It's censorship and it's downright blasphemous

[Fulanito de Tal]

YouTube removed videos of a supposed al Qaeda leader.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...058597893.html

Land of the free my left asshole.

[Ovi]

It's completely ok for youtube or facebook to censor views that they do not agree with. It's ok for mass media companies to hide information and manipulate people if they get money out of it. And unless net neutrality laws are put into place, it's also ok for private ISP's to censor the internet. However, internet censorship by the state is evil. Attempts to conceal information about an event by the government is also evil. Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. It's called free speech if the press is private and engages in such activities, but censorship if the press is state owned. Double standard maybe?

[Communist]

[FONT=Arial Narrow].[/FONT]

To Websites. from Politics.

Moved.

[FONT=Arial Narrow].[/FONT]

[Pretty Flaco]

It's completely ok for youtube or facebook to censor views that they do not agree with. It's ok for mass media companies to hide information and manipulate people if they get money out of it. And unless net neutrality laws are put into place, it's also ok for private ISP's to censor the internet. However, internet censorship by the state is evil. Attempts to conceal information about an event by the government is also evil. Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. It's called free speech if the press is private and engages in such activities, but censorship if the press is state owned. Double standard maybe?

It's definitely a double standard. Especially in a nation like America where information is primarily shared by private sources and not the government.

It doesn't matter whether or not a state or a corporation is engaging in censorship: it's always wrong.

[razboz]

Not really relevant that it would blasphemous to someone who beleives this guy. Blasphemy is, after all, a victimless crime. Unlike censorship.