Lieberman Wants Terrorist Content Yanked From YouTube, DUmmies Not Happy!

[MoshMasterD]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3316365

brooklynite  (1000+ posts)      Mon May-19-08 11:24 PM
Original message
Lieberman Wants Terrorist Content Yanked From YouTube
 Edited on Mon May-19-08 11:25 PM by brooklynite
Source: ABC News

A U.S. senator has asked Google to remove videos -- produced by Islamist terrorists -- from YouTube.

In a letter to Google chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said, "A great majority of these videos document horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Other videos, Lieberman said, "provide weapons training, speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and general material intended to radicalize potential recruits."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=48897...

FARAFIELD (1000+ posts)      Mon May-19-08 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. I want him yanked from our caucus
 Why do we put up with that turd? Maybe Reid can send him a "strongly worded memo"

One of all responses of terror supporting DUmmies.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Hey, correct me if I'm wrong DUmmies, but isn't Lieberman an independent now?

[Bondai]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

[DumbAss Tanker]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

I'm with you.  While the terrorists view these as training and propaganda tools, they are also an excellent open source for showing everyone else what we're up against in the terrorists' own chosen words and images, a perfect indictment of what scumbags they really are.

[Rebel]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

YouTube is a US-Based company. There is no way in hell our enemy, of which we are actively combating, should be allowed to use our resources against us. Do you think it's a property owner's right to allow Al Qaeda to train on his property? Or are you of the opinion you don't want the government telling you what you can do with your own property?

[JohnnyReb]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

I'm with you.  While the terrorists view these as training and propaganda tools, they are also an excellent open source for showing everyone else what we're up against in the terrorists' own chosen words and images, a perfect indictment of what scumbags they really are.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if U-tube and google didn't pull what 'they' consider anti-islam stuff.

[Chris_]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

Really?  No limits?
Peddling Child Porn Not Protected Speech, Rules High Court

LINK

[Lord Undies]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

YouTube is a US-Based company. There is no way in hell our enemy, of which we are actively combating, should be allowed to use our resources against us. Do you think it's a property owner's right to allow Al Qaeda to train on his property? Or are you of the opinion you don't want the government telling you what you can do with your own property?

You said it well.  This was going to be my post.  Thank you. 

[DixieBelle]

Youtube is also notorious for pulling down anything critical of Islam or videos that serve as a counterpoint to the terrorist propaganda. There is a major bias there.

[Sonnabend]

FARAFIELD (1000+ posts)      Mon May-19-08 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. I want him yanked from our caucus
 Why do we put up with that turd? Maybe Reid can send him a "strongly worded memo"

Joe Lieberman was elected by a majority of his home state. If you don't like democracy, then go live in Cuba. I know you're sad Lamont didn't win..I guess the Dems in that state ran out of cemeteries.

Them's the breaks.....

[FlaGator]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

YouTube is a US-Based company. There is no way in hell our enemy, of which we are actively combating, should be allowed to use our resources against us. Do you think it's a property owner's right to allow Al Qaeda to train on his property? Or are you of the opinion you don't want the government telling you what you can do with your own property?

While I agree with you 100 percent, I would still have to say that this is the price of freedom.

Fence properly straddled  :innocent:

[dandi]

LynnTheDem  (1000+ posts)       Tue May-20-08 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
32. How 'bout videos which document "horrific attacks on" people of Iraq or Afghanistan?
 "CENSOR THE FACTS!!!" screech the rightwingnuts.

WTF is this stupid waste of oxygen blathering about?

If you're talking about vids of U.S military ops, there are literally thousands floating around the net on YouTube, LiveLeak and dozens of other sites. No one is censoring them if they don't violate opsec.

The only "horrific attacks on people of Iraq or Afghanistan" are those being carried out by those peace-loving, patriotic insurgents you and your fellow ****heads at DU fellate on a daily basis, you friggin' screeching harpy bitch.

[Bondai]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

YouTube is a US-Based company. There is no way in hell our enemy, of which we are actively combating, should be allowed to use our resources against us. Do you think it's a property owner's right to allow Al Qaeda to train on his property? Or are you of the opinion you don't want the government telling you what you can do with your own property?

If what You Tube is doing or allowing is against the anti-terror law or some other law then the material should be pulled. If they are not breaking any laws leave them alone.

[Rebel]

If what You Tube is doing or allowing is against the anti-terror law or some other law then the material should be pulled. If they are not breaking any laws leave them alone.

Weren't you in the Air Force? You like seeing your fellow servicemembers killed on an American website? I ****ING DON'T. There's freedom of speech and there's enemy propaganda. This is enemy propaganda using an AMERICAN company in a TIME OF WAR.

[Lord Undies]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

YouTube is a US-Based company. There is no way in hell our enemy, of which we are actively combating, should be allowed to use our resources against us. Do you think it's a property owner's right to allow Al Qaeda to train on his property? Or are you of the opinion you don't want the government telling you what you can do with your own property?

While I agree with you 100 percent, I would still have to say that this is the price of freedom.

Fence properly straddled  :innocent:

So you do believe terrorists should be able to be trained on private property without government interference?  Interesting.  I will have to ponder that price of freedom for a while.

Ok, I did. 

What next?  Private meth labs should not be subjected to government interference?   

[FlaGator]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

YouTube is a US-Based company. There is no way in hell our enemy, of which we are actively combating, should be allowed to use our resources against us. Do you think it's a property owner's right to allow Al Qaeda to train on his property? Or are you of the opinion you don't want the government telling you what you can do with your own property?

While I agree with you 100 percent, I would still have to say that this is the price of freedom.

Fence properly straddled  :innocent:

So you do believe terrorists should be able to be trained on private property without government interference?  Interesting.  I will have to ponder that price of freedom for a while.

Ok, I did. 

What next?  Private meth labs should not be subjected to government interference?   

I was thinking more along the lines of freedom of speech and the posting of things on Youtube that may be disagreeable. You are comparing apples and oranges. Regulating actions is one thing. Regulating thought is another. Remember one of the reasons the cite was started was because of a certain individual on another cite over regulating thoughts and speech.

[Lord Undies]

Actually I don't want the government deciding what I can view....

YouTube is a US-Based company. There is no way in hell our enemy, of which we are actively combating, should be allowed to use our resources against us. Do you think it's a property owner's right to allow Al Qaeda to train on his property? Or are you of the opinion you don't want the government telling you what you can do with your own property?

While I agree with you 100 percent, I would still have to say that this is the price of freedom.

Fence properly straddled  :innocent:

So you do believe terrorists should be able to be trained on private property without government interference?  Interesting.  I will have to ponder that price of freedom for a while.

Ok, I did. 

What next?  Private meth labs should not be subjected to government interference?   

I was thinking more along the lines of freedom of speech and the posting of things on Youtube that may be disagreeable. You are comparing apples and oranges. Regulating actions is one thing. Regulating thought is another. Remember one of the reasons the cite was started was because of a certain individual on another cite over regulating thoughts and speech.

Other videos, Lieberman said, "provide weapons training, speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and general material intended to radicalize potential recruits."

This goes a wee bit beyond "thought" and into "action" territory.  Otherside, I would agree with you.

[Bondai]

If what You Tube is doing or allowing is against the anti-terror law or some other law then the material should be pulled. If they are not breaking any laws leave them alone.

Weren't you in the Air Force? You like seeing your fellow servicemembers killed on an American website? I ******* DON'T. There's freedom of speech and there's enemy propaganda. This is enemy propaganda using an AMERICAN company in a TIME OF WAR.

Twenty years in the military, twenty years defending free speech and a few other things. If the material being posted on You Tube violates the law then it needs to be dealt with. I don't watch these type of videos, I have seen enough death and destruction in my life but at the same time I don't appreciate the government telling me what I can view. I find these videos distasteful but in the US we have to take the good with the bad in order to protect the rights that we hold dear. During the Vietnam war disgusting videos were shown on national TV everynight and it was called journalism, but the right to show those videos is what was really important.

Today they tell us we can't watch Iraq war videos and then tomorrow something else gets put on the list, where does it stop?

Let's hope You Tube does the right thing and pulls the videos but let's have the people decide what needs to be done, not the government.

[Rebel]

So Bondai, you think Axis Sally should have been able to spread her tripe on a radio station in Philly? Maybe Tokyo Rose out of Burbank?

If so, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I view this as propaganda in a time of war and do NOT think it should be allowed. ...and I'm VERY libertarian when it comes to censorship.

[PatriotGame]

I say we should hunt down the top five managers of Google, behead them, film it, and put it on YouTube - all in the name of Al Qaeda.

I am anxious to see the reaction from their families and coworkers when we claim all that freedom of speech stuff.

[FlaGator]

I say we should hunt down the top five managers of Google, behead them, film it, and put it on YouTube - all in the name of Al Qaeda.

I am anxious to see the reaction from their families and coworkers when we claim all that freedom of speech stuff.

Beheading them would be murder and that is illegal. Displaying the beheadings on youtube might be in bad taste but I don't think it would violate any laws.

[Lauri]

I say we should hunt down the top five managers of Google, behead them, film it, and put it on YouTube - all in the name of Al Qaeda.

I am anxious to see the reaction from their families and coworkers when we claim all that freedom of speech stuff.

Beheading them would be murder and that is illegal. Displaying the beheadings on youtube might be in bad taste but I don't think it would violate any laws.

please ask to them to post a big fat warning please? lots of us have kiddos at home still. 

[FlaGator]

I say we should hunt down the top five managers of Google, behead them, film it, and put it on YouTube - all in the name of Al Qaeda.

I am anxious to see the reaction from their families and coworkers when we claim all that freedom of speech stuff.

Beheading them would be murder and that is illegal. Displaying the beheadings on youtube might be in bad taste but I don't think it would violate any laws.

please ask to them to post a big fat warning please? lots of us have kiddos at home still. 

Personally I hoped that youtube would voluntarily remove all the AQ videos. I don't like them either but I agree with Bondai on this one. Let youtube choose to do what is right. By youtube allowing the videos to remain just demonstrates the true character of the company.

[Bondai]

So Bondai, you think Axis Sally should have been able to spread her tripe on a radio station in Philly? Maybe Tokyo Rose out of Burbank?

If so, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I view this as propaganda in a time of war and do NOT think it should be allowed. ...and I'm VERY libertarian when it comes to censorship.

Different time, different situation. We put American citizens in internment camps too, should we start locking up Muslim citizens?

[PatriotGame]

I say we should hunt down the top five managers of Google, behead them, film it, and put it on YouTube - all in the name of Al Qaeda.

I am anxious to see the reaction from their families and coworkers when we claim all that freedom of speech stuff.

Beheading them would be murder and that is illegal. Displaying the beheadings on youtube might be in bad taste but I don't think it would violate any laws.

Therin was the bait that I laid with my point. No disrespect of anyone here but:
My point is that the reason *I* don't kill those whom are of a different religion or politics (Islamo-Wackos) is because it is immoral, not just because it is illegal.
With that said, the Islamo freaks are killing people in a manner that is not illegal in their society AND, is encouraged by their "religion".
They are using these videos purely as propaganda and to hurt the moral of Americans. Nothing is more a violation of the rules of engagement and humanitarian codes than this "War Porn" that YouTube is purposely displaying because of their anti-war stance.
In essence, those ****tards are commiting treason against this nation because they are liberal anti-Bush pricks. Free speech laws do not cover treason or helping the enemy during the time of war.
The problem is that Bush has been so pussified with the press for the last 7.5 years is they will run roughshod over him if he or any government official FORCED Google to pull the videos. Those videos are obscene and should not be viewable at least by children.

When it comes to propaganda and pushing their anti-America platform, liberals know no shame.