Senator targets YouTube, but law not on his side

Sen. Joe Lieberman wants YouTube and its rivals to delete any videos produced by al-Qaida, other Islamic terrorist groups, and any suspected sympathizers. But because there's no U.S. law requiring deletion--at least not yet--there's not much the onetime veep candidate can do except complain.

On Monday, the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee suggested in a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt that the company wasn't doing enough to remove videos that are violent or could be used by terrorist groups to enlist followers. "By taking action to curtail the use of YouTube to disseminate the goals and methods of those who wish to kill innocent civilians, Google will make a singularly important contribution to this important national effort," Lieberman wrote.

Sen. Joe Lieberman wants Google to remove terrorist-related videos from YouTube.

(Credit: U.S. Senate)

On the other hand, there's no national consensus on censoring YouTube, and there's actually evidence that U.S. spy agencies like being able to monitor what their adversaries are doing online. In addition, scholars routinely evaluate al-Qaida videos as part of their research, in much the same way as a previous generation researched Nazi propaganda (which has become part of a online exhibit by the U.S. Holocaust Museum).

Google, for its part, said its YouTube administrators had reviewed videos flagged by Lieberman's staff last week and pulled down an unspecified number, but only if they contained violence or hate speech. YouTube's community guidelines do prohibit a number of categories of content, including "graphic or gratuitous violence" and depictions of "bad stuff" like "bomb making."

"While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view," the company said on its official blog. "We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds."

At the moment, legally speaking, Google and other Web hosts aren't required to censor what their users post. That's because of a piece of federal law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Under that law, Web hosts are free to restrict access to content that it deems "objectionable"--if they choose--but in general they can't be sued for choosing not to do so.

"Under section 230, YouTube has no obligation to review this kind of content," said John Morris, an attorney for the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group that has received funding from Google. "The policy judgment that underlies Section 230 is that speech on the Internet--and indeed commerce and everything else on the Internet--would be radically harmed if sites had the responsibility to review every single bit of posting and content that their users put up there."

Of course, as a senator, Lieberman could try to rewrite Section 230, and there are some hints (and in tech-policy circles, much speculation) that he'll do just that. Without mentioning that law, Lieberman has hinted that he may want to create some sort of new exception to those existing rules, saying in his letter to Google that removal of such material "should be a straightforward task since so many of the Islamist terrorist organizations brand their material with logos or icons identifying their provenance."

Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Senate committee that Lieberman leads, told News.com on Monday afternoon that her boss found Google's response to be unsatisfactory and was troubled that the company "does not appear willing to change its guidelines to prevent foreign terrorist organizations (as designated by the State Department) from posting videos used to radicalize followers and incite them to violence." She declined to comment on the status of any pending legislation.

Concern about terrorists mobilizing through online venues is hardly a new concern for Lieberman and other senators, who held a hearing last year on the topic and recently released a report calling for the government to coordinate strategies for counteracting terrorist messages on the Internet.

If Lieberman were to try to seek to prohibit the distribution of certain videos through federal law, it would most likely run into First Amendment difficulties.

"Certainly that's an appropriate thing for Congress to do, to restrict financial support to terrorist organizations (though the State Department watch list)," CDT's Morris said. "It's quite a different thing to say that the ideas...that, for example, some people in this world do not like America, that those ideas are ideas that need to be censored in this country. It is anathema to what this country stands for."

Beyond that, such a policy could also be impractical on a few levels, Morris said. First, it may be difficult to determine whether terrorist organizations themselves are posting the content, and second, because intelligence agencies reportedly monitor terrorist activity online as a way of helping to track their activities and potentially prevent attacks.

Eric Goldman, an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University, noted that YouTube censorship isn't exactly a new idea: a non-binding resolution introduced in the House of Representatives last year (that got stuck in committee) called on user-posted video sites to do precisely that. "So what if Google/YouTube suppressed these videos?" Goldman said. "They would still be available online somewhere, so why do politicians care if they are hosted on Google/YouTube vs. somewhere else? What a silly PR stunt by Lieberman."

News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report

[Galaxy5]

Too bad Ned Lamont lost. Lieberman is a "sky is falling" Republican in all but affiliation.

[wolvesnthemist]

So YouTube is allowed to let users post terrorist videos, but things like nudity and sex are prohibited? Go figure.

[jbs5110]

how funny.google has no problem taking down commentary by someone like michelle malkin, when a few irate lefties complain,but videos showing jihadists killing americans are fine.shows you were googles priorities are.

