White House attempts to circumvent First Amendment....

1. 0

   SassySue1963posted 12 years ago

   The WH Administration sent a "request" to YouTube to "review" the movie that supposedly led to the violence and death of four American citizens. They went on to express their belief that the movie violated YouTube's TOS classifying it as hate speech.
   To date, YouTube has refused to block the movie entirely claiming it does not violate their Terms of Use, but has blocked it in Libya and Egypt given the difficult situation.
   
   http://mashable.com/2012/09/14/white-ho … e-muslims/
   
   So, let me get this straight according to this President, the video below denouncing Christians as stupid is fine, but the one above is "hate" speech?
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iY8R0tjzk
   
   One freedom at a time.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No liberties were constrained, if Obama had forced youtube to take it down maybe this argument could be made. What is happening is the government trying to get Youtube to prevent further violence and deaths which is surely a worth goal. People dying is bad right?

      replyreport
      1. 69

         The Frog Princeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm wondering if things in the country Josak lives in are so great that he needs to comment on affairs here that aren't his concern.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well I will take up for him a bit in that he does live here from time to time but he has proven to me he is one who believes this sort of thing is all our fault or at least because of the video even though there is the possibility it is not all about the video. The video was release in July and they waited till 9/11????
            Interesting timing.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I don't believe this is about the video at all. Naturally, that is just my opinion but there it is. Yes, I'm aware that us conceding this point, only to be asked to concede another until we've all but given up our right to free speech may not be that alarming to some but....I'll keep fighting anyway.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh no it's not about the video , but what a handy tool and shazam he is a radical Christian. There's your problem right there folks.
                  Oh I say trouble....right here in River City.......
                  
                  Meanwhile in the real world a Marine base has now been openly attacked with word of dead and wounded.
                  Well, nobodies fault but our own right?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You are speaking of the one in Afghanistan? That's easy. He'll lay that one at the feet of President Bush. I'm surprised they haven't tried to lay all this on Bush. It is what they do best.
                     it boggles my mind why our diplomats were not immediately evacuated from all of these countries after what happened. The remains of those killed arrived home today so there isn't any reason we could not have had these diplomats in a safer place as now there are 2 more dead when the Embassy in Tunisia was invaded today.
                     
                     Edit: Okay, apparently the Embassy was not staffed at the time nor the school in session. Some sanity at last! Though, there were soldiers in place the report says. Not sure who was killed or injured yet.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Basically put these folks now know if they decide to spread bloodshed the President will defer and the liberal progresssives in our nation will actually defend the attackers and explain to us how it's all our fault. They know this and love it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Absolutely agree. They had intel reports days before this happened. Plus, it was 9/11. And we did not think to have these people somewhere better defended? No extra security in place? Then we have the weak response to the murders from this Administration. If we had taken a strong stance immediately, much of this further violence would have been averted. It is the same thing we saw under Carter. Present a weak and apologetic stance and you are now an easy target.

                           replyreport
         2. 76

            psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            How is saying this morally any different from what suggesting youtube review the video.  It suggests someone shouldn't speak up in a public forum and say whatever is on their mind. You just discriminated on the basis of nationality, not religion. In what is undoubtedly an international situation.

            replyreport
         3. 74

            Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            We are all citizens of the world.
            Why wouldn't an international situation be Josak's concern?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I actually live in the US but whatever.

               replyreport
      2. 0

         SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No force is necessary to begin to erode your rights Josak. It begins with a simple reasonable request such as this one. This is precisely why I included one of the thousands of videos against the Christian faith that are currently up on YouTube. They not only made the "request" (let's be honest, a "request" from the WH is really more than a request at any time) but categorized the video FOR YouTube as to why they should remove it.
         People dying is definitely a bad thing, you are not going to get an argument there. What do you think the next step would be though? A censoring board that decides what can and can't be allowed to avert any negative reaction around the world? Do you honestly believe that this movie produced this violent reaction? Honestly? Really? I don't. It is being used as an excuse.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh no one will pay any mind to an anti_christian video. those are supposed to be there.

            replyreport
      3. 73

         lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Unless, @Josak, the president orders the death. Then it's perfectly okay. He can kill anyone he wants to without a warrant, a charge or prior notification to the intended target which might allow them to appeal the assassination.
         
         Public protest can now also be a felony (HR 347). Welcome to Gulag Amerika, Inc.
         
