Rejoignez-nous pour discuter du rôle que des plates-formes en ligne telles YouTube devraient jouer en faveur de la liberté d’expression dans votre pays, votre langue et à travers le monde. L’éditeur en ligne Brian Pellot commence la discussion.
Le fait que Google, qui détient YouTube, ait volontairement bloqué le clip vidéo islamophobe «L’Innocence des musulmans» en Egypte et en Libye a provoqué un débat animé. Quand YouTube est localisé par la version spécifique à un pays, Google accepte régulièrement des demandes de certains gouvernements de restreindre l’accès local à un contenu qui viole clairement les lois du pays. Google a ainsi limité l’accès à «L’Innocence des musulmans» en Arabie Saoudite, en Jordanie, en Inde, en Indonésie, en Malaisie et à Singapour pour ces motifs. Cependant, le fait que Google ait limité préventivement l’accès à ce clip en Égypte et en Libye sans un appel des Gouvernements respectifs à cause de «situations très sensibles», notamment des manifestations violentes, est un premier cas d’espèce particulièrement troublant.
Le sixième principe du Débat sur la Liberté d’Expression postule que nous ne faisons pas de menaces de violence et n’acceptons pas l’intimidation violente. Des manifestations meurtrières à travers le monde, apparemment alimentées par l’indignation par rapport à «L’Innocence de musulmans» qui dénigre le prophète Mahomet, ont été utilisées pour mettre des gouvernements, des fournisseurs de services internet et Google sous pression de bloquer la vidéo. Les attaques violentes sont injustifiables en toutes circonstances et doivent évidemment être condamnées. Cependant, céder aux intimidations violentes peut aussi être dangereux.
Quelques jours après que l’ambassadeur américain en Libye J. Christopher Stevens ait été tué dans un attentat à Benghazi qui était apparemment causé par l’indignation au sujet de «L’Innocence des musulmans», la Maison Blanche et l’Australie ont exhorté Google à réévaluer la vidéo par rapport aux conditions de service de l’entreprise. Google a rejeté cette requête: l’entreprise avait déjà examiné la vidéo et déclaré publiquement qu’elle ne violait pas ses conditions de service, et ne constituait pas un discours de haine, étant donné qu’il n’y avait pas d’incitation directe à la violence. Aucune référence à la violence ou à l’incitation à la violence n’est faite dans les conditions de service de YouTube. Par contre, les lignes directrices communautaires du site prévoient la clause suivante: «Nous n’autorisons pas les discours de haine (les discours qui attaquent ou rabaissent un groupe fondée sur une race ou origine ethnique, une religion, un handicap, un sexe, un âge, le statut d’ancien combattant et l’orientation ou l’identité sexuelle)».
Le juriste américain, expert du premier amendement de la Constitution américaine, Robert C. Poste, a fait valoir à juste titre que «L’Innocence des musulmans» n’attaque pas un groupe basé sur la religion. Par contre, cette vidéo semble «rabaisser» les musulmans et leur foi. En prenant en compte les normes communautaires de YouTube, l’on se demande pourquoi la vidéo n’a pas été supprimée ou au moins signalée comme offensive.
La vidéo d’un évêque qui revendique qu’aucun Juif n’est mort dans les chambres à gaz pendant l’Holocauste est précédé sur YouTube par le message suivant: «Le contenu suivant a été identifié par la communauté YouTube comme potentiellement offensant ou inapproprié.» Cet avertissement a probablement été la conséquence de signalisations des téléspectateurs avertissant que la vidéo devait avoir un tag qui permette de signaler les contenus haineux ou abusifs et ceux qui encouragent la violence ou la haine dans le cadre de la religion. Conformément à la politique de contenus haineux de YouTube, «si une vidéo que vous avez marqué ou un commentaire que vous avez annoncé n’a pas été enlevé, c’est parce qu’il ne viole pas nos politiques de discours de haine». Comme de nombreux téléspectateurs estiment que le message inhérent à «L’Innocence des musulmans » est offensif et haineux, l’absence d’un avertissement à cet effet semble étonnante. Il convient toutefois de noter que les vidéos que d’autres religions pourraient trouver tout aussi offensifs n’ont pas non plus été retirées de YouTube ou marqués comme «potentiellement offensantes». En effet, des chrétiens pourraient être tout aussi scandalisés par cette vidéo dans laquelle Jésus chante I Will Survive vêtu seulement d’une couche juste avant de se faire écraser par un camion. Cependant, cette vidéo reste accessible, et 10 millions de personnes l’ont vue, sans le moindre avertissement d’infraction.
