YouTube refuses Lieberman request (re removing content attributed to "Islamust terrorist organizations")

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Andrew C Burnette <acb () acb net>
> Date: May 21, 2008 8:45:44 AM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Cc: "declan () well com" <declan () well com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] YouTube refuses Lieberman request (re removing  
> content attributed to "Islamust terrorist organizations")

> Declan, David,
>
> With the current US administrations decimation of the fourth amendment
> (in communications mediums at the very least), the swing towards a  
> false
> moral high ground against anything and everything the bill of rights
> stands for continues. So, why would the first amendment not be the  
> next
> natural target "of moral outrage?"
>
> I do recall taking US history a few years back. Somehow, the brochure
> and the new reality don't quite match.
>
> Best regards,
> andy burnette
>
> p.s. a good example of US 'inversion of morality' as we find it
> perfectly acceptable to show a graphic murder on broadcast television,
> just so long as the victim (or their writer of course) keeps their
> clothing on during the entire process.
>
> David Farber wrote:
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Declan McCullagh [declan () well com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:17 PM
> > To: David Farber
> > Cc: ip; victormarks () gmail com
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  YouTube refuses Lieberman request (re  
> > removing content attributed to "Islamust terrorist organizations")
> >
> > Victor Marks wrote:
> > > Freedom of speech in the US (Google is a US company) allows  
> > > terrorists
> > > and their supporters to say what they wish - although freedom of
> > > speech does not compel Google to give them a stage and audience.
> >
> > Nobody is saying otherwise. What serious person would argue that  
> > Google
> > is "compelled" to provide anyone a YouTube platform?
> >
> > The questions before us are whether Google and its peers (a) will see
> > their 230 immunity weakened, (b) will be compelled through force of  
> > law
> > to censor, which is what Lieberman suggested yesterday to us  
> > through his
> > spokeswoman and what Durban said today in the hearing, and (c)  
> > whether a
> > hypothetical Lieberman-Durban censorship law would pass First  
> > Amendment
> > muster.
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com