Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Censorship on YouTube
Spero News ^ | February 18, 2008 | Robert Amsterdam

Posted on 02/18/2008 7:05:30 AM PST by The Ghost of JG

Over the past week an unprecedented level of attention has been received by my YouTube channel, where for several months we have hosted a powerful video documenting torture and abuse of prisoners in Yekaterinaburg. For more than 60 days, the controversial video had about 6,500 views, but after a Wall Street Journal article about Lev Ponomarev linked to it, within days there were more than 30,000 views and hundreds of comments.

However yesterday I received the following notification in my email inbox:

Dear Member: After being flagged by members of the YouTube community and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature.

(Excerpt) Read more at speroforum.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: censorship; freespeech; newmedia; ponomarev; russia; wsj; youtube
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 02/18/2008 7:05:31 AM PST by The Ghost of JG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of JG

Where the heck is Yekaterinaburg?


2 posted on 02/18/2008 7:09:27 AM PST by scooter2 (The greatest threat to the security of the United States is the Democratic Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scooter2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekaterinburg


3 posted on 02/18/2008 7:13:41 AM PST by TommyDale (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Please note the correct spelling is Yekaterinburg.


4 posted on 02/18/2008 7:14:21 AM PST by TommyDale (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of JG
It looks like that the video included violence scenes. This is unacceptable for public demostration in any country.
5 posted on 02/18/2008 7:23:47 AM PST by Freelance Warrior (The barbarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freelance Warrior
This is unacceptable for public demostration in any (legitimate) country. There, fixed that.
6 posted on 02/18/2008 7:26:42 AM PST by junkman72 (just another day at the junkyard/time to buy another handgun(VA req.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: junkman72

It’s a good thing they didn’t show prisoners with panties on their heads.


7 posted on 02/18/2008 7:28:05 AM PST by TommyDale (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of JG

That’s not censorship. That’s a bunch of nuts going there and flagging the video. That’s what the left does.


8 posted on 02/18/2008 7:31:28 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of JG

The last time I checked, YouTube was privately owned and therefore, private property, much like FR.

The last time I checked, owners of private web sites are allowed to control the content of their web sites and to remove content they find objectionable.

There’s nothing stopping this fellow from creating his own website and posting his video there instead.


9 posted on 02/18/2008 7:36:12 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of JG

They also censored pro-life videos last week while leaving
the pro-abort “Mile High” clip that was criticized on the site till they were exposed for their obvious bias:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11758


10 posted on 02/18/2008 7:46:44 AM PST by Lesforlife ("For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb . . ." Psalm 139:13!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Agreed

However, youtube's guidelines need to be equally applied and not doing so is illegal.

11 posted on 02/18/2008 7:47:56 AM PST by Bear_Slayer (When liberty is outlawed only outlaws will have liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer
However, youtube's guidelines need to be equally applied and not doing so is illegal.

Illegal? How so?

12 posted on 02/18/2008 7:56:12 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: junkman72
(legitimate) country

Among Youtube's users there likely those who live in one.

13 posted on 02/18/2008 8:05:07 AM PST by Freelance Warrior (The barbarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Yeah, but it’s easier to whine and moan and becoming a victim of you tube policy.


14 posted on 02/18/2008 8:07:20 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
I may be wrong and I'll be fine stepping back from this if I am, but:

I believe there are laws that prohibit a business from offering services with conditions and then allowing some, but not others to violate those conditions.

In this example, the video was removed for its inappropriate nature Even though there are numerous other videos of equal inappropriateness that are never removed.

15 posted on 02/18/2008 8:07:45 AM PST by Bear_Slayer (When liberty is outlawed only outlaws will have liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

YouTube has repeatedly shown leftist bias in what it censors and what it allows.

The most egregious example is that they censored a pro-life video that used EXTRACTS from a pro-abortion video to make its point, claiming that it was too violent. Yet they left up the original pro-abortion video from which those extracts were taken.

Sure, they could say that they are a leftist organization, and that conservative videos will be removed. But they claim to be politically neutral and give demonstrably lying reasons for removing videos.

They have also removed videos that told the truth about Scientology, and videos that told the truth about Islamism.

I’m not sure if that is illegal or not, but I think it is illegal, because it involves false advertising and discriminatory enforcement of their supposed rules.


16 posted on 02/18/2008 8:17:03 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of JG

BTW the article’s author is a lawer of well-known imprisoned Russian tycoon Khodorkovsky. This fact is worth mentioning, regardless what do you think about it.


17 posted on 02/18/2008 8:18:25 AM PST by Freelance Warrior (The barbarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

You are missing the point ODT. Yes, YouTube has a legal right to post what they want. Other people also have a right to publicize YouTube’s actions and question their motivations. If there are various political or other biases at play regarding YouTube’s posting policies then YouTube users have a right to publicize these.


18 posted on 02/18/2008 8:36:05 AM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer; Cicero

I’m not sure it’s illegal, either. I suspect it’s not because it’s a privately-owned site.

I liken the situation to the one I find here on this site. In the case of FR, it’s Jim’s site. He can ban anyone he wants for any reason he wants. Similarly, he can remove any content he finds objectionable.

And, like FR, if anyone finds these policies too onerous, they are free to create a web site and post whatever they want there, instead. IOW, it’s his way or the highway.


19 posted on 02/18/2008 8:45:15 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (After six years of George W. Bush I long for the honesty and sincerity of the Clinton Administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
In an absolutely free environment, FR and youtube would be free to ban anyone for any reason.

It certainly would be difficult to do business or buy services in that environment and I could see where another business might spring up to offer services with more clearly defined and adhered to conditions.

20 posted on 02/18/2008 8:52:45 AM PST by Bear_Slayer (When liberty is outlawed only outlaws will have liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson