Vice president: Iran will pursue makers of anti-Islam film

(ynet)Iran's government will "track down" those responsible for making an amateurish film clip mocking the Prophet Mohammad, a senior official said, Iranianmedia reported on Monday.
The video made in California and posted on YouTube portrayed the Prophet Mohammad as a womanizer and a fool. It has ignited a week of violent protests across the Muslim world.
anti-Islam film
Iran's vice president says Teheran will 'search for, track down and pursue guilty person who has insulted 1.5 billion Muslims in the world'; officials demand apology from US over movie
"The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran condemns ... this inappropriate and offensive action," First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said, according to the Mehr news agency.
 
"Certainly it will search for, track, and pursue this guilty person who ... has insulted 1.5 billion Muslims in the world," he said.
 
The Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, condemned to death the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie in 1989 for his novel "The Satanic Verses," saying its depiction of the Prophet Mohammad was blasphemous.
 
Iranian officials have demanded that the United States apologize to Muslims for the movie, saying it is only the latest in a series of Western insults aimed at Islam's holy figures.
 
Rahimi did not give details on how Iran would pursue the makers of the film in his remarks, which the Iranian Students' News Agency said he had made at a cabinet meeting on Sunday.
 
The US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya, last Tuesday and several other people have died in protests around the Muslim world against the video entitled "Innocence of Muslims."
 
The identity of those directly responsible for the film is still murky. Clips of the film posted online since July have been attributed to a man named Sam Bacile, which two people linked to the film have said was probably an alias.
 
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, a Coptic Christian widely linked to the film in media reports, was voluntarily questioned on Saturday by US authorities investigating possible violations of his probation for a bank fraud conviction.
 
An Iranian religious foundation said on Saturday it was increasing its reward for the killing of Rushdie, though he had nothing to do with the film, offering a total of $3.3 million for anyone who carried out Khomeini's death sentence.

update: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Google Inc rejected a request by the White House on Friday to reconsider its decision to keep online a controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East.

The Internet company said it was censoring the video in India andIndonesia after blocking it on Wednesday in Egypt and Libya, where U.S. embassies have been stormed by protestors enraged over depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as a fraud and philanderer.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in a fiery siege on the embassy in Benghazi.

Google said was further restricting the clip to comply with local law rather than as a response to political pressure.

"We've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indonesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt, given the very sensitive situations in these two countries," the company said. "This approach is entirely consistent with principles we first laid out in 2007."

via ibloga.blogspot.com

Jonathan H. Adler • September 14, 2012 2:38 pm

The LA Times reports:

Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.
The administration flagged the 14-minute “Innocence of Muslims” video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, officials said Thursday. The video, which has been viewed by nearly 1.7 million users, depicts Muhammad as a child molester, womanizer and murderer — and has been decried as blasphemous and Islamophobic.

According to the story, YouTube reviewed the video earlier this week and concluded that it was “clearly within” the website’s guidelines.
UPDATE: Jesse Walker comments at Hit & Run.

via volokh.com

Censored on YouTube: 420 Boston Hempfest Knockout Punch

It's offensive to see what goes on in reality? by the way... this is why this needs to be legalized. Because perfectly good people have to get involved with people like this when they are down and out. The only reason this stuff is illegal now is because minority communities make so much money off miserable white folks who are just trying to forget their sorrows. don't ever expect Obama to legalize Marijuana.

Youtube: The real face of the jews

(Presented with Christian missionary statement)

Pretty amazing what makes it by the censors when they censor evidence that Khader was a terrorist... or they censor animations depicting Jews as Apes and Pigs when that is what the Muslims believe Mohammad their prophet said.

Who is Khader Adnan? Skilled propagandist stages 2nd hunger strike

(Why does Youtube keep on deleting the proof that Khader Adnan is a terrorist?)(Who is Khader Adnan? Skilled Propagandist Stages 2nd Hunger Strike | Israel Defense Forces) Khader Adnan is a ranking 6-year plus member of the internationally recognized terrorist organization, Islamic Jihad, which has encouraged and overseen the murder of Israelis. Adnan, a seasoned propagandist, is now trying for the second time to use a hunger strike as a means of garnering international sympathy.
Adnan’s hunger ‘plight’ is well-documented in mainstream media, but the hundreds of news articles provide little information into his past- the reasons for his incarceration are unimportant to those who oppose Israel. The fact that Adnan has a long list of crimes is a minor detail that need only be glossed over; besides the half-dozen times he has been detained by Israeli authorities for terror-related offenses, Adnan has also been arrested by the Palestinian Authority (as reported by Ma’an news agency and the BBC on September 30, 2010).
He has taken the initiative in calling for terror attacks against Israel. On June 8, 2005, the Boston Globe identified Adnan as an “Islamic Jihad spokesman,” and quoted him repudiating any sort of cease fire with Israel, and urging all Palestinian terror groups to resume fighting with Israel.