         President Obama promised to restore Habeas Corpus, and how difficult would that have been to keep? As Commander-in-Chief, he could've pulled all of the troops out of Iraq immediately, keeping his campaign promise there, too, but he decided to rename "combat" troops into "trainers," and to keep them there indefinitely.
         
         People dying is bad, but so is secret tyranny. If someone releases a video which proves that the government was behind 9/11, what if it results in some violent people attempting to kill government officials? Should we ban that video in the name of protecting the guilty in government? Tyrannical governments just love their secrets.

         replyreport
   2. 81

      Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Sue, a request is not imposing a mandatory requirement, but being on the responsible side I take Josak/s position on this issue. Unnecessary provocations are not in order, even though I accept the right of anyone to post or print whatever. But in the interest of preserving our men and woman in the State Department, a little restraint might well be in order on YouTubes part.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I never said they were imposing a mandatory requirement in the least. Merely that you had better pay attention because it is these little reasonable infringements on rights that begin the process to erode them altogether. I might add, as I did below, that this is an unprecedented request despite many issues with previously posted religious bashing videos on YouTube. In any event, anyone who believes these protests have anything to do with a video posted back in July is beyond gullible.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So let's twist the real request which I think was not only reasonable but something that *anyone* could have made -- did you read the link you posted??
      
      "The Obama administration has “reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use,” Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, told the Washington Post on Friday."
      
      Big difference between asking for a review and demanding a takedown.  <sigh>
      
      No, I'm not a Democrat.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Where did I twist it? Nowhere did I claim they demanded a takedown of the video. I might point out however, that this request is unprecedented. Unprecedented. Are you aware that there was a movie that portrayed Jesus Christ as having sexual relations with Mary Magadelene. People were outraged. No such request was made of that video. As I point out, there are thousands of such things posted against Christians, there is no such request. I even stated that it appeared to be a perfectly reasonable request given the circumstances. However, they did not just request a review, they gave YouTube the reason they felt it should be taken down. It is actually you who are twisting my words because I never stated any such thing.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You implied something with this title "White House attempts to circumvent First Amendment"
            
            That's all .... and yes, I was aware of the Last Temptation of Christ.  I also remember that protest sparked several theaters to stop screening the movie. If my memory serves me (and it might not) General Cinemas later apologized to Scoresee for that blunder.

            replyreport
2. 73

   Shanna11posted 12 years ago

   Well, Christian's are far less likely as a group to go out and riot and harm others in comparison to Muslims. That sounds way more inflammatory outside of my head, but it IS weird to me, and I believe in being honest instead of politically correct. Yeah, Christian's and other religious groups get upset when people bash them, but Muslims downright explode (no inappropriate pun intended there at all =/) and immediately start demanding blood.
   
   Freedom of Speech is never allowed to infringe on another person's physical wellbeing, and while the video itself isn't directly harming anyone, it is indirectly inciting violence. If you can't stop the rioters, at least make an effort to quell the reason for their anger, at least for the time being. I'd rather see the video down for a while (even though I am against censorship as a general principle) than see this escalate further; there are American lives in danger. Are we really going to keep them in danger for the sake of one distasteful and poorly thought-out video?
   
   
   (Edit: I realize that went off on a tangent that's not really as related to your original topic as I thought. Sorry!)

   replyreport
   1. 0

      SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You're fine Shanna. I understand your principle and there is a big part of me that would even agree except  I do love to study history. If you just take a moment to peruse Hitler's regime in Germany, you'll find that's how they gave up their rights' so readily. One at a time, to what seemed to be perfectly legitimate reasonable requests. Anyone who believes for one second that this video, released in July as pointed out by JC, is the cause of this violence and not just the excuse, well, it doesn't really add up.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Shanna11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's true. I was wondering about that earlier today. It could just be a catalyst for already existing problems. Just an excuse to let everything else out. It's fascinating altogether, in an unfortunate-tragedy sort of way. I'm in an international relations class and a comparative politics class currently, as well as a class that deals with political research and writing. I may decide to focus on some of this and look at it a little more in depth.

         replyreport
      2. 81

         Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sue, I am with you to the point that I don't want to make it a habit of being easily intimidated by these people,perhaps we need to fortify and increase security within the Embassies of the troublesome nations, but I will not allow our values to be put aside because a mob threatens violence all of the time. But for the moment, until we take stock of the situation restraint is appropriate.

         replyreport
   2. 73

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @Shanna11, while I'd like to think you're right about Christians, I suspect that you're entirely wrong.
      
