| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
All the video does is quote from the Qur'an, but apparently that alone was too much; while Gisburne also posted anti-Christian videos, it is reportedly the video concerning Islam that got him banned. "YouTube Censors Islam Critic?" by Jason Lee Miller for WebProNews (links in the original):
At YouTube, You can say pretty much whatever You want, as long as it's not about Islam. If that's not true, YouTube user Nick Gisburne begs to differ after his account – his entire account – was deleted for its "inappropriate content." What exactly did he say? Well, nothing really. He let the Koran speak for itself.
Gisburne is a self-described atheist with, at least from the one video, a deep questioning of Muslim claims about the Koran. To express his doubts about Islam being a religion of peace, Gisburne created a 10-minute video, entitled "Islamic Teachings" that was nothing but violent quotations taken from the Koran instructing followers to kill nonbelievers and speed their way to Hell where Allah will torture them forever.
It would seem quoting the holy book in a sort of testament against itself was over the line for someone working at Google-owned YouTube. Not only was the video deleted without any type of warning to the uploader, but the uploader's account was also deleted with only the explanation (or accusation) of submitting inappropriate content, a category usually reserved for nudity or video violence.
Gisburne can be seen talking about the experience here, in a very monotone way. But the video in question can still be found on YouTube, for as word spreads about the rather obvious free speech infringement, users by the dozens have become defiant, posting it on Gisburne's behalf.
Over at Xooglers, a blog written by ex-Google employees, Ron Garret says this doesn't reflect well on Google:
This really bothers me for four reasons. First, to deem quotations from a holy text to be "inappropriate content" is outrageous on its face. Second, Gisburne was given no warning. Third, YouTube didn't just delete the video in question, they deleted Gisburne's entire account. And fourth, this makes a mockery of Google's "don't be evil" slogan. There can be no possible reason for this action other than caving to intimidation, and sanctimonious cowardice in the face of oppression is a particularly pernicious breed of evil.
He advises other angry free speech advocates to contact YouTube to express themselves directly.
Posted by Marisol at February 13, 2007 8:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I wonder what percentage of YouTube is owned by some Saudi millionaire-they seem to have their fingers in every pie.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 13, 2007 9:19 AM
"I wonder what percentage of YouTube is owned by some Saudi millionaire-they seem to have their fingers in every pie."
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS
Really. This morning when I tried to access my favourite videos at YouTube, half of them were "no longer available". These were not violent or "racist" - they were thoughtful videos about topics like the islamization of the UK. I guess the YouTube Police got them.
Yet I have noticed many videos on YouTube with hateful, anti-American and anti-semitic content, where islam is praised to the skies and touted as the only true religion.
Who really does own YouTube, anyway ?
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at February 13, 2007 9:37 AM
"Who really does own YouTube, anyway?"
Google, now.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-11-youtube-karim_x.htm
Jawed Karim (of Bangladeshi lineage)was the lesser of the three founders of YouTube but I don't know how much he is involved any longer.
Google on the other hand is another story.
-XRDC
Posted by: XRDC at February 13, 2007 10:06 AM
Yes, free speech is okay as long as you are not threatened for using it.
So who is the big bully on the block?
Some Danish cartoonists know, those who published the same cartoons know,The Pope knows,Some radio, and TV talk show hosts know, some college professors, and student newpaper writers know,some experts on the study of a certain religion know, some former members of a certain religion know, some politicians know. So who is the big bully out there?
Posted by: Mackie at February 13, 2007 10:30 AM
Get it while you still can ! Though the Narraters premise on the Medias bias in painting Muslims, in general, in a negative light at the start of his sermon is a little hard to swallow . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlhNAEClzZw
Posted by: BornInfidel at February 13, 2007 10:40 AM
About "Free Speech." I think there may be a crack-down on YouTube because of some of the criticisms which have been leveled at it in recent days. A few days ago a CNN report stated that there were "how-to" videos posted at YouTube which were how to commit certain crimes. This has riled law enforcement people. Does YouTube really want to teach people how to break and enter into homes or how to steal cars?
At some point (for the benefit of public safety) you have to stop "free speech" -- even libraries do not purchase every single text that's ever been published. There are decisions which need to be made. And, as the CNN report noted, you are not supposed to be uploading videos of acts which could be deemed criminal, etc. Yet, these videos do find their way onto the site. YouTube's excuse is that it doesn't remove the videos unless there's been a complaint(s) by other account holders.
Where and how you draw the line needs to be determined and spelt out for users. What it should not be is (as it is now) arbitrary, without specific reasons, and capricious. (I suspect that the pro-Islam people were offended by the atheist mocking the Koran and acted accordingly. but YouTube should at least be consistent and delete all the myriad of videos offensive to Christianity and Judaism. Why should only one religion not be allowed to be mocked? Special, preferential treatment for Islam needs to be stopped.)
Posted by: J.S. at February 13, 2007 10:41 AM
He is guilty of what those two pastors in Australia were guilty of: actually quoting from the Qur'an and Hadith. That is not allowed. And of course the unforgivable act of Robert Spencer in his own books on Islam is his insistence on such copious quotation from the Qur'an and the Hadith. Why, just look at his book on Muhammad. There is not a single vague phrase in it. There is not a single non-Muslim authority in it. It's all based on what Muslims themselves, and only Muslims, have written. It's the Qur'an, the Hadith, it's the Sira, it's the Muslim commentators down through the centuries on all three.
How dare Robert Spencer, or those Australian pastors, or Nick Gisburne, read the Islamic texts, and what's more, how dare they quote them, not being Muslims? That's not right. That's not just. That must be stopped.
Posted by: Hugh at February 13, 2007 10:46 AM
All the jelly legged liberals have elevated Islam to the only religion that's above criticism and ridicule. The same jerkoffs who applauded "Piss Christ" and the artist's right to expression
Posted by: dennisw at February 13, 2007 10:51 AM
I would guess that this is the handiwork of a lower level mohametan technician, whose loyalty to the ummah makes Google corporate policy irrelevant to this particular decision. Nonetheless, it would be good to get some clarification from Mountain View as to what the official corporate policy is.
Kudos to those other YouTubers who walk the walk of free speech.
Posted by: Infidel33 at February 13, 2007 11:10 AM
The problem seems to be You Tube's policy regarding videos flagged as "inappropriate",
it only takes a concerted effort of a few to get
them bounced. I'm not sure there's even a review process. That being said, I've had several anti-jihad videos up at You Tube for the better part of a year. They consist entirely of verses from the Qur'an and Hadith that inspire and justify violence and subjugation of unbelievers; the second video commentaries from Islamic scholars on those verses after Muslim posters declared they were taken "out of context." You Tube just reflects the pervasive mind-set, telling the truth is "attacking" Islam; is hatemongering and religious bigotry; is telling us things we don't want to hear; it hurts the feelings of Muslims; and, most important, it really makes them mad and we don't want to make them mad. You saw how Robert turned Hamid Mir from a peaceful moderate into a dangerous radical just by introducing him to his Qur'an.
at February 13, 2007 11:55 AM
Will Youtube/google merge with Saudi Religious Police?
For a long time, google news did not include anything from Russia, then recently that changed. They had Chinese done before Russian.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at February 13, 2007 12:02 PM
READ WHAT GOOGLE DID TO "THE MUSLIM QUESTION" (AND WHY.
FROM: http://the-muslim-question.blogspot.com/
***UNFAIR GOOGLE CENSORSHIP!***
THE MUSLIM QUESTION has moved!
American Soldiers Die To Keep Us Free, So Arabs, Muslims and Blogger/Google Can Silence Us For Fighting The Muslim Enemy With Words!
1. This site was censored in an effort to appease Arab, Muslim, and Lefty-Liberal crybabies!
2. Ignore the bullshit Blogger/Google disclaimer and view whatever you like.
3. Blogger/Google has a history of unfairly censoring sites on their servers. Just ask the Chinese.
4. The only HATE going on around here is by GOOGLE.
This site will remain open until Blogger/Google deletes it.
New site:
THE MUSLIM QUESTION (tmq2)
http://tmq2.wordpress.com/
_________________________________________________
Also Read this article explaining what happened here.
U.S. Arab Group Intimidates Google into Censoring THE MUSLIM QUESTION Blog
at February 13, 2007 12:51 PM
Nick Danger said
The problem seems to be You Tube's policy regarding videos flagged as "inappropriate",
it only takes a concerted effort of a few to get
them bounced.
