Sengupta writes: "Internet companies are a different breed. Because they traffic in speech - rather than, say, corn syrup or warplanes - they make decisions every day about what kind of expression is allowed where."

'The storm over an incendiary anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube has stirred fresh debate'. (illustration: Nick Arciaga)

Free Speech in the Age of YouTube

By Somini Sengupta, The New York Times

23 September 12

ompanies are usually accountable to no one but their shareholders.

Internet companies are a different breed. Because they traffic in speech - rather than, say, corn syrup or warplanes - they make decisions every day about what kind of expression is allowed where. And occasionally they come under pressure to explain how they decide, on whose laws and values they rely, and how they distinguish between toxic speech that must be taken down and that which can remain.

The storm over an incendiary anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube has stirred fresh debate on these issues. Google, which owns YouTube, restricted access to the video in Egypt and Libya, after the killing of a United States ambassador and three other Americans. Then, it pulled the plug on the video in five other countries, where the content violated local laws.

Some countries blocked YouTube altogether, though that didn't stop the bloodshed: in Pakistan, where elections are to be scheduled soon, riots on Friday left a death toll of 19.

The company pointed to its internal edicts to explain why it rebuffed calls to take down the video altogether. It did not meet its definition of hate speech, YouTube said, and so it allowed the video to stay up on the Web. It didn't say very much more.

That explanation revealed not only the challenges that confront companies like Google but also how opaque they can be in explaining their verdicts on what can be said on their platforms. Google, Facebook and Twitter receive hundreds of thousands of complaints about content every week.

"We are just awakening to the need for some scrutiny or oversight or public attention to the decisions of the most powerful private speech controllers," said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor who briefly advised the Obama administration on consumer protection regulations online.

Google was right, Mr. Wu believes, to selectively restrict access to the crude anti-Islam video in light of the extraordinary violence that broke out. But he said the public deserved to know more about how private firms made those decisions in the first place, every day, all over the world. After all, he added, they are setting case law, just as courts do in sovereign countries.

Mr. Wu offered some unsolicited advice: Why not set up an oversight board of regional experts or serious YouTube users from around the world to make the especially tough decisions?

Google has not responded to his proposal, which he outlined in a blog post for The New Republic.

Certainly, the scale and nature of YouTube makes this a daunting task. Any analysis requires combing through over a billion videos and overlaying that against the laws and mores of different countries. It's unclear whether expert panels would allow for unpopular minority opinion anyway. The company said in a statement on Friday that, like newspapers, it, too, made "nuanced" judgments about content: "It's why user-generated content sites typically have clear community guidelines and remove videos or posts that break them."

Privately, companies have been wrestling with these issues for some time.

The Global Network Initiative, a conclave of executives, academics and advocates, has issued voluntary guidelines on how to respond to government requests to filter content.

And the Anti-Defamation League has convened executives, government officials and advocates to discuss how to define hate speech and what to do about it.

Hate speech is a pliable notion, and there will be arguments about whether it covers speech that is likely to lead to violence (think Rwanda) or demeans a group (think Holocaust denial), just as there will be calls for absolute free expression.

Behind closed doors, Internet companies routinely make tough decisions on content.

Apple and Google earlier this year yanked a mobile application produced by Hezbollah. In 2010, YouTube removed links to speeches by an American-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, in which he advocated terrorist violence; at the time, the company said it proscribed posts that could incite "violent acts."

On rare occasions, Google has taken steps to educate users about offensive content. For instance, the top results that come up when you search for the word "Jew" include a link to a virulently anti-Jewish site, followed by a promoted link from Google, boxed in pink. It links to a page that lays out Google's rationale: the company says it does not censor search results, despite complaints.

Susan Benesch, who studies hate speech that incites violence, said it would be wise to have many more explanations like this, not least to promote debate. "They certainly don't have to," said Ms. Benesch, director of the Dangerous Speech Project at the World Policy Institute. "But we can encourage them to because of the enormous power they have."

The companies point out that they obey the laws of every country in which they do business. And their employees and algorithms vet content that may violate their user guidelines, which are public.

YouTube prohibits hate speech, which it defines as that which "attacks or demeans a group" based on its race, religion and so on; Facebook's hate speech ban likewise covers "content that attacks people" on the basis of identity. Google and Facebook prohibit hate speech; Twitter does not explicitly ban it. And anyway, legal scholars say, it is exceedingly difficult to devise a universal definition of hate speech.

Shibley Telhami, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, said he hoped the violence over the video would encourage a nuanced conversation about how to safeguard free expression with other values, like public safety. "It's really about at what point does speech becomes action; that's a boundary that becomes difficult to draw, and it's a slippery slope," Mr. Telhami said.

He cautioned that some countries, like Russia, which threatened to block YouTube altogether, would be thrilled to have any excuse to squelch speech. "Does Russia really care about this film?" Mr. Telhami asked.

International law does not protect speech that is designed to cause violence. Several people have been convicted in international courts for incitement to genocide in Rwanda.

One of the challenges of the digital age, as the YouTube case shows, is that speech articulated in one part of the world can spark mayhem in another. Can the companies that run those speech platforms predict what words and images might set off carnage elsewhere? Whoever builds that algorithm may end up saving lives.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+31 # Billy Bob 2012-09-23 20:10

While they may not be able to define "hate speech" in a meaningful way, they could certainly define "intentionally incendiary speech".

This video was INTENTIONALLY INCENDIARY, no less than a molotov cocktail. I think, given the timing, its obvious intent was to spark this reaction as a way to insert an international "crisis" into the campaign season as a way to undermine the President for not "bombing the entire Middle-East further into the stoneage".

Right-wing Muslim terrorists, right-wing Israeli terrorists, right-wing Hindu terrorists, and right-wing white conservative evangelical fundamentalist terrorists should be deported to a planet of their own in another galaxy where they can settle things in big cage match, and allow the rest of this planet to get back to the process of becoming a civilization.

Angering Muslims gives red meat to al-quaida, which in turn gives red meat to red state repug lunatics. There is no room for tollerance with either of these groups.

That's why they're such useful political tools to evil people with evil political motives.

+3 # James Smith 2012-09-24 15:15

There is one important point. What in the video was not true? If it's the truth, like it or not, it deserves to be told. If it incites people to perform violent, hateful acts, they are confirming that it was true. Most people hate the truth anyway; especially when it contradicts their favorite delusions.

+4 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-09-23 22:03

Google has a problem in that those who demand its removal are the first to click on it unlike the art film "Hail Mary” which Catholics begged people not to see and who other than top Catholic media officials never saw about the Virgin Birth. If not Josephs child then whose child pointed to a dog then 15 seconds later the sky to indicate not the dog's child the sky's child.

The only name that was at all skilled connected to the hate the Muslims trailer was Pamela Geller who did fund raising. The Meth dealer obviously claimed to be a film producer because he was paid well to make such a claim, www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/16/1132429/--Pamela-Geller-s-Blog-Solicited-Funds-For-anti-Muhammad-Movie

The purpose was likely to trip Obama up the way the Iranian Hostage crisis tripped Carter up.

Republicans are doing everything they can to keep the Libertarians off the ballot. I wonder why in Pennsylvania they didn't heir ear plugged porn stars to have sex in front of bright lights on the Interchange to the Pennsylvania Turnpike to create a traffic blockage to prevent the Libertarian Party from turning their ballot petitions in on time. Why are we less upset with someone doing the same thing with Muslims?

-7 # Human Right 2012-09-23 22:14

Whether it's the "Daily Beast", "Yahoo" or a few others, they are dominated by pro Zionist crap. If you say anything contrary to their propaganda they will no longer allow you to use their comment sections. In addition anything said about the Zionists/Ashken azim will be attacked and you will be called names and even given death threats. Utube will also be attack or scensored if they say anything about the Zionists.

-3 # mim 2012-09-24 04:10

Your pairing of "Ashkenazim" (an ethnic identifier) with "Zionists" leaves no doubt at all that you're trying to be anti-Semitic without using the J-word.

+1 # Phlippinout 2012-09-24 06:22

I gave you a thumbs down that did not register either. The use of the word anti semitic is really getting old. Debate the topic and stop hiding behind buzz words. One day the word will be so overused it wont mean anything

-1 # Phlippinout 2012-09-24 06:20

Just like right now when I gave you a thumbs up and it did not register. That has happened many times. Perhaps we are not allowed to comment on RSN either, wow! The pond shrinks!

+2 # shraeve 2012-09-25 08:37

Sometimes the thumbs up coincides with a thumbs down and they cancel each other.

+1 # swimdoc 2012-09-23 22:38

It's important to understand the difference between GOVERNMENT limiting freedom of speech and PRIVATE publishing/inte rnet posting companies limiting what they are willing to publish or post. Google can decide, using whatever criteria they wish, what they will accept and post, and what they will refuse to pubish. In theory, at least, the authors are free to look for another publisher or to self-publish any disgusting or hateful or incendiary writing or recording they have created. One doesn't have to look any further than the old forgery "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to understand this. (This item is still in circulation.)

In today's world, unfortunately, Google has a tremendous international responsibility to refuse not only hate speech, but also incendiary speech, and perhaps also grossly false speech.

+5 # Rick Levy 2012-09-23 22:52

Strange that for all the youtube videos that have ever been shown, it's only "The Innocence Of Muslims" that provoked this post. It doesn't matter that so many other videos and movies have been disrespectful of Jews, Christians, atheists, etc.

