What freedom of speech? 12

YouTube has been praised for refusing to remove the video, titled “Innocence of Muslims”, which has been blamed for the latest explosion of Islamic rage against America, and even for the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.

Well, now YouTube has removed it.

The reason they give:

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.

Sorry about that.

But it’s more than likely that they have given in to pressure from the Obama administration.

Were they threatened by Muslims? Or only by the government? If so, with what?

Now we are all under threat.

Goodbye, First Amendment? Goodbye, Freedom?

Posted under Commentary, Islam, jihad, media, Muslims, News, Terrorism, tyranny, United States by Jillian Becker on Saturday, September 22, 2012

Tagged with , ,

This post has 12 comments.

  • Wow, I had missed that one. I wonder what the ACLU thinks about that? The fact is that there are in the Muslim World a number of films denigrating Judaism, Christianity, and their respective “prophets,. at least one of those regarding Judaism was actually sponsored by the Iranian government. No apologies will be forthcoming for any of those. Therefore O’bama’s apologizing, and pressure to remove the clip from YouTube does not represent mutual respect, but merely capitulation. He just rolled onto his back and said “here is our belly, we submit”. So does this mean that Iran and the rest of the middle east are now “Alpha” dog?

  • salamitin

    It seems to still be there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoa3QazVy8

    • Jillian Becker

      Thanks for the link, salamitin.

      Once posted, nothing gets really lost, it seems.

    • Exxxxccccellent. In popular culture, hitmen say that the first kill is always the hardest. With one under their belt, the rest get successively easier. So it will go with our constitutional freedoms.

  • AvatarOfThey

    YouTube is a private corporation, so if it doesn’t want to pay to keep certain material on the net, it is entirely within YouTube’s right to take it down. You can criticise their reasons for taking them down (I think they’re stupid too) but don’t call it an “attack on freedom of speech”. Unless its the government taking down these videos, it’s not attack an on freedom of speech. The First Amendment is doing just fine, thanks.

    • Jillian Becker

      If YouTube succumbed to government pressure to remove the video, then it IS an attack on freedom of speech. Obviously. And the speeches Hillary Clinton and Obama have been making, including in the ad they are having shown round Pakistan (for $70 thousand of taxpayers’ money) are attacks on freedom of speech. They are supporting the OIC in its campaign to have criticism of Islam made illegal everywhere, including the US. If Obama is re-elected in November, I don’t think the First Amendment will be doing just fine for very much longer. We have written often about this. You can find links to sources on our pages. But they’re easy to find through any search engine anyway.

    • Ralph

      I call this corporate censorship. It limits our access to information which limits our ability to think independently. If it is being done out of fear it is the worst type of censorship.

    • I Respectfully, but strongly disagree. The attack on free speech was not so much from YouTube, as it was from the O’bama administration. They put pressure (we will never know how much), on YouTube to remove a film that violated no law. It was the use of presidential power to discourage the constitutionally protected right to free speech. Would he have pressured for “piss christ” (the photo of a cross in urine) to not be displayed? Perhaps if radical christians had killed unrelated innocents over it? I strongly doubt it.
      O’bama did not curtail freedom of speech, but he most certainly attacked it when he used the power of his office to unduly discourage YouTube from exercizing its contitutional rights which was its original intention.

  • liz

    They needed to watch the last Pat Condell video before they made the decision. Maybe then they would have had the spine to “just say no”.
    I heard Obama has now assumed the right to shut down the whole internet whenever he gets the urge. I’m sure he’d consider videos offensive to his Muslim buddies a good enough excuse.

  • Andrew M

    Good thing I saved a copy of it to my computer before they zapped it. If anyone is interested in having it as well, I can send it to them via email (not sure if Disqus enables public display of email addresses yet…).

    Also, I see at least three more copies still available on the site.

    None of this justifies YouTube kowtowing to the Islamic rage machine, of course.