I've seen blogs where jihadists instruct each other in how to search for anti-jihad postings, and how to flag that content as "inappropriate". They know that if enough people flag content as "inappropriate", it will be removed, regardless of what it is. It doesn't take too many jihadists to scam the system.
They learn our technology, then turn it against ourselves. Like a virus, that.
Posted by: special_guest at February 13, 2007 1:21 PM
Of course if would be abhorrent to ask the federal government to do anything about this. A natural market-driven solution will emerge, or is already beginning to emerge I think (I dont remember the link, but I remember stumbling upon a video-sharing site that was explicitly devoted to 'free speech').
People confuse the concept of 'free speech' often. Youtube, as a private entity of course can do all it likes arbitrarily remove videos and post lame excuses, however they will suffer from consumer backlash eventually and Yahoo! Videos or some other site will seize the opportunity to launch themselves .
Posted by: Tushar Saxena at February 13, 2007 1:29 PM
Slightly off topic, Google has also pulled an episode of Penn and Teller's 'Bullshit'. It was the highly informative one debunking recycling.
P.C. is a cancer that affects the brain.
Posted by: USBeast at February 13, 2007 2:56 PM
It's because youtube is becoming so pathetically politically correct that I now use the site http://keepvid.com and FLV player to download and play youtube videos on my own drive. I have now added this video to my collection of "Obsession", "Submission", "Despatches", "Open Season", and for ridiculous comedy "Loose Change".
I encourage others to check out actually downloading and storing interesting items from youtube for posterity.
at February 13, 2007 3:59 PM
Thank you so much for providing that link, payingattention. I just went to YouTube and discovered my favorite videos were red-flagged and no longer available, due to being deemed "inappropriate" -- one was of an ex-terrorist -- yet, of course, YouTube has no qualms about posting all sorts of hateful antisemitic, anti-Israel content and pro terrorist garbage!
I am getting so fed up with our NO FREE SPEECH (I thought it was only in CANADA! go figure!)
Posted by: J.S. at February 13, 2007 5:14 PM
You know, I'm so fed up -- I've decided that what I'll do is get that out of print "Wrath of Allah" and print it up and go around town (like the Mormons) and drop off copies -- anywhere and everywhere...Just get the message out.
Posted by: J.S. at February 13, 2007 5:18 PM
Thanks for the plug, Ynkedoodl2.
Our blog THE MUSLIM QUESTION has been censored at MSN, then censored at Blogger/Google, and now I suspect we'll have the same treatment at WordPress.
They contacted me today and asked that I change one of my comments about another person's comment (a Muslim).
Where does this appeasing end?
I think I know. It ends when the West is part of Islam and under sharia law. I'm getting a bit confused about where the battle lines are these days. At what point do we start militarily engaging those who appease our enemy?
During the last wars they weren't called appeasers. They were called what they really are, traitors. And as Abraham Lincoln said, they should be hanged.
.
at February 13, 2007 7:04 PM
Looks like I may have been wrong about WordPress. I had inadvertently posted the other guy's email address in my retort.
Received this message from them just now:
"...not censoring you - really. You are completely free to talk about anything and disagree with anyone, really you are.
The other guy just didn't want spam. That's all.
...not in the business of censoring people - blogs are here to give everyone a voice."
This is encouraging.
Posted by: Lance-TMQ at February 13, 2007 7:15 PM
This guy also made a similiar video with Bible verses, in the exact same template. He wasn't banned for that though.
Posted by: Vince at February 13, 2007 8:14 PM
but youtube is a private entity, they can ban whom they want the same way that jihadwatch bans certain i.p adressess. guess freedomw of speech is limited to both liberal and right wing web sites. sadly jihadwatch and you tube need to be more open and stop with the banning. slightly hypocritical that's all.
but whenever i see a pro-jihadist on you tube spouting hate, i simply tell them that i have notifies their respective government's secret services about their activities. that gets them to self-censor their profiles and they normally delete their comments pretty darn quick. censorship is not the way guys.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 13, 2007 10:10 PM
This was posted (dated feb 12) on the youtube blog: http://www.youtube.com/blog
Not a word on the fairness of their move. Just a simple mistake, folks. Everything's ok now. Sounds disengenuous, to say the least. No, actually, it sounds like they are lying.
