The article "Google supports free speech in China but not elsewhere" is the first one I read about the subject that makes sense to me.
"A recent example of the breadth of censorship YouTube practices is the removal or restriction of access to several videos, which have been exhibited in major art institutions, and whose creator is a pioneer of experimental film and video art.
YouTube removed the videos, by Amy Greenfield, an internationally exhibited artist, because their subject is the female body.
As the artist – like many others – was using YouTube to host the videos she had embedded into her website, YouTube’s censorship resulted in her work becoming inaccessible even through her own website.
Greenfield is not a “pornographer” however you may define the term – quite the contrary – her work has been shown at MoMA and the Whitney and has received multiple prestigious grants (if in doubt, you can see the videos and judge for yourself – the links are below).
Film scholar David Sterritt has said of her, that she is “…today’s most important practitioner of experimental film-dance” (Cineaste Magazine). Yet the mere presence of an unclothed female body was enough to make the videos unpalatable to YouTube."
This winter, when the Google vs. China controversy arose, something didn’t quite make sense to me.
What did exactly Google mean by ‘censorship’?
YouTube, the second most visited website ever, notoriously belong to Google. The company has in more than one occasion removed clips defined pornographic and that had been uploaded under the name of famous teenage celebrities as you can read here.
This I call censorship, as I am used to see pictures of porn star Cicciolina nude and in explicitly sexual poses, as well as the sculpture of her partner Jeff Koons’ sex, in Tate Modern. Meanwhile, the action of the ‘perverted’ YouTube user can be read as a form of resistance, critique, irony and in many ways it nothing represents but the freedom of expression of an individual.
The videos by Amy Greenfield were restored, as the National Coalition Against Censorship reported:
"On February 22, 2010, the NCAC and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), sent a letter to YouTube protesting the removal of work by internationally recognized video artist Amy Greenfield. Videos were taken down because they were allegedly counter to YouTube’s "community standards." NCAC and EFF are urging the company to make sure YouTube’s community guidelines are applied judiciously and that a viable appeals process is put in place so that material of clear artistic, political or educational merit is not excluded from the site in the future.
NCAC applauds YouTube for so promptly responding to our letter and restoring Amy Greenfield’s videos to its site (there are still some technical glitches but we are assured these will be taken care of soon). We are glad the company affirms that creativity and free expression are values at the very core of its mission.
But some serious concerns remain. It seems that, still, there is no viable way for individuals to appeal decisions to remove content. What one can find in abundance as a result of a search on YouTube’s help page are entries from other users who had videos taken off, tried to appeal and were angry and frustrated as could find no way to do so.
We also urge YouTube to add “art” to the community guidelines exceptions “for educational, documentary and scientific content” where nudity is concerned. That will give YouTube staffers evaluating flagged videos clearer direction."
Personally I am still concerned that, by looking at China to criminalize censorship, we are actually overlooking what happens in our backyard...
No comments:
Post a Comment