YouTube Atheists Not Above Censorship (Video Added)
John on February 27, 2007 at 12:48 pm
[Update: Pastor Williams has uploaded the clip to Google video, so I've added it below.]
A few weeks ago, Nick Ginsburne’s right to free speech was attacked by unsrupulous YouTube users. Nick is an atheist who was shut down by YouTube after uploading a video critical of Islam. The video was little more than a collection of verses from the Koran, but apparently that was too much for some cyber-jihadists who labelled it “hate speech.” The video was canned, along with every other video Nick had posted. Atheists everywhere were outraged, and rightly so.
In a surprising twist, Christian bloggers joined their outrage. Irrational Optimism put up a post calling Christian bloggers to stand up for Nick’s rights. His post was highlighed on Instapundit which is how I learned of it. Allahpundit also wrote about it at Hot Air. Anyway, I was one of the Christian bloggers who decided to jump on the bandwagon. Here’s the core of what I wrote:
If Ginsburne’s opinons are banned this week, my opinion could be banned next week.
Well, as you’ve probably guessed, the story has taken another twist involving the banning of a Christian’s speech against atheists. Essentially, the same move that was used by Islamists to ban Nick’s video has now been used by atheists to ban a Christian pastor’s video. Details in a moment, first a bit of background is necessary…
You may have heard of the “blasphemy challenge. This is the brainstorm of a group of atheists who hope to change the world by asking people to create a YouTube video damning their own souls. For their efforts the blasphemers get a lovely parting gift (an atheist DVD). It’s a media friendly idea, albeit theologically muddled. I wrote about it here, noting the basic problem:
As is so often the case, atheists read the Bible more literally than the most ardent fundamentalists. By most accounts, to blaspheme the Spirit is to deny Christ. In short, the only unforgivable sin is disbelief, even then it must be willful disbelief.
I wasn’t the only one to notice the problems with the blasphemy challenge. Pastor David Williams of Bethesda, whose blog is Beloved Spear, created a video mocking the blasphemy challenge and posted it on You Tube. His video lasted a total of six hours. That’s how long it took for a group of atheists to notice it and mark it as “hate speech.” You can still view his video on his site. It was a clever bit of ridicule and, I thought, made the point that atheists often make terrible theologians.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1104918918707316670So, while I’m tempted to focus on the hypocrisy of the atheists involved in the latest episode of YouTube censorship, I’m going to resist temptation and stay positive. How about a little quid quid pro quo from atheist bloggers? We all agree that censorship and dishonesty are not in anyone’s best interest. Therefore I’d expect atheist bloggers to stand up for pastor David Williams’ speech and ask YouTube to restore his video. I know some of them will, or perhaps I should say I have faith they will.
Category: Atheism, Blogs & New Media |
Actually his video was removed for copyright infringement. What he did was dishonest, he should be ashamed as a pastor, and he should pay the large fine that will hopefully come his way when the lawyers get a hold of his illegal usage of many images that don’t belong to him in order to misrepresent those people.
February 27, 2007 @ 3:36 pmAtheist Activist,
I haven’t seen this guys piece, but if it was parody and/or mimicry and/or farce based on other content, most traditional copyright rules do not apply. One is allowed a lot of leeway in using images for the purpose of parody that might otherwise be covered under various copyright limitations. At the same time, if his parody was done without an attempt to solicit funds of any kind (there were no fees involved and no profit motive), then that would also call into question your claim of “copyright infringement.”
That was a nice try, though. You made an solid attempt to justify deplorable and double-minded behavior. You missed the mark completely, but at least you tried.
Come back when you’ve got something else to share.
February 27, 2007 @ 7:15 pmI missed it. Whose copyright did he infringe? Unless you’re talking about the Rational Response Squad logo. Is that what you mean? If so, may I say that’s extremely asinine.
Secondly, Scott is right that this is clearly a parody and should constitute fair use.
Thirdly, do you expect us to believe the video was targeted because a group of atheists are worried about their logo?
How do you know this anyway? Were you one of the losers who had his clip pulled?
