First stop, the video. I followed through the link provided by dear Slashdot and watched the 9m14s video. This is bloody long. Wow, a video that claims these are "Islamic Teachings" from the Qur'an, but really these are all a bunch of snippets with the common theme: "Let's kill all those other 'unbelievers' who believe in other Gods and send them to Hell because ours is a mighty God who can kill with a single thought". Right, like you, Mr. Gisburne, are innocent. Look, I can quote things too, and this is from your video: "If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next" (2:85). Hmm, when all you decide to show is these snippets, the vast majority of the public will NOT take it with a grain of salt and they will believe this is what all Islamic people believe.
Afterwards, I compared this video to the rest of Mr. Gisburne's collection. Huh, logical arguments against Christian belief systems. Cross-analysis of Christian and Jewish beliefs. Seems like typical atheist fare. So why did Gisburne use a different way of dealing with his commentary on Islam? Why is there no real podcast-like video with Islam being the topic? Had an argument that you wanted to get across without offending anyone, Mr. Gisburne? Seems like you failed.
I decided to send an email to Youtube (which'll probably be ignored and placed under the same category as the Gisburne supporters) and Mr. Gisburne (who might ignore it, might not). My Youtube email is as follows:
To whom this may concern,
I am a member of the press doing an Internet rights piece for the local media, and I have a few questions regarding the censorship and account deletion of Nick Gisburne who was recently banned and his videos deleted. Firstly, is the "inappropriate content" flag system automated or is it a human-supervised content review system? Also, if it is automated, how many flags are required to have a video banned? Secondly, what was the reason behind the banning of the account? Thirdly, what was the content of the video that conflicted with the "Terms of Service" or "Community Guidelines"?
Thank you for your assistance.
My email to Nick Gisburne is as follows:
Mr. N. Gisburne,
I am a member of the free press doing an Internet rights piece for the local media and I have a few questions regarding your Islam scripture video you posted on Youtube. Why did you choose a different format from your previous videos for your Qur'an video? Why did you choose those particular quotations from the Qur'an? What was your intention in posting that video and what message did you intend to get across to your audience?
Thank you for your cooperation.
When and if I get replies, I will append them to this article.
So why was Mr. Gisburne's video and account considered "inappropriate"? I read through the Youtube "Community Guidelines" and "Terms of Service" and in both documents are the statements "We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality" (Community Guidelines) and "(iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libellous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate" (Terms of Service). Where Mr. Gisburne's previous videos are perfectly acceptable within these terms and guides, the Qur'an video is not because it fully supports the current stereotype that all Islamic followers are vengeful and destructive terrorists by nature. Personally, I feel this is a "malicious use of stereotypes", to put it in the words of the Youtube Community Guidelines, and the community responded by flagging this as inappropriate. Community: 1, Nick Gisburne: 0.
So, Mr. Gisburne, there is no conspiracy to censor you; your Qur'an video was inappropriate and supported the neoconservative view that all Islamic followers are terrorists. Mr. Gisburne, I say to you only this: wake up and smell the roses; the world isn't out to get you. Also, you are no longer what is known as a "publically-active atheist"; you are now a perpetrator of hate-crimes. If everyone learned to respect other people's choices, the world would be a better place.
- T
