I just have an opinion.. actually it's a reply to ur last questions..

"Why to remove the video if you don't accept the contents?"

I agree with NOT deleting the videos if they didn't agree with the contents but I guess u messed something here, this is a Holy thing. I don't think we can treat Holy things as regular things...

The whole issue is about double-way respection, The site respects me, I respect it, I will visit it. If I felt that the site just makes fun at me, I'll never enter it again.

Those videos (which I didn't see yet) hurts a large group of people around the world, if they are kept there, this would give them the impression that the site owners just don't care about them...

Peace upon you

Maybe the comments on this should be lumped together with the anti-semitic video piece. Bears repeating though – removing videos may be sinking to their level but we are talking about a cooperation which should be guided by financial costs and benefits, not a government which should strive to be moral. I can see why YouTube would remove the video and cannot be indignant but wish that a company could occasionally *not* focus only on money.

"You may agree or disagree with the video’s message"

>> What is the message of the video? It is just quotes. To me it means nothing. It means that the Qur'an has messages of cruelty in. What is new? I can't see there is anything wrong with that.

I guess maybe there is some opinion thing there. I havent checked his quotes. But I imagine they are accurate.

Nick Gisburne is taking it really hard.

>> How would I contact YouTube to say that I agreed with Nick?

It's not that Youtube censors criticism of religion. It's that Youtube censors criticism of Islam, and has been doing so for quite some time.

They tend to block anti-jihad videos and leave jihad propaganda.

Lots of blogs are talking about it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=anti-jihad+videos+youtube

Offtopic:

I use the Python Universal Feedparser (feedparser.org) to get/parse your feed, and for the last week or so it fails with an exception related to the encoding (It parses well tens of other feeds).

The validator here:

http://validator.w3.org/feed/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.outer-court.com%2Frss.xml

Also reports problems related to the encoding.

Regards

Islam and other forms of irrationality should be criticized.

This post neither excludes Muslims nor singles them out. Please do not be offended.

See, I don't think Google/Youtube AS A CORPORATION is particularly pro- or anti- anything. This is consistent with most other corporations. They simply bow to political pressure – ANY political pressure. Anyone who thinks politics and religion are separate is too naïve for words.

Please understand that many people can't separate criticism from hate speech. In fact, much hate speech (especially any EFFECTIVE hate speech) mixes valid, fact-based criticism with baseless stupidity. Thus, any valid criticism of some groups (Muslims, Jewish people, black Americans are good examples) is often instantly conflated with hate speech, because some evil people distort facts to help spread their manure. Many people also put significant emotional investment into their groups or their shared beliefs. They feel insulted that anyone would dare criticize them, even with facts.

And so they flag critical videos and send letters of alarm and disgust to Google/Youtube, threatening lawsuits and bad publicity, etc.

And Google, hating bad press more than anything, bends and complies nicely with their threats, because their political power trumps their opposition, including poor Nick's. Unfortunately, there is no automated way to separate hate speech from criticism. For now, It requires real human critical thought.

We must find a way to make Google understand that bending to every removal or censorship request is much worse than simply allowing Youtube to be completely open to ANY content.

It is not just quotes. It is selected quotes that give an impression of the Koran that might not be the most accurate. If you knew nothing at all about the book you'd get the impression it is a hateful book. It ends up being an anti-Koran video. And let us not forget the title which is totally biased and negative about the message.

Come on guys, YouTube offer a service to customers, surely they have the right to restrict what content is published on their servers... Whilst it must be frustrating and upsetting for this guy, at the end of the day, he can go elsewhere to publish his videos or upload videos on his own website.

And what's wrong with a biased video? Like you said, the title should make it apparent to any viewers that this isn't an impartial view. If I wanted a more rational view on the Koran, I'd read Wikipedia. If I want to see what this guy thinks, I should be allowed to do that too. Same with the Nazi videos: whether or not I agree with the message, I should be allowed to view it. Religion should be treated like any other topic: not unduly harassed or insulted, but not completely untouchable either.

Anonymous wrote, "It's not that Youtube censors criticism of religion. It's that Youtube censors criticism of Islam, and has been doing so for quite some time."

This is 100% correct right.

Philip, you have titled this entry incorrectly. It's not criticism of religion, it's quoting the holy book of one particular religion that got Gisburne banned: Islam.

He did a similar video about Christianity with zero repercussions.

"Someone", did you complain about his previous video, just as "misleading"? Or are you protective only of Islam?

> Philip, you have titled this entry incorrectly

I believe I didn't. YouTube in their explanation to Nick said that "Due to your repeated attempt to upload inappropriate videos, your account has now been permanently disabled". In other words, it was not this single video, according to YouTube, but it were "repeated attempts", and those included criticism of Christianity. Hence the title I chose.

I think Web 2.0 fails to deliver what P2P already managed to: Spreading information in such a decentralized way that governments, companies and other censors can not control it. YouTube is just one very obvious example. Where there is control in the hands of top down organizations there always will be censorship.

I do not think that religious feelings of any religion should be tramped upon but even religion(s) should be open to critisism and debate as the interpretation of religion and what is perceived divine is not holy itself and unchangeable. Islam is the best example of it itself, there are several interpretations of it.

>> ... according to YouTube ... Hence the title I chose.

Can you say, "Pass the buck." Nicely done. All the same, the argument is erroneous. YouTube allows anti-Christian videos all the time, but jumps to reject anything seen as even a critique of Islam.

YouTube may *claim* that religion, in general, is the cause, and not Islam. It is a lie.

In response to Sam Davyson,

>> How would I contact YouTube to say that I agreed with Nick?

the Xooglers got this link out there in their post (yes, the Xooglers came out of hibernation due to this).

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/request.py?contact_type=policy&submit=Continue

Finally, are the videos hate speech? Are they anti-Islam? One could easily take a few cherry-picked verses out of most sacred texts, make such a video, and then use it to show what cruelty exists in that sacred text.

If he had done this with the Bible or the Torah (my assumption is that he did, but I don't know), would YouTube have reacted?

From Nick himself:

>> (11 February 2006).
>> My account also contained an almost identical video, this one containing BIBLE quotes, rather than QUR'AN. YouTube censored the anti-Muslim video, but kept an anti-Christian one. You still think there isn't some kind of Muslim pressure group behind this?

http://nick.gisburne.com/

You quote Nick
> My account also contained an almost identical
> video, this one containing BIBLE quotes, rather
> than QUR'AN. YouTube censored the anti-Muslim
> video, but kept an anti-Christian one.

Didn't he say that his account was removed? Doesn't that mean all of his videos are gone? I'm no Youtube user.

> YouTube may *claim* that religion, in general, is
> the cause, and not Islam. It is a lie.

I don't know, but I get the feeling that J. McNeir is correct when he says that this is not an issue of being pro- or anti-anything, but that in this case "They [Google/ YouTube] simply bow to political pressure – ANY political pressure."

It is the same for any other religion, of course, I was referring to this video in concrete because it is the topic of this thread of posts.
Biased videos are fine, sure, for as long as they don't become disrespectful or offensive. It's that saying: "your liberty ends when other' liberty start".

Allowing such videos to be posted is allowing a stimulation for anti-feeling for the Koran or, if you must, sacred books and messages.

Don't believe there's a difference, from YouTube point of view, which religion, faith or personally is being anti-publicized. It's anti and should not be allowed just like it can't be allowed on any other media.

> It's that saying: "your liberty ends when other' liberty start".

I think there's a conflict though in finding a global definition for "when liberties end". That saying is a basis for discussion but it doesn't end the discussion. My personal understanding is that when someone enters my appartment and starts screaming paroles, that I have a right to kick them out simply because I won't be able to work when they continue screaming in my living room.

But my personal understanding is also that someone can communicate their paroles anywhere where it's not forced on people – where you have the choice to ignore it if you want to. There are some more subtle cases than this one where we might argue about whether or not a certain action can be ignored. Can it be ignored if you run around naked in the streets, for example? In Germany, police will sack you if you do, for something the local laws call "Erregung öffentlichen Ärgernisses" (you're "inciting public annoyance" or something). I find that particular application of the law wrong, but that's not really the point... my point is that it's hard to define the zone where someone's liberty's end, and when someone else's liberty starts (your right to run around naked, and someone else's right to not view people running around naked).