I guess that's because it's only Muslims who run amok when non-Muslims don't toe the line about what the Islmaists consider acceptable. No other ethnicity or religious group goes on a worldwide rampage when someone hurts their feelings.

+3 # murbrill 2012-09-23 23:31

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Murray Brill
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:42 PM
Subject: "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me"

From: Murray Brill

+11 # anchorite 2012-09-23 23:56

The problem is basic. YouTube and the social sites are analagous to walking into one big auditorium, where everything that everyone says can be heard by everyone in the auditorium. In this environment, there will always be something said or shown that will be found offensive to someone in that common room. The solution would seem to be simple: allow people who wanted to form discussion groups that others might find offensive to form their own "rooms" where they can feel free to discuss and/or show whatever they want, within the bounds of law, i.e., people can't form rooms for kiddie porn or the like. That can form walls that will protect those within the rooms to speak freely without worrying about offending someone who happens to be in the general auditorium. Of course, the auditorium will still be there, but it's like any other public place. But, like those spewing hate speech in a public square, there are usually enough members of the general public to shun them and ridicule them for their ignorance. It would actually be safer than the physical world. As for Middle East violence, that's not over some cheap, poorly made video. That's the reaction of fifty years of Western imperialism that created Israel in 1948 to provide a beachhead for access to Middle Eastern oil. That should be the crux of the debate; not whether people should not be able to show offensive videos over YouTube.

+4 # Glen 2012-09-24 05:03

Very nice, anchorite. My sentiments exactly, and facts so often overlooked in these discussions. The facts of the Middle East are overlooked because too many people are unaware of the history of the area and how many thousands of people have died for OUR freedom of speech and their oil.

The violence continues and as long as it does, the U.S. and Israel will be the focus of intense resentment and hatred, regardless of any published material such as this video.

0 # gslover60 2012-09-25 10:26

I agree with much of what you say, anchorite, but the escalation of violence against Muslims in this country suggests your solution might create a "room" like an echo chamber where the vicious can rev each other up until one of them picks up his all too handy gun and goes out to make the world safer for Jesus. Hate speech has physical consequences, both for its target and for those who might in turn be targeted. And for the rangers against Muslims on this list, read more history. There's nothing unique about fanaticism and its first cousin terrorism.

+8 # trevorlasvegas 2012-09-24 00:34

What Billy Bob said.
The problem is fundamentalism.
Nothing else.

+10 # hjsteed 2012-09-24 01:57

Freedom of speech and restriction of speech or vital information is such a slippery slope.

How many lives could have been saved if the JFK assassination and 911 Explosive Evidence could have had a full vetting?

Both of those events have led us into major world wars resulting in the deaths and injuries of millions of people.

When will our major media outlets and Government reveal a full disclosure of these terrible or terrorist events?

+7 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-09-24 04:13

If we are free to criticize Christianity or atheism, we should be free to criticize Islam. As long as the filmmaker did not advocate violence (and he didn't), he should be free to air his opinions, no matter that some people might be offended.

People say offensive things every day -- even on this site -- and the cure for such offensive remarks is more free speech to disprove them.

While I cannot recommend offensive speech as a way to win support from others, we may not trample on it. Burying offensive feelings under rocks is a sure-fire way to promote paranoia and frustrated violence from those who feel muffled.

Those who respond to offensive speech with violence are criminals and should be prosecuted and thrown in jail. There is no valid excuse for the initiation of violence.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts

+2 # Billy Bob 2012-09-24 07:06

Of course we're free to insult any religion we want in this country.

YouTube is a private organization. It's not a government. As such it has the right to censor any language it feels like censoring. The only question is about whether the video fits YouTube's defintion of "hate speech".

"Offensive" speech is in the eye of the beholder. Intentionally incendiary speech with the intent of provoking a violent response from crazy people is something we can and should point out when it's used for political gain, as it was in this case.

The same principle would and should be applied to a filmmaker uploading a YouTube video about Mary being an open slut, or Jesus being a child molester. A violent response would be very likely from people living within our own country - especially if our military had already bombed churches and our government seemed to be on a military crusade against Christianity.

billy bob
Earth

0 # Glen 2012-09-24 13:03

Very nice, Billy. I have said that repeatedly in private. Most Americans consider themselves above radical violence in the name of religion, but it wouldn't even take bombings to get them riled in the cases you cite.

+7 # Mrcead 2012-09-24 05:02

" It did not meet its definition of hate speech, YouTube said,"

Whatever. What did YouTube's collective gut feeling say?

People need to stop ignoring common sense and deferring to written laws to hand off the responsibility of being responsible.

We covered this issue before. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not considered speech that needs protecting.

+7 # charsjcca 2012-09-24 05:13

Keep it free, keep it real. No censorship.