[Machaira]

This just shows how ignorant you are. There are no videos of jihadists killing americans. Youtubes TOS clearly prohibits video containing violence and I am am pretty sure that the killing of anybody would fall under that principal

[Melekai]

I don' know what you're talking about, a search for Michelle Malkin turned up 200 videos. When is this crap about censuring everything that seems offensive to someone stop?

[stuck_on_empty]

It's interesting to me that youtube has decided remove these videos when there has been considerable press on anti-Islamic films being present on youtube and there has not been any effort to remove them, despite the fact they contain "hate speech". My prime example is he Geert Wilders film "Fitna" which is available on youtube right now which has both received a great deal of press and outrage from Muslims across the world. This film is chock full of anti-Islamic hate speech and yet because it agrees with the Western mentality of labeling Muslims as terrorists, it persists on youtube. While my personal belief is that youtube should not remove Islamic terrorist organization videos or "Fitna" just based on the fact they contain hate speech because it threatens the free exchange of ideas, I would appreciate it if youtube was consistent in their censorship philosophies. I would hope that youtube and google don't favor the opinions of a US senator over its users who have made it what it is today.

[humanssssss]

Why is it now US becoming a backward country. Free speech is paramount to the ideas of the marketplace. Speech we don't like, we should take the responsibility not to view them. Instead a few Congressmen use laws to mandate what they think is inappropriate for us. Congress -- stop thinking for us -- we are not the slaves in 1984!

I think there's going to be a new revolution as more and more speech is restricted. First threat speech, second hate speech, third bomb making, fourth child pornography, and fifth speech spread from terrorist organization. Each one of these speech restriction affects a small population, eventually, do enough of restriction, these small groups will come together to overthrow the current government to restore their freedom much like how the founding fathers of this nation did it!

[rnieves1977]

Joe Lieberman is an idiot.... when are all these dumb politicians gonna leave office... It's like a big freaking horrible nightmare where everyone who's running anything of significance is a complete moron...

[jbs5110]

International Emergency Economic Powers Act , Executive orders 12947 and 13224.

[unknown unknown]

@jbs5110 There was no mention of Jihadists killing Americans, or for that matter any description of the content removed as a result of Sen. Lieberman's letter. The mention of videos involving the killing of Americans was entirely your invention. As the article mentions Homeland Security like to study these videos so Lieberman might actually be doing a disservice if he were to force the removal of those video...not that they wouldn't appear else where.

[DrBenway]

Yet more verbal dirarrhea from the stealth republican! Why doesn't this hypocrite just do the obvious and change parties? Or maybe seek a post in Putin's latest puppet governemment?

[JadedGamer]

He did run as an independent though, didn't he? When he could not take the HINT he got when he was spurned by the Dem party? His crusade against video games already branded him a "censorship nut" anyway, this just adds to the established picture of him.

[sextondmd]

Regardless of marketplace, free speech is an imperative our country was founded on. It is what makes our country great. It is what allows an unpopular opinion a voice. If YouTube wants to take down these video's, as long as they are not a state run or monopolistic news organization, terrific. I get a little concerned when I hear the government telling them to do so.

[umbrae]

This would be unconstitutional. As much as we might dislike their views, it is upheld under freedom of religion. Many Christian priest were ranting "kill the Muslims" after 911, and violence in the US escalated as well. If we still hold up to our own constitution then they are have the freedom to get their message out. We just have to try and stop them when they cross over from words to actions.

If we start censoring this, what is next? "Sorry this content has been removed since Political views violate the YouTube code of conduct."

[RobertinOhio]

I am sure Lieberman's is more angry about videos made by Alex Jones or other videos criticizing the government should be pulled down off of YouTube as opposed to "al-Qaida" videos made by the CIA. Those who run this criminal government are the REAL terrorists.

[magicmaster]

US should start re-learning freedom of speech from other countries that it had spread the concept to.

Funny.

[dp3lw]

The U.S.A - the new China.

[sal-magnone]

I like Joe, but he's wrong here UNLESS the videos try to incite terror [there are laws about that and not just in the US].

Rather he should organize a mob of people to ridicule the videos online on Youtube. The web works both ways, Use it, don't get used by it.

[scdecade]

Doesn't the First Amendment apply to speech others find offense? Pretty sure it does.

[Heebee Jeebies]

This is a tricky one. On one hand this country prides itself on freedom of speech. On the other hand these are sicko's that need to be rubbed out. Personally, I think youtube should ban them. Law or no law, it is just the right thing to do.

Companies shouldn't need a law to do the right moral thing. Even in this country there are limits to free speech.

Robert

[cybervigilante]

Lieberman is a jerk and an embarrassment. Why in God's name does anyone vote for him?