YouTube.com has gained notoriety with novelty video clips of television bloopers, Saturday Night Live sketches, and most recently, bombings and sniper attacks against U.S. forces.
Anti-American propaganda is now showing up in YouTube searches, such as one that is entitled "Ganaas Baghdad Episode II," where a man, who says he is an Iraqi sniper, offers tips on attacking U.S. soldiers. YouTube recorded 30,000 hits for this video.
YouTube, the world's largest video-sharing Web site, permits its users to anonymously post videos — and they typically aren't taken down unless a complaint is issued. Despite the removal of the video, a user can post the video again under a different name.
Currently, the U.S. State Department has officials monitoring Internet propaganda and YouTube has pledged to prohibit, amongst other things, hateful content, and polices the site to remove inappropriate videos. READ MORE
With 65,000 new clips a day and 100 million videos seen on YouTube daily, FNC wants to know — do you think Websites should create harsher restrictions for people to upload videos, or will this limit freedom of speech? Write to us at email@example.com and tell us what you think!
Here's what FOX fans are saying:
"I'm sure this goes against freedom of speech, but I think we should put restrictions on some forms of speech for this very reason. There are a lot of gullible people out there who will take in every word of a propaganda video and take it for fact." — Mary (Texas)
"Either YouTube verifies the identity and ISP address of all submissions, or they refuse to allow posting. Due to the times in which we live, there is absolutely NO reason for terrorists to use OUR media as propaganda, any more than they do now. This has ceased becoming a free speech issue." — Fred (Oakland)
"Should websites should create harsher restrictions for people to upload videos? In a word, NO! In the last few weeks there was a huge outcry over Google agreeing to censor some of it's content for users in China. The Internet should be free to express all ideas and view points. I am not saying that sites shouldn't post a warning for videos that depict acts of violence — but warning people about the content and not letting it be seen at all are two very different things. Technology can be used for good or evil, it all depends on the person using it and the view points of those making the judgment. I am opposed to any government censorship of the Internet. It is fine to require warnings about content, but no one has the right to tell me I can't view it." — DeWayne
"One of the principal factors that makes the Internet so powerful and influential is that there currently is no FORMAL restriction to content. Of course a "Big brother" reality had to set in eventually. But, we have the power of the 1st Amendment. It is STILL true that — if you don't like something, you can turn it OFF, if you're worried about children seeing disturbing imagery Parents should be WATCHING what their kids browse, anyway!" — Mike (Derry, NH)
"No, I do not believe that there should be harsher restrictions on uploading videos. When terrorists post hateful anti-American videos on the Internet, these videos are viewed by people all around the world— not just enemies but friends as well. I think it’s a good reminder for Americans (and other “infidels” around the world) to get a good view of what kind of fanaticism we’re dealing with. It can be a real eye opener for some." — E (New Jersey)
"It turns out that "The War on Terror" was the missing ingredient for 1984's Big Brother theory. Now the government, in the name of Terror, finds a way to justify stripping us of our constitutional rights any way they see fit. We used to be tolerant of the fringe items that tested our resolve on maintaining our democracy, now ultra-patriotism has replaced tolerance and we are less free, not because of terrorism, but because of this administration's reaction to it. It will only get worse for our freedom as we "Liberate" the rest of the World ... just you wait and see!" — Stan (Philadelphia, PA)
"We made our bed so lay in it. Freedom of speech has been applied to defend those who are not in favor of the conservative way America use to live and uphold certain standards. Look at the persons who use this term "Freedom of speech" in the last decade and list why the speech was used. People today do not wish to have boundaries drawn by any form of authority, everybody has rights. Freedom of speech can be pushed a long way, all the way up to a lawless nation, as all feel we have our rights and say so." — Ed (Central Point, OR)
"If you expect websites to police themselves, or think that the government can effectively enforce content standards on the internet without eventually compromising free speech, you will be sorely disappointed. I personally avoid all of this "in your face" stuff, but I'm afraid I'm in the minority. We live in a society that is "reality oriented", to a fault.If you don't like it, don't watch it. If you allow your children unfettered access to such sites, you're not doing your job." — Phil (Rensselaer, NY)
"I think that web sites should censor terrorist propaganda, and yes this would limit freedom of speech. Think, would loyal American companies broadcast Nazi or Japanese propaganda during WWII? We are at war people, we do have the right of freedom of speech but we should self
censor some forms of media. The enemy strategically uses our media in many different ways and we play into that by allowing them to do it. The Islamic-fascist threat is real and their media war is just one part of a larger concept of war. We can loose this war, don't think for a
second that can't happen. We should take serious the threats and propaganda that these people are perpetrating. American companies, please think of yourselves as Americans and not globalists, you to will lose all of your freedoms if we lose." — Brian
"You actually had to ask if this is acceptable or permissible? (Absolutely and obviously NOT).
There is no absolute freedom of anything, including speech. An unbridled freedom of action involving murder, as an example, would be catastrophic to society. Does YouTube allow child porn? Speech has consequences such as those ensuring from child pornography: Allowing the unbridled proliferation of child porn impacts and increases the number of innocent child victims, as does the proliferation of terrorist “snuff” films and the like increases the number of victims of terror such as the Goldberg tragedy and the current British soldier event. Get onto YouTube and make the correction. There is not a moment to lose in the war on Terror." — Glenn