Islamic Jihad Leader Khader Adnan:
Baker or Terrorist?
from CiF Watch on Vimeo.

...Why does YouTube keep on censoring this?

(This Ongoing War) Khader Adnan, aka Sheikh Adnan Khodr aka Khader Adnan. Mohammad Musa is not a simple baker. He's not a "peace" "activist". What in fact he is, is

• "one of Islamic Jihad leaders" [the WAFA Palestinian news agency]
• "one of the main leaders of the Palestinian militant movement Islamic Jihad" [Al Arabiya]
• "Sheikh Adnan Khodr, the political leader of Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine" [Uruknet]

In short, he is a well-known leader of one of the world's nastiest terror organizations, and death and pain is what he not only wishes on us and our children and neighbours, but it's what he lives for and - according to what his promoters want us to believe - it's what he's ready to die for.

Behold the unambiguous cry from the heart of this lifelong terrorist:

The fact that Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign affairs chief, said at the weekend that Adnan's case was of "great concern" suggests to us that she and her staff have too much free time on their hands or they lack a basic understanding of how to tell the difference between the terrorists and their targets.

Why does Youtube keep on deleting the proof that Khader Adnan is a terrorist?

On the left is a video where CNN tries to sell the public that Khader Adnan is denied due process and that he supposedly is being held without evidence that he is a threat to the public. Notice how unfriendly the woman is to Regev who is quite professional. On the right is a video of Khader Adnan that Youtube keeps on censoring.

Seems like there is a conspiracy to hide the truth here... doesn't it? Can anyone explain how the media gets away with this? should this video get censored... I just uploaded another copy of it here.

YouTube freezes PMW account again

(Palwatch.org) In response to yesterday's PMW video-bulletin which showed the PA Mufti's speech that Muslims' destiny is to kill Jews, YouTube has frozen PMW's account. All PMW videos are working except this one but the account is frozen and PMW cannot upload new videos for the next two weeks.

We have uploaded the video to a different server and it can now again be viewed from PMW's website.
The video that YouTube is calling "inappropriate" exposed the Palestinian Authority Mufti citing the Islamic tradition (Hadith) that anticipates Muslims' killing Jews as a precursor to the Hour of Resurrection. The Jews are also called the "descendants of the apes and pigs" by a Fatah moderator at the event. The following is the text of the video.
Moderator at Fatah ceremony:
"Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews)
is a war of religion and faith.
Long Live Fatah! [I invite you,] our honorable Sheikh."
PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein comes to the podium and says:
"47 years ago the [Fatah] revolution started. Which revolution? The modern revolution of the Palestinian people's history. In fact, Palestine in its entirety is a revolution, since [Caliph] Umar came [to conquer Jerusalem, 637 CE], and continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith (tradition attributed to Muhammad), [found] in the two reliable collections, Bukhari and Muslim, says:
"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews.
The Jew will hide behind stones or trees.
Then the stones or trees will call:
'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'
Except the Gharqad tree [which will keep silent]."
Therefore it is no wonder that you see Gharqad [trees]
surrounding the [Israeli] settlements and colonies.."
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012]

Man faces 75 years in prison for filming police.

The law is going to unusual extents against the constitution to keep the truth from getting out on the internet. Law enforcement is paranoid of the truth getting out. I wish I could tell you my experience in the state of Washington and their need to suppress information that would embarrass their actions

[LiveLeak] For the crime of recording police during a citation and taking a tape recorder into the courtroom, 41-year old mechanic Michael Allison faces a life sentence in prison. The state of Illinois has charged Allison with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

The case reveals how far the authorities will go in their efforts to squelch the rights of citizens and prevent them from documenting the abuses of police and other government officials.
The above news report aired in June. It appeared on YouTube last week.
As Radley Balko noted on his blog in June, the report filed by a Terre Haute news station is riddled with misinformation:

The report gets a few things wrong, most notably the assertion recording cops is "illegal in a dozen states". A dozen states require all parties to consent before you can record a conversation, but all except Illinois and Massachusetts have an "expectation of privacy" provision that the courts to this point have ruled does not apply to on-duty police officers (or anyone in a public setting). That hasn't stopped police from arresting people in those states (and others) anyway. But the charges don't hold up in court.
This isn't a distinction without a difference. When a media outlet reports that recording cops is "illegal" in these states (and the Terre Haute station is not the first to do so), it adds to the public perception that doing so is, in fact, illegal. This makes it more difficult to hold police officers accountable when they disregard the law. In order to overcome a police officer's qualified immunity in a lawsuit for wrongful arrest, you have to show that a reasonable person (not a reasonable police officer) should have known that the arrest was in violation of clearly established law. When media outlets continue to incorrectly report that recording cops is illegal in these states, they contribute to public confusion about the law—and thus make it more difficult for people who have been wrongly arrested to argue in court that a reasonable person should have known that the arrest was illegal.
The reporter's characterization of his amusing confrontation with a deputy in the courthouse is also incorrect. The reporter says they were advised by attorneys not to air the audio of the conversation because of the same law under which Allison is being prosecuted. But if they did make a recording of their interaction with the deputy, they'd be subject to prosecution regardless of whether or not they actually aired the audio.
Still, points for effort. This is a seven-and-a-half minute report from a local news station about an important issue that takes a skeptical view of law enforcement. That's pretty rare.

Anonymous Hackers Claim Retaliatory Attack On Spain Police

One member said the group's "command and control" centers are invite-only, adding: "It's to protect people, but if you have proven trustworthy you get invited – it's not hard to do. It's not some elitist structure but a way to keep the press and the odd bit of law enforcement seeing who issues commands."

"Our project has no leader structure, only different roles. The degree of leadership and organization in the various projects various a lot," one long-term insider explained. "It's all very chaotic, but we communicate and co-operate with each other. I see us as different cells of the same organism."

MADRID (Dow Jones)--A group of hackers tied to a series of security breaches on websites across the world said Sunday it attacked the Spanish police's main website in retaliation for the recent arrest of three alleged members of the group.
In a statement sent to local media and posted on several websites, alleged representatives of the "Anonymous" group said they plan to keep the fight against Spain's "corrupt" state.
They also rejected police claims that the three who were detained across Spain are in any way leaders of the movement, saying "Anonymous" has no leadership. Police released the three after being charged Friday.
"Our minds, ideas and words are our weapons. Police has no other obligation than protecting the people," the statement written in Spanish said. "And the people can't be protected from itself."
The statement added that "Anonymous" attacked the police website at 2230 GMT, in a denial-of-service attempt to put the website offline. That attack came after police said it has no evidence that the detained were tied to a high-profile theft of Sony customers' data earlier this year, but added the three tried to steal and publish what it called "sensitive data" about Spanish politicians and policemen.
Police also said the trio was looking to release the data on Web pages set up by sympathizers of ETA, the terrorist group that has been seeking Basque independence and suspected to have killed over 800 people over the last four decades. Earlier claims said that the three who were detained had helped to coordinate massive attacks on international websites.
In response, Anonymous said Sunday that it seeks to defend freedom of expression and transparency, from a pacifist standpoint. "We are not terrorists. We are citizens fighting for rights that have been coerced," the statement said.
The detentions have caused a controversy in Spain, where many messages in support of the hackers have been posted in social networks and chat rooms. Many of these supporters criticized the police's description of the detainees, mocking the idea that they are in any way leading Anonymous' activities. The most prominent of these expressions of support came from Real Democracy Now, a loosely organized group that has been coordinating protests against political corruption and economic austerity measures.
In a statement on its website, the group said it is "outraged by media manipulation and the actions of security forces" regarding the Anonymous detentions, and asked for charges to be dropped against the three who were arrested.

via online.wsj.com

Anonymous Hackers

Anonymous has carried out web attacks to help Wikileaks. The group [ANONYMOUS], which made headlines in December 2010 after it used software freely available over the internet to temporarily bring down the sites of MasterCard and Visa, said that its members were not credit card thieves.

they are still out there Anonymous

Anonymous Hackers Claim Retaliatory Attack On Spanish Police Website

A flag conveying symbolism associated with Anonymous. The symbolism of the "suit without a head" represents leaderless organization and anonymity.

Individuals appearing in public as Anonymous, wearing the Guy Fawkes masks popularized by the comic book and film V for Vendetta, Los Angeles, February 2008 via en.wikipedia.org

Online vigilante group Anonymous has denied being behind an attack that led to the theft of personal data from around 77 million PlayStation users. "Whoever broke into Sony's servers to steal the credit card info and left a document blaming Anonymous clearly wanted Anonymous to be blamed for the most significant digital theft in history," the statement read.

More than a million users have been affected by the security breach

Three suspected members of the Anonymous hacking group have been arrested in Spain.

The trio are said to have been involved in co-ordinating the group's activity in that country.

The arrests were made simultaneously in three Spanish cities - Barcelona, Valencia and Almeria.

Anonymous has claimed responsibility for attacks on Sony, Spanish banks and co-ordinated action in defence of whistle-blowing site Wikileaks.

A statement from the Spanish national police force said that a computer seized in the home of one person it arrested was used in the hacks.

The arrests were the culmination of an investigation that began in October 2010.

It involved Spanish cyber police combing through millions of lines of chat logs to identify who was behind the group's activities.

Some of the attacks made by Anonymous members used a web-based tool called Loic to bombard target sites with data. The websites of PayPal, Mastercard and Amazon were all targeted using this tool.

