UK Pressures the US To Takedown Extremist Videos 629
chrb writes "BBC News and the Telegraph are reporting that the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos, particularly on YouTube. The request follows the conviction of a 21-year-old woman who attempted to murder MP Stephen Timms after watching YouTube videos of radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube hosts more than 5,000 videos featuring al-Awlaki, but has begun to remove them following the British government's complaints. The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK. They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good. If they were hosted in the UK then we would take them down but this is a global problem. Many of these websites are hosted in America and we look forward to working even more closely with you to take down this hateful material.'"
Re:Lol, no worries. (Score:5, Informative)
It depends. Not all speech is protected:
# Obscenity
# Fighting words
# Defamation (includes libel, slander)
# Child pornography
# Perjury
# Blackmail
# Incitement to imminent lawless action
# True threats
# Solicitations to commit crimes# Obscenity
# Fighting words
# Defamation (includes libel, slander)
# Child pornography
# Perjury
# Blackmail
# Incitement to imminent lawless action
# True threats
# Solicitations to commit crimes
Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=15822 [firstamendmentcenter.org]
Re:We settled this in 1776 (Score:5, Informative)
Britian asked Google to take down the videos. Google can do what it wants with it's site.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech because the US government isn't making them.
Re:So what you're saying is: (Score:3, Informative)
that it's alright for elected officials to protect their positions from being challenged through democratic processes like anything on the internet/media to "protect the social good"?
maybe I'm just a little crazy, but that screams of a corrupt government to me.
To be fair, the elected official in question had his 'position as a living person' challenged by a nutter who came to his constituency office and stabbed him with a knife. He was not "challenged through democratic processes". Over in the UK we have these things called elections to do that. I don't really think that this move is necessarily a good idea, but to say it is corrupt for people to be upset over the case is ridiculous. Also, he is (now) an opposition MP, and is not part of the government.
Blatant hypocrisy. (Score:1, Informative)
People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.
But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.
And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing the crap out of their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.
Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.
Re:Lol, no worries. (Score:5, Informative)
To qualify as obscenity, it has to meet all three of the following requirements: it has to, by the standards of the community, appeal to the prurient interest; it must depict patently offensive sexual behavior; it must lack any and all artistic and scientific value.
Re:Lol, no worries. (Score:2, Informative)
Defamation isn't illegal per say in the United States. It can get you sued but won't get you criminally charged.
Re:We settled this in 1776 (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently you can't read.
The UK government wants the US government to pull this sort of thing off the net.
Google can do what they like, but the US Govt. has rules it must follow in that regard, and they are nothing like the UK's rules (which are more like suggestions for them anyway).
Re:Know Your Enemy (Score:1, Informative)
Sometimes others are not as extreme as you think until you examine yourself buddy
Re:Categorically not be allowed in the UK (Score:2, Informative)
Urgh. The country is called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Great Britain is England + Scotland + Wales.
In a free society... (Score:2, Informative)
...you are free to LIKE anyone you want, for any reason at all, or no reason at all. In a free society you are free to HATE anyone at all, for any reason at all, or no reason at all.
In a free society, hate is not a crime.
Re:Lol, no worries. (Score:4, Informative)
That'd be Article 3, Section 2:
Unless you'd care to argue that a court charged with applying the Constitution to all cases before it somehow precludes the court from interpreting the laws as written and applying them to the case under review?
Re:Categorically not be allowed in the UK (Score:4, Informative)
"They used to say "the sun never sets on the Brittish [sic] empire". Now there's no empire hance no K in UK. I never did understand the united (what with the troubles and such) part either so it's just as well they did away with that."
It's called the Commonwealth of Nations, which is a free association of independent states, sixteen of which retain the British monarch as the head of state. Read about it some day. The K in Kingdom has no relationship other than historical to the old British Empire, but it is still applicable to the Commonwealth and to all British territories.
Re:David Cameron actually believes his own rhetori (Score:3, Informative)
Have you never moved away from your hometown? You have such a narrow world view it is staggering. We indeed have a special relationship with the UK. They are in the same boat as we are fighting against Islamic radicals. They are one of our closest allies. We may not comply with what they request but that would be due to the inability to enact something like that because of our Constitution. We certainly are close partners though and have a lot of cooperation. We are in this with them together.
Re:Categorically not be allowed in the UK (Score:1, Informative)
Would those be the same "troubles" you mob sponsored until some Arab dudes flew into your tall buildings?
Re:Lol, no worries. (Score:4, Informative)
Explain to me where the First Amendment says it only applies to "people"? It says simply that the Government shall make no law, it doesn't say which entities those laws must or must not be limited to.
By your own strict "as it's written" argument, all laws being passed by the government that restrict speech - any speech, by any entity - are unconstitutional, which means that corporations should also be exempted from any government restriction, as well.
Or, when you said that "all speech is protected, there are no exceptions in the constitution," did you really mean to say, "I think the First Amendment should mean what I want it to mean, in the specific circumstances I think it should apply in?"
Re:We settled this in 1776 (Score:2, Informative)
The following is not meant to be trollish, just bugging me and does not negate your point (Go JMU Dukes...): The Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789 by our one and only short-stature James Madison and "came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States." source [wikipedia.org]
But in regards to your comment, you know how politics work...otherwise yes they did ask the U.S. government according to the article:
Ministers were angry that the US failed to regulate American-based sites that hosted the extremist videos, including YouTube.
