Google says it won't take down anti-Muslim clip

The Google logo is seen at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. / KIMIHIRO HOSHINO/AFP/Getty Images

(AP) WASHINGTON - Google is refusing a White House request to take down an anti-Muslim clip on YouTube, but is restricting access to it in certain countries.

The White House said Friday that it had asked YouTube to review whether the video violated its terms of use. Google owns YouTube, the online video sharing site.

YouTube said in a statement Friday that the video is widely available on the Web and is "clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube."

The short film "Innocence of Muslims" denigrates Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. It played a role in igniting mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Middle East. And it has been blamed for playing a role in violence in Libya, where the U.S. ambassador and three others were killed though the exact cause of the attacks is under investigation.

Calif. filmmaker: I won't return to besieged home
Video: What's fueling Muslim protests?

U.S. and Libyan officials are investigating whether the protests in Libya were a cover for militants, possibly al Qaeda sympathizers, to carry out a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and kill Americans. Washington has deployed FBI investigators to try and track down militants behind the attack.

While the protests intensified over the video, YouTube blocked access to the clip in Libya and Egypt. YouTube cited "the very sensitive situations" in those two countries. Later YouTube also blocked access to the video in India and Indonesia after their governments told Youtube the video broke their laws.

The controversy underscores how some Internet firms have been thrust into debates over the limits of free speech.

In its Friday statement, YouTube said that outside of Libya, Egypt, India and Indonesia, the video will remain on its website.

"We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions," the YouTube statement said. "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, we've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indonesia as well as in Libya and Egypt, given the very sensitive situations in these two countries. This approach is entirely consistent with principles we first laid out in 2007."

YouTube's community guidelines say the company encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But YouTube says it does not permit hate speech.

"'Hate speech' refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group," the guidelines say. "Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality."

[julianpenrod]

In fact, the ideal of free speech is automatically extended only to speech that is well meant. Anything that is intended to be antagonistic, deceiving, misleading for the purpose of causing harm, or intended for any of a number of patently carven harmful purposes is not protected. In other words, the defenders of
free speech" here are saying it's alright to put up placards with racial epithets in an inner city neighborhood, to shourt "Fire!" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire, to publish a film accusing a major figure of being a child rapist. Curious these same defenders never condemned web sites removing comments they don't like from their blogs. In fact, New World Order supporters say that private property trumps Constitutional rights. If it was revealed an al Qaeda agent made the film to start a riot, would the defenders of "free speech" protect that individual? Where were they to denounce al Jazeera being blocked or BART station demonstrators being allowed to communicate with each other?

[rwsmith29456]

So people have the right to put on the web what they want to. The Constitution however, doesn't guarantee that good judgement will go along with that right.

[john92021]

All Muslims should boycott Google. To Facebook it is just about money.

[Void-Master]

Sorry Slow. I'm not laughing at you. But the comment conjured in my mind and image of a group of Israeli intel people sitting around a table in a dimly lit room, conjuring this thing up. From there, I projected that imagery to Langley and asked, "Really? Would they take the time?" Especially given the unpredictability of the outcome, it just seems way too unlikely.

I should think that right now, Mossad his its hands full with the Iranian issue.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

I believe it's PUSHING the Iran issue with this, Void.... I see it as at least a possibility.

[Void-Master]

First, kudos to Google for standing their ground. True rights, including Freedom of Speech, *are* worth the trouble.

I have seen the video. It is so poorly done that I cannot help but suspect that such was intentional. It did have some humorous moments, but not many and not very.

My greater point is, I would have never known that the video existed, much less ever seen it -- had not the Brats of Islam made such a fuss about it. Their actions gave it more and better publicity than its producer could have ever hoped to have purchased.

I just wanted to extend my appreciation to them for bringing it to my attention. Allah must be so proud!

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Hey Void - slownewsday here. Agreed completely.

Part of me wonders if this could have been Mossad.

[Void-Master]

Mossad?! ROFLMAO

[mollydtt]

Doesn't anyone realize that file sharing is easy? You can't block anything from anywhere to anywhere.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Google gets to choose how do deal with their service - not the government. That's actually the PURPOSE of "Freedom of Speech" - to guarantee against censorship by the government.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Indeed, Empire - now would be the PERFECT time for you to run away.

You just can't handle the truth.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

by EmpireGeorge______-- September 16, 2012 12:22 PM EDT
Repubs, how about answering my question

------------

How about you answering mine as to how FOUR MILLION illegals in the 80's is a "tiny number"?? If you want answers, then start answering questions YOURSELF.
.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Ahh - I see - you think 4 million is a small number relative to today, so you excuse it as a "tiny" number. Wow.

So - to answer your question "Don't you think one is proper, and one isn't ??":

No, I certainly don't. What's telling is that YOU do.

[EmpireGeorge______--]

Repubs, how about answering my question, instead of dodging it, with your "I dislike both" nonsense.

Obama did it by Executive Order, Reagan went through Congress to get his amnesty approved.

Don't you think one is proper, and one isn't ??

Obama just bought votes for the upcoming election......You can't see, that's what he did ???? You don't recognize Obama buying votes by executive order ??

Whenever anyone mentions Obama's exective order, you ALWAYS excuse him, by envoking Republican presidents from the 80's.......you bias towards giving Obama political cover, is sooooo obvious, try fooling someone else, I see what you do......it's laughable, that you pretend you are "teaching republicans a lesson" by bringing up Reagan.....no you aren't, you are helping OBama get elected,by deflecting blame AWAY from Obama.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

For the THIRD TIME:

I condemn both Reagan and Obama for their support of amnesty for illegal aliens.

What about that do you NOT get?

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

So - why do you give Reagan a pass??? Yet another of your glaring double standards.