It seems that Loic did a poor job of hiding the identity of the people using it. It is believed that some police forces have already moved against the group based on this information.

Arrests have been made in the US, UK and Holland of Anonymous members, prior to the raids in Spain.

Anonymous grew out of the online picture sharing site 4Chan and describes itself as a group of concerned internet citizens.

As well as attacking sites that it perceives as not supporting Wikileaks. The loosely organised collective has also attacked government sites in Tunisia and Egypt to aid popular protest movements.

Anonymous has issued a warning to Viacom

After publishing its statement regarding Sony, Anonymous also issued a warning to entertainment giant Viacom.
The group said that because of Viacom, "thousands of people have undergone the unfortunate experience of receiving falsely-claimed copyright infringements".
Viacom is known for taking aggressive legal action to get its content removed from video sharing websites.
In 2007, the company attempted to sue YouTube for $1bn (£608m).
As part of its counter-action, YouTube's parent company Google accused Viacom of uploading some videos itself and manipulating them to look like amateur copies.
The case against YouTube was eventually thrown out.
In its statement, Anonymous wrote: "Anonymous demands from Viacom a public press release to admit and apologise for the fraud and crimes that they have committed.
"Anonymous also demands that Viacom allows everyone throughout the internet full rights to be able to express themselves.
"Lastly, we, the citizens of the world, demand that Viacom stops their attempts to gather personally identifying information such as IPs, which are of no relevance to them."

via bbc.co.uk

I doubt Viacom did this... it was merely Youtube's hypothetical to convince the judge of Viacom's own possibly suspicion because the argument became a matter of possibility. claiming the hypothetical as a truth is merely a tool. yes it is a lie, but that is the way the law works.  sometimes it is merely to get a judge's attention as to the concept.

...I guess they got Anonymous, but there are obviously a lot of potential suspects out there that could of framed Anonymous. hackers like to set each other up. They are also very aware of things. They are often already in positions of power.

The personal details of thousands of people have been stolen after hackers targeted British games developer Codemasters.

The firm described the data theft as "significant" saying names, addresses, phone numbers and dates of birth were all taken on 3 June.

However, it said that payment details were not compromised.

The latest security breach comes in the midst of a spate of hacker attacks, including several against Sony.

Codemasters said it took the compromised website offline as "as soon as the intrusion was detected". via bbc.co.uk

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is an Internet meme that originated in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many online community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain.^[2] It is also generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known.^[3]
In its early form, the concept has been adopted by a decentralized on-line community acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal, and primarily focused on entertainment. Beginning with 2008, the Anonymous collective has become increasingly associated with collaborative, international hacktivism, undertaking protests and other actions, often with the goal of promoting internet freedom and freedom of speech. Actions credited to "Anonymous" are undertaken by unidentified individuals who apply the Anonymous label to themselves as attribution.^[4]
Although not necessarily tied to a single on-line entity, many websites are strongly associated with Anonymous. This includes notable imageboards such as 4chan, Futaba, their associated wikis, Encyclopædia Dramatica, and a number of forums.^[5] After a series of controversial, widely-publicized protests and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks by Anonymous in 2008, incidents linked to its cadre members have increased.^[6] In consideration of its capabilities, Anonymous has been posited by CNN to be one of the three major successors to WikiLeaks.^[7]

via en.wikipedia.org

Anonymous' organization

Anonymous isn’t truly an organization; not in any traditional sense. They are a large, decentralized group of individuals who share common interests and web haunts. There are no official members, guidelines, leaders, representatives or unifying principles. Rather, Anonymous is a word that identifies the millions of people, groups, and individuals on and off of the internet who, without disclosing their identities, express diverse opinions on many topics.

Being "Anonymous" is much more a quality or a self-definition than a membership. Each project under the Anonymous banner may have a whole different set of instigators. Leadership, when it exists, is informal and carried out in chat channels, forums, IM and public calls to action online. No one's meeting in a board room.

The name Anonymous itself is inspired by the perceived anonymity under which users post images and comments on the Internet. Usage of the term Anonymous in the sense of a shared identity began on imageboards.


Origin of Anonymous

They are loosely affiliated with 4chan and other smaller "chan" boards (like 7chan, 2chan and 711chan) due to these sites' anonymous posting feature, which allows them to plan attacks without revealing any identifying information.

A tag of Anonymous is assigned to visitors who leave comments without identifying the originator of the posted content. Users of imageboards sometimes jokingly acted as if Anonymous were a real person. As the popularity of imageboards increased, the idea of Anonymous as a collective of unnamed individuals became an internet meme.

They coordinate raids on forums like 4chan.org and ICQ chat rooms, among other venues. 4chan.org is a major hub, but I wouldn’t call it Anonymous’ home. Anonops.net was as close to an HQ as they had, but it has been shut down.

