POLL: Should Google Censor Anti-Islam Videos on YouTube?

The question arises after this week's attacks in Egypt and Libya, where a U.S. Ambassador was killed.

Sept. 11 brought another type of tragedy this year: the killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his staff, as well as attacks on an American embassy and consulate in Egypt and Libya.

The attacks were in response to a Southern California-made, anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube 

Mountain View-based Google  the offending video from viewers in Egypt and Libya hours after the attacks, and sense then has censored it in India and Indonesia, according to the San Jose Mercury News. On Friday afternoon, the company had refused to remove the video completely

Meanwhile the producer, Cerritos resident Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, has reportedly gone into hiding (For more on Nakoula, see Cerritos-Artesia Patch). 

Our question for you this week: Do YouTube and Google have a responsibility to censor anti-Islamic videos? Did they do the right thing by blocking access in the Middle East? Should they be more proactive in censoring videos in the future?  

Vote in our poll and explain your answers in the comments. What do you think and why? 

Eye B. Tender September 27, 2012 at 08:11 PM
thewhigs: "which as mentioned above is only one biased point of view". The U.S Ambassador and American charitable relief organizations were on the scene at the time trying to stop them. They personally witnessed much of this and reported the dirty details back to the U.S. Government. The Turk’s Kurdish thugs loved to tie dozens of people together and then throw them into the bitter waters of Lake Van – under the shadow of Mt. Arafat. (American News fans may remember the Kurds as the "good guys" in Iraq.) But, many of their potential victims broke out of their cattle cars, somehow armed themselves and fought back. Some survived to tell their stories. There is a famous picture depicting four generations of Armenian women who were all murdered during this “biased point of view”.
AR September 27, 2012 at 08:28 PM
bin laden published extensive diatribes after numerous acts of terror even prior to 9/11. these were available to american citizens to read at their discretion. bin laden published numerous videos which were likewise available for viewing by americans through numerous venues, including network tv. your argument still does not hold water. you hold that all that is required to restrict speech is someone somewhere blaming that speech for their own actions. you seem to hold the same contempt for free speech that regimes like saudi arabia hold...i can't even imagine what WOULD be permitted in a world bound by your arbitrary rules. all that would be required is someone report a threat of violence to the speech police and *poof*, its censored. in the soviet era they called these "denunciations", and they were typically used as an excuse to send someone to a camp. don't like sergey next door? just say he's a capitalist running dog. bye sergey.
Eye B. Tender September 28, 2012 at 12:55 AM
NATIVE BORN Christian Majority? Easy enough to understand: had they not been MURDERED, their tens of millions of grandchildren would still be around to stick up for themselves. That would have certainly given them a majority in at least some places. Heck, if your murderous retard heroes had given them some food and water as they marched them out into the desert, they might have eventually built a new Palm Springs near there. Just think of the potential Tax Base to buy guns and rockets for your poor poor "victims" in Gaza!
Frank Geefay September 28, 2012 at 01:20 AM
AR, you again fail to understand what I am saying so I will try one more time. If a video is the Cause of much bloodshed and mob violence (this means that such violent and deadly events have already occurred as a result of the video) then Google/YouTube should give serious consideration to taking the video off their own website to prevent further loss of life. This action is as a result of violence to prevent further violence, not in anticipation of violence that has not yet occurred. Had the Taliban put a video on YouTube showing a very graphic video of our troops being literally blown to pieces and them urinating on the dead bodies while praising the bravery of their terrorist which enraged the American public resulting in riots and the killing of Arab looking people, are you suggesting that you would still protect the Taliban’s right to free expression by keeping the video on line?
thewhigs December 27, 2012 at 02:37 PM
Do you have proof on that or do you regularly come up with unintellectual pablum?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »