answered question
0
Votes
Votes
11
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
Why does YouTube allow so many Obama / Hitler comparison videos?
They have hundreds of thousands of hits. Do any of you seriously believe that Obama is comparable to Hitler? Do people really have such weak historical perspectives?
Regardless, do you feel this should be allowed on a Google owned public website where children can see Obama's face superimposed at Nazi rallies, &c? Do you think this falls in a "hate speech" or "free speech" category? Do you think this is a testament to YouTube's belief in free speech or simply neglect?
Regardless, do you feel this should be allowed on a Google owned public website where children can see Obama's face superimposed at Nazi rallies, &c? Do you think this falls in a "hate speech" or "free speech" category? Do you think this is a testament to YouTube's belief in free speech or simply neglect?
answers (11)
The root issue of why youtube.com allows any content on their website comes down to their business mode. Youtube, as it is, is simply just hosting user created content. They do not actively have any sort of editorial intervention of what users post. This is not to be confused with Youtube's position on copyright infringement. If a video is posted to Youtube that violates copyright law as soon as the copyright holder notifies Youtube, they pull the video. No questions asked.
All that to say, there is a different set of laws that apply to sites who EDIT and are therefore AUTHORS of content than those that are just hosting and providing a service. If youtube was to censor what went on on its site, they would then become liable for all copyright violations as well.
The reason they don't reject videos solely based on their content is so that they are still only hosting, and providing a service rather than being authors or editors. It's safer for them, and carries less liability.
All that to say, there is a different set of laws that apply to sites who EDIT and are therefore AUTHORS of content than those that are just hosting and providing a service. If youtube was to censor what went on on its site, they would then become liable for all copyright violations as well.
The reason they don't reject videos solely based on their content is so that they are still only hosting, and providing a service rather than being authors or editors. It's safer for them, and carries less liability.
| Asker's rating: |
Thank God.
Unfortunately, this is just free speech. There are some people out there that don't know where to draw the line. If it were George W. Bush, it would almost be a non-issue.
Perhaps it would be a non-issue because Bush's grandfather was financing and profiting from Hitler's rise to power, even when American soldiers were on the ground, thereby establishing the Bush dynasty.
In all seriousness, Hitler is such a poignant and special figure (and sonderweg and all that jazz), I feel that it would be ridiculous to compare almost anyone to him, especially considering the lasting pain experienced by Jewish, German, Russian, and American society (and of course many others). It seems to nullify the significance of his tyranny and legacy.
In all seriousness, Hitler is such a poignant and special figure (and sonderweg and all that jazz), I feel that it would be ridiculous to compare almost anyone to him, especially considering the lasting pain experienced by Jewish, German, Russian, and American society (and of course many others). It seems to nullify the significance of his tyranny and legacy.
mrnemo,
Or perhaps it's just freedom of speech and you shouldn't immediately think that not liking the President doesn't automatically justify a knock on Bush, who has no real association with Obama in the slightest.
I don't recall seeing any questions regarding all of the "Bush is a monkey" videos... so we'll keep this at what it is.
Freedom of speech is an equal opportunity blanket law that protects our, that's right, freedom to say whatever we want within the confines of the law (i.e. no "Fire!" in a crowded place if there is no fire, no threatening the President with bodily harm, etc.). It doesn't mean "Freedom of speech unless you don't agree with what they are saying."
Take care.
Or perhaps it's just freedom of speech and you shouldn't immediately think that not liking the President doesn't automatically justify a knock on Bush, who has no real association with Obama in the slightest.
I don't recall seeing any questions regarding all of the "Bush is a monkey" videos... so we'll keep this at what it is.
Freedom of speech is an equal opportunity blanket law that protects our, that's right, freedom to say whatever we want within the confines of the law (i.e. no "Fire!" in a crowded place if there is no fire, no threatening the President with bodily harm, etc.). It doesn't mean "Freedom of speech unless you don't agree with what they are saying."
Take care.
I didn't knock Bush in relation to my question, I submitted a humorous fact in response to a comment that compared Bush to Obama, thereby emphasizing that even though it is ridiculous to compare either Bush or Obama to Hitler, that Bush has a closer relationship to the Fuhrer than Obama.
"Bush is a monkey" versus "Obama is Hitler?" Are you seriously telling me you consider these the same?
Again, my point is that overuse of this comparison robs valid comparisons of impact.