Some claim Anonymous to be the first internet-based superconsciousness. Anonymous is a group, in the sense that a flock of birds is a group. How do you know they're a group? Because they're travelling in the same direction. At any given moment, more birds could join, leave, peel off in another direction entirely.

Anonymous doesn't like to be called a 'group'. And much less do its members like to be called 'hackers'. They are, to use the manifesto's excitable, sci-fi-tinged terminology, an "Online Living Consciousness"

Anonymous hierarchy

They have been described as a leaderless, anarchic group of "hacktivists" but inside Anonymous, some have found that the organization is more hierarchical – with a hidden cabal of around a dozen highly skilled hackers coordinating attacks across the web.

One member said the group's "command and control" centers are invite-only, adding: "It's to protect people, but if you have proven trustworthy you get invited – it's not hard to do. It's not some elitist structure but a way to keep the press and the odd bit of law enforcement seeing who issues commands."

"Our project has no leader structure, only different roles. The degree of leadership and organization in the various projects various a lot," one long-term insider explained. "It's all very chaotic, but we communicate and co-operate with each other. I see us as different cells of the same organism."

The leaders of the group use internet relay chat (IRC) technology, which can allow groups of people to communicate clandestinely. Some in the upper echelons are understood to have control over "botnets" comprising more than 1,000 Windows PCs that have been infected with a virus and can be controlled without the user's knowledge to direct "distributed denial of service" (DDoS) attacks against target organizations.

via tremblinguterus.blogspot.com

Al-Aqsa Mosque imam: Obama will soon hang for "killing one of our Islamic lions", bin Laden

...Johnny Rotten doesn't
listen to your Propaganda...

(Ynet) An imam from the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem vowed to take revenge over "the western dogs" for killing Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday.

In a Youtube video uploaded by the imam he said: "The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion."
The imam then verbally attacked US President Barack Obama saying: "You personally instructed to kill Muslims. You should know that soon you'll hang together with Bush Junior."
"We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We'll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god's help," he vowed.
More...

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

.a video of a preacher at Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem calling for the death of Obama and Bush for killing Bin Laden.  It was deleted.

(original uncut video was uploaded by the preacher himself. YNet story here.)

Here is Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh condemning the assassination and calling Bin Laden a holy warrior.



He is now part of the Palestinian Arab government.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

TSA Screener Charged With Distributing Kiddie Porn

Your tax dollars at work.

A passenger screener at Philadelphia International Airport is facing charges that he distributed more than 100 images of child pornography via Facebook, records show.
Federal agents also allege that Transportation Safety Administration Officer Thomas Gordon Jr. of Philadelphia, who routinely searched airline passengers, uploaded explicit pictures of young girls to an Internet site on which he also posted a photograph of himself in his TSA uniform.
Homeland Security agents arrested the TSA officer March 24, and he is being held without bail.
Although the case was unsealed Thursday, neither the indictment nor the news release mentioned Gordon's job searching airline passengers for TSA.
The arrest comes as TSA grapples with several other incidents involving screeners, including a YouTube video posted last week by parents angry about the pat-down their 6-year-old daughter received at an airport in New Orleans. TSA officials said the pat-down was proper; the parents said the girl was "groped."
Citing privacy rules, TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis would not say if Gordon has been suspended from his job, but noted that he had been in federal custody since his arrest.
"We can assure the public that he is no longer working at the airport," Davis said.
Gordon began working as a TSA screener at the Philadelphia airport in December 2005, Davis said. The airport has 900 screeners, she said.
If convicted of the child pornography charges, Gordon, 46, faces a minimum mandatory sentence of five years. The maximum prison term is 250 years and the top fine is $3.2 million.

So this scumbag has privacy protections, yet passengers get groped by folks like him.
According to Janet Napolitano, the patdowns of 6-year-olds are done professionally. I wonder how many little kids Gordon was feeling up?
Nice to know this information was withheld from the public for a month, huh?

via jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com

...come to think of it... we should hire more pederasts.  it takes a pederast to catch a pederast... and Mohammad married Aisha when she was how old?  and had sex with her... when she was how old?  maybe we should hire nothing but Sex offenders.  They seem to really understand things our leaders don't.  TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE... you know?

Kidnapped in Lebanon, seven Estonians plead for help and YouTube CENSORS it?

Seven Estonians, who were kidnapped three weeks ago while bicycling on the Lebanese side of the Lebanese - Syrian border, have issued an appeal for help via a YouTube video. Unfortunately, the video has been taken down for violating YouTube's terms of service.

