<videovortex> YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And Libya

[Geert Lovink]

YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And  
Libya (Free Speech)

by Timothy Geigner from the head-meet-sand dept on Thursday, September  
13th, 2012 @ 7:58PM

Unless you have been living under a rock the past few days, you're  
likely aware of the violent protests in Egypt and Libya on American  
missions which have resulted in several deaths, including that of US  
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The apparent flashpoint for these  
protests was a movie trailer on YouTube for what is by all accounts a  
horribly offensive and insensitve film about Islam and the Prophet  
Mohammed. We've seen similar stories in the past over website content,  
but this incident takes things to a whole new level.

Today we learned that YouTube has taken the step of restricting access  
to the video in question in both Egypt and Libya. When asked about it,  
YouTube responded with the following statement.

"We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also  
enables people to express different opinions," YouTube said by e-mail.  
"This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be  
offensive elsewhere. This video -- which is widely available on the  
Web -- is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube.  
However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have  
temporarily restricted access in both countries."

While I understand why YouTube is doing this, I think it's misguided  
for two reasons. First, stupid and hateful as the video in question  
reportedly is, blocking access (potentially seen as taking it down in  
Egypt and Libya) can be interpreted to mean that the fault for what's  
happening is in part with the video itself. It isn't. The guilt for  
this violence is not in some stupid video. It isn't even in the  
massive protests in the Muslim world against the video (though I'd  
probably suggest they learn about the Streisand Effect). The guilt for  
the violence and death belongs on the thugs and murderers who  
committed it. End of story. This is especially true when the company  
has acknowledged itself that the video does not violate

YouTube's terms of service.

The EFF agrees.

It is easy to understand why YouTube might feel compelled to act in  
response to the rioting over this video, especially after three U.S.  
embassy employees were killed in the Libyan city of Benghazi, but the  
blame for the violence lies not with the video, but with the  
perpetrators. Once YouTube has made the decision to pro-actively  
censor its content, they start down a slippery slope that ends in  
YouTube Knows Best moral policing of every video on their site. It is  
disappointing to see YouTube turn its back on policies that have  
allowed it to become a such a strong platform for freedom of  
expression. We hope that this new-found enthusiasm for pro-active  
censorship is a temporary aberration rather than a sign of things to  
come.The second reason is that YouTube's move is almost certainly  
equal parts too late and ineffectual. As the company's statement  
itself noted, this video is and already was all over the internet.  
Censoring the video now is a bit like covering your ears and eyes as  
your house burns around you. The problem of religious intolerance and  
violent reactions to it is going to exist whether you acknowledge it's  
there or not. Nobody is served by trying to pretend the hateful  
attitudes in the video don't exist. And it isn't like the protests  
have ceased now that YouTube has restricted access in those countries.  
The cat is already out of the bag. All you've done now is open the  
door to blocking videos based on people deciding to be offended with  
little to no effect on the violence at hand. So what was the point?

I'll be clear again: every description of the video in question  
suggests that it is cartoonishly crafted and inflammatory bigotry. But  
it doesn't violate YouTube's TOS, it is speech, and taking it down was  
a poor decision made in fear. That isn't the way I expect a company  
like YouTube to behave.

25 Comments