February 27, 2007 @ 7:43 pmI actually read some of what YouTube-banned atheist Nick Ginsburne’s been blogging about his own travails with censorship. If you’re flagged for copyright infringement, the warning differs from “Inappropriate Content.” Having…um…been there…I got the “Inappropriate Content” warning. Which means it’s either pornographic, graphically violent, or hate speech.
I think it’d be a stretch to call it either of the first two…although now that I look at it, the guy on the cover of Atlas Shrugged doesn’t seem to be wearing pants.
I can also assure you that profit was the furthest thing from my mind. ‘Cause you know, YouTube is a great place to make the big bucks.
February 27, 2007 @ 8:01 pmRev. Williams,
THANK YOU for the laugh!
I should have watched your parody video before I left my earlier comment. If I had, I would have told Mr. Atheist Activist that he and those of his ilk appear to be putting the “ass” in asinine.
How is it that if any person or group mocks or makes a parody of Christians, then it’s all in good fun and is culturally relevant and intellectually analytical, and yet if the roles are reversed those same idiots scream offense and threaten law suites?!?
FYI – As soon as I’m done with this comment, I’m going to video myself kicking my 5 year old son’s puppy! I think THAT should get God’s attention, don’t you.
Thanks for stopping by Verum Serum.
Scott
February 27, 2007 @ 8:22 pmInappropriate Content = Offensive to mental midgets who think the “Rational Response Squad” is tre’ cool.
February 27, 2007 @ 9:29 pm[...] John at Verum Serum, check out this video response by Pastor David Williams to the oh-so-charming “Rational [...]
February 27, 2007 @ 10:22 pm[...] Verum Serum has the irony-filled story of Pastor David Williams and his travails at YouTube. Pastor Williams took on a campaign by atheists on YouTube called the “blasphemy challenge.” Atheists challenged YouTubers to post videos of themselves committing blasphemy, and many have risen to the call. [...]
February 28, 2007 @ 9:24 am[...] by ericturner on February 28th, 2007 To find out the full story behind this video, you have to go here and here. But just quickly, apparently someone on Youtube (that great “equalizer” of all [...]
February 28, 2007 @ 2:36 pm[...] It got removed. [...]
February 28, 2007 @ 6:38 pmAtheist here, I don’t think any videos should be flagged. I choose not to flag any videos, since this system is greatly flawed. There is no reason why anyone’s opinions should be silenced. The excuse of copyright infringement is an escape goat. On YouTube there are vast amounts of copyright infringements.
March 11, 2007 @ 8:15 amApe,
I’m with you on the no censorship thing. And it’s true there is so much copyright infringement on You Tube it’s a wonder they’re still in business.
March 11, 2007 @ 5:49 pmI am joining this rather late but oh well, better late than never. I am an atheist and feel that one of the first things an atheist must learn, is how to laugh at themselves. Second, we must also learn that our opinions are not the only ones that deserve a platform, regardless of how idiotic, or even dangerous (in cases of danger we should work to eliminate the danger in peaceful and enlightened ways, while still showing respect to our fellow humans and always bearing in mind that we are all people under it all) we think the other opinions might be. Christians make up some 75 to 80 percent of the nation and are by law afforded all the rights to their beliefs. They do this with no fear of any form of persecution, be it in the form of violence, intimidation, loss of job or any other form of discrimination. Atheists are only a small fraction of the population and in many cases are without without certain liberties that most assume are bestowed up us as citizens of a free nation. I am by no means saying that atheist cannot exercise free speech, or right to assembly and other such rights. However many of us face the loss of jobs and discrimination from within the communities we choose to live. In a few states, I was recently informed that my home state was one of them, that a non theist by law may not hold a public office.
All that said, I will not defend a fellow atheist for calling parody, rebuttal, and opposing ideas and philosophy hate speech. Had this gentleman decided to tell people that we should go out and stone atheists to death, or copied the Rational Response Squad’s “Blasphemy Challenge” in an attempt to incite violence against atheists for their real or imagined participation, then yes I would have to say that it was truly hate speech and should be flagged and removed. This though was not any of that. As to the excuse of copyright infringement, it is a weak argument at best and could be used as a tool of censorship in far more extreme ways in the future. Let us not travel down the path where loopholes and and minute technicalities become the book burning of the future.
March 23, 2007 @ 8:47 pmWell. The video is utter shit, but I’ve seen worse shit on Youtube, and as far as I am concerned could still be there. I would like to see a funny video about atheist, but this certainly wasn’t. Too bad. I think it’s the fact that most of you don’t know what atheists are really like, and it can only be funny if it has a grain of truth.
May 21, 2008 @ 11:09 amI wonder how can David Williams be sure that it was removed because ‘atheists’ flagged it. By reading this post I knew what to expect, but I do wonder… if I post a video on YouTube that is then flagged as ‘inappropriate’ and consequently removed.. can I find out from YouTube WHO (which members) flagged the video?
I doubt it. This leaves the option open that there were others (Christians, Muslims, agnostics) that didn’t understand it for what it was: sarcasm.
July 1, 2008 @ 4:04 amI thought it was pretty funny but I expect the sarcasm to go way over the head of the average Christian, simply because this is a very unusual form of parody sported by Christians. This gives me more reason to suspect that at least some of the ‘inappropriate content’ votes were from narrow-minded Christians. An atheist who flags this video as ‘hate speech’ should look in the mirror and wonder when it was that he exchanged one religion for another.
What happened to Occam’s razor? The clip was aimed at atheists. It was immediately banned. QED, atheists banned it.
As I recall the founder of the RRS came out very shortly afterwards decrying censorship. It was clear he suspected his own people and was eager to distance himself.
July 1, 2008 @ 8:02 amI’m not defending atheists per se here, I was just being openminded about it and you have not addressed my basic point. Unless either YouTube reveals the people who flagged it or atheists come out in large numbers admitting they flagged it there is no way to be certain. It follows that since it was aimed at atheists it has got to be flagged by atheists only, and only then, if it plausible that the majority of the viewers indeed perceived it as being aimed at atheists instead of being criticism of Christianity. I contest that. It requires a certain form of intelligence to detect irony. Dumb atheists could have missed the point but they would be unlikely to flag it. Smart atheists would have judged this video for what it was, a parody, and they may have flagged it. Dumb Christians are even more likely to have missed the meaning of the video then dumb atheists since religious people have a tendency to react like a bull on a red cloth, as soon as they perceive their religion to be offended. Consequently they are more likely then dumb Atheists to flag it. Smart Christians just write blogs about it and don’t flag it. Since there are in general more dumb people than smart people and dumb Christians are more likely to flag it than dumb Atheists, I don’t think you should so easily dismiss my hypothesis.
July 1, 2008 @ 9:41 amTico, your arrogance against Christians and their intellect is unfortunate. If Christians couldn’t get the original blasphemy vidoes off of YouTube, what makes you think they got Rev. Williams’ video off?
Oh wait a minute, you’re the “intrinsic/extrinsic” guy – that was an exercise in “deep” thinking. LOL – thought I’d tryout some arrogance. You know what – it does make me feel superior.
July 1, 2008 @ 10:22 amTico, your arrogance against Christians and their intellect is unfortunate.
Jim, it seems you are proving my point about the bull and the red cloth. Had you read my response carefully without allowing your emotions get the upper hand, you would have noticed that I didn’t claim atheists are smarter than Christians, I only stated that dumb Christians (in the sense of missing the irony) are more likely to flag the video because of their sensitivity to perceived offense than dumb atheists. That is not arrogance, it is logic…perhaps false logic, but if you think so you have to address it that way.
If Christians couldn’t get the original blasphemy vidoes off of YouTube, what makes you think they got Rev. Williams’ video off?
I am not familiar with whether Christians tried or not. I would hope that YouTube personnel, in deciding on whether to remove a video or not adhere to a standard protocol rather than cherry picking. Since anyone can flag down but only YouTube personnel can decide to remove it, your statement seems to suggest that YouTube has acted inconsistently, i.e. resisting to remove the blasphemy videos but acting upon David Williams video. I would call that a conspiracy.