Quote:
Note on Terminated Accounts
There's been a bit of buzzing on the blogs today with people suggesting that we've taken down a video because we didn't agree with the point of view of its content. This simply isn't true. Unfortunately, we're partially to blame for the confusion because a user was accidentally sent a generic message about inappropriate content instead of the appropriate copyright notice. We corrected the mistake earlier today, once we figured out what had gone wrong.
We realize that sometimes users whose accounts are closed have fans who feel the loss as well. Many of you have written to us requesting that accounts be reinstated. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) actually requires that the accounts of "repeat infringers" be terminated.
We hope this clears up the confusion and want assure everyone that we will never censor videos because they favor one viewpoint over another. We only remove videos for terms of use violation and copyright disputes, as laid out under the DMCA.
For more information about our copyright guidelines and takedown policies, please check out our Help Center.
Thanks for reading,
Mia
The YouTube Team
Endquote
Posted by: noapology at February 13, 2007 10:48 PM
Leon, Leon, Leon...
You just notify the secret services??!! then claim you're not about "censorship" -- that is hilarious!!
Yeah, Ok, I'll just call up the Feds whenever I'm a bit teed off with some lame brain wanna-be jihadist spoutin' Koranic verses...I mean, c'mon, that's a form of censorship. (Instead of a "private entity," you're getting the government to do it...what's the difference?)
For me, it's not the "censorhip" per se that's bothersome, sure, we don't want criminals doin' How-to's -- or triple x rated pornos -- or jihadist snuff flicks -- BUT, I WANT consistency, I want to know what are their guidelines? Why the inconsistency? -- why allow Islamists their hate-filled crap and hatred expressed to Christians and others, then, turn around and say, "Oh, but no mocking of Islam now -- that's our sacred religion!!" I want consistency! NO special treatment for Islam.
Posted by: J.S. at February 13, 2007 10:48 PM
OK, Mia is a LIAR. They've taken down (dubbed inappropriate) an ANTI-Terrorist video (that was of a Christain convert from Islam -- an EX-terrorist...The video has been removed. Meanwhile, there are scores of pro-terrorist, hate America, hate Israel videos available on YouTube. Thus, their policy is unfair.)
Posted by: J.S. at February 13, 2007 10:54 PM
yeah stupid post sorry, the first bit was ok then i went into a tangent. thanks for pointing that one out. but you're right, theres no consistency with youtube, they allow jihadist material but no criticism of of islam.
i gotta stop drinking and typing, (how very un-islamic of me, sorry the prophet mohammed, pbuh)
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 13, 2007 11:07 PM
Oh, Leon, anytime -- have another one, on me, eh?!
Posted by: J.S. at February 13, 2007 11:17 PM
Will Youtube/google merge with Saudi Religious Police?
Call 'em Yougle.. LOL
at February 13, 2007 11:52 PM
Will Youtube/google merge with Saudi Religious Police?
Call 'em Yougle.. LOL
Brilliant, scrualla!
I'm very disappointed with YouTube. They just made a very big mistake, because the only thing they have to offer is freedom of speech, and they sacrificed it for political expediency. Bad move, which can be exploited by competitors, such as www.Guba.com and video.google.com.
Posted by: US_infidel at February 14, 2007 12:21 AM
So many people have no idea what freedom of speech is. Youtube is privately owned and they can do whatever they want, it doesn't impose on your freedom of speech. ie If you are in a privately owned restaurant, the manager can make you leave for what you say.
Freedom of speech is a valuable thing, but so few people actually understand what it is and how it works. If what youtube is doing upsets you, stop going to youtube. That is how this works, stop getting up in arms over your right to freedom of speech that is not being imposed on in any way. And those of you that have said it, google video is not an alternative as they are owned by the same company... You either need to realize that youtube owns youtube and they can do whatever they want, you can write them a letter and complain, or stop going there, those are your options.
Posted by: T-Rextacy at February 14, 2007 10:17 AM
Slightly OT but pertinent-
Go to YouTube right now and type in Islamic Thinker's Society and watch all of their videos...
And the worst part is they're in New York.
Posted by: wrathofasma at February 14, 2007 12:04 PM
i see youtube have banned the "dirty kuffar" video now since it was found on a alleged terrorists pc in the uk......
Posted by: easyease at February 14, 2007 1:10 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)