Free speech questions arise after WH asks Google for review
Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in
- Duration 4:01
- Date Sep 17, 2012
Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- settlers we watch the video of it as we watch video of new protests around the world today we are getting word.
That Google has blocked access in some parts of the world now.
To this controversial video and we are hearing it that it nonetheless rejected a request by the White House.
To reconsider its decision to keep it online at all.
Turning now judge and an -- attack he's -- practiced.
And analysts say you've got this video is no question that went -- some of these protests not all of necessarily but some of and the white house calls a Google which owns YouTube and says.
We strongly encourage you to review your decision to keep it lie in the -- they say.
We reviewed it we're keeping it does that -- First Amendment.
Question it does -- First Amendment questions just just as a baseline the First Amendment governs the government.
It doesn't govern Google -- Google is free to permit what it wants on YouTube or take down what it wants you to put the First Amendment question that is raised Megan is whenever the government.
Puts a little pressure on somebody tries to get them to do something it wants and the person is free to resist the government with with respect to speech the -- call that chilling.
Meaning that Google would think twice.
In the future about doing something like this because we don't want to have to deal with the government.
And other people would think that way and the government is not permitted to chill speech is not permitted to deter people.
From the free exercise of their speech because the government doesn't like the speech or doesn't like the reaction to -- -- That they are said that they're censoring the video Google is in India and Indonesia.
They've also blocked it in Egypt and Libya because of laws they -- that make this kind of.
Speech illegal for about a -- about it but right but -- walk in this country a lot this kind of speak today not absolutely this speech is absolutely protected in this country so why would the White House I mean is it is it.
Does that make sense -- that the White House would mean on them -- notwithstanding the First Amendment because we've seen.
Such an -- -- well -- for the White House taking this down.
Would be a -- and down and dirty solution to -- the reason I say down and dirty is because.
That the solution for the end speech hate speech -- speech garbage speech where -- -- to call this is not censorship it's more speech.
But censorship is a lot easier for the White House.
My own view is I'm very happy that Google didn't take it down -- because I want to see the kind of riots that we're -- but because mature intelligent people should be able to view this thing.
And decide for themselves whether it is truly the course of these riots or whether as a pretext.
For the cause if you watch this.
I've watched that it is one of the most in.
Inaccurate poorly produced pieces of junk you've ever seen.
And you could interpret it however you want.
It's hard to believe that this at thirteen and a half minute clip has inspired tens maybe hundreds of thousands of people around the world.
Two rally as they have to demonstrate -- they have.
To burn and to kill but the administration wants us to believe it's not the administration's policies.
That have generated this behavior it's this one.
Piece of so called film which has been out there for two months.
Eugene Pollack whose big First Amendment attorney and a brilliant -- we both Helen.
He he's got a great life and he came -- as Lott said that the problem in encouraging Google -- -- eight it and getting a private company.
To -- speech like this is it's like paying the ransom.
In Italy invites more bad behavior because the next time somebody does something that -- these radical islamists.
That they're gonna remember that we back out this time.
And -- got to do something even more.
Incendiary you know Google has some people that work here who agreed with professor Pollack and who agree with you and me on this -- -- to return money to its shareholders but occasionally it defends freedom.
And by not taking this -- -- it is defending freedom.
Just about how it's a pleasure sir thank you good to be here.