The video, which was posted on YouTube, shows the men pleading with Lebanese, Saudi, Jordanian and French leaders to help secure their release.
The seven men went missing on 23 March when cycling in the Bekaa Valley after entering Lebanon from Syria.
The motive for their abduction remains unclear.
Wearing sports clothes and appearing in front of a white background, the Estonians take it in turns to ask for help.
“This is a really difficult situation. Please do anything,” one said.
“It appears from the video that all seven abducted Estonians are alive and well. However it is not known when the clip was recorded,” the Estonian Foreign minister, Urmas Paet, said in a statement.
...
This is the link to the video

The video was removed because its content violated YouTube’s Terms of Service.

Yes, really. What a bunch of morons.
Anyway, the Estonians were kidnapped in the Bekaa Valley. Just for the fun of it.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

YouTube... I'm not even going to comment on this.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Don't Stop BelievN: Song composers sue Adalah for using their song for BDS

The composers of Journey's Don't Stop Believin' have filed suit for a permanent injunction against the anti-Israel group Adalah to prevent use of their song by Adalah for promoting BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) against Israel.

Journey bandmates Jonathan Cain and Neal Schon, along with former frontman Steve Perry, want a permanent injunction barring Adalah-NY from "exploiting" their 30-year-old tune.
The Manhattan federal court filing says Adalah-NY organized a March 26 "flash mob" in Grand Central station that ripped off "the entire melody, chord changes, and other musical elements."
"However, the version defendants performed uses the title 'Don't Stop Boycottin', and contains lyrics that convey a political message relating to the conflict in the Middle East."
Adalah's Web site says a video was viewed more than 30,000 times in two days before it was taken down by YouTube.com on April 1 and replaced with a silent version.

For once, the good guys win one on YouTube.
Here's the original song performed live in Japan.
Let's go to the videotape. via israelmatzav.blogspot.com Hang in there!!! image via tumblr.com
Great move guys.

Copyright Tail Trying to Wag Internet Dog

A possible landmark copyright case is now before the 2d Circuit, Viacom et al. v. YouTube. On behalf of 44 co-signatory law professors, Annemarie Bridy and I wrote an amicus brief urging the court to affirm the lower court’s decision that YouTube is immune from copyright claims unless it has item-specific and location-specific information about infringing postings. The brief — which I think turned out quite well, and is, at the very least, a good example of decent legal prose — is available here. Briefs submitted by other amici (and there are lots of them) are available here.

I’ve reprinted below some of my comments from earlier postings about the case. I could be falling prey to a common syndrome: when you work as an advocate for one side in a case for a while, you begin to believe that you have truth and justice firmly on your side, that the opposing position is outrageous and contrary to all common sense and moral principle . . . . But I really do think this one matters, for the future of the Net.
It was a bit more of an adventure submitting this brief than it should have been — the 2d Circuit does not treat its “amici” in a very friendly fashion. Not only must you be admitted to the 2d Circuit bar to submit an amicus brief — no temporary admissions pro haec vice are permitted — but you also have to be sure to be hooked up to the latest version of the court’s electronic filing system; not huge problem, i suppose if you’re a lawyer or law firm practicing frequently in front of the 2d Circuit, but not something that a law professor, even if admitted to the court’s bar, is likely to be current with. And even if the parties themselves require electronic filing, the court does not — so in addition to getting all the aforementioned ducks in a row, you have to comply with the court’s rather arcane printing rules and deliver 6 hard copies to them. Seems all a bit overly formalized, and a means to discourage, rather than encourage, participation — I mean, they don’t have to even read the briefs that are submitted, so why make it so hard for people to submit them?
And one little humorous side note. As noted here, YouTube has changed its “repeat infringer” policy. The Copyright Act requires, as a pre-condition to asserting the immunity from infringement claims provided in section 512, that a service provider

“has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and

YouTube has had such a policy for a while — more or less a “3 strikes and you’re out” kind of thing. [Indeed, one of the truly outrageous things I learned while working on this brief is that Viacom itself was actually thrown off of YouTube as a “repeat infringer” because its marketing department had posted thousands of files for promotional purposes, and its legal department issued hundreds of “takedown notices” with respect to many of them]. But now they’ll let you come back onto the system if you go to “copyright school” — watch a video and take a copyright exam [The video is pretty good — good enough that I couldn’t tell whether it was YouTube’s copyright school or a parody of same . . .]
[thanks to Ben Mishkin and Steven Kim for pointers]
***********
from earlier postings

