Un assez long article du NY Times sur les méthodes de censure ou d’arbitrage de Google et donc YouTube et ce plus particulièrement à la demande de nations. Porno, politique et liberté d’expression se téléscopent et à Google, aujourd’hui, d’arbitrer ce qui est "bon" de ce qui est "mauvais"… Une responsabilité qu’ils ne souhaitent pas conserver… Intéressant
THE ONGOING DISPUTE between Google and Turkey reminds us that, throughout history, the development of new media technologies has always altered the way we think about threats to free speech. At the beginning of the 20th century, civil libertarians in America worried most about the danger of the government silencing political speech: think of Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, who was imprisoned in 1919 for publicly protesting American involvement during World War I. But by the late 1960s, after the Supreme Court started to protect unpopular speakers more consistently, some critics worried that free speech in America was threatened less by government suppression than by editorial decisions made by the handful of private mass-media corporations like NBC and CBS that disproportionately controlled public discourse. One legal scholar, Jerome Barron, even argued at the time that the courts should give unorthodox speakers a mandatory right of access to media outlets controlled by giant corporations.
Pour compléter : http://www.chillingeffects.org/ The chilling effect se charge de lister ce qui est banni, censuré du web, par Google, Yahoo! ou autres…
Do you know your online rights? Have you received a letter asking you to remove information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity? Are you concerned about liability for information that someone else posted to your online forum? If so, this site is for you.