July 1, 2008 @ 10:50 amMy response was less than emotional. Calling your arrogance “unfortunate” hardly reaches the zenith in hysteria.
Incidentally, making sweeping generalizations about the intellect of a group of people you do not know (i.e. the mysterious group of Christians who “miraculously” got this post banned in a record six hours), and drawing those conclusions without knowing all of the pertinent facts, is hardly logical.
July 1, 2008 @ 11:22 amIt’s a real stretch. Perhaps David, the guy whose video was pulled, can help clarify.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:50 pmJim can you please enlighten me which part of my post (please quote) you interpret as arrogant “sweeping generalisations about the intellect of [Christians]” ?
For the record, you are judging me (‘a group of people you do not know’) without knowing who I am. Proof of a lack of open-mindedness. I come from a Christian family, 90% of my family are Christians, many of my friends are Christians. I used to be one of them. I still attend church regularly from an intellectual point of view (testing my atheistic views).
I was schooled at exclusive Christian schools until I was 18, when I entered University I had absolutely zero experience of discussing my religious views with non-religious peers. At one occasion I told a friend how I believed that God predestines people to go to heaven. He laughed in unbelief and I interpreted that as mockery because I did not have the ability to understand (empathy) how this (ridiculous) idea is perceived by a non-religious person. For a Christian to lack this kind of empathy is both typical as it is a necessary condition. Once your mind opens and you start to look at certain religious dogmas from the position of a non-religious person, you might be on dangerous grounds. This is typical of followers of exclusive religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam: my, and only my, religion is right.
From the moments that I started to doubt the reality of the existence of God, I have shared my doubts with Christians. It is this personal experience on which I draw when I state that Christians, when confronted with statements that are perceived as offensive to Christianity, often quickly jump into ‘excitation mode’, especially those that have not frequently discussed religious affairs with non-religious folks before.
As a last point, I have not made a conclusion about who was responsible (i.e. whether atheists or Christians flagged the video) for the removal of Mr. Williams video. I have provided a case based on logical arguments why it could well have been Christians who flagged the video. If it turns out that indeed atheists flagged the video rather than Christians I’m not embarrassed at all. I get more satisfaction in postulating a hitherto unexplored hypothesis (as far as I’m aware of course) rather than the truth or falsehood of the hypothesis.
July 1, 2008 @ 1:00 pmTico, I’ll send you some extra strong sun block for that “thin” skin of yours.
July 1, 2008 @ 1:04 pmJim,
Thank you, I appreciate the gesture but for now I don’t need it. I try my best to keep the conversation on topic rather than getting sidetracked in a personal flamewar. That said, I will not hesitate to let you know if I feel you draw the wrong conclusions. Only if you get personal with me I will let you know in just slightly less polite terms than I reserve for other people.
Specifically I would like to hear from you which part of my post (please quote) you interpret as arrogant “sweeping generalisations about the intellect of [Christians]” ?
July 1, 2008 @ 1:22 pmThis is very painful. Just read your comments about Christians who don’t get irony – they’re dumb in your estimation. And if they were the ones who complained about Rev. Williams video, that makes them stupid.
By the way, did it ever occur to you that these “miracle working” mystery Christians could have opposed Re. Williams video because they don’t view sarcasm as a Christ-like way to respond to blaspemy vidoes? The truth is we don’t know who blocked the video and what their motives were. You have apparently taken a stab at this. Congratulations!! The sunblock is on it’s way. And please, spare me another epistle/lecture. Maybe you can go into the entertainment business and write “rants” for Dennis Miller.
July 1, 2008 @ 1:41 pmTico, Tico, Tico.
I know atheists flagged it because I got a furious message on YouTube from an atheist..a rather less than rational member of the Rational Response Squad..demanding that I take the video down, and telling me she and others were going to flag it for removal if I did not. There was a sudden surge of views, and shortly thereafter, it was removed.
Logical conclusion: it was removed as a direct result of atheist complaints.
