Court blocks access to YouTube in Turkey
A court in Turkey on Wednesday ordered blockage of all access to YouTube, the popular video-sharing Web site, over a video deemed insulting to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey.
The ban followed a week of what the media in Turkey dubbed a “virtual war” of videos between Greeks and Turks on YouTube and came as governments around the world — including France — grappled with the freewheeling content now readily posted on the Internet.
…YouTube expressed dismay over the move, adding that the offending video had been removed and that the company was working with the government to resolve the situation.
“We are disappointed that YouTube has been blocked in Turkey,” the company said in a statement. “While technology can bring great opportunity and access to information globally, it can also present new and unique cultural challenges.”
…YouTube faced a court-ordered national ban in Brazil for several days in January after footage of a model cavorting in the sea with her lover kept reappearing on the site.
Separately, activists in France this week warned that a recent law against posting video of violent acts would stifle free expression.
The French law, which was intended to criminalize “happy slapping” — acts of violence committed for posting on the Internet — could also criminalize the recording of police brutality, activists said.
“I don’t think the French government intended to attack user-generated content, but that is the effect,” said Julien Pain, a spokesman for the press freedom organization Reporters Without Borders. “If someone films a policeman wrestling someone to the ground, that can be considered a criminal act.”
While the French law has provisions to protect professional journalists or those who record violence to turn it over to the authorities, passersby remain liable for fines of as much as €75,000, or nearly $100,000, and five years in prison, Pain said.
“This law removes protection for citizen-journalists or bloggers who would want to record the violence if riots start again in the Paris suburbs,” Pain said. “The distinction between professional and amateur journalists is no longer valid since all Internet users are now in a position to create and disseminate information.”
You know, after watching the News Wars documentary, I was somewhat disillusioned about the possibilities for legitimate journalism to be conducted over the internet. I thought, ‘bloggers aren’t journalists; they are regurgitating and reprocessing information provided by journalists without appropriate compensation. Not only is that unfair, but it threatens the very livelihood of journalism and ultimately our access to primary sources of information.’
But then situations like this rolls around, and I become radically egalitarian again. I think, ‘information and speech should be free, and bloggers should be afforded the same rights and privileges as any other journalist. Recording a video on your cell phone and uploading it to YouTube is no different in kind from reporting via satellite.’
“New and unique cultural challenges” is an understatement, YouTube. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming.
All people should be afforded the rights of “journalists” and all this infotainment should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The term journalist has been diluted since the advent of television and now with the expansion of new media markets and avenues it just makes sense that the term is that much less meaningful. Still, I would like to think that there are some professionals out there who follow a code of journalistic ethics (confirmation on stories, etc.) such that news will not devolve into a reacionary gossip mill in the guise of this blogsphere thing.
Woah, hold on. How can you hold these three views simultaneously:
1) all people should be afforded the rights of journalists
2) ‘infotainment’ (by which I assume you mean contemporary journalism) is not to be trusted at face value
3) some journalists should be held to ‘professional’ standards and ethics.
These three claims seem to be inconsistent.
The main theme here is You Tube and the emergence of non journalists documenting current events. You Tube is what I am talking about when I say infotainment as well as the Cable Talk shows such as O’Reily, Olberman, etc. All people should not be considered journalists. However, I do not think that journalists should be given greater rights than any regular person (nonjournalist). That’s not to say that a press pass doesn’t afford someone better access and it is in getting this press pass and actually being a legitimate journalist that one should be held accountable to these professional standards and ethics. It is all well and good to have your Wiki’s and your You Tube but they should not and cannot replace legitimate journalism. Which might be something like Frontline but certainly isn’t something like Dateline.
Again, you seem to be saying inconsistent things. You didn’t clarify the inconsistency, you just repeated it.
“I do not think that journalists should be given greater rights than any regular person (nonjournalist).”
“actually being a legitimate journalist that one should be held accountable to these professional standards and ethics.”
“It is all well and good to have your Wiki’s and your You Tube but they should not and cannot replace legitimate journalism.”
I read you as saying both of the following:
Jounalists and nonjournalists should not be held to different standards.
Nonjournalists cannot be held to the same standards as ‘legitimate’ journalists.
These claims seem flatly inconsistent.
I did not say “journalists and nonjournalists should not be held to different standards.” I said that all people should be given the same rights in regards to being able to put their stuff out there, no mention of standards. “rights and privledges” are the words you used in your original post and I am in agreement with that but I would go beyond “bloggers” to everyone.
I would distinguish these nonjournalists from journalists in terms of how to read the information, hence the grain of salt comment. Nonjournalists can be held to the same standards but there is no real consequences if they are so the point is moot and if they were (and currently they are not) then they would be “legitimate” journalists.
So let the nonjournalists do and say what they want as is their rights but don’t take them as seriously as you would the journalists on say . . . Frontline who are bound to an actual set of standards.