"Bush is a monkey" versus "Obama is Hitler?" Are you seriously telling me you consider these the same?
Again, my point is that overuse of this comparison robs valid comparisons of impact.
mrnemo,
The point I was making is that an attack on one politician is equally balanced with an attack on another. Regardless of the weight of the attack, it's still freedom of speech in the end. If you don't think that there are videos out there attributing Hitleresque qualities to Bush, you are highly mistaken.
As for the knock on Bush, you directly attacked the Bush name by accusing them of profiteering from Hilter and his rise to power. Does this not contain the same weight as attributing Obama's creepy propaganda to that of Hitler's? I wasn't referring to your question with pertinence to what I was saying. This is why I replied to the comment made to mjeezy's answer. It wasn't an answer to your question. It was a statement pertaining directly to your reply to his answer and as such does fit the bill.
I DO agree that Hitler was a far larger figure than can be compared to by anyone but the likes of Stalin, Mussolini and Pol Pot (depending on where you were raised); however, the argument appears to be one sided. Supporters for the President's propaganda machine (of one I am not) demonize acts of speech when they do not conform to the propaganda that is being spread. This is regardless of which President/Party the machine works for. The video in question is also propaganda, but it should not be disallowed simply because it doesn't follow the ideals of one group of people...
So perhaps therein lies the answer to your question: Just because Obama is black or an Arab descendant does not directly lead to it being "hate speech"... There is nothing else that describes him that can be pinned for "hate speech." It is "free speech" and as such should be held to the highest regard, even if it is tasteless.
The point I was making is that an attack on one politician is equally balanced with an attack on another. Regardless of the weight of the attack, it's still freedom of speech in the end. If you don't think that there are videos out there attributing Hitleresque qualities to Bush, you are highly mistaken.
As for the knock on Bush, you directly attacked the Bush name by accusing them of profiteering from Hilter and his rise to power. Does this not contain the same weight as attributing Obama's creepy propaganda to that of Hitler's? I wasn't referring to your question with pertinence to what I was saying. This is why I replied to the comment made to mjeezy's answer. It wasn't an answer to your question. It was a statement pertaining directly to your reply to his answer and as such does fit the bill.
I DO agree that Hitler was a far larger figure than can be compared to by anyone but the likes of Stalin, Mussolini and Pol Pot (depending on where you were raised); however, the argument appears to be one sided. Supporters for the President's propaganda machine (of one I am not) demonize acts of speech when they do not conform to the propaganda that is being spread. This is regardless of which President/Party the machine works for. The video in question is also propaganda, but it should not be disallowed simply because it doesn't follow the ideals of one group of people...
So perhaps therein lies the answer to your question: Just because Obama is black or an Arab descendant does not directly lead to it being "hate speech"... There is nothing else that describes him that can be pinned for "hate speech." It is "free speech" and as such should be held to the highest regard, even if it is tasteless.
Thank you for the response and clarification.
Youtube (and Google by default) are community sites that rely on their members to provide content. With that in mind they have to allow free speech so their community feels safe adding their content. I don't believe it is their place to decide what is right and wrong for their site unless their is a legal reason to do so.
Free speech baby. Frankly, I think YouTube already has too many restrictions. People really do have weak historical perspectives, but I doubt any really see Obama as comparable to Hitler.
I'm a free speech crusader and even when I hate something, I love the right to see it and talk about it
I'm a free speech crusader and even when I hate something, I love the right to see it and talk about it
I watched the movie... I found-it highly entertaining and very sad at the same time. He repeats the word "trance" and he is so into-it, like he wants to put you into a trance right then and there. But does he look at himself? He talks about others' oratorical ability and misleading people, when he is doing exactly the same thing. "You know what they did to Jesus, they hanged him". Oh really? I taught he was crucified, like, when you don't require so much extra rope for it, you know...
The cost of Free Speech is that you occasionally might hear something you don't like. If the only free speech was popular (or even "right") speech, it wouldn't be Free.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. If you don't want your children watching it, monitor their internet usage.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. If you don't want your children watching it, monitor their internet usage.
I agree with all my heart that people do not have the right to "not be offended."
Also, apparently you all think that my question was in fact "YouTube SHOULDN'T HAVE THIS VIDEO ON IT!" when it was not.
I am asking why a privately owned website that is viewed globally (in some places where these videos would be banned or illegal) by people of all ages allows this type of video. What would you presume is their reasoning for allowing it?
