Does anyone else find it strange that there are voice-overs in the film whenever Mohammed or relations to Mohammed are mentioned? I think the best way to think about this to analogise from the law on on-line torts. The more the website shapes what people write, the more likely it is that they can be sued. There is a famous case about discrimination on Craigslist, in the housing section.
This is an approach that makes sense. If a company voluntarily takes on the task to censor and shape what is written on its website, people should be able to sue it, but they should be able to opt-out of that responsibility in those cases where the volume of traffic, etc.
Applying this to the present controversy, the answer is that Youtube should be asked to follow its own terms of usage, which is in fact what the US government has done. In this case, Youtube has declared that this clip is consistent with their terms of use, and that is that.
The result of this approach is that in most cases websites like Youtube and Facebook will become public fora where people can post what they like.
And that is all the better. We need such places on the internet. In the Maldives, the government has officially banned the film and is trying to remove access to it on YouTube. Some protesters bought their children carrying plastic AK47s. It was fairly low-key though and more a show of solidarity than a angry demonstration. As the author points out, it seems to be difficult to work out whose ethical assessment to use for the question of whether the video should be online. There are 1 the producers of Innocence of Muslims; 2 Google; 3 governments around the world; and 4 Muslim protesters.
If I had to go with one, I would choose governments, especially if they are democratically elected. The good thing about governments is that I can always revolt. Google is further away. Sir: The bad thing about governments, especially those which have not been democratically elected, is that they can always ignore the revolt and carry on regardless. Google lives and dies by its IP and Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and these non-democratic governments, live as they please and only die when forcibly removed.
I personally would pick the side of Google in this debate, as it seems to me that this would be the side of the law. You must be logged in to post a comment. Take a look at the highlighted principles which are relevant to this article to find out more, or browse all of our key principles. Swipe left to browse all ten principles. We defend the internet and other systems of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers.
We — all human beings — must be free and able to express ourselves, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers. We require uncensored, diverse, trustworthy media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life. We must be able to protect our privacy and to counter slurs on our reputations, but not prevent scrutiny that is in the public interest.
We must be empowered to challenge all limits to freedom of information justified on such grounds as national security. Eric Heinze provocatively argues that no-platformers need to look into the mirror and examine their own blind spots. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred. Then things got messy. But stupid as it may be, rumors about the film continue to metastasize. Jones, meanwhile, now the proud figurehead of the dangerous and already deadly viral movement, plans to screen the movie for as long as people will pay attention to him.
This post has been updated throughout. It would be the biggest boost of federal aid to Amtrak since Congress created it half a century ago. Flynn said in an interview Monday. Already a subscriber? There is one actor playing Muhammad the whole time, and we are meant to understand that he is aging because his beard gets grayer. Other than that, the video is mostly non-narrative. Muhammad is portrayed as a drunk, a child molester, and a homosexual.
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said an injunction prohibiting Google from broadcasting the film should be lifted. Protests over the film coincided with an attack on U. The plaintiff, actress Cindy Lee Garcia, objected to the film after learning it incorporated a clip she made for a different movie.
0コメント