Hussein execution no longer available via you-tube

[ripple]

Try it- the links don't work. Censorship is alive and well. :mad:

[bigdarryl]

1. Bill O'Reilly wants the Government to censor the You Tube website

this jackass was talking about it on his show last week.

[theliberalpost]

26. It's still out there

Just check Google Video, its THERE...thats odd, since Google Video and Youtube are both owned by Google...wonder if Google will yank it?

[Phredicles]

2. Aww, now what will bushbots masturbate to?

[progdonkey]

3. so you think they shouldn't remove snuff films from YouTube?

Why do you even want to see the video?

[ripple]

11. I don't think films of the Iraq war should be censored, either

Are those snuff films?

I've already seen the video- call it a perversion, or as I like to believe, an active interest in foreign policy. Still, it certainly isn't as greusome as some of the other images we've seen coming out of Iraq. I don't believe in censoring those, either.

[progdonkey]

14. A couple points...

1) When the video is made solely to glorify someone's death...then, yes, it's a fucking snuff film. There are two key questions, though, that you must ask before calling something a snuff film: why was this event recorded? and why is the footage being passed around?

Most footage of the Iraq War is journalistic, in that it serves simply to document what is happening.

Yes, there are plenty of much more gruesome images coming out of Iraq, but that footage of Saddam's execution wasn't videotaped as a journalistic endeavor, but in order to be able to pass it around to self-described perverts like you who get off on seeing someone executed. The "cameramen" wanted to have a video record of Saddam hanging that they could watch over and over again.

Certainly, plenty of the images that were originally taken as part of a "journalistic endeavor" do end up also getting passed around by people like you to whack off to, and so they are being used like snuff films, even though they were not originally intended to be used as such. Because of this, they are not really snuff films, nor should they (outside of the context of their being passed around as snuff films by a few people) be considered inherently as snuff films. (Much like how a pedophile might use footage from a high school cheerleader practice as porn, even though the video was taken by the coaches to help train and choreograph the squad. The footage is sexually stimulating to the pedophile, but it would be wrong to refer to it as pornographic, as the intent was not to make something sexually stimulating.)

2) When a private company removes material from its own servers that it doesn't want to be on there, it is not censorship--that would be like saying you're violating the religious freedom of Christians by not allowing a cross to be hung in your own home. You have no right to view anything on YouTube, and censorship only exists when something is being hidden from the public that they have a right to be exposed to (be it art, information, entertainment, etc.). If the government forced libraries to hand over all copies of books critical of Bush, that would be censorship; if a book store refused to stock books critical of Bush, that would not be censorship, as that is a business on private property and they can decide on their own what books they want to sell (and you can choose not to support that business, while your tax dollars support the libraries).


So, we have footage of an execution and a private company refuses to host the footage on its servers. That's not censorship.

[ripple]

15. I didn't "get off" or "whack off" to the execution

And I deeply resent your implication. As a matter of fact, I'm strongly opposed to the death penalty, as I find it to be nothing more than state-sanctioned murder.

I initially had no intent of watching footage of the execution, should it be made available for public consumption. Even after the execution, when I heard about the video, I decided that it wasn't something I necessarily needed to see. It wasn't until I heard the reports about how badly it was mishandled that I decided to watch it. I did this because I believe that it's often necessary to view a situation first-hand, in order form one's own opinion.

With that said, I obviously made a couple of erroneous assumptions when I posted the thread. The footage is apparently still available on YouTube, but it now required viewers to log in. Also, I'm in complete agreement that YouTube has the right to restrict certain material from their site. Since the videos were still up, but the links weren't working, I suspected something more sinister had occurred. I was obviously in error.

In case you are wondering why I wanted to watch the video again, I didn't. I had a friend visiting who does not own a home computer. We were talking about Iraq and Hussein's execution and she expressed an interest in watching it, for very much the same reasons I viewed it.

You obviously have your reasons for not watching it (and I can appreciate a lot of your rationale, believe it or not), just as I had my reasons for watching it. The fact that you disagreee with my decision doesn't give you any sort of moral superiority, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to make grossly inaccurate assumptions about my character.

[sammythecat]

16. I feel the same as you. I watched the video

two days later for the same reasons you gave. There is a lot of "misinformation" (lies) floating around about the execution that many believe. The video is the truth.

I hope the other poster reconsiders what he said. It was insulting and unnecessary. You are owed an apology.

[Warren_Peas]

19. The murder of Saddam

So well said...

I watched it on google for exactly the same reasons.


mq

[progdonkey]

20. well...

I'll apologize as far as the "whack(ing) off" part is concerned, since that was very much over the line (a feeble excuse would be that I wrote it at 3am when I was already half-asleep--and therefore not really thinking about the tone of what I was saying--but it was still much too rude).