YouTube successfully defended itself against infringement claims brought by a host of content providers by asserting the “safe harbor” provisions of sec. 512(c) of the Copyright Act, and the case concerns the interpretation of that provision. The section 512 safe harbors have been of prodigious importance — by giving providers of online applications and services a defense to infringement claims arising out of their users’ activities (e.g., user postings of infringing files on YouTube), it has enabled the (astonishing) growth of “user-generated content” or “Web 2.0″ sites over the past decade — YouTube, Facebook, Craigslist, Tumblr, Twitter, Myspace, Blogger, and on and on and on. At the absurdly high volume at which these sites operate — 250,000 words a minute posted on Blogger, 40 hours of video a minute on YouTube, etc. — the liability risk without a safe harbor of some kind is truly astronomical, running into the billions of dollars a day. So you don’t get a YouTube, or a Facebook, or a Blogger, etc. without something like sec. 512; it’s no accident, as I’ve pointed out before, that all of the largest Web 2.0 sites on the global net are based here in the US. And, among other things, if you don’t have a YouTube, or a Facebook, or a Twitter, Hosni Mubarak is still the President of Egypt.
So there’s a lot at stake in how the 2d Circuit — widely regarded, along with the 9th Circuit, as the source of the most important copyright doctrine — interprets the statute. Precedent up to now (mostly in the 9th Circuit) has (correctly) given service providers very broad protection under the statutory immunity; to make a very long story short, the service providers (like YouTube) have no duty to find infringing material that may be present on their site, or to do anything about infringing material on their site, unless and until the existence of the infringement(s) is brought to their attention by the copyright holder. Once they receive such a notification from the copyright holder (through a detailed set of procedures laid out in the statute), they have to act — removing or disabling access to the offending material (and informing the user that they’ve done so). But without receiving the notice of infringement, they’re under no duty to act, and they’re within the safe harbor if the copyright holder subsequently asserts a claim against them.
The content providers don’t like it, needless to say. They’d like YouTube to, say, take down everything uploaded to the site that is labelled “The Daily Show,” for instance, or “Lionel Messi’s Fabulous Goal vs Arsenal,” on the grounds that they should know of the infringing nature of the postings, without having to be specifically informed of that by the copyright holder. If you want to know why that’s both wrong (as a matter of statutory construction) and absurd (as a matter of public policy), read the brief. [It’s pretty short — 18 pages or so of text — and the prose, of course, is crystalline).
If the 2d Circuit endorses the 9th Circuit position — and I fervently hope that it does — that battle, at least, is probably over; there’s not much copyright doctrine out there where the 2d and 9th Circuits are in agreement but some other circuit (or the Supreme Court, for that matter) takes an opposing view.

via volokh.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Yuck! Pro-Islam Ads On My Site! «

Gross. If you want to know the true Islam, see the below pic-this ad here we DO NOT endorse!!

Ads by Google

(And dont tell me the Jews from Israel did it.  They cant even stop giving land away, and their government does ZERO while their people are MURDERED by bloody savages from the “Religion of Peace”)
THIS IS ISLAM:

via themadjewess.wordpress.com

the only way to do advertising is to call people. NEVER TRUST GOOGLE!
I regret trusting Blogger to do the site I use. They CENSOR. I know they do. They did it to me. They CENSORED the Israeli government during Cast Lead and you should see the things they leave up there that are murder threats to me.

Google/YouTube Hall of Shame

...,.JIDF_Guide....

roaches are out on YouTube....
___________________________________________________________read more via undhimmi.com

YouTube Censors Fogel family from Itamar

The government released the photos on Saturday night. Within hours, the social activism website My Israel posted a short video of the photographs on YouTube along with the names and ages of the victims.

Within two hours YouTube removed the video.

Obviously YouTube managers are not interested in being held responsible for someone noticing that genocidal Jew hatred defines Palestinian society - and the Arab world as a whole. But they really have no reason to be concerned. Even if they had allowed the video to be posted for more than an hour, it wouldn't have made a difference.

via carolineglick.com

This is from YNet:

Israel is demanding an apology from CNN over its coverage of Saturday's terrorist attack in Itamar claiming it was "tendentious and deceptive." Government Press Office director Oren Helman sent a letter to CNN's Bureau Chief Kevin Flower saying he was astonished at the network's coverage of the ruthless attack. A CNN website report avoided describing the event as a terror attack, noting that the Israel Defense Forces consider it an act of terrorism. "Only you decided to use the term terrorist attack in quotation marks, as if this were not necessarily the case," Helman wrote. "There is a limit to the extent of objectivity regarding such a horrific deed." . . .

But al-Beeb's report is just as bad.

The BBC also referred to the terrorist as an intruder in its report. "The family - including three children - were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported," the BBC reported Saturday. Readers might deduce the family members died in a failed burglary attempt.

This is not the first time that Israel has had a run-in with CNN. In fact, Fox News got in here during the Oslo War, because CNN's coverage was so biased that the government wanted to provide Israelis with an alternative (they almost threw CNN out altogether, but relented and decided to just let Fox in).

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

CNN... sigh.  A statement released by the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades took responsibility for the killings, describing the slaughter of the Fogel family as a "natural response" to "Israeli crimes."

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Palestinian Media Watch

Palestinian Media Watch's YouTube account was restored last night, I was informed in an email from Itamar Marcus

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

email from Itamar Marcus, director of the essential site Palestinian Media Watch:

For years there have been PA backers trying to get You Tube to close down the PMW video account by complaining that we are involved in hate speech. Now they succeeded. They complained to the administrators about a farewell video of a suicide terrorist from a few years ago who boasted he would drink the blood of Jews. You Tube sent us notice that this video is "violation of terms" by promoting hate speech and closed our entire account. Most of the hundreds of videos on our web site are not running.

PMW has been excellent at revealing the truth about incitement in the Palestinian Arab media, thoroughly documenting literally hundreds of examples of hate broadcasts and publication in recent years.
It is not easy to find a good email address for YouTube, but I think that the best way to contact them might be "service@youtube.com". You can also try some of their on-line contact information.
Please write to them and let them know how important this resource has been to you and asking that they should reinstate it. Pro-terrorist cyber-bullies should not be able to censor valuable educational resources like PMW.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Palestinian Media Watch is only rebroadcasts. if it is offensive then it is because the Palestinians are. I don't get the thinking of Google at all.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

YouTube gets it wrong on online hate

ANDRE OBOLER
The closing of Palestinian Media Watch channel is one example of how the website’s policies are inconsistent and only selectively enforced.
Justice Louis Brandeis of the US Supreme Court once said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
This is often used to justify “more speech” as the only solution to “hate speech.”
In November, as parliamentarians and experts from over 40 countries gathered in Canada for the second meeting of the Interparliamentary Coalition for Combatting Anti-Semitism, there was a growing concern at rising anti-Semitism, and an increased acceptance that more than sunlight was needed in response.

At the gathering, I presented as part of an experts panel on hate speech online. One point I raised was the problem of YouTube videos that do not by themselves constitute hate, but which attract hateful comments.
An example I gave was a YouTube clip of Sacha Baron Cohen’s song “Throw the Jew Down the Well.”
The most popular comment on the video the morning I presented, as voted by YouTube viewers, read: “Lets [sic] genocide them by burning them! But this time, lets [sic] actually do it.”
Should Sacha Baron Cohen or YouTube take this clip down if this is what it inspires? Should the comments be closed to viewers? The answer is unclear, but allowing this to continue is not a good thing and seeing how popular it is leaves me feeling very uncomfortable.
THERE IS also a clear problem with hate groups, such as “theytnazism” on YouTube.
I reported this to YouTube in February, and on November 22 – 10 months later – it was still active. The group includes a “list of people we hate and we want to kill.” It was a short list of “1. Blacks, 2. Jews, 3. Indians.”
I then included it in a set of slides for a conference on anti-Semitism run by the World Zionist Organisation in France earlier this month and suddenly the group was gone. I doubt that was a coincidence, especially as the rest of my collection of similar groups (reported at the same time) are still active. One of these, with giant swastikas in the background, declares it is God’s will to murder all non-Aryans.
The problem is not that YouTube never steps in. The problem is they are liable to step in only when there is public exposure of content they wrongly ignored, or when political pressure is applied.
YouTube also seems to have started giving in to pressure to remove videos and channels that expose and educate against hate.
A few months ago, for example, efforts were made to shut down the YouTube presence of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). The institute provides the English-speaking world with insight into the Mideast media. Some of the exposure is not welcome by those who say one thing in English to a Western audience and another thing at home.
The MEMRI debacle seems to have been resolved, but YouTube is now going after Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) which fulfills a similar role, focused exclusively on the Palestinian media.
PMW monitors, translates and shares examples of incitement. It was PMW that exposed the use of a Mickey Mouse character inciting hate and violence on the Hamas TV children’s show “The Pioneers of Tomorrow.”
That story created shock waves around the world, leading to discussions in the Western mainstream media and at the UN of the link between incitement in the media and terrorism.
PMW’s violation appears to be that it was posting “hate material.”
There is no doubt that it was. However, like MEMRI, that material was not shared for the purpose of incitement, but to expose and counter the spread of hate. Some commentators have speculated that it is not the hate against Jews, Israelis and Americans – as shown in MEMRI and PMW videos – that is the problem, but rather the fact that the videos might cause a backlash against those promoting such hate.
Any argument that uses free speech to prevent the exposure of hate speech is inherently deeply flawed.
YouTube needs to get its act together.
What it has created is a haven for hate, devoid of sunlight. Its policy seems inconsistent, ineffective and only selectively enforced. It is working against community expectations and the public interest. Ignoring illegal content, while removing the very sunlight needed to expose those spreading hate, creates a volatile environment.
Social media is built on concepts of security and trust. When these start to go, opportunities for competitors are created. It may be too early to call this the beginning of the end for YouTube, but unless it gets its policies right, and properly enforces them, we may well see this megalith begin to slide downhill.
The writer is an expert in social media and online hate. He is director of the Community Internet Engagement Project and Co-Chair of the Online Anti-Semitism working group for the Global Forum to Combat Anti-Semitism.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous