by political battles for government control, with significant interference from those seeking financial control. My degrees in nursing and sociology provided knowledge of human behavior and societies and experience as time progressed, along with activism and political involvement.

The situation in Libya is the inevitable result of these conflicts, also illustrating how much interaction can occur now between two nations far apart geographically, culturally and in development. Libya’s revolution to oust a dictator included violence that broke down the control with inevitable tragedy. Decades of brutal oppression contributed heavy psychological damage to many people, making non violent progress to self government a more difficult achievement.

Diplomacy takes time, expertise and persistence. The ethical dilemma of limiting the distribution of free speech to mitigate the harm inflicted intentionally by insulting and denigrating the people of Islamic faith, is easily one of the most difficult moral quandaries humans can face.

Despite my personal convictions on free thought and speech, the judgement for me comes down to determination of values, effective actions and consequences over time. The compromise that Google has taken seems very reasonable and courageous. The areas where the video has created violence may still be able to get it through other countries. Not as easily and quickly. Meanwhile the governments of Egypt, Libya and the US can promote and support the efforts of the citizens in the moderate majorities to express their values and condemn the violence. That won’t be easy or quick. However change is more effective when it comes from within a group than from a hierarchy or laws. Cutting the source of inflammation should give those countries a better environment to work in for a limited time, increasing the probability of significant and lasting progress toward change.

Continuing access to the video may well add years, and increase the barriers to progress. While the comparison is not exact, we do limit access to material like pornography to people above a specified age. The limited time of restriction is the common factor. Whether that is determined by setting a maximum time, a set of criteria, or a combination, can be discussed and agreed on. With the emphasis on Libya emerging as country with freedom, security and self government, the temporary and limited restriction seems a very worthy compromise.

Sep 13, 2012 5:42pm IST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

  • Most Popular
  • Most Shared