July 1, 2008 @ 1:44 pmDavid,
Excellent, thanks for responding here. Given your testimony it makes sense that it were the atheists that flagged the video indeed. Just one more question: given that you received this message from a “rather less than rational member of the Rational Response Squad”… were they demanding you to take it down for using their logo without consent or were they explicitly accusing you of “hate speech”? I’m asking because I’m still baffled how any rational thinking atheist can accuse your views expressed in the video on that basis. I have not heard about the RRS but in my opinion they have lost the right to call themselves Rational.
July 1, 2008 @ 2:06 pmThanks David. I would have bet the mortgage on my house that Christians didn’t object to your video. As well, I’ve yet to meet a Christian who wouldn’t see the irony in your message and approve of it wholeheartedly. We get “hit” on a daily basis. It’s nice to see someone respond in such a creative way.
July 1, 2008 @ 2:17 pmThanks for clarifying that, David. Muchos Gracias.
July 1, 2008 @ 2:46 pmBased on some research I will retract my precocious judgement on the Rational Response Squad.
It looks like David has shared some personal thoughts with John about who he really thinks are responsible for the flagging that he decided not to share with me. If he doesn’t personally think that the RRS was responsible in any way, then there is no rational basis for suspecting it were ‘Atheist kids’ at all, it could have been anyone. That said, the blame for the removal lies entirely with YouTube’s apparent inconsistent policy, it’s completely pathetic.
July 1, 2008 @ 3:45 pmUpdate, this should be the correct http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/28/youtube-censors-strike-again/comment-page-1/#comment-272464 link
P.S. John, is it possible to install a feature on the site that lets users correct previous posts. Not that I need to hide anything… ;-)
July 1, 2008 @ 3:50 pmTico, Tico, Tico:
Do more research! The RRS is a convoluted bunch. Brian Flemming, towards whom most of the video was directed, found it amusing, and put up a defense of it on his own blog. In my supersecret private conversation with John, he’s the one I considered “far too savvy” to have had any part in that. But he is tangential to the RRS.
The individual who contacted me and demanded the removal of the video was an RRS member who is…for a variety of reasons having little to do with intellect…featured prominently on their website. From my own experience with atheists, some are rational and willing to talk. They can actually be quite entertaining to joust with. Others are as rational as poo-flinging monkeys. This individual falls into that latter category.
You’re right about the pathetic policy.
July 1, 2008 @ 7:42 pmTico,
Whether it was an RRS member or not (I suspect it was since they were riding high on You Tube at that moment in time) it was certainly an atheist. The e-mails to David make that pretty clear. An atheist also commented on my story about the clip being pulled saying it deserved to be because it used their logo. He was an RRS member. All indications point to them.
Personally, I’d still like to know whether school shooter Pekka-Eric Auvinen was an RRS member. I know his girlfriend was and I suspect he was as well.
July 1, 2008 @ 8:28 pmI’ve looked at that briefly. Not sure it’s compatible with my current AJAXified comment form.
July 1, 2008 @ 8:30 pmTo David & John.
OK.
July 1, 2008 @ 10:20 pmI have take my decision to life without YouTube! My dead time is on 2009 1 january, my mind is made up never more watch video on youtube!
December 6, 2008 @ 7:28 amThe funny thinks of me is how great my Own censorship BAN YouTube. IN C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc hosts file i have block access to 127.0.0.1 Ytimg.com Your know that YouTube dig one’s own grave! I’m wait for better YouTube! Maby it in future that Pirate bay lauch a new website “The Pirate YouTube”! There is no censorship or not remove your account.
Since when did Borat start commenting on VS?
December 7, 2008 @ 7:05 pmI’m not that familiar with the Youtube system. How do we know who flagged the video for removal?
December 8, 2008 @ 12:00 pmRead the first comment from an atheist who seems to know. The video briefly showed the RRS logo, but that’s just a convenient excuse. It was flagged by someone in sympathy with the Blasphemy Challenge.
They would never tell David exactly who flagged it (against policy). But the fact that Brian Flemming was posting about this on his blog (and sending the link to Instapundit) indicates he was worried about fallout and trying to get ahead of it.
Also, note comment #33 where I responded to the last atheist who tried to raise the same point.
December 8, 2008 @ 12:23 pm