Also, apparently you all think that my question was in fact "YouTube SHOULDN'T HAVE THIS VIDEO ON IT!" when it was not.
I am asking why a privately owned website that is viewed globally (in some places where these videos would be banned or illegal) by people of all ages allows this type of video. What would you presume is their reasoning for allowing it?
First, YouTube is not privately owned. It is wholly owned by Google, which is a publically traded company.
Second, they allow it for the same reasons everyone here said it should be allowed - it's a part of Free Speech. The opposite of allowing it is censoring it, and at that point, YouTube is appointing themselves morality police, which they don't want to do. Or at the very least, don't want to start having to judge videos to that level of detail. Certain "obvious" things are already forbidden (full frontal nudity, for example). YouTube is allowed to decide for themselves what is "obvious" to censor and what is not. Whatever's not obvious, gets through.
Second, they allow it for the same reasons everyone here said it should be allowed - it's a part of Free Speech. The opposite of allowing it is censoring it, and at that point, YouTube is appointing themselves morality police, which they don't want to do. Or at the very least, don't want to start having to judge videos to that level of detail. Certain "obvious" things are already forbidden (full frontal nudity, for example). YouTube is allowed to decide for themselves what is "obvious" to censor and what is not. Whatever's not obvious, gets through.
Ok, I agree with your technicality on private versus publicly owned company. My point is, it is a company, a for-profit enterprise, and as such, has certain levels of responsibility for its content, as much as they can say "this is all user-generated."
My ultimate point is, what sort of message is YouTube sending when they are quick to delete videos showing nudity or anything that a company claims is copyrighted, yet they will allow videos that have hundreds of thousands of views (surely, many have reported this as inappropriate content) that show Obama dressed as the Fuhrer and waving a Swastika?
And you have given your answer, "It is free speech." thank you.
My ultimate point is, what sort of message is YouTube sending when they are quick to delete videos showing nudity or anything that a company claims is copyrighted, yet they will allow videos that have hundreds of thousands of views (surely, many have reported this as inappropriate content) that show Obama dressed as the Fuhrer and waving a Swastika?
And you have given your answer, "It is free speech." thank you.
<shrug> I think the message they're sending is "Nudity is not allowed. Political sattire/commentary is." Obviously, you disagree with that message. And that's your right of course. But I disagree with your disagreement, which is my right. :-)
This is a matter of the free-speech that I fought for and as such it should be allowed. But comparing President-Elect Obama to Hitler or President G.W. Bush to other inappropriate people is not suggested. Remember, in America, you have the right to disagree with a politician's stance or position (or any person for that matter). But to malign a person simply because you don't like them is not free-speech.
To compare someone to someone as evil as Hitler is definitely what our Founding Fathers signed into law in essence, they only wanted you to voice your opposition! Free speech is not a freedom to slander or to not use discretion. But that is a matter for the Supreme Court.
If you don't agree, that is your right. But saying that YouTube shouldn't host those videos means that they also shouldn't host the pro-Obama videos they have. Be fair.
To compare someone to someone as evil as Hitler is definitely what our Founding Fathers signed into law in essence, they only wanted you to voice your opposition! Free speech is not a freedom to slander or to not use discretion. But that is a matter for the Supreme Court.
If you don't agree, that is your right. But saying that YouTube shouldn't host those videos means that they also shouldn't host the pro-Obama videos they have. Be fair.
I don't understand your comment but I want to; can you please elaborate?
The beginning of your comment seems to indicate that you don't think "disagreeing" with someone and "maligning" someone is the same, and I agree.
You then said that our forefathers signed into law the right of us to compare people to Hitler (presumably in a malicious fashion, as a reasoned comparison to Hitler would not be as offensive, it would just be a poor comparison). Was this a typo?
Lastly, you are comparing "pro-Obama" videos with videos of Obama super-imposed over Hitler, speaking fierce German to a crowd of Americans, filled with powerful, dangerous Nazi imagery. I cannot agree with that comparison as "being fair."
The beginning of your comment seems to indicate that you don't think "disagreeing" with someone and "maligning" someone is the same, and I agree.
You then said that our forefathers signed into law the right of us to compare people to Hitler (presumably in a malicious fashion, as a reasoned comparison to Hitler would not be as offensive, it would just be a poor comparison). Was this a typo?
Lastly, you are comparing "pro-Obama" videos with videos of Obama super-imposed over Hitler, speaking fierce German to a crowd of Americans, filled with powerful, dangerous Nazi imagery. I cannot agree with that comparison as "being fair."
I have edited my meaning but just understand - I believe that pro-Obama, anti-Obama and all other Obama videos deserve a place on the web just like I believe that all forms of communication should be allowed on the net. It is up to each of us to self-censor what we or our children view. It is not up to the net to determine right or wrong - its your responsibility! Just an opinion.
YouTube/Google allows these videos because they are not in the business of censoring users, especially when the freedoms of their home country don't call for it.
Do I think that Obama is comparable to Hitler? Yes. Comparisons can be drawn between any two people in the history of the world. I personally don't consider the two men to be anything alike, but I appreciate that someone is thinking critically enough to draw such conclusions.
Should it be allowed "on a Google owned public website where children can see..."? Absolutely. Absolutely. For sure. What will we have become when we start censoring speech and banning art? Especially from the Internet, which by all accounts is the last bastion of unmitigated free expression in the world.
As far as "hate speech" vs. "free speech", they are one in the same. What you consider to be hateful is probably not considered such by everyone else. There are folks out there comparing Obama to Jesus. That seriously offends me. Not because I'm a Christian (I'm not) but because I don't like religion and certainly abhor the mention of religion of any kind related to politics. But I would never begin to think that speech or ideas like that should be disallowed.
It's not so much a testament to YouTube's commitment to free speech as that of the Internet as a whole and especially the United States of America. I feel damn proud that Americans can compare the President-Elect, myself, or anyone else to Hitler any time they choose in any medium online or off.
Do I think that Obama is comparable to Hitler? Yes. Comparisons can be drawn between any two people in the history of the world. I personally don't consider the two men to be anything alike, but I appreciate that someone is thinking critically enough to draw such conclusions.
Should it be allowed "on a Google owned public website where children can see..."? Absolutely. Absolutely. For sure. What will we have become when we start censoring speech and banning art? Especially from the Internet, which by all accounts is the last bastion of unmitigated free expression in the world.
As far as "hate speech" vs. "free speech", they are one in the same. What you consider to be hateful is probably not considered such by everyone else. There are folks out there comparing Obama to Jesus. That seriously offends me. Not because I'm a Christian (I'm not) but because I don't like religion and certainly abhor the mention of religion of any kind related to politics. But I would never begin to think that speech or ideas like that should be disallowed.
It's not so much a testament to YouTube's commitment to free speech as that of the Internet as a whole and especially the United States of America. I feel damn proud that Americans can compare the President-Elect, myself, or anyone else to Hitler any time they choose in any medium online or off.
source(s):
My thoughts. This question seems to be more of the "do you think..." variety.
My thoughts. This question seems to be more of the "do you think..." variety.
It is really sad that so many people have such a pitiful knowledge and sense of history. But it's not surprising with the number of people being "home schooled", going to church-run schools, dropping out of public schools, etc. One can only hope public education will recover. Apparently all some people know about Hitler is that he was a bad guy who was good at speeches, and to them Obama seems like a bad guy who is good at speeches. As far as Youtube goes, in the US the threat of neo-nazi's is too small to justify censorship. In Germany that is not the case. But in Germany they must be really scratching their heads if they see such comparisons made. Too weird!
Everyone is so quick to defend free speech. Imagine how offensive these Hitler images are to those who lived or had families who lived during the Reich, or were in any way involved in WWII. My wife is German, and her grandmother refuses to even discuss the war, as is the case with many Germans. Those of Jewish descent surely must feel the same pain.
I just wonder if I said, "I am going to post pictures of your daughter all over my shed. I am going to cover them in horse urine daily and light them on fire. I am going to make an effigy out of her and then hang it in my yard. I will then molest the dummy and photograph myself with it. I will then dress the dummy and myself up as Hitler and have a tea party."
"I'd fight to the death for your right to do this," would they say? I think not.
I support free speech. It seems everyone on this page does. I only assume that we each have our own ideas about what "crosses the line."
For one, I often spew anti-religious speech, and it is perhaps deeply offensive to some people.
Perhaps I am not as inclined to believe that people would so fiercely defend Hitler videos in public. I know that if I were watching one of those videos at my company, I would immediately be fired.
Conversely, maybe I would be fired for saying anything bad about religion.
But perhaps it is only my personal ethos that would keep me from posting YouTube videos of Jesus in an SS uniform and instead discussing the volumes of data concerning the problems religion has created versus its supposed benefits, among friends.