In the YouTube case, I find it very easy to ignore certain videos. Nobody's spamming my email inbox with their YouTube video paroles – e.g. the Nazi videos we recently discussed – so my liberty is not "endangered." So even when you believe the videos discussed in this post are promoting a certain point of view, which some may argue they're not, then I personally don't see why they need to be deleted... because you can ignore them if you disagree.

But again, I do see this being a "global" issue. Freedom of speech is not as prevalent in most countries as it's in the US. Personally, I think the US has really cool freedom of speech laws, beating by far those available here in Germany. I guess we just ought to make sure we don't "artificially" start to seek whatever may offend us, to then complain that it offended us – because we don't need to seek offending stuff in the first place.

The West is so scared and PC it will let Jihadists flood YouTube with Jihad as it thinks it's 'racist' (Muslim are not even a race anyway) to take them down.

Yet another example of our suicide.

Citing the Quran selectively is arguably biased ...and perfectly legitimate, lest Chinese, Russian or Islamic standards of free speech are applied.

>> Biased videos are fine, sure, for as long as they don't become disrespectful or offensive.

Are you kidding me? To many groups of people, the truth itself is offensive, because they refuse to believe it. How do you define something as truly "offensive"? If I put up a video telling why global warming is surely happening, some group may call it offensive. If I put up a video discussing how it's definitely not happening, another group would call it offensive.

What happened to freedom of speech? Nowadays all we hear about is freedom *from* speech. All that has to happen is for someone in a minority group to start screaming indignantly about how offended they are, and then, another voice gets silenced. Yet it is absolutely a form of censorship.

And disrespectful videos? They're not allowed, too? I guess we'd better get rid of every episode of the Daily Show & the Colbert Report ...

>> I guess we just ought to make sure we don't "artificially" start to seek whatever may offend us, to then complain that it offended us – because we don't need to seek offending stuff in the first place.

Sadly, this practice – also called "aggressive victimhood" – is all too common in the US. Racial, ethnic, and religious pressure groups seek out people, make a lot of noise about how offensive their (words/actions/etc) is, and then proceed to trample on their rights, with the help of the judicial system.

(Peace Be Upon YouTube)

Are not YouTube an USA corporation?

Is there not some US constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression?

Are YouTube acting unconstitutionally, here?

G., I guess you only have the freedom of speech rights on public property or your own property, but not on private property of others. But I'm no lawyer so maybe someone else can explain better...

> I guess you only have the freedom of speech
> rights on public property or your own property,
> but not on private property of others.

That is it exactly. YouTube is not a democracy; they have the absolute right (by law) to select what they feel is appropriate or inappropriate. I'm not saying that I agree with their decision, just that it is within their rights to allow (or not allow) whatever they desire, as it should be.

Think of it this way: Let's say your friend comes into your home, calls others and has a party. Your friend has every right to have a party, but he (or she) should do it in their home, not yours. The same can be said for a company. The company is NOT a government, it is something owned, such as your home.

Unfortunately many people do not understand this. :(

The idea that YouTube would delete his accounts is frankle disgusting.

lf people have complained about one video enough times, rightly or wrongly, then they have a duty to ask him to remove that one video, but all his accounts??

The video itself is merely quoting from a religions own teachings and writings....hardly his fault its as evil and wong as it is. All he has done is let the rest of us see it.
What, people who agree with this stuff find it embarassing that thier religion is being seen in a bad light?

Well deal with THAT then...dont shoot the bloke who just takes bits of it and pops them on a video!

ouTube need to have a word with themslves here...freedom of speech!!!!

If we can't bring Nick Gisburne back to YouTube, then lets bring Nick's story to the rest of the web!

While it increasingly illustrates itself as the feckless and arrogant alter ego of Google, YouTube is emerging as the poster-child for repressive corrupt companies in the US.
Poorly managed, poorly laid-out, poorly staffed and poorly coded, YouTube is setting new records in garnering enemies while snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The rate of random, often non-sensical censorship of comments, deletion of videos, deletion of accounts and blacklisting is increasing at a blistering pace. Attributed by insiders to out-of-control workers who, with little oversight from their employer, pursue random vendettas and harassment against users, YouTube is severing the hands that feed it.

its down to youtube to decide what is acceptable or not to their site. and its down to us to either walk away from youtube or to keep contributing to its traffic.

i'm tending to walk away a lot more nowadays and i'm ending up on alternatives to youtube.