When censorship makes sense: How YouTube should police hate speech
Egyptian protesters throw stones at riot police near the U.S. Embassy in Cairo Sept. 14, 2012, during a demonstration against a film mocking Islam. / AFP/Getty Images
(The New Republic) Late last week, Google yanked "The Innocence of Muslims," from YouTube in Egypt, Libya and some other Muslim nations. By that point, an ambassador and three other Americans were already dead in Libya, while riots raged across the Middle East. Still, the company's actions left behind an uncomfortable question: Should Google pull videos from YouTube just because they make people angry and violent?
Google was, in my view, right to suspend the video, given the clear and present danger of more violence. But Google's content-removal process left much to be desired. It has become clear that Google needs a better system for dealing with hard speech questions.
YouTube, to be clear, isn't an open forum (even if it sometimes seems that way). For one thing, Google uses an ingenious sex-detecting algorithm to preemptively yank porn. It also employs a complicated system to help copyright owners (mainly Hollywood) locate their works. Finally, the firm bans a long list of other content, including: "animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, bomb-making, graphic or gratuitous violence, gross-out videos, hate speech, predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people's personal information, inciting others to commit violent acts, and spam."
Some of these categories, like drug abuse, are relatively easy to define. But others are harder, like "hate speech," "gross out" and "inciting others." Right now, Google decides everything itself, forcing the firm to be an arbitrary censor, which it hates, or in the awkward position of reacting to requests from the White House and other governments. A special team within Google, after a video is flagged, decides whether its content guidelines have been violated, but Google has also shown it will reach beyond its guidelines to yank content on a case-by-case basis. The latter process is decidedly ad-hoc.
A better course would be to try to create a process that relies on a community, either of regional experts or the serious users of YouTube. Community members would (as they do now) flag dangerous or illegal videos for deletion. Google would decide the easy cases itself, and turn the hard cases over to the community, which would aim for a rough consensus. Such a system would be an early-warning signal that might have prevented riots in the first place.
How might a regional, community-based system work? Like now, any user could nominate a video for deletion, and if it fell clearly within the categories above, it would be speedily deleted. But for the hard questions, Google could demand that the nominator argue its case to either a global (for all of YouTube) or regional (for country specific sites) community forum. YouTube users of good standing - those that actually upload videos on a consistent basis - would be allowed to comment, until some kind of rough consensus is reached. Without consensus, the video stays. If this system worked, in the case of "Innocence of Muslims," someone could have made the case much earlier that the "movie" should be taken down in Muslim countries as "hate speech." And that just might possibly have just prevented some of what's happening right now.
There are both theoretical and practical arguments against the system I am suggesting. For one thing, the community process might be more restrictive than some people would like. Alternatively, they might be too loose, or unrepresentative of the broader non-YouTube-using community. And perhaps most troubling, the system might just not "work" as a practical matter - it might not attract enough responsible people, particularly for regional sites, willing to opine on whether a video should be yanked or not.
The practical questions can be addressed by looking at a leading model for community content-yanking, which is Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, any user can propose the deletion of a page that does not fit Wikipedia's content guidelines. The nomination is debated (on Wikipedia) until a rough consensus is reached, which it usually is. While that system may not work perfectly, it has kept Wikipedia from becoming Spampedia, a forum for ideological projects, or simply a tool for marketing companies who want to flog unknown products.
To be sure, attracting responsible community input isn't easy, and it isn't clear that YouTube uploaders are as involved as Wikipedia editors - but perhaps it's worth a trial. If it doesn't work, an alternative to a user-system would be regionalized panels of good citizens, acting as judges, who would be willing to opine on the hard questions, the way that panels of prominent authors decide what words should be in the American Heritage Dictionary.
As for the appropriateness of the YouTube community, the question who we're comparing it to. The current system depends on a small, anonymous team of people in Mountain View who follow guidelines, who can be overridden from unspecified others within Google for any other reason. That system works for the easy questions, but is has become clear that Google needs something better.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
You have the freedom to petition the government for redress of its sins. You do not have the right to advocate the violent overthrow of it.
You have the right to keep a firearm but if you commit a crime with it that firearm gets taken away from you and you can never again legally own another.
You have the right to worship any creator (or none) as suits your religious platform. But if your faith requires or even permits you to engage in sex with minor children, just to use an example, then the government has an obligation to shut it down.
You have the right to believe pretty much as you please and hold what ever values fit your ideology. But if your belief set includes justifying the killing of those who do not fit your worldview, you go to jail and the sentence you serve upon conviction can be lengthened because of it.
Rights without responsibility is merely license
In the present case, that a movie may be critical or offensive to a religious minority is particularly egregious. Americans should have a right to express their views, and they do when it comes to ridiculing conservative Christians in some of the most rude and unkind ways. What exempts others from criticism? Think about it
Right wing thugs, who uniformly support this film because they want to sow hatred for the Muslims by misrepresenting them, toss out all form of dodge to try to defend it.