Plus surprenant que ces divergences apparentes a été le quasi silence de Google concernant ses propres décisions. En date du 26 Septembre, deux semaines après que l’ambassadeur américain ait été tué dans le premier tour de protestations sur la vidéo, il n’y a eu aucune mention de «L’Innocence des musulmans» sur le blog officiel de Google, le blog de la politique publique, ou le blog YouTube. La société a cependant émis plusieurs déclarations de presse.
Le 15 Septembre, une telle déclaration a été publiée avec le texte suivant: «Nous travaillons durement pour créer une communauté dont tout le monde peut profiter et qui permet aussi aux gens d’exprimer des opinions différentes. Cela peut être un défi parce que ce qui est jugé inoffensif dans un pays peut être offensant ailleurs. Cette vidéo, qui est largement disponible sur le Web, est clairement conforme à nos lignes directrices et restera donc sur YouTube. Cependant, nous avons limité l’accès à cette vidéo dans les pays où elle est contre la loi comme en Inde, en Arabie saoudite et en Indonésie, ainsi qu’en Libye et en Egypte compte tenu des situations très délicates dans ces deux pays. Cette approche est parfaitement conforme aux principes que nous avons définis en 2007.» Ces principes établissent clairement les décisions complexes et difficiles que Google doit prendre par rapport à la liberté d’expression et du contenu en ligne controversé. Ces principes établissent explicitement que «Google n’est pas, et ne devrait pas devenir, l’arbitre de ce qui apparait sur le web.» Est-ce que ceci n’est pas précisément ce que l’entreprise a fait quand elle a volontairement bloqué «L’Innocence des musulmans» en Libye et en Egypte?
En date du 26 Septembre, des demandes gouvernementales avaient été reçues pour revoir ou bloquer «L’iInnocence des musulmans » dans 21 pays, y compris ceux déjà mentionnés. Par rapport au Pakistan, au Bangladesh et à l’Afghanistan, où YouTube n’est pas localisée avec une version spécifique, Google a rejeté ces demandes. Les Gouvernements de ces pays ont réagi en bloquant YouTube entièrement. Le Bahreïn, les Émirats arabes unis, le Soudan et le Kirghizistan ont bloqué le film sans même soumettre une demande à Google. Les Maldives, le Brunei et la Russie ont également menacé de bloquer la vidéo, et un parti politique israélo-arabe a demandé qu’elle soit censurée localement. N’hésitez pas à ajouter les dernières mises à jour concernant votre pays dans le fil de commentaires ci-dessous.
Jillian C. York affirme que «bien que limitant la vidéo en [Egypte et en Libye] peut sembler tentant, dans le sillage de la violence horrible qui s’est produite en Libye, le fait que Google joue l’arbitre de qui apparaît en ligne n’est pas dans le meilleur intérêt de la société ni des citoyens de ces pays.».
Google a capitulé devant l’intimidation violente en Egypte et en Libye. Ceci peut potentiellement sauver des vies à court terme, mais pourrait aussi donner lieu à un précédent dangereux, et ouvrir une boîte de Pandore car chaque fois que des contenus controversés sont mis en ligne par quelqu’un, d’autres pourraient s’engager dans des offenses violentes. Cela pourrait à son tour conduire à une plus grande censure et, finalement, une violence élevée si les gens décident que le meurtre est le moyen le plus efficace d’exprimer leurs doléances et d’imposer leurs points de vue.
Brian Pellot est éditeur en ligne sur de la FSD.
reply report Report comment
The story is a slightly more relevant take on an absurd phenomenon. What I have found more interesting is our apparent lack of awareness to the fact that we are automatically drawn into the debates on subjects that have been emphasised by mass media. Of course you would think this understandable and acceptable if you believed the media to be a benevolent force of pure truth. My point here is that free speech is limited to what we know and is therefore currently not free at all. We live in a speech oligarchy where the likes of Rupert Murdoch control what we talk and think about.
reply report Report comment
In response to the question above my view is that using the film maker’s apparent breach of probation was an expedient ( and for the authorities somewhat lucky) means of appearing to act against the offending party, whilst at the same time being able to justify their actions to another audience as being nothing more than a routine observance of Local law. In the first instance it may go a little way towards appeasing the calls for blood but I think a valuable opportunity has been missed for a liberal democracy to stand up to theocratic bullying and to draw a real line in the sand to show where liberal secular values lie. This is set in the context of a broader gathering storm about the secularity of societies. There must therefore have been a ‘public good’ argument for resisting the calls to arrest the film maker on the basis that events as theybhave come to pass will have sent a signal, however ambiguous, that a democratic state will acquiesce to external violent pressure. There was surely a moral duty on behalf of the authorities to protect freedom of speech but even more importantly to ensure the protesters did not believe that their violent actions could influence the response of the State. This is akin to the payment of ransomed to kidnappers. The relatively trivial issue of a probation transgression could have been dealt with later when the dust had settled.
reply report Report comment
Update: Google lifts censorship of IOM in Libya and Egypt:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/108233/youtube-unblocks-incendiary-video-temporary-censorship-still-censorship
reply report Report comment
A lot of very interesting comments so far! Here’s another question for you – Do you think the filmmaker behind Innocence of Muslims was jailed for probation violations or because of the unrest IOM sparked around the world?
The LA Times frames this as a question of free speech here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-filmmaker-20121003,0,4693181.story
Feel free to chime in below, respond to the thread above or comment directly on my post.
reply report Report comment
Russia, where the official religion is Orthodox Christian, is keen to pass a new set of laws, protecting the fragile “feelings of the believers”, and it seems that an offence to any religion, made by anyone anywhere is welcome as a precedent. The case against “Innocence of Muslims” in Moscow was started by Ruslan Gattarov, MP from Southern Urals and a member of the information policy Committee of Russian Federation. Yesterday, according to Gattarov, the video was given an “extremist” status by a court in Grozny (Chechnya); and Gattarov commented on the court’s decision as being “absolutely correct” and later twitted that there is no need to worry as Google will have to remove it. Gattarov is supported by the Russian Federal Surveillance Service for Mass Media and Communications, who forbid the Russian media to describe the content of the video so the “feelings of the believers are not offended”. However, yesterday the General State’s attorney too issued a statement which claimed that the video “had not yet been assigned an “extremist” status, the court in Grozny had only issued a recommendation to do so as a restrictive measure against its viral spread; the final decision has not been made yet”. At the time of writing the video is available to watch and is offered by a few independent Russian resources to download. The hearing in Moscow is scheduled on 1st October. An interesting twist on the situation is the appearance in the media of articles, which link the case of “Innocence of Muslims” to the case of Pussy Riot and claim that if the video is banned, it would prove to those still in doubt that the verdict, given to Pussy Riot, was also “absolutely correct”.
reply report Report comment
The Innocence of Muslims has been banned in Russia and the full version removed from YouTube. The fragments, dubbed in Russian, are still available to watch with the following disclaimer “This video contains material that may offend the feelings of believers. The authors of the translation respect the religion and do not wish to offend people who watch this video. This fragment is for the educational purpose only, so people can see for themselves why the Muslims around the world protested ».
reply report Report comment
The Holocaust was the industrial murder of millions of people. We do not permit denial and insist on its being remembered to make sure nothing like it happens again. It is not comparable with a foolish film on YouTube which no-one is compelled to view.
All of us could if we searched find something deeply offensive to us on the internet or in the press. But we do not do so and if we come across such an item we do not react with violence because we accept that we have no right not to be offended and indeed know that being offended is an uncomfortable but unavoidable part of life we must bear without violence for the sake of the communal integrity and peace and freedom. We know there are political or legal means to address such issues.
Muslim leaders should reflect on the upbringing that produces a sense of entitlement to such violent responses that are totally disproportionate to any real harm done and realise that freedom of expression in the entire world cannot be controlled by displays of irrational violence. Far from instilling terror and respect these reactions bring disrespect, ridicule and contempt on their faith because many people see them as weak and childish.
Intimidatory violence must never be rewarded, least of all by censorship,
reply report Report comment
The reason why the example of holocaust has become recurrent to highlight selective free speech in west is because it is the only thing that pokes Western mind the same way as insulting the prophet Muhammad is the easiest way to enrage millions of Muslims. The philosophy of both these sides seems to hit the adversary where it hurts the most. When someone suggests that the Muslims should become desensitized about the derisive content on Muhammad they are simply unable to understand the world view of nearly 1.6 billion Muslims. Similarly, the Muslims with their roots in Asia and Africa are unable to understand Europe’s policies towards genocide as they did not live through the horrors of genocide like Europe did.
report Report comment
Thank you Farooq for highlighting this extremely important point. The French philosopher Pascal Bruckner was explaining how we created in the West a certain scale when it comes to Genocides in which the Holocaust stands at the highest possible stage and the other genocides (Rwanda, Armenia, Gulag, etc.) follows behind. By establishing such a ranking, we imply that no genocide could reach such a level of atrocity as in the Holocaust, which is per se a good thing. Yet, we need to be very careful not to imply as well that because nothing can reach the top of the scale, nothing deserves as much attention or action.
If some Muslims are definitely unaware of what happened during WWII, many others understand it very well, but what they do not understand, and what we should all ask ourselves, is the following: are we remembering the Holocaust so that this very extreme case of genocide does not happen any more again, or are we doing so to prevent any racial, ethnic and discriminatory politics to rise again and be used against any human beings? Even though we call it the World War, for many people on this planet this war does not have the same meaning or significance, and yes, some might be more offended by publication of caricatures of their beloved prophet than they are about the publication of Mein Kampf; because these caricatures hurt them directly, they do not need to take a history class on Western history to understand their offensive character. Are we, in Europe, able to understand the atrocity of the Holocaust even if we have no connection with it whatsoever, but unable to feel similar empathy for modern-day issues, because they are not as atroce?
Hence, this idea of scale when it comes to genocide or freedom of expression is problematic. If we want to keep such a scale (why not?), we still need to be aware that it is a Western perspective and millions of people might disagree with our ranking.
reply report Report comment
@Brian: My sense is that such a suit would have a better chance in (continental) Europe, where we have so-called portrait rights as part of copyright law.
reply report Report comment
A judge in Los Angeles denied a request to remove IOM from YouTube. The request was made by Cindy Lee Garcia, who acted in the film and claimed she was misinformed and misled about its actual content.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/judge-innocence-of-muslims-youtube.html
reply report Report comment
This is interesting. Does anyone else find it strange that there are voice-overs in the film whenever Mohammed or relations to Mohammed are mentioned? If the actors were led to believe by the producers that this project was something different, I would start to have second thoughts about the extent to which the producers are « champions » of free speech.
reply report Report comment
Many years ago, I asked my Spiritual Master, » All the chaos in the world- who is responsible for it? »
The Master replied, » 2 classes of people who live by the philosophy of divide and rule – one is politicians and the other preachers. »
We should be aware and wary of these 2 classes of people.
reply report Report comment
I think the best way to think about this to analogise from the law on on-line torts. Most countries have so-called « safe-harbour » provisions that protect internet service providers and other companies, including Youtube, from getting sued, as long as they respond to valid takedown notices and – and this is important here – as long as they have no actual control over their content. The more the website shapes what people write, the more likely it is that they can be sued. (There is a famous case about discrimination on Craigslist, in the housing section.)
This is an approach that makes sense. If a company voluntarily takes on the task to censor and shape what is written on its website, people should be able to sue it, but they should be able to opt-out of that responsibility in those cases where the volume of traffic, etc. is such that they cannot reasonably be asked to filter everything that is written/posted.
Applying this to the present controversy, the answer is that Youtube should be asked to follow its own terms of usage, which is in fact what the US government has done. The content of those terms of use, however, are none of the government’s business. As it happens, they are already much too restrictive for my taste, banning all sorts of things that puritan Americans don’t want to see, but that is strictly a matter for Youtube to decide. It is not OK to hold them responsible for something that is posted on their website if they haven’t promised in advance that they would filter out such content. In this case, Youtube has declared that this clip is consistent with their terms of use, and that is that.
The result of this approach is that in most cases websites like Youtube and Facebook will become public fora where people can post what they like. And that is all the better. We need such places on the internet. Given that such content is only found by people who actively go looking for it, I really don’t see the problem.
reply report Report comment
In the Maldives, the government has officially banned the film and is trying to remove access to it on YouTube. The Communications authority has said that blocking YouTube altogether was « not practical ». There was a small protest outside of the UN building in Male’ where a US flag was burned. Some protesters bought their children carrying plastic AK47s. It was fairly low-key though and more a show of solidarity than a angry demonstration.
reply report Report comment
Thanks for this, great article.
As the author points out, it seems to be difficult to work out whose ethical assessment to use for the question of whether the video should be online. There are 1) the producers of Innocence of Muslims; 2) Google; 3) governments around the world; and 4) Muslim protesters. If I had to go with one, I would choose governments, especially if they are democratically elected. Google’s « hate speech » community guideline has all the contradictions of defining who is a minority and who is not, and comes across as too Western for such a global debate. The good thing about governments is that I can always revolt. Google is further away.
reply report Report comment
Sir: The bad thing about governments, especially those which have not been democratically elected, is that they can always ignore the revolt and carry on regardless. Google lives and dies by its IP and Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and these non-democratic governments, live as they please and only die when forcibly removed. I personally would pick the side of Google in this debate, as it seems to me that this would be the side of the law.
report Report comment
Whose law?