      Let's say that China becomes the next big super power. Let's say that America's crazy government finally pushes the National Debt Bubble to the point of popping and with $16-30 Trillion in debt (based on pre-pop values), but a worthless dollar which could never pay it all back, our country would become a third-world nation overnight.
      
      Now, let's say that China needs some of our resources and decides to create a false-flag operation that makes it look like Americans attacked China. They send 100 Million troops in to look over our 300+ million population -- 1 soldier for every 3 Americans -- men, women and children.
      
      There are abuses, and Americans are killed because the Chinese have no incentive to be kind. People revolt being invaded. Americans are called terrorists because they fight against the invader. Many of those who fight are Christians who don't like the Communist oppression and suppression of religion. They also don't like the fact that the Chinese are occupying someone else's country.
      
      Karma is a bitch. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Charles Jamesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Don't forget the good Christians of Croatia, Serbia and Northern Ireland who at various times have killed other Christians because they were the wrong kind of Christian.

      replyreport
3. 81

   Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

   What a shame that the countries of the Middle East can get the "dawgs" back here at home to chase any stick they throw and bring it back.  To actually believe that this movie is the cause is so absurd beyond belief.  To see our President, the Secretary of State, and the Head of the Joint Chiefs chasing that stick defys all intelligence. This was a planned and coordinated attack on the United States totally aligned with the anniversary of 9-11.  What we do in America is not any business of anyone in the Middle East yet Obama is making it his business to chase the stick.  Wow...do we ever need a leader who has respect for his own country.  There is no basis which justifies what these attackers have done on the sovereign grounds of the U.S. Embassies and there should be no tolerance for it.  Until we show some spine, this situation will only continue to grow and get further and further out of hand...all because of a film.  Wow...ignorance is a powerful thing on both sides of the ocean.  ~WB

   replyreport
4. 60

   JSChamsposted 12 years ago

   
   
   I say again......

   replyreport
   1. 0

      SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There were never any truer words JC. It is Carter all over again.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are you guys seriously this horribly uninformed? We bombed Gaddafi's house in April 1986  in September of the same year so after that directly Libya hijacked Pan Am flight 73 in retaliation.
         
         HORRIBLY WRONG
         
         Seriously guys? From someone who claims to love history? Weren't you guys alive at the time?! Seven Americans were killed... so more than now.

         replyreport
   2. 74

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Um, I think it was actually Obama who bombed their leaders' house.
      He was living in Pakistan at the time.
      No one apologized for anything.
      

      replyreport
      1. 60

         JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You weren't around? Ronald Reagan bombed Quadaffi.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I know full well what happened under Reagan.
            The picture you posted makes it seem like Reagan put Libya in their place in 1986 and they were docile in the face of big, bad America for 25 years.
            It further seems to assert that the recent uprising is because someone (it doesn't say who, but the implication is Obama) APOLOGIZED.
            
            It totally ignores many key events that have transpired since 1986.
            The poster is a non sequitur.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               
               Now that is a non sequitur...

               replyreport
            2. 61

               Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Libya actually got worse after the bombing for several years before.
               
               It was actually Clinton who through statesmanship and diplomacy got them to stop being a rogue state (internationally at least) Libya made reparations, renounced terrorism etc. and the sanctions were dropped.
               
               "If one must injure an enemy it is better that the injury be catastrophic, for a slight injury he will get revenge, for a great one he can not"
               
               The bombing in 86 was very much a small injury and since we are generally not willing to commit massive injuries on a country we should attempt diplomacy and statesmanship which are generally far more successful, cheaper and costs fewer lives.
               To paint the Reagan bombing as a success is false it made Libya worse.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  That is not true at all Josak. There were sanctions for years and years and years. They took 20 years to have any effect. In fact, any effect they really had is very debatable. Most attribute the Iraq invasion in 2003 and the interception of a ship headed to Libya in October of 2003. They felt the heat and believed they were next for military action. To try to lay the credit at the feet of Clinton is ridiculous. Regardless, they were not "worse". As I already stated there were the 2 incidents that they offered reparations and such in return for their diplomatic standing.

                  replyreport
   3. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Then in 88 they killed almost 300 people on Pan Am flight 103 do you guys not remember this? Is this what you call all quiet?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @Josak
         Actually, Libya was only involved in bank rolling the terrorists responsible for both instances. They were not the only financial backers either. Some also believe that Libya was not involved at all in the bombing but framed. It was originally Iran that was the prime suspect. However, Libya did take responsibility for both incidents in order to re-establish it's diplomatic relations in a deal with President Bush. It does say almost 25 years and Libya was dealt with accordingly and severely.
         
         @MM President Obama went around the world apologizing to everyone who would listen for America in 2009 and 2010. To the point where conservative news sources even named it his Apology Tour.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sometimes it takes courage to admit when you are wrong about something rather than just plowing ahead in plain stubborness, like GW Bush?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Like now Credence? Do you think this President might admit he was wrong in the weak front he has presented to these radicals? Or perhaps that he was wrong to back the Muslim Brotherhood? Or that he was wrong not to be certain that our diplomats were well secured when the WH knew well in advance of planned protests and even had intel of a planned attack on the anniversary of 9/11? Yes it takes courage. I haven't seen it out of the WH yet during this incident.

               replyreport
            2. 73

               lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Good point @Credence2.
               
               Bush even laughed about no WMDs, and our boys were dying in Iraq. How callous is that?
               
               If you punch someone in the face and accuse them of stealing your wallet, but then the waiter discovers you had dropped it at the cash register, do you apologize? Do you stop beating them? Do you stop looking through their pockets?
               
               America didn't!

               replyreport
         2. 74

            Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            He had some damage control to do around the world.
            

            replyreport
            1. 0

               SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               MM Where did you get that piece of fantasy? We both know that the President's approval rating is nowhere near 61% in the US. That alone makes it an unreliable source of anything accurate.
               
               Here is a more recent report:
               "    In Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan, the U.S. was more popular under President George W. Bush in 2008 than it is right now under President Obama"
               "In nearly every county surveyed, there is widespread opposition to the Obama administration’s use of drones to target extremist groups. In predominantly Muslim countries, U.S. anti-terrorism measures are still largely unpopular. "
               
               I'd guess that neither is exactly accurate anyway as it is difficult to obtain such information from foreign nations. I do have to say, that we look a whole lot less popular right now than under Bush. Or perhaps it is just that they sense a lack of leadership from this Administration and have no fear of reprisals.
               
               source: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2 … 20803.html

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Seriously you think Bush was more popular internationally?  He was an international laughing stock everywhere and usually also hated for Iraq. Obama is very popular overseas partially because most countries tend further to the left and see him as far more sane as a result. Public health insurance being an excellent example across Europe, Australasia and other countries I have been recently it seems such a no brainer to them that they find Americans insane to oppose it.
                  
                  It says at the bottom it's Pew Research which is reliable it's probably a bit old though.

                  replyreport
               2. 74

                  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The source is right on the graphic. Pew Research.

                  replyreport
            2. 73

               lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Big deal!
               
               The Corporate Party media can spin things and make even Hitler look good.
               
               Obama has trashed the Constitution repeatedly and doesn't look to be turning back from that behavior. HR 347 makes it a felony to protest. NDAA makes it possible for you to be thrown in jail without charges, without a trial, without being able to see an attorney, forever! And Obama should know better, but he bypassed Congress to go to war with Libya. Piece by piece, the Constitution is being shredded, just as the Germans did 80 years ago to their own constitution.
               
               Here's a one-on-one with Obama regarding his infamous kill list:
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrerl8EwqH0
               
               Both parties have stopped allowing voting and adherence to Roberts Rules of Order:
               RNC Scripted:
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE
               
               DNC Scripted:
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY
               
               So, its both halves of the Corporate Party, not just one or the other.
               
               Wake up, people. Don't be fooled like the Germans 80 years ago.

               replyreport
         3. 61

            Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Several of those responsible were Libyan nationalists, Libya admitted to helping to plan the attacks and to bankrolling them their actions got much worse after the bombing so that was obviously a failure and suggesting they were all quiet is preposterous. As I remember it Gaddafi vowed to fund and aid attacks on America because he claimed that the bombing killed his baby daughter.
            
            There is nothing wrong with apologizing for screw ups we have done terrible things at points in our history, unjustifiable things, and many countries are understandably very upset with us, an apology is a great start to better international relations.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I didn't claim anything. Those are quotes from an article. If you are referencing the last comment, I am speaking of the groups protesting, which the quotes reflected two such area specific to those protesting.  I did go to the site and it is quite old, you are correct which is why I state "a more recent report" which was from April of 2012. After 2009, this President's popularity began to dip on the international front and that trend continues. I guess they were anticipating all that hope and change like we Americans were that never materialized.

               replyreport