They say, "If you don't like it, don't look at it." That doesn't mean others won't look at it and get an unjustified ugly opinion of you. And no one has to accept scurrilous lies being spread about them.
They say they shouldn't have to watch their actions in case someone might react badly. The point can be raised, of all things, about the "Three Stooges" affectation of Curly going wild if he saw a tassel. A truly well meaning person could use the intelligence, missing in so many if not all foul meaning people, that could allow an alternate way of gaining the same expression they wanted to make without having an explosion. Anyone who knew Curly's failing and wore a tassel simply to see him explode is not acting out of pure heart or well meaning, but craven malignance.
They say, "I can insult anybody I want"! In fact, you can't. If your statement is a genuine expression intended to expose corruption or make things better, or, at least, not make things worse, it can be protected. But, if it is intended to antagonize someone, just for the purpose of antagonizing them, if it's intended just to make them angry, then it is a confrontational act of belligerence and provocation, and that can be criminally liable.
This film was not an expression of well meaning, it wasn't an historical document, it was a deliberate act of hatred, hoping to incite resentment. If someone made a film about another's mother, accusing her of engaging in child rape purely to sully her image, and the son of that woman took revenge on the filmmaker, the courts would see that retribution as a case of extenuating circumstance! The Muslims feel at least as much love of Mohammed. As long as Google keeps the film available, they are engaging in antagonistic machination against the Muslims.
In fact, to see the right wing crooks extolling "freedom of speech" this way is laughable. If someone said comments that were true but the owner of a website didn't like and they removed the comments, these malingerers would be the first to argue that "It's their website, they can do whatever they want with it! There is no Constitution on someone else's property, just the liberties they think you deserve! Private property trumps the Constitution! Remember that!" And these same thugs didn't mind suspending "free speech" when Julian Assange wanted to reveal malignant facts the government didn't want anyone to realize about its criminal dealings overseas. They support free speech now because they desperately want to exterminate the Arabs and they see this as only one more way to goad them into actions they can use as a pretext for genocide. But they are all liars who despise others and see all as just a means for their craven personal profit.
Who gets to decide what is "well meaning speech" and what is not?
The basis for free speech is to allow speech you do not agree with, regardless of its content.
Yes, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater without there being a fire. But what if there was a fire? Are you aloud to tell someone?
A better example would be someone (Christian) standing up in a crowded (Muslim) theater and yelling, you are all fake and despicable people and the crowd turns on you and kills you. Should this be aloud?
Just because you do not agree with the "opinions" or "speech" of others, does not give anyone the right to take your life.
In Sharia Law, then can kill you if you do not agree with their religious beliefs and put down their prophet Mohammad.
"because they desperately want to exterminate the Arabs"
If you honestly believe this, you really need to seek help. There is only one group of people seeking death to America.
"and the son of that woman took revenge on the filmmaker, the courts would see that retribution as a case of extenuating circumstance"
Total wack job and completely untrue.
The Government, on the other hand, has a legal obligation to protect free speech and the POTUS does directly: in the Oath of Office, he pledges to defend the Constitution (including the First Amendment). In the current case, the POTUS asked Google to evaluate if the video breached its terms of service... which is a valid request. What the POTUS cannot do is tell Google to take it down, contrary to what Egyptian leads believe and have requested. In fact, those Egyptian leaders demonstrate specifically why the Constitution is the way it is: we do not determine free speech by the whims of the mob or the majority or a dictator or a King.
And that is where I strongly disagree with the author. While a "community approach" to Google's take-down requests sounds good, it takes into account neither the rights of Google as a company (and not a public good) nor the likelihood that the system will be perverted by both trolls and the politically correct. And it displaces blame from where it belongs: the rioters.
What if the film had been an actual professional production - say, with the production values of "Troy", but focusing on the same points. We know, for instance, that some of Muhammad's wives were as young as thirteen or fourteen and may have been first cousins, so from a modern standpoint, you could make a case for his being an incestuous pedophile. If that were presented in a major film, would that be "hate speech", or the filmmaker's alternate vision of history? What if Lincoln's descendants don't appreciate him being portrayed as a vampire hunter? Is that then hate speech?
Look, if we can all agree that a legitimate film presenting historical figures in an unflattering light would not qualify as hate speech, then doesn't the author's argument break down to one of dollars? A cheaply-made film, expressing a controversial viewpoint is hate speech, but the same film made with $50 million, is a summer blockbuster? Sorry, doesn't wash.
As far as real hate speech goes, try posting some on YouTube and see how long it lasts before they take it down. Nothing big - just video yourself wearing a sheet and carrying the sign that Bruce Willis' character was forced to wear in the third "Diehard" film.
Let's be clear here, crappy First Amendment expression is STILL First Amendment expression! It either works to protect ALL of us - including pinheads like this "filmmaker" - or it don't work at all.
You'd think somebody who makes his living from writing would appreciate that.
Obama is in league with Islam. He is a dictator in America......seizing control, and usurping the power of Congress. He is already controlling the Senate, and stopping anything from even being considered from the House.
He is obstructing the very essence of America........the Congress.