A friend just told me there are more "Bush Hitler" videos on YouTube than Obama videos.
So I get it. Godspeed, free speech.
I just wonder if I said, "I am going to post pictures of your daughter all over my shed. I am going to cover them in horse urine daily and light them on fire. I am going to make an effigy out of her and then hang it in my yard. I will then molest the dummy and photograph myself with it. I will then dress the dummy and myself up as Hitler and have a tea party."
"I'd fight to the death for your right to do this," would they say? I think not.
I support free speech. It seems everyone on this page does. I only assume that we each have our own ideas about what "crosses the line."
For one, I often spew anti-religious speech, and it is perhaps deeply offensive to some people.
Perhaps I am not as inclined to believe that people would so fiercely defend Hitler videos in public. I know that if I were watching one of those videos at my company, I would immediately be fired.
Conversely, maybe I would be fired for saying anything bad about religion.
But perhaps it is only my personal ethos that would keep me from posting YouTube videos of Jesus in an SS uniform and instead discussing the volumes of data concerning the problems religion has created versus its supposed benefits, among friends.
A friend just told me there are more "Bush Hitler" videos on YouTube than Obama videos.
So I get it. Godspeed, free speech.
You've contradicted yourself at least twice in this post. First you say "imagine how offensive these Hitler images are" to certain people. Then you say "people do not have the right to not be offended". Well which is it? Do people have the right to not be offended and therefore YouTube is "wrong" to not remove offensive material? Or do they not have the right to not be offended, in which case YouTube is correct to leave potentially offensive material online?
Your second contradiciton is that you believe in Free Speech, but you think there is such a thing as "crossing the line". No. Those are contradictory. If there is a line, the speech isn't Free. You do not support Free Speech. You support only Speech That You Agree With. If you disagree with it, it "crosses the line" and should be removed.
I support Free Speech. I am also offended, disgusted, and disturbed by Nazi/Hitler comparisons. I support YouTube not censoring them.
Your second contradiciton is that you believe in Free Speech, but you think there is such a thing as "crossing the line". No. Those are contradictory. If there is a line, the speech isn't Free. You do not support Free Speech. You support only Speech That You Agree With. If you disagree with it, it "crosses the line" and should be removed.
I support Free Speech. I am also offended, disgusted, and disturbed by Nazi/Hitler comparisons. I support YouTube not censoring them.
What are you talking about? Why is this a contradiction? Some people, notably Jews and Germans (and to an extent African Americans that feel there are racial overtones to the Obama Hitler videos), are likely offended by these Hitler videos, do you agree?
Then I said people do not have the right to "Not be offended" (implying the United States) thereby agreeing with your point that this type of imagery is protected under US law.
I am not contradicting myself when I say that "people are offended by this" but that they don't have the right to "not be offended by it" and censor it because they don't like it.
But I am talking specifically about YouTube, not "The Internet," not "my Uncle's house," not the "I hate Bush club," not the "I love Hitler club." I am talking about YouTube. My question clearly asks, "Why does YouTube allow..."
Show me where I said "YouTube should remove this video." I left this for you all to discuss.
I can't hide the fact that I find it offensive, but regardless of whether I am or am not offended by it, if YouTube were my website and enough people reported it (or perhaps even if they didn't), I would remove it, because it is a BUSINESS, a free, open forum for anyone to use, of any age or country, and I don't want the New York Times or Guardian.co.uk saying, "YouTube consistently ignored pleas from users to remove videos depicting deeply disturbing and vulgar Nazi imagery, but was quick to remove benign videos including "Lil Jon" parodies (incidentally, legally protected as parody)."
My opinion is there is nothing wrong with people expressing this opinion. If they want to dress Obama up as Hitler and show children singing songs as Hitler Youth, fine. I think it is perhaps the poorest example of satire I can think of, especially considering nothing in his campaign is remotely novel and is shared by all politicians in history (and could therefore be applied to any politician).
But I feel there are proper forums for this type of speech. I am amazed that YouTube allows these videos to slide when they enforce censorship of just about anything except the videos in question. Feel free to look at their guidelines. Again, they have the right to remove anything, and they constantly do. But these videos remain. This goes back to my question again - do you think they are just THAT gung ho about maintaining free speech (even though I think many would be critical of these videos) or do they simply neglect these videos because they are more concerned with monitoring videos that could make them liable for legal damages (e.g. the newest episode of House)?
