"The fascist thugs aren't just at Emory. Some of them apparently work for Google."

Ive known that for awhile. Just look at what holidays and events it honors.

Posted by: Elric66 at October 31, 2007 2:57 PM

They should remove Ahmadinejad's video from the Columbia website. I won't be holding my breath, though. Is there another Web site that will host the video? I am glad that I took the time to view the video last night. It was not hateful in the least. Robert is soft-spoken and well-reasoned in his speaches.

Posted by: CTYankee at October 31, 2007 3:02 PM

I'm working on uploading it to Guba, another video website. I'll post the link here as well as send it to Mr. Spencer when it's up and running.

Posted by: TheBigH at October 31, 2007 3:06 PM

Link to another video at the following website:

=================================================
http://ucctruths.blogspot.com/

Hamas Cheerleader Mahdi Bray speaks at Old South Church
Saturday, October 27, 2007
From Solomonia:

This just in from inside the Sabeel event. Muslim American Society official Mahdi Bray spoke from the PULPIT of Old South tonight. Here's a picture:

Do I need to remind you that this is the same guy who was caught on tape behind Abdurahman Alamoudi (now doing 25 years on terror charges) cheering for Hamas and Hizballah? Here's that video again:

Outrageous.
posted by UCCtruths, Saturday, October 27, 2007

Posted by: CTYankee at October 31, 2007 3:09 PM

This is where Google's loyalty is:

Google shares rose 2.3 percent on Tuesday to $694.77.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/google_verizon_phones/2007/10/30/45307.html

Posted by: Pelayo at October 31, 2007 3:14 PM

I'm not sure, but is it true that "Google" translates into German as "Goebbels"? Just wondering.

Posted by: dry_heavz_4_alla at October 31, 2007 3:14 PM

Google is anti semtic and projihad all the way.

Posted by: GrennBeck at October 31, 2007 3:15 PM

Aw, Jeez, I thought I might have a use for that. I'll watch for it at YouTube. I hope someone has the initiative to ask Google Video to explain which of the above rules was violated and which statements of Spencer constituted a violation of those rules.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at October 31, 2007 3:16 PM

I emailed them and they haven't responded. I'm uploading it to another site as I write this, however. I'll keep everyone updated. Thanks.

Posted by: TheBigH at October 31, 2007 3:27 PM

"At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 31, 2007 3:27 PM

That odd. I wonder which of their policies your speech violates? Perhaps to some, telling the truth about islam is an obscenity. They don't seem to have a blasphemy category. My bemusement is compounded by the fact that they have some material that is worthy of Dur Sturmer.

Posted by: MP at October 31, 2007 3:34 PM

I guess videos of American Soldiers being blown up by Jihadists is A-OK with the leftist (expletive deleted) sacks of fecal matter that run the show there...oh wait...
As set forth in the Terms & Conditions, Google Video is not required to host or display uploaded content. Google Video MAY refuse to host content that violates its policies,(But only when it fits our particular view) including:"graphic violence or other acts resulting in serious injury or death." Clearly, showing Jihadi attacks on American forces is not considered to be "graphic violence". And apparently when an American Soldier dies, it isn't really death at all. Google is run by scumbags.
They aid China in rounding up pro Democracy citizens, and give the Jihadis a place to post their videos of attacks on those that promote and protect freedom. They are truly the scum of the earth. I will NEVER use Google or anything associated with them again.

Posted by: Alaskan at October 31, 2007 3:40 PM

Censorship is really a government action. Google or Jihad-watch are a kind of private property. Therefore (for example) posting at Jihad-Watch is not a right, but a privilege. We are all guests here and this is not public property.

That being said, no site has the right to slander a private person, to cause them emotional distress. Slander is not protected speech when an individual person is the target. Google should be sued.

Though I am tight with a buck, I would contribute to such a fund. My perception of Robert is that he is anything but a hater. I think he has some personal obligation to relatives from Turkey who were injured or killed by Muslims there. I think he feels obliged to confront this ideology with the truth. I'll bet I'm right. It's not about hate. It's about the truth.

Posted by: Frank at October 31, 2007 3:41 PM

Censorship is really a government action. Google or Jihad-watch are a kind of private property.

Yeah, but Google has shown itself all too willing to lend their assistance to the Red Chinese government in suppressing free expression, thus qualifying as censors by even your restrictive definition.

And sure, they have the legal right to do this kind of thing, but if they do, they have no moral right to do so while misleading people into believing that they will host almost any kind of video, with very narrow exceptions. They have an obligation to make it clear that they are deliberately suppressing certain viewpoints, not because they are hateful or incite to violence, but because they disagree with them, or want to curry favor with certain governments, or want to avoid suicide bombers attacking their headquarters, or are driven by some other motive that is irrelevant to the merits of what they are banning.

