We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).
I haven't spent the time to watch the video, but from what others have said, the video is about a person (Mohammed) and not about a group of people. That being said, I don't see how it could be hate speech. The most it could be is slanderous/libelous. A similar video about Jesus or any other individual, involved with a religion or not, would be the same. Were the video about a group of people with some common identifying characteristic such as race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation, it could be considered hate speech.
There is a huge difference. Saying that the video is just about a person and not about a group of people is incorrect in this particular context. Muslims have a huge affection, emotional attachment and love for their prophet which you wouldn't observe in followers of other religions. Unfortunately western cultures don't understand these deep ties and consider mockery here equivalent to any other common mockery. Although there are some other sensitive topics, such as Holocaust, which are treated responsibly in the west, but for some reason the topic under question is always given free hand in the name of freedom of speech rather than classifying it as hate speech.
Mohammed can most similarly be likened to Jesus or Moses, not the Holocaust.
Mohammed, Jesus and Moses, among other religious historical figures may or may not have existed. There really is no proof. All apparently were responsible for miracles in the eyes of people back in the day with little understanding of science, so it's possible that if any of those three existed, after you discount the growing of "tall tales" that what they are credited with performing are natural phenomena.
Any criticism of denial of any of those three people is very tolerated in the west. I would feel far more comfortable saying Jesus was a pedophile or Moses was a cock smoker than blurting out similar trollery about Mohammed. The reason why has nothing to do with cultural sensitivity, but with the completely irrational and sometimes disproportionately violent response from people who would be offended by such a statement (or at least the imagined expectation of such).
This isn't to say that fundamental Christians aren't capable of such asshattery. They certainly are. Photos of klan members, burned crosses and lynchings are proof of such.
The Holocaust on the other hand is historical fact, not myth, and an act of genocide. Denial of it would be similar to denying the genocide in Darfur or the Tienanmen Square massacre.
Ones degree of affection and emotional attachment to a subject largely irrelevant except insofar as how easy it makes to troll that person.
This is trollery, not hate speech. If I say something about a group of people and condemn them, it's hate speech. If I make a mockery of something that would offend that group it is trolling.
The makers of this video have admitted the purpose of the video was to denigrate Islam. Shouldn't that be enough in itself to classify this as hate speech. Also this issue bring a very interesting point. How google make these type of judgment. Do they have legal experts viewing these videos and making decision as such?
There is a lot of important issues being brought up as a result. How do we identify hate speech, who makes that kind of a judgement, what's the role of distribution channels in these cases, how much power the government has, is there a bigger responsibility for unseen cases?
Do you think Monty Python films should also be classified as hate speech?
There is a difference between making fun of an religion (Islam), and incite violence or prejudicial action against a group who are practicing the religion (Muslims).
Hate speech is/should have a very narrow definition. If we define hate speech as "anything anyone might take offense too", we make the term useless.
There is a difference between someone goes around shouting for the extinction of a race, and someone doing bad and amateurish satire. Trying to combine the two, and you are indirectly making the first type more acceptable.
How it doesn't? This brings in an interesting issue, google based on their own guidelines are in the position of interpreting what is hate speech and what isn't. Who at google makes that decision? Who are these people? Do they have a biased?
Well, lets start with the fact that it doesn't say anything about a group of people at all. It specifically speaks to only a few individuals. No where in the content of this video does it advocate any sort of physical or political action against Muslims at large.
The fact that some people have decided to take it as a personal attack is immaterial and reading more into what was actually said than is there. If Google got into the business of pulling any content some group of people may find offensive the site would be empty.
The video strongly implies that Muslims as a group are violent (watch the part with the father and daughter early on). It presents Islam's founder as a horrible human being, and a religious fraud.
This is not quite as mild as it gets with regard to criticism of religion, but it's pretty close. If this particular video were to be legally actionable, no criticism of a religion where it intersects with testable reality (making positive claims about nature contrary to science, claims of historical fact) would be safe without fear of prosecution. I am sorry that so many people have died, but I cannot blame this video without completely throwing out the American version of free speech. I guess we're just going have to solely blame the killers instead.
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines :
We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).