-1 # RCW 2012-09-24 06:58

Mr. Nason, I agree that being free to criticize, when that is understood as critical examination, is applicable across the board. In the case of Islam, that could reasonably be an inquiry about texts of the Q'ran and fidelity of followers to the highest values of the text. This was not the point of the video, which was simply slanderous. I limited critical examination to the text, because to move to go beyond that, one would need to consider the conduct of Christians against Christians, Jews against Jews, Buddhists against Buddhists et al.

+4 # reiverpacific 2012-09-24 07:47

This is so complex, I'm almost reluctant to comment as I can only hear what I hear from a variety of my chosen sources of news.
I personally enjoy YouTube as a way of finding rare or good quality music videos -some of bands and individual musicians I've played with (might yet come on myself) and visual renderings of events historical and social that interests me, although some strange and seemingly unrelated stuff makes into the accompanying thumbnail bar.
But the latest riots and deaths over a video, which I've never seen, just heard references to from my favored sources like The Guardian and the BBC, convinces me that the rioters and their religious leaders -including the Pakistani Minister who has put a bounty on the head to murder the film maker. This reminds me of the "Fatwa" called for on the excellent author Salman Rushdie for writing a mild satire on the nature of some followers of Mohamed -and I HAVE read the "Satanic Verses", albeit with an enquiring mind and found it, like most of his fiction, a very creative and multi-faceted story based on a certain amount of reality.
Whatever the motives of the offending film maker, I just don't get why such extreme emotions and fanaticism are necessary, and it points to the basic flaw in some regimes and cultures which is that of mindless, humorless, fanaticism using a divinty as the tool of control and revenge. -But then I don't get suicide bombing, Rush Limpballs or other inflammatory stuff either.

-1 # Glen 2012-09-24 11:21

It isn't merely the video, reiver. That is merely a convenient method of stirring folks who are already filled with resentment and hatred thanks to the long history of the U.S., Britain, France, etc., engaging in manipulation of the territory, thousands of deaths, the CIA, the U.S. taking out leaders, and so on and on.

Certainly there are radicals all over the planet, and the U.S. and Israel have their fair share, but those are the folks who are the most easy to manipulate, rendering them a great weapon to manipulate the opinions of U.S. citizens. The U.S. government has achieved great results in their agenda to build a backing for their bloody attacks. That video is about the only thing discussed on television and elsewhere in this entire event. So - it worked nicely in their favor.

+3 # reiverpacific 2012-09-24 13:35

Quoting Glen:

It isn't merely the video, reiver. That is merely a convenient method of stirring folks who are already filled with resentment and hatred thanks to the long history of the U.S., Britain, France, etc., engaging in manipulation of the territory, thousands of deaths, the CIA, the U.S. taking out leaders, and so on and on.

Certainly there are radicals all over the planet, and the U.S. and Israel have their fair share, but those are the folks who are the most easy to manipulate, rendering them a great weapon to manipulate the opinions of U.S. citizens. The U.S. government has achieved great results in their agenda to build a backing for their bloody attacks. That video is about the only thing discussed on television and elsewhere in this entire event. So - it worked nicely in their favor.

As I said, I only use YT for entertainment, musical and otherwise and a certain amount of historical contextualizati on if I want a visual addition. More weighty matters I get from radio, print and the web sources of my choosing, none of which is the US owner-media chaff.
I mean, selectivity is important in the usage of all electronic devices and media, innit.
If the CIA/MI6 and any other surveillance snoops want to listen in, fine -I've nothing to hide but my opinions and conclusions, including about them. If they don't like this, fuck 'em and may they enjoy my file -there's quite a bit of good ol' levity in there too.

0 # Glen 2012-09-24 15:39

Thank you reiver. I appreciate the response and understand your attitude. It is mine, also. However, I cannot accept surveillance in spite of not having an ability to fight back on that. But, like you. FUCK 'EM. Some of us are going to end up in an eight by ten glossy photo ensconced in an FBI file in D.C. regardless. I think I'm already there.

You have a great attitude. Keep on keeping on.

+1 # shraeve 2012-09-25 08:58

Kudos to both you, Glen, and reiverpacific. At the present time in our history, the US government uses surveillance of peaceful protest only as a bluff. So far they haven't been sending out death squads to kill those who speak their minds. As long as you don't advocate violence, the worst that will happen is you probably will not be able to get a high level security clearance.

+1 # shraeve 2012-09-25 08:32

The author says, "hate speech is a pliable notion". That is putting it mildly. Some people try to label anything contrary to their opinion as hate speech.

A few years ago someone wrote an opinion piece in "The Washington Post" in which they said that criticism of government bureaucracy is hate speech.

-1 # sabiha1 2012-09-27 00:10

The controversy about the incendiary video and Google's insistence on calling it 'freedom of speech' makes Google a part of the current anti Islamic political agenda of the West.Who is responsible for the violence and deaths in response to this film,if not Google?

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.