Posted by: Seamus at October 31, 2007 3:49 PM

It's somewhat like Jerry Lewis with muscular dystrophy. Jerry has never divulged (to my knowledge) why he so confronts (very successfully) muscular dystrophy. But such focus is always rooted in something personal. It's a personal obligation. In that sense, Fibrahim Hooper may consider himself one of Robert's kids (as in Jerry's kids).

Posted by: Frank at October 31, 2007 3:49 PM

Immediately after posting, I realized that I used the pronoun "they" ambiguously. What I meant was that "[t]hey [i.e., Google] have an obligation to make it clear that they are deliberately suppressing certain viewpoints, not because they [i.e., the viewpoints] are hateful or incite to violence, but because they [i.e., Google again] disagree with them [i.e., the viewpoints again], or want to curry favor with certain governments, or want to avoid suicide bombers attacking their [Google's] headquarters, or are driven by some other motive that is irrelevant to the merits of what they [Google] are banning."

Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: Seamus at October 31, 2007 3:53 PM

graphic violence or other acts resulting in serious injury or death

Robert, was your speech accompanied by any photos of anyone being executed by islamofascist governments or by jihadi terrorists? If so, those would be graphic violence, something that jihadis have been all too willing to provide.

Posted by: Bigfoot at October 31, 2007 3:57 PM

Seamus-

I agree they are co-operating with censors in China and therefore are agents of censorship. However, they are not the censors. Only government may censor.

Trust me, I'm not saying Google is right here. They are engaging in slander as an excuse for pulling the talk at Dartmouth. It's like kicking somebody out of Wal-Mart and giving a slanderous reason for kicking them out. It is their property, but when they give a slanderous reason for their discrimination, the customer-citizen has a right to claim damage.

Posted by: Frank at October 31, 2007 4:01 PM

Unbelievable! Muslims must have been complaining.

Posted by: Bonniea at October 31, 2007 4:04 PM

Google boys are rabid leftists and very much a part of the islamicommie unholy alliance. That's no secret.
So much for their "don't be evil" motto...what a bunch of hypocritical punk-@$$ kids.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 31, 2007 4:08 PM

"....Google Video may refuse to host content that violates its policies, including:
illegal content
invasions of personal privacy
pornography or obscenity
hate or incitement of violence
graphic violence or other acts resulting in serious injury or death."

Could it be that Google took it down because of the "hate or incitment of violence" that was perpetrated by the protesters?

LMAO!!!

Just trying to think outside the box.....heh heh heh....

I will never use Google again.....ever!! By showing just how two-faced they are they have shot themselves in the proverbial foot. I don't think they realise how stupid their personal vendetta is, or how childish they look to those who understand the dogma behind this. Just when I think I have heard and seen all the stupidity there is, along comes another example that resets the bar of hippocracy a little higher. I give Google the Dhimmi of the week award. And as Bill Engvall says, "Here's your sign"

"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Stop Muslim immigration now"
"Islam, abusing women since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at October 31, 2007 4:09 PM

The policy Google follows must be evenly applied to all. The Manor of application must be consistant with all the material carried.

One needs to find where Polar views have not been removed that violate their "rules"

Policy, of any nature, cannot in and of itself be discriminatory, nor practiced as such.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 31, 2007 4:11 PM

If Hitler could have controlled information and truth through the media like the left controls today, we would all be speaking German and doing the Nazi two-step.

Google is scared of the truth...BOOOOOO BOOOOOO!!!

Posted by: alaskan1000 at October 31, 2007 4:15 PM

Down with Youtube, go to QubeTV!

Posted by: Charles Martel at October 31, 2007 4:15 PM

Seamus-

This is the way I see it, Seamus: Let's say ABC etc. kicks Howard Stern or Doctor Laura off the air. It's not censorship. However, if they slander Dr. Laura or Howard Stern when kicking them off then that is a different matter.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think in civil suit a jury does not have to be unanimous, and only a majority are needed to get a judgement. (That's what happened when Ron Goldman's father sued OJ. OJ had to take the stand. Mr. Goldman's focus was his son. He wanted the bastard that killed his son on the stand.)

One may discriminate at Wal-Mart (e.g.)-but the reason better be a good one (shoplifting, etc). If Google discriminates against Robert and then slanders him as the reason for discrimination, Google may become Roogle after a jury looks over the damage to a private citizen as a result of the slander. That's the way I see it.

Posted by: Frank at October 31, 2007 4:23 PM

Isn't there something that can be done about this?? Expose this on Fox News maybe?? This hypocricy can't continue!! I've tried in the past to find a way to communicate with Google to express my dissatisfaction/anger at them but can't find an e-mail that goes to the main headquarters.

Posted by: TeachESL at October 31, 2007 4:27 PM

Oh Robert! Can you not see how wrong we infidels are? CLEARLY you are being obtuse when you fail to recognize that your speach is inciting violence. How could any self-respecting jihadist let your comments go unanswered, they are incapable of controlling themselves. You are naive to think that they will do otherwise. So, your speach cannot remain on Google Video because it is only going to create reactions of violence and hatred, by the practitioners of the religion of peace.

