Whose Tube is it anyways?
February 20, 2007
Matthew Jenkins
The debate over religion and free speech has erupted on YouTube. Nick Gisburne, an atheist on YouTube, recently published a video entitled “Islamic Teachings: Cruelty From the Qur’an.” YouTube staff took down the video, citing its “inappropriate nature,” and both of Gisburne’s YouTube accounts were permanently disabled.
This situation has provided an opportunity to examine the implications of “new media” for the old conflict between religious freedom and freedom of speech. It also shows us the need to articulate a space on the internet for the public good, and how in the absence of any real constitution, basic human decency can go a long way.
Banned for Something
Nick Gisburne was one of the more outspoken YouTube atheists, a group that formed on YouTube after The Rational Response Squad issued something called the “Blasphemy Challenge.” His videos often accused Christians of worshipping a vengeful deity, and his video on Islam did much the same, quickly flashing verses from the Skeptics Annotated Qur’an that focus on what he called the “cruel teachings” of the book.
YouTube took down the video within a day, and soon disabled his account completely, explaining in an email that “after being flagged by members of the YouTube community and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video [was] removed due to its inappropriate nature.” Two days later, after Gisburne created another account to complain about this treatment, YouTube banned that as well, and changed their minds. They sent him another e-mail explaining that the video had been in violation of copyright laws (it used a song from The Matrix) and told him that he would be banned forever.
Gisburne’s banning has created quite a stir on YouTube, and many users feel compelled to speak up on the issue. Some have expressed delight that Gisburne was banned; others have claimed he is a martyr. Many have assumed that this is an issue of censorship, whether by YouTube or by a minority group of Muslims who banded together to flag the video as inappropriate enough times for it to be removed. Accusations have flown on all sides. Because of its explosive nature, charged debates of this sort tend to get very complicated very fast. Furthermore, YouTube’s ambivalence on the matter has not helped to clear anything up. My fear is that in all the uproar, this opportunity for reflection on the changing media landscape will be lost.
Religious Freedom and Religious Speech
If YouTube continues to act in the way they have, we are dangerously close to a situation that one user, “thisisjohngalt,” aptly described as “gang warfare.” It seems that it only takes a certain number of users to flag a video, and that video will subsequently be taken down, or at least be put up for review by a YouTube employee, who will probably act in the company’s best interest by trying to keep the greatest number of people happy, and remove the video.
We have a right to religion and a right to free speech enshrined by law. While these laws apply on YouTube, they are not responsible for protecting them, and can silence and destroy any account they deem to be too bothersome. The only way this could change is if YouTube commits to these principles; such a change is possible, but would require enormous political and intellectual effort.
Private Censorship and Public Good
Many YouTubers have claimed that this is a case of censorship, but, as “thisisjohngalt” has pointed out, “It is only when government uses its coercive powers to inhibit speech that censorship occurs. YouTube is not a government.” There are many platforms available out there, and YouTube reserves the right “to remove content and user submissions without prior notice.”
However, there does seem to be something unjust going on here that offends our instincts towards free speech: Gisburne was banned for taking quotes from the Qur’an. Yes, they were out of context, but his message was fairly simple; it was hardly a hate crime, and he was banned for it, quite possibly forever.
What are we to make of this? One answer might be to appeal to the fairly recent concept of “corporate social responsibility.” Behind it is the idea that companies and other big institutions are “corporate citizens,” and that as citizens (who never die and have lots of money), they are beholden not just to their shareholders but to the public and the communities in which they operate, including their employees, the environment, and their customers.
Perhaps it could be possible to articulate a need for the consideration of the public good in the case of YouTube, and begin working towards a constitution in which YouTube commits, legally, to certain behaviour, as YouTubers already do in the Code of Conduct. Such a step could only be taken if it was seen by YouTube to be in their favour.
But the argument could be made both by appealing to corporate social responsibility, as well as by pointing out that issues like this could have an established mechanism to deal with them. This would include a review process that could easily be done by volunteer members of the community. However, if they feel threatened, YouTube will do whatever they can to protect themselves, including changing their minds and claiming that their ban was for copyright infringement.
Listening before Flagging
In the absence of any legal code or constitution, without any finer instruments than flagging to determine the “appropriateness” of a video, we need to appeal to something to dictate our behaviour. It seems that the basic concept of listening to others here may not be so bad after all. Listening requires one to think before posting, or at least consider what others might do to you if you don’t.
It is also a call to empathy: before blindly flagging something as inappropriate, try to hear what that person is trying to say. The user “thisisjohngalt,” in his excellent video on the whole matter, closed with a wonderful quote from Ayn Rand, which I will present shortened here out of respect for his quiet wisdom on this matter:
“[Man’s] basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think – not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know.”
If you would like to read the full online article with links, visit mwjenkins.com and search for “Nick Gisburne.”
Now you go...
Got something to say?