In my own defense, however, the impression you left in the first two posts was that you were actively seeking out this footage to satisfy a "perversion" (your term), that you were pissed you couldn't see it, and that you didn't see how it's a snuff film. Your first two posts made you sound (to me, at least) like someone who just wanted to watch Saddam hang, whereas this last post makes it clear that it's out of a desire to see if it really was as much of a fuck-up as it was.

While I won't apologize for writing those criticisms, as I still think they would apply as far as what could be understood from your first two posts, with this latest post, most of those criticisms have been rendered pointless. ie. I wouldn't level those criticisms at you now. But I certainly do apologize for the tone and for those phrases. :pals:

Edited to add: I just wrote this on a post below, and thought to add it here too: "In re: Ripple, I went off on him based on the impression that he was seeking out the execution video because he wanted to see Saddam hang; an impression I'll readily admit now was completely wrong. I think I've just seen too many people online who are looking for the execution video for the same reason they'd be looking for 'Faces of Death,' or whatever, and I assumed too much on reading his post and jumped down his throat too quickly."

[ripple]

23. Fair enough

Rereading my posts, I can see how you got the impression that I was angry for the wrong reasons.

I used the phrase "call it a perversion" as a figure of speech in response to your description of the video as a snuff film. As snuff films are generally associated with about the sickest perversion imaginable, I assumed you were implying that I share such a perversion. To put it into context, the way I used it would be like saying "call me crazy, but I like to think of myself as a realist" or something similar. I hope that makes sense.

Also, my point was that the execution itself wasn't as greusome as a lot of the other images coming out of Iraq was in response to the snuff film comment, as well. I would think that anyone actually into snuff films would prefer more interesting material than the grainy, jerky, and somewhat chaotic execution video.

It was late for me, too, and I obviously didn't put enough effort into articulating where I was coming from. I honestly do understand why some find it offensive that such a video is so readily available for public viewing. But much like the photos of the Abu Ghraib abuses (most of which were taken for the most despicable of reasons), when there are allegations of barbarism and inhumanity, I believe we have an obligation to take full stock of what actually happened, so that we are as informed as possible when we hold our leaders accountable for what has occurred.

I appreciate your apology. I, too, apologize for not stating my position more clearly. :hug:

[progdonkey]

25. Yeah...

Looks like we sort of just got off on the wrong foot there, since I agree completely with what you're saying here.

Ah, the hazards of reading posts late at night.... ;-)

[Bluerthanblue]

17. I can't answer for Ripple, but I can for

me- and I believe that the execution should be REQUIRED viewing by every single American citizen.-
Because we need to BEAR WITNESS to what is being done, with our help, In out name, as a direct result of our actions, and with our money!

I despise the vulgar, cruelty that humans inflict upon themselves and others, but ignoring it- silencing it and CENSORING it, not only allows it to continue, it empowers those who know they can do what they like without fear of retribution, because people won't want to 'look' or 'believe' the UGLY TRUTH.

As I believe the horrible atrocities of Auschwitz and Birkenau- of Mai Li and Hiroshima of Halabja, and Haditha- need to be witnessed, remembered, acknowledged, in the effort to keep them from ever happening again.

Denial kills-

and the dead cannot speak from the grave- except through their images, and our voices raised against injustice.

few people 'get off' on watching this kind of activity- If you don't have the stomach to face the truth, don't hide your inability to bear witness, behind the mask of being 'above' those who are willing to expose themselves to disgust, anger, frustration and sadness that seeing the proof of the acts elicits.

thanks-
blu

[progdonkey]

21. that's slightly different...

I agree whole-heartedly that people who voted for Bush and supported this war should be forced to watch that video, in addition to footage of the carnage that they supported. The same goes for the Holocaust, etc., footage you mentioned: it serves to say, "Look, this really happened. This is what people are capable of doing to other people."

But that's quite different from seeking it out for yourself. Now, there are many different reasons why someone would seek out the footage of Saddam's execution, from being simply curious as to how it actually went down to wanting to wallow in joy at seeing someone die.

For me, it's not a matter of not having the stomach to face the truth, or something, since I honestly don't believe I need to "face the truth." I mean, I know what's going on over there is awful and that whole towns are being destroyed, and that beheaded bodies showing signs of torture show up dumped on the side of the road nearly every day. I don't need to see photos of that to appreciate the horror of it. If you want to view images of the Holocaust because you want to see what actually happened, and especially that it actually did happen, you'd get no grief from me. (In re: Ripple, I went off on him based on the impression that he was seeking out the execution video because he wanted to see Saddam hang; an impression I'll readily admit now was completely wrong. I think I've just seen too many people online who are looking for the execution video for the same reason they'd be looking for "Faces of Death," or whatever, and I assumed too much on reading his post and jumped down his throat too quickly.)

[Bluerthanblue]

27. I apologize for the harshness that

comes through in my post- I don't seem able to put my thoughts into a clear statement.