Posted by: The Commissioner at October 31, 2007 4:29 PM

Robert,

There is a chance that they actually did you a favor. When I tried to watch it earlier the audio was terrible. I could barely understand two words out of five. Granted that my hand-me-down speakers were cheap to start with, but your dulcet tones deserve better.

Posted by: USBeast at October 31, 2007 4:46 PM

I can see their side of it. Your video takes up too much bandwidth needed by the Google people to set up hi-res Google Earth feeds for Hamas rocket launchers in Gaza.

Posted by: danS at October 31, 2007 5:07 PM

"The fascist thugs aren't just at Emory. Some of them apparently work for Google."

sorry wrong terminology, these are not fascists, we are fighting far left, marxists, socialists and communists who are allied with the islamists, many of whom are pro socialism, hence gadaffi's socialist regime and other notable islamic revolutions. i believe that the iranian revolution was left wing inspired?
liberals are being manipulated by the far left, our media is used against us.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at October 31, 2007 5:17 PM

I've uploaded it to Guba and it should be up soon.
Again, I'll post the link here and send it to Mr. Spencer as soon as its available.
USBeast: I'm sorry the audio was terrible, but it was the best I could do with my limited resources (I'm just a student and Dartmouth certainly wasn't going to help out). I believe Spencer's words still are loud and clear, however. I haven't heard of anyone else who has had trouble hearing the audio.

Posted by: TheBigH at October 31, 2007 5:17 PM

Goodsearch.com seems to be a good alternative to Google, and you can specify a non-dhimmi charity of your choice to receive the proceeds.

Posted by: Saint Kansas at October 31, 2007 5:50 PM

Finally got it up on Guba: http://www.guba.com/watch/3000095246?duration_step=0&fields=8&filter_tiny=0&pp=6000&query=1077082&sb=0&set=5&sf=0&size_step=0&o=0&sample=1193876322:de8be23a47565babff22c98c3e215e5670b89eb3
We'll see how long it stays up there.

Posted by: TheBigH at October 31, 2007 8:22 PM

What did you expect from the company that is supplying Communist China with cencorship filters for their internet.
THESE GUYS ARE ANTI FREE SPEECH! I'm removing Google from being my default browser! If enough people do the same, we will prevail!

Posted by: scooter at October 31, 2007 9:16 PM

Yes, Leonthepgfarmer, based on the newer OBL rants, a more proper descriptive might be either IslamoMarxism, or maybe better IslamoStalinism, but it all must be so confusing to some because, you know, those ultra-religious types would never cooperate with Secular Socialist governments...

unless of course you consider the History of Hilter and the Grand Mufti, or Sadamm adding that clever sing-song phrase to the Iraqi flag.

Maybe better just to call them Darth Vaders to make comprehension easier?

Posted by: Sashland at October 31, 2007 10:04 PM

Google should add another reason:

Just because.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 31, 2007 10:23 PM

What email address did you use for Google? I can't find an appropriate one.

Posted by: David Shane at October 31, 2007 11:05 PM

I am about fed up with Google and Youtube! I think I am going to start using motionbox instead. Here is a video a fellow blogger sent me that was deleted at Youtube. Its a protest song against jihad.
http://markedmanner.blogspot.com/2007/10/anti-jihad-video-deleted-over-and-over.html

Posted by: markedmanner at October 31, 2007 11:25 PM

I complained to Google about your video and this is what they sent me: "Hi Michael, Thanks for your email. "Robert Spencer at Dartmouth College for IFAW,October 26, 2007" video was rejected because it doesn't meet our technicalrequirement. In order for a video to be included in Google Video pleasemake sure that it meets the following requirement: -The video must contain recognizable video content (video container filesthat do not contain video will not be accepted). If you wish to have the video included in Google Video, please have theuploader make sure that it complies with our technical requirements listedat: http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=26562 Sincerely, The Google Team Original "

Posted by: Michael Babbitt at November 1, 2007 6:29 PM

Has anyone else noticed that YouTube doesn’t have a problem with offensive videos, just well reasoned factual videos that don’t fit the PC world view?

Posted by: *~@}:{> at November 2, 2007 1:09 AM

Mr Spencer,

Could you please let us know who owns the copyright to this video? I am wondering if it is possible that the copyright holder (Dartmouth College?) filed a DMCA complaint with Google. If this was the case, Google would be required to remove the video in order to avoid liability under the DMCA.

Posted by: 5150 at November 3, 2007 11:43 PM

Mr. Spencer,

Could you please let us know who owns the copyright to this video? I am wondering if it is possible that the copyright holder (Dartmouth College?) filed a DMCA complaint with Google. If this was the case, Google would be required to remove the video in order to avoid liability under the DMCA.

Posted by: 5150 at November 3, 2007 11:44 PM