I’ve not sent he “Big Sister” ad about the Hldebeast – and I’m really not interested in seeing it. And frankly, I’m not even concerned that it was made by a guy who did some technical consultation on Obama’s website. After all, there really is nothing deceptive or troubling about such political speech – and much more that is troubling about the efforts to prevent political speech by Americans.

Sadly, the Boston Globe wants even more restrictions on the right of Americans to speak – whether in a straight-forward or satirical manner.

The anti-Clinton clip falls within the boundary of acceptability. It makes a point in a witty way -- the runner is wearing an iPod, unknown in 1984 -- and is airing too early in the campaign to have a significant impact. The Huffington Post has unmasked the creator as a Barack Obama supporter, who denies the campaign was involved. Viewers can now evaluate the clip based on its source. And a Clinton supporter has subsequently doctored the video to put Obama in the Big Brother role, and put that on YouTube. Free speech has generated more speech to enhance the debate over who would make the best Democratic nominee for president.

But suppose it was two or three days before a close election, and a scurrilous, deceitful, anonymous clip was posted on YouTube and the other sites that specialize in homemade videos. Candidates should, of course, monitor all these sites and flag the offending videos. But doesn't YouTube have an obligation to make sure these ads are swept from its site before they can do harm? YouTube today doesn't have a policy against attack ads late in the campaign, but it should.

After all, only the mainstream media should have the ability to put out scurrilous, deceitful attacks on candidates that cannot be effectively rebutted two or three days before a close election. If amateurs get into the business of disseminating political smears, newspaper circulation might fall.

And as for YouTube doing the regulating, they do have the right to do so – but is it appropriate for a corporate entity to decide what constitutes unacceptable political speech, and to then engage in censorship. Having already seen how YouTube applies a biased standard to speech about jihadi terror (banning anti-terrorist speech, but often letting pro-terrorist speech slide), do we really such subjective judgments to become the rule?

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.