The emergence of internet videos showing American troops being attacked by Iraqi insurgents on mainstream video sites like YouTube.com and Goggle video poses new challenges to the Bush administration as it continues its "democratization" of Iraq, and to the companies that host such services. Do nothing, and allow Americans to see what the mainstream news can't or won't show, or censor, and be perceived as hypocritical and anti-democratic.
The New York Times report on the spread of online attack videos disturbingly indicates that companies have sided with censorship. Reporter Wyatt writes that YouTube.com removed many of the video snippets reviewed by the NYT, and others of attacks in Iraq because of complaints by other users. I wasn't aware that the First Amendment is subject to majority rule. I thought the whole point is to protect speech, like pornography, that is offensive to others. Now granted, YouTube.com is a private company and can do what it likes, but in its terms of service there is no indication that violence or potentially politically liable videos would be removed. The terms highlight "pornography, obscene or defamatory material" and repeat offenders for removal, although they reserve the right to remove material at their discretion. And herein lies the problem - why was the decision to remove these videos made? By whom? For what reasons?
If YouTube's mission is to help people share original videos and let them "see first-hand accounts of current events" then these videos surely seem to fall inline with what the company's about. Why shouldn't the public be allowed to see what's really happening? Who knows, maybe someone (the USG?) will want to post videos about the schools being built or the oil being pumbped. Will these be removed too? I somehow doubt it.
