Progressive World Review

If Senator Joseph Lieberman had his way YouTube would be required to take down any videos he deems objectionable, all in the name of protecting us against terrorism of course.  From an editorial in The New York Times,

Mr. Lieberman recently demanded that YouTube take down hundreds of videos produced by Islamist terrorist organizations or their supporters. YouTube reviewed the videos to determine whether they violated its guidelines, which prohibit hate speech and graphic or gratuitous violence. It took down 80 videos, but left others up. Mr. Lieberman said that was “not enough,” and demanded that more come down.

This is wrong on multiple levels.  First and foremost, taking away one of our most cherished freedoms is not a solution to any problem.  Just exactly what would we be protecting if we were to turn this country into a Taliban like state where our “leaders” control what we can watch on the internet or anywhere else for that matter?  As the editorial itself points out,

Terrorism is a real concern. All Americans know that. They also know that if we give up our fundamental rights, the terrorists win. If people use speech to engage in criminal acts, they should be prosecuted. Cutting off free speech is never the right answer. (emphasis added)

Or as Benjamin Franklin put it, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  Wise words that still ring true more than two hundred years later but are completely lost on the arrogant fool Lieberman.

It’s also hasn’t been demonstrated that censoring YouTube would even produce the desired results, i.e. make us any safer.  It certainly could be argued that making potential terrorist videos easier for law enforcement to find would be a far more effective way of monitoring terrorist activity, especially considering that any banned videos could easily resurface on virtually any web page,

Not only do these efforts contradict fundamental American values, it is not clear if they would help fight terrorism. Even if YouTube pulled down every video Mr. Lieberman did not like, radical groups could post the same videos on their own Web sites. Trying to restrain the Internet is a game of “whack-a-mole” that cannot be won, says John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Having the videos on YouTube may even be a good thing, because it makes it easier for law enforcement officials, the media and the public to monitor the groups and their messages.

Finally, one of the most objectionable aspects of censorship is; who does the censoring?  In this case it would be Lieberman and his ilk.  This is a man who just recently has come out in support of the vile and disgusting bigot John Hagee, a man who called the Catholic church “the great whore,” who has blamed the tragedy of Katrina on gays and who has suggested that Hitler may have been doing the lords work.  This is the kind of man Lieberman looks up to.  Is this who you would want deciding what you can and can not look at on the internet?

The fact of the matter is, those who would control what you see and here, whether it be in the name of safety or decency, are invariably objectionable characters themselves.  Lieberman sees the world as a monumental struggle of good versus evil and is more than willing to wage endless war and to trample our most cherished liberties in order to stamp out evil.  It’s a fool’s errand and Lieberman is just the fool to attempt it.

–Paul Wilden

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.