So now Eric Schmidt is an al-Qaida fellow traveler?

Senator Joe Lieberman earlier today publicized a letter he sent to Eric Schmidt demanding Google remove "content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations from YouTube."

The Connecticut Senator wants all videos mentioning or featuring these groups removed from YouTube--including videos featuring legal nonviolent or non-hate speech.

When I learned that Lieberman wanted Google to pull what he described as "terrorist content" from YouTube, my first thought was that his PR director obviously was incapacitated. But no, this was a team effort in scare-mongering.

Searches on YouTube return dozens of videos branded with an icon or logo identifying the videos as the work of one of these Islamist terrorist organizations. A great majority of these videos document horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Others provide weapons training, speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and general material intended to radicalize potential recruits.

Google isn't going to play ball. Here's what the company had to say:

Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

That important distinction was glossed over in Lieberman's official communications with the company. Of course, Google's refusal to play ball may get it featured as a candidate for Bill O'Reilly's Talking Point segment, but management's entirely right to stick by its principles. Lieberman's gone hunting with a blunderbuss, lumping violent and hateful content together with unpopular points of view. In this instance, Google did no evil.

I know we're about to get into the thick of the political silly season, but no less than a veteran U.S. Senator should take a look at the United States Constitution now and then. It's one heck of a document. Really.

[SteveLafferty]

Dear Senator Lieberman:

As one of your Connecticut constituents, please stop trying to be my nanny. If you are worried about me seeing offensive content on YouTube, don't be. I can handle myself. If you are worried about kids accessing this content, please ask the parents of said kids to be parents and take responsibility for their own children. If that means locking down the computer unless parents are in the room when it it being used, well then that's the way it has to be.

Why do you think that my rights to view speech - hate or otherwise - should be be determined by someone else's delicate sensibilities?

[john55440]

Lieberman is an idiot. He has long been Bush's Neutered Poodle, now he aspires to be McCain's Neutered Poodle.

[digitalhecht]

Shouldn't it be "AN al-Qaida fellow traveler"?

[whoreallycares1]

You know what an even better document is? It's called the Bill of Rights by some, which are the ammendments to the Constitution.

One would also want to look at the Oath of Office, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003331----000-.html

Please note that the Senator has sworn to defend and protect against enemies, which congress determined Al Qaida has clearly stated was enemy number 1.

To that end, what is wrong with trying to disrupt efforts of these groups by any and all means necessary? What is the benefit of keeping the videos, other than they can possibly make more profit now that you have pointed them out, and more lemmings can go and learn how to be a better school shooter?

The Senator is trying to do his sworn duty, and bringing to light efforts that according to Google's statement, "removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines"

In my opinion then, what he did was absolutely correct, he pointed out violations, they (google) removed the ones they agreed with, and the general population is better off.

Now, you ACLU card members who think terrorists should have open access to all that US businesses allow, you can go on complaining while our soldiers are killed by bombs that were made by instructions on YouTube. Just remember to explain that to the family members of the fallen ones who...ok?

[bj1126]

The problem is Google will quickly remove anti-islamist videos but happily keeps pro-islamist videos up.

[hunter_jc]

The Senator should be ashame of being an American. America is build on free speech. Removing free speech would be like removing one of the most basic human rights.

[igl00lgi]

Connecticut should be embarased for voting this guy into office after he went independent(closet republican) due to his loss in the primary.

[woofs_a_lot]

When the tone of your piece is to hold Lieberman's outrage over videos of torture to our soldiers more reprehensible than the images themselves you might wish to do a gut check on yourself. What or who is sacred to you? The application of justice in the pursuit of liberty is not as simplistic as you seem to think it is. History however records the never ending folly of those who, having never fought to protect freedom, naively fritter it away by succumbing to the seduction of justice for their enemies. They gullibly honor the wolf at their peace table just before he devours them and enslaves their children.

[alegr]

"having never fought to protect freedom".
I'm not aware of any current war where our solders are fighting for our freedom. I know of a war where the're fighting for oil. As far as I know people of that country don't quite understand ideas of liberty and freedom, and are happily killing each other. Which the deposed dictator didn't let them.