As far as distinguishing "free speech" and "crossing the line," I said "it is my own ethos" that keeps me from posting videos of Jesus humping his mother or something else as sick or immature, even though I am not a huge fan of religion, in general. I should have been more clear. I support free speech, but for me, I am not going to run to the mountain tops to shout my support for NAMBLA. I am not trying to proselytize. There are obviously tons of things that are not "free" in free speech, as you mentioned. Why is your distinction so black and white? Do you agree that full frontal nudity and sex should be on YouTube because it is free speech? It is not "obvious" to me, as I'd be less likely to be offended by that than Hitlama or even Bushler. But as a commenter said, it is illegal. So apparently as a society we have decided that nudity is offensive but violent, dreaded Nazi imagery and trivializing the Reich is not offensive. Arg.
Then I said people do not have the right to "Not be offended" (implying the United States) thereby agreeing with your point that this type of imagery is protected under US law.
I am not contradicting myself when I say that "people are offended by this" but that they don't have the right to "not be offended by it" and censor it because they don't like it.
But I am talking specifically about YouTube, not "The Internet," not "my Uncle's house," not the "I hate Bush club," not the "I love Hitler club." I am talking about YouTube. My question clearly asks, "Why does YouTube allow..."
Show me where I said "YouTube should remove this video." I left this for you all to discuss.
I can't hide the fact that I find it offensive, but regardless of whether I am or am not offended by it, if YouTube were my website and enough people reported it (or perhaps even if they didn't), I would remove it, because it is a BUSINESS, a free, open forum for anyone to use, of any age or country, and I don't want the New York Times or Guardian.co.uk saying, "YouTube consistently ignored pleas from users to remove videos depicting deeply disturbing and vulgar Nazi imagery, but was quick to remove benign videos including "Lil Jon" parodies (incidentally, legally protected as parody)."
My opinion is there is nothing wrong with people expressing this opinion. If they want to dress Obama up as Hitler and show children singing songs as Hitler Youth, fine. I think it is perhaps the poorest example of satire I can think of, especially considering nothing in his campaign is remotely novel and is shared by all politicians in history (and could therefore be applied to any politician).
But I feel there are proper forums for this type of speech. I am amazed that YouTube allows these videos to slide when they enforce censorship of just about anything except the videos in question. Feel free to look at their guidelines. Again, they have the right to remove anything, and they constantly do. But these videos remain. This goes back to my question again - do you think they are just THAT gung ho about maintaining free speech (even though I think many would be critical of these videos) or do they simply neglect these videos because they are more concerned with monitoring videos that could make them liable for legal damages (e.g. the newest episode of House)?
As far as distinguishing "free speech" and "crossing the line," I said "it is my own ethos" that keeps me from posting videos of Jesus humping his mother or something else as sick or immature, even though I am not a huge fan of religion, in general. I should have been more clear. I support free speech, but for me, I am not going to run to the mountain tops to shout my support for NAMBLA. I am not trying to proselytize. There are obviously tons of things that are not "free" in free speech, as you mentioned. Why is your distinction so black and white? Do you agree that full frontal nudity and sex should be on YouTube because it is free speech? It is not "obvious" to me, as I'd be less likely to be offended by that than Hitlama or even Bushler. But as a commenter said, it is illegal. So apparently as a society we have decided that nudity is offensive but violent, dreaded Nazi imagery and trivializing the Reich is not offensive. Arg.
I initially wrote up a VERY long answer, that went into US history and German history. Compared different political traditions in the US. Went over German historical events and periods like the Wiemar Republic, the Reichstag fire, the Enabling Act of 1933.
But the whole time I was writing it, I had a feeling that I think is eloquently expressed in this article: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
So I'll just leave it at that.
But the whole time I was writing it, I had a feeling that I think is eloquently expressed in this article: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
So I'll just leave it at that.
It is absolutely free speech. As the saying goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It may be offensive to some, but that is the cost of free speech. My grandmother is a Polish immigrant who suffered through concentration camps and I am a fervent Obama supporter, but I would never want to censor these kinds of videos. As for YouTube not allowing nudity and copyrighted videos, those are legal issues, with people under 18 not able to view nudity, and I think the copyrighted video one is obvious. For the issue of whether the images are offensive to even be part of the conversation is to suggest that we should govern with emotion and not reason, which has lead to nothing but problems when employed.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