I agree with you that there are probably some people who might want to view the film to satisfy a desire for revenge, or vengeance. I also can believe there are people who would desire to watch this video to re-assure themselves that indeed it was Saddam, and that he was killed- more than likely they'd be folks who lived in fear of him.

I didn't WANT to watch it.- Any more than I want to see the coffins that contain the remains of our husband-wives-brothers-sisters-sons and daughters come back from Iraq and Afghanistan. But I 'owe' it to those who are dead, and to those who will continue to die until this impotent american society says ENOUGH-!! and forces this madness to stop. To SEE. To bear witness.

I don't want to see the evidence of what Hussein is said to have done(with the aid of America) to the Kurds in Halibja, or to view the skeletal remains of the prisoners from Andersonville, or Dachau- I don't want to see what our own soldiers have wrought in this mistaken escapade called a "war on terra"- but I sincerely feel that it is incumbent on us as people who claim to want to walk a 'better path' than that which we are marching down, that we see the evidence of what has been, and IS being done - with our own eyes. No gossip- no second hand accounts- but as close as possible to the truth as we can get.

My passion for needing the truth to come out- and for it to be witnessed and acknowledged by the world, is deep seated- Silence and denial even passive denial like the statement "I know he was hanged, and I heard it wasn't very 'dignified' but he didn't deserve any better" is the fertile ground for continued and future atrocities.

As the old saying goes.."Sunlight is the best disinfectant"- or something close to that... Dragging things into the open where they will be seen by many, is the best way for them to be corrected, or -one hopes-avoided in the future.

Sorry to rant on you- this is an open wound for me-

peace,
blu

[LeftyMom]

4. It's not censorship for them to refuse to host it. It would be censorship if the gov't said nobody

could.

They have a user agreement and if they believe it's a violation they can pull it.

[CatWoman]

5. I'm glad

I've tried to avoid that filth like the plague, however, while searching You Tube's "most recent", that garbage kept popping up.

Good fucking riddance I say.

[-..__...]

6. What'choo talking about, Willis?

I just clicked on 4-5 videos and the links worked just fine (a few warned about "graphic content" and required registration).

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=execution&search=Search

:shrug:

[SanCristobal]

10. So it still works if you log in?

Is the actual hanging up, or just the fade out video they show on TV?

[Blue-Jay]

7. Don't care. I'm not a ghoul.

I take no pleasure in viewing executions.

[ripple]

12. Nor do I.

It doesn't hurt to know what actually happened, though.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. I'm not surprised it was yanked. In fact,

I would have been very surprised if it hadn't been yanked, since it would seem to be in violation of their Terms of Use. I found this in their list of community guidelines:

Don't Cross the Line
Here are some common-sense rules that will help you steer clear of trouble:

-YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it's a video of yourself, don't post it on YouTube. Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child exploitation. Please read our Safety Tips and stay safe on YouTube.

-Don't post videos showing dangerous or illegal acts, like animal abuse or bomb making.
-Real violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.
-YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and stuff like that. This includes war footage if it's intended to shock or disgust.
-Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you have obtained the rights to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without their permission. Read our Copyright Tips for more information.
-We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality.
-There is zero tolerance for predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, invading privacy, or the revealing of other members' personal information. Anyone caught doing these things may be permanently banned from YouTube.

Please take these rules seriously and take them to heart. Don't try to look for loopholes or try to lawyer your way around them—just understand them and try to respect the spirit in which they were created. Violations of the Terms of Use may result in a warning notification or may result in termination of your account and deletion of all your videos. We decide whether we believe your violation of our Terms of Use should result in termination of your account. If you have an account terminated you are prohibited from ever signing up for another account!
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

I'm not sure it qualifies as censorship when it's in line with the clearly stated guidelines of the site. Anyway, I'm sure there are other sites where that sort of thing is considered acceptable.

[-..__...]

9. It's not censorship.

The posting policy is pretty cut and dry.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the "censorship" was due in part from YouTubes legal department WRT the incident where the kid 'accidentally' hung himself after watching the execution video.

[NMMNG]

13. Gee, how disappointing

Now freepers will have to go back to masturbating over Ann Coulter pics. :eyes:

[B Calm]

18. Didn't a little boy imitate what he seen on TV and hung himself?

Maybe if the TV showed the entire video, the little boy would still be alive!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. Youtube is not a public service.

They can take down any video they want to take down. Maybe being the vector for massive distribution of the film of an execution isn't something they want. There are plenty of other websites out there hosting it.

[ContraBass Black]

24. They have a right to remove whatever they want to.

Such is stated clearly in their terms of service.

[walldude]

28. First of all a private web site taking down a video is not censorship

Freepers come here all the time and get tombstoned for their views, that's not censorship either. If I run a website I have every right to put up or take down anything I want. And I could care less what they do with that video. The closest I've come to seeing the video was channel surfing and stopping at Faux to see them complain that the video got released to the public, while they were playing the video over and over in the corner of the screen. And that is the closest I will ever come.