[zmonster]

Why doesn't Lieberman go after the AMERICAN companies SELLING Al Qaeda videos for a PROFIT? See:

http://www.intelcenter.com/

http://www.lauramansfield.com/subscribers/

[hellfireblogs]

I suppose Frank Weltner's "Jew Watch", which has been flagged and never removed, doesn't violate their terms of service? It's been up for more than a year and flagged hundreds of times but never removed. Hmmm.

[pickle420]

So... Joe Lieberman asked Google to remove material that he believed provided aid and comfort to America's sworn enemies. I'm puzzled as to what part of the Constitution making such a request violates, since Mr. Lieberman neither attempted nor threatened to attempt any sort of government action to force Google to comply. Or does Mr. Cooper think that there's a Constitutional right to not be made to look like a jerk?

[USBeast]

When one considers that the prime objective of the jihadis is to destroy all democratic forms of government and institute Sharia across the face of the Earth, one is not inclined to allow them to use rights they would do away with at their first opportunity as weapons against those rights.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[viper220]

"I know we're about to get into the thick of the political silly season, but no less than a veteran U.S. Senator should take a look at the United States Constitution now and then. It's one heck of a document. Really."

It's one heck of a document for Americans, but many of these terrorist videos are being uploaded from areas outside the country. I know there's a habit among the left to extend the protections of the Constitution to foreign nationals, but thankfully here in this land we call reality that's not the case.

But it's really beside the point. The Constitution only applies to the state; Google is not bound by free speech provisions. They can, and should, yank any video that even remotely relates to terrorist speech. And I think a logo branding the video from a known terrorist group would fit squarely within that camp.

[Disisme]

If Charles Cooper "doesn't suffer fools gladly" as his cliche blog header claims, he must be an impressive masochist.

And, even for a former AP hack and a Columbia grad, Coop's profound misunderstanding of the Constitution, at least concerning the application of the First Amendment, is surprising. Lieberman has violated no part of that amendment, in fact or spirit.

So follow your own snide advice Coop: "take a look at the United States Constitution now and then. It's one heck of a document. Really. "

[gitarfan]

For all you constitutional scholars out there, there's nothing in the Constitution that says it applies to non-citizens in a foreign land. Ol' Coop should read it himself insread of Googling it. Oh yeah....You're a dick

[gitarfan]

Where's all the outrage about Google bending over for the G in Communist China and limiting those people to the web sites the government approves? What a bunch of hypocrites.

[DebbieEss]

Google is very selective in what it thinks is objectionable. "Hate" videos that depict violence or threaten violence against Jews or Americans or Westerners in general are left untouched, but videos that are mild in that they merely express criticism of Islam are removed in a heartbeat.

By the way, alegr, if we're fighting for oil, we've done a lousy job, since we're paying through the nose for oil at the pumps. I'd love to have some of that oil actually funnelled to the U.S.! Fighting for oil, my foot.

[Joseph Iruku]

Just to answer the question the article posed....Yes, Eric Schmidt is indeed an Al-Qaeda fellow traveler. Or, at the very least has a bizarre relativistic fatalism and subtle, latent sympathy for them and their tactics. To put it another way - Jihadis are thankful for certain kinds of westerners. Other westerners the Jihadi would wish destroyed. Eric Schmidt or Charles Cooper? They probably appreciate such men of nuance. The Schmidts and Coopers ?get it?. These men ?can see or understand? why someone might be driven to Jihad. They might even partly agree with the justifications for Jihad. Moral equivalent types like our man Cooper is useful to them, an idiot to us, and a useful idiot for CNET. And, no, Cooper is not a fellow traveler for Al-Qaeda. He?s much more potent as an enabling relativist in NoCal.

[jtdavies3]

For the posters claiming we are fighting for oil, please explain how that is bad. Or are you completely self sufficient, growing your own food?

I know that the food I'm eating is produced with tractors that run on oil, fertilizer that is made with oil, and transported to my supermarket in trucks and trains that run on oil. Without oil, most of us will die.

Grow up.

And Coop, why do you think the Bill of Rights puts limits on what Lieberman can say? It limits what the Federal government can do.

[mikele11111]

Hey Joe, Your 15 minutes of fame were over a long, long time ago. Very few people care what you have to say about anything anymore. As a resident of Connecticut I wish you would spend your time doing something about gas and the traffic on I-95 instead of grandstanding for the media in a poorly planned attempt to put yourself in the news.