In a hearing at the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, Congressmen lamented their inability to arrange for the mass censorship of Internet websites that might “inspire” extremists.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D – CA), the subcommittee’s chairman, targeted YouTube in particular, expressing outrage that the website does not automatically remove any videos which might promote “a jihadist ideology” and claiming that “they are endangering people throughout America for their own profit.”
Rep. Sherman further mocked the notion that the First Amendment applied, claiming that YouTube’s loyalty is not “to the concept of the First Amendment, it’s about their loyalty to money.” YouTube is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, which bought it in October of 2006.
YouTube’s longstanding policy of not proactively censoring third party content has expressed outrage among a number of nations which have draconian laws against dissenting political speech. In the US, however, this appears to be the first time that the company is being targeted by the government for allowing speech that members of Congress consider undesirable.
Jason Ditz, your style of 'reporting' is outlandish. One would think from this piece that Rep Sherman =
'The Government'. IE: One person, Sherman comes out with an opinion, and you feel you need to stretch that to '…targeted by the government'.
Not real good journalism. I don't opine here per a single case of this kind of thing, it pervades your work.
"… targeted by the government for allowing speech that members of Congress consider undesirable."
This one observation sums up the entire argument for NOT censoring the internet, no matter how offensive 'some' people may think certain items may be. Ultimately this is not about 'jihadist' youtube videos or websites, although those do provide an excellent cover for the underlying push for censorship. One of the reasons we in America HAVE the 1st Amendment is to ensure the citizen's right to speak out against the government when other avenues of redress are closed- why should we not extend this same side of freedom to all other nations of the world? Are our politicians (note that I did not call them leaders, for that they are not) afraid of what might be said about them? Are the dictators we have propped up afraid of what their own actions may bring about if their citizens are allowed to speak freely and share ideas? Granted, I do NOT share in the 'jihadist' ideology- as a Muslim it is abhorrent to me- but I support their right to air their views whatever those might be. Allah (swt) will guide the believers to the path of peace, while those who pervert the teachings of Islam will face their own harsh judgement.
The ignoble, contemptible Americans are getting the police state they so richly deserve. Hope they enjoy it. In fact, hope they choke and gag on it.