Anti-Islam Video Bedevils Google, Facebook

The inflammatory anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” that unleashed a worldwide uproar last week has also caused a rift among global Internet companies. Few debate the video’s stupidity and racism. What does divide people is whether the movie should be seen as free speech that should be available everywhere so that viewers can form their own opinion about it; or whether it is so repulsive to some cultures that it should be forbidden there. In short, is the video hate speech or just free opinion? 

Different legal systems have different cultural norms. Europe bans neo-Nazi speech; courts there have also banned material that offends the religious sensibilities of particular groups. Indian law frowns on speech that might threaten public order. Turkey can shut down websites that insult its founding president, Kemal Ataturk.

Like countries, companies have their own policies on what is hate speech and what is free speech.
Google: Free Speech Above All 
For Google, the video is not hate speech under the company’s rules because it did not incite violence against Muslims, although it does mock their faith.

The White House asked Google to reconsider its decision, a request Google refused, saying that the video did not constitute hate speech under its rules.

And of course the video is still running on YouTube, which Google owns:

Google did make a concession, however: It limited access to the video in Egypt and Libya out of respect for those countries’ cultural norms and given the delicate situation on the ground; and it said it had taken down links to the anti-Islam video in India and Indonesia, because it violates local statutes.

Google has not given any reasons why its decision on cultural norms applied to only those four countries and not to others.

(Instead of “decision,” perhaps the word should be “ruling” since, as Andrew McLaughlin, who has worked for the White House and for Google, put it in the New York Times, “these speech platforms are so important, the decisions they take become jurisprudence.”)

Facebook: Assist Countries 

Facebook is taking a different tack. It espouses some of the industry’s strictest rules. Terrorist organizations, for example, are forbidden on the social network, according to its terms of service.

Already in mid-September, Facebook confirmed that it had blocked links to the video in Pakistan.

Again and again, the company has shut down fan pages set up by Hezbollah. And in a statement after the killings of U.S. Embassy employees in Libya, the company said, “Facebook’s policy prohibits content that threatens or organizes violence, or praises violent organizations.”

Most importantly, Facebook bars “hate speech,” which it defines as attacking a person.

What do you think? If you were Facebook or Google, would you restrict the viewing of the anti-Islam video in cultures that might take offense? Why or why not? I look forward to reading you on my blog: http://thomaszweifel.blogspot.com/.

P.S. To learn more about tackling ethical dilemmas, check out The Rabbi and the CEO: The Ten Commandments for 21st Century Leaders (now available in German and Polish).