More than 5,000 postings featuring Awlaki's videos were available on YouTube yesterday. In one sermon, titled 44 Ways to Support Jihad, he tells followers: "Jihad today is obligatory on every capable Muslim."
Baroness Neville-Jones, the security minister, called on President Barack Obama's administration to "take down this hateful material" in cases where servers were based in the US. She said websites that "incite cold-blooded murder" would "categorically not be allowed in the UK". --Telegraph.co.uk
But this is not the latest news...you are right in saying Google can do whatever it wants:
YouTube said any videos which incite violence are removed. --BBC
Now you had said that "because the US government isn't making them..." as a reason that freedom of speech is not involved. This right extends to U.S. citizens as you and I both know :)
Jonathan Evans, the director general of MI5, identified US-born Awlaki as being "of particular concern" because "he preaches and teaches in the English language, which makes his message easier to access and understand for Western audiences". --Telegraph.co.uk
Here puts a whole new level of issues on the table. Once he crosses the terrorist borderline however, I am not sure how many rights apply to him? Thoughts? Water-boarding time?
Re:Know Your Enemy (Score:3, Informative)
Note that the crusades are ancient history, and we as a people have grown to overcome the barbaric ways still perpetuated by the Islam religion.** Also note that the crusades were provoked by previous attacks from the muslim nations. Yes, that's right. They were NOT unprovoked acts of spreading Christianity, but a retort to constant attacks from the "barbarics" of the time. Don't ignore details to suit your argument because you just look like a fool.
** If you still associate modern Christianity to that time, you should realistically only be comparing it to the Catholics.
Re:Lol, no worries. (Score:2, Informative)
>>>"Abridging the freedom of speech" is in no way the same as "regulating speech".
I can lay my hand on no part of the US Constitution which gave Congress, the President, or the Justices power to regulate/restrict speech. Therefore the 9th and 10th amendments apply (such a right/power is reserved to the States or People).
Re:Lol, no worries. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that was an open question for quite some time after the Constitution was adopted.
However, Madison v Marbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) definitely settled this dispute, in that the US Constitution is considered the highest law, and the Supreme Court the final arbiter of that law, with the power to declare void any such law which conflicts with the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Section 1, Clause 2) has also been interpreted to give the Constitution (and thus federal law) supremacy over state law.
The Supreme Court's power to declare sections of laws void has never been under dispute, even before Madison v Marbury - indeed, it is fundamental to "judging". It is needed to resolve conflicts between two laws, for in the case of two laws providing conflicting directions, we must have someone decide which is to be followed, and which to be ignored (declared void).
-Erik
Re:So what you're saying is: (Score:3, Informative)
You need a point of clarification:
This terrorist is not in the US, he is in hiding in Yemen or Afghanistan and there are US warrants for his arrest. He is a US citizen by birth right to a Yemen tribal leader who was residing in Nevada at the time of his birth. He was raised for most of his childhood in the US. There is a trial in abstention currently taking place in Yemen right now attempting to convict this guy (strengthening the charges against him).
What is in America right now is the servers and companies hosting the videos. The US constitution places severe restrictions on the US government in the areas of speech. This is for various reasons that are ancillary to the point, but the US government's hands are tied. But make no mistake, the US is not harboring this guy at all. He is wanted on charges connected to terrorism in the US and several other countries that US has extradition treaties with.
Re:The government is not our father. (Score:3, Informative)
Without the rallies he would not have had the support to see the orders carried out.
N'burg rallies etc are well documented as providing the populist mandate.
Re:Categorically not be allowed in the UK (Score:5, Informative)
The United, in United Kingdom, primarily refers to the union of the two once separate kingdoms of England and Scotland. Specifically it refers to the personal union of the crowns of these two kingdoms in one person, or really the replacement of this previous arrangement with something less complicated--Kind of.
Prior to the creation of the UK, a single person (e.g. Charles I) was simply simultaneously the King of Scotland and the King of England. This distinction lead to interesting legal paradoxes and scenarios that only English legal theory could contrive. The best example is in 1640, where Charles I as king of England actually went to war with his other kingdom of Scotland, and when he was eventually forced to make peace (with Scotland) actually traveled to Scotland (while still at war), was formally received as king and arranged a peace treaty and afterwards played a few rounds of golf with the Scottish nobles; and I am not making this up. The creation of the UK was in part an attempt to clean up this kind of dissonance.
The whole theory behind the UK grew in part from Henry VIII's earlier act of establishing himself as the King of Ireland and creating a personal union between the Kingdoms of Ireland and England. (In fact, there are earlier examples of this kind of thing in regard to the Principality of Wales). So the UK always did include the Kingdom of Ireland as well. I don't think that Kingdom exists independently any more though as I'm not sure if there is a Kingdom of Northern Ireland specifically.
Note in all this that though the Kingdom's were united, the actual countries were not (except insofar as a new country was brought into existence using them). Scotland still exists as a separate country from England, even though they still have the same Parliament (kind of) and the same King.
The end result of this long legal and historical process is that the British are very, very, particular about titles, formalities and the legal powers and functions which arise and derive form them. When you hear Anglo-Saxon's discussing who can legally do what and where in these kinds of discussion, it's because of the work of generations of British scholars who gave their lives to try to make sense of the constitutional framework they had inherited. It's also worth noting that for those same reasons, in most other countries these discussions tend to be rather pointless(e.g. In the US, you have Gitmo, and in Ireland you have really no laws at all). The trouble with Anglo-Saxon legal systems is that most Anglo-Saxon societies aren't actually English.