Sunday, August 19th, 2007
Loren Feldman, 1938 Media, and blip.tv
Yesterday, Loren Feldman, the author of a controversial video, decided to use blip as his host. A few hours later we received a letter warning us of potential damage to our brand. I responded that speech should be countered with speech, not censorship. What do you think? Here’s the e-mail exchange.
Hi
It’s well known that 1938media.com has hosted an ongoing series of racist shows that ultimately got him the boot from Podtech. The show did not just do a few moments (as did the guy that played the Kramer character but several shows). Though Loren has every right to produce any sort of racist show that he wants, there is no requirement to distribute such garbage, perpetuate racial stereotypes, and ultimately make it more difficult than it already is for African-Americans to enter technology fields.
Are you sure that blip.tv wants to have their brand associated with such “comedy”?? The blip.tv logo is prominently displayed next to his player (as was podtech’s) - is blip.tv as a company willing to risk such negative news coverage as this.
I await your reply before taking forming an opinion or taking further action.
Hello T.
I found the video distasteful and not funny. But as a company we don’t delete videos on that basis. Instead, we err on the side of free speech, and enabling discussions. I think that a remix or response video would be more effective a refutation than censorship.
As for brand association, if I understand the relationship correctly, Loren was under contract to produce videos for Podtech. We have no such relationship with him, and on blip his videos are now alongside a bewildering and contradictory riot of opinion, fact, fallacy, and fiction, not all of which can be expected to express the personal views of the founders, employees, or investors.
Thanks,
Charles
Charles
Thanks for hearing me out.
If blip.tv hopes to be “the next generation TV network”, then unfortunately you’ll need to be held to the same standards as a TV network. This isnt a simple case of being “distasteful” - this is a case of allowing what could be easily termed hate speech against an entire group of people.
Your argument that you err on the side of free speech does not quite line up with the blip.tv TOS that indeed limits many types of videos including the ones that Loren produced:
“Content that is or may be deemed to be grossly offensive to the online community, including but not limited to, blatant expressions of bigotry, prejudice, racism, hatred and profanity”
It’s clear then that you dont want your brand associated with offensive speech to the point where you will remove such videos. Last I checked, many of the expressions that Loren has used in videos with the blip.tv logo alongside have long been considered to be blatant expressions of racism and prejudice. Where am I confused here?
The suggestion of doing some sort of of a response or remix video is laughable in terms of its short/long term ineffectiveness and is actually playing Loren’s game rather than holding him truly accountable for his actions.
These particular videos were not developed under contract with podtech (per my converstion with John Furrier right after the videos were posted). In this case, Podtech was in a similar position as blip.tv in terms of simply providing an distribution mechanism for Loren’s offensive and racist comments. John also had the same initial reaction as yours (”comedy” as free speech, cant please everyone, not formally associated with us, no intent to remove the content or disassociate podtech from Loren) but my guess is that it quickly became clear that most sponsors really dont like being associated with the slightest hint of such offensive speech or ensuing negative publicity. Whether they did the right thing because of moral courage or pressure from their revenue stream is irrelevent, something obviously got them to change their mind.
Thanks for responding so quickly. I was more than a bit surprised by the response but I sincerely hope that you’ll reconsider your position to remove the offensive videos and formally sever your relationship with Loren based on violations of blip.tv’s own terms of service.
Regards
T.
Hello T.,
The issue regarding our terms of service hinges on the definition of “grossly offensive”. Were his videos grossly offensive, or simply offensive? However, we are not to be held to the same standards as network television. Network television operates over a scarce medium, whereas broadband is infinite. The airwaves were seized long ago by governments for the public trust, whereas broadband remains a private and neutral carrier.
I find it shortsighted that you see a response as less effective than a perpetual quest from service to service, asking each one to delete his videos. Surely you don’t think he would ever run out of new hosting services to try! Eventually, the pursuit would reach a tipping point by, for example, reaching the attention of digg or boing boing, and hundreds of thousands would swarm to search for the banned videos, eagerly downloading and saving copies of the contraband. Drudge could easily pick this story up, and Loren would be invited to do the rounds on right-wing talk radio, as a hero and martyr to the PC police. The case would be held up as a foreshadowing of the Reign of Terror predicted after a Democrat victory in 2008.
Contrast that with the profound impact of a deeply moving work of art. Loren’s video should inspire works which outlive it by decades, which look forward to the future instead of the past, which give us a glimpse of the glorious potential of humankind. Works which send shivers down the spine and trigger paradigm shifts, which children remember the rest of their adult lives.
I urge you to focus your energy on creating positive change in people’s hearts and dry up the market for Loren’s opinions. We have enough futile attempts at silencing foul speech, but we don’t have enough deep, inspiring, illuminating speech.
In Liberty and Reason,
Charles
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 4:59 pm:
Very well thought out reasoning, Charles. It’s inspiring to see a web company offering such forward thinking and inspiring solutions or alternatives when some insist on censorship.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 5:17 pm:
This is one of many reasons why I love you folks at blip.tv
People need to understand that you dont have to endorse a video for it to be hosted here. Podtech pays people to create their videos, so it makes sense that by extension they are endorsing their content.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 5:42 pm:
Bravo Charles.
Loren can definitely come off as a big jerk. But once you get past his bluntness, and start hearing what he says, it makes sense. People don’t like that he has the balls to say what needs to or should be said.
I just wanted to let you know, that I appreciate that you value the first amendment and aren’t buckling to this misguided pressure.
I am sick and tired of people like T and the government trying to tell me what I can or can’t watch or what my children can or can’t watch. I’m smart enough to decide what my children can or can’t watch and they certainly aren’t watching 1938media. But as an adult I can and I do.
See that’s my job as a parent. And I will never relinquish that God-given right. Not to the government, not to people like this T, not anyone.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 5:44 pm:
Disgusting. Sorry, but this is bad for blip’s brand.
It annoys me when people cry “censorship” without even understanding what the word means. Blip is a private company, not a government. Private media companies can remove any content for whatever reason.
Reconsider your decision here. Seriously.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 5:52 pm:
I would love to see all racist videos disappear, but that would not solve the problem. Blip.tv, thanks for saving our free speech.
If “T” wants to do something good, I suggest doing what Charles says and make a video to counter it.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 6:02 pm:
Thank you for protecting free speech.
Seriously, thank you.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm:
Loren is a racist in the same as Colbert is a right-wing, fundamentalist-christian, Bush suporter.
Plus, whenever I hear about people being “grossly offended” or finding these kinds of things “not funny”, I always remember the Wikipedia entry on the ‘Misconceptions of Satire’:
“Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood.
Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it’s “just not funny” for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking.”
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 6:10 pm:
It is true that the Podtech and Blip.tv situations are very different. Why not just point that out and dispense with the “I’m saving the world from censorship” hyperbole? The fact that nobody was pressuring you publicly, yet you decided to publish this private e-mail exchange, suggests that you might be trying to milk this for attention. You’re a distribution pipe, unlike Podtech — we get it. Good for you. By all means, distribute any tasteless crap you want. But stop already with the crusading baby boomer routine of “saving” the “free speech” of the world. Publishing stupid tasteless trash that nobody cares about does not make you a saviour of mankind.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 6:45 pm:
I came across the Feldman’s controversial video from one of the blogs in my feed reader. I must say, in short, that it caught me off guard–mostly because it was over the top.
However, I came in on the subject later in the game because by the, he had already posted a series of videos both mocking the situation, but also using it as a soapbox for ’social media.’
I have to agree with blip.tv on this one. Whether or not the intent of the video was racist, he can still do it, and blip.tv can choose to keep the videos up. –And should choose to keep them up.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 8:05 pm:
hahaha Break it down, Charles! :D
Whomever that is doesn’t want to battle Charles in political ish. He eats, drinks and sleeps that stuff! :D
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 8:39 pm:
Great response Charles - there aren’t many people (if any) who liked Loren’s videos, but we can not start down the slippery slope of blatant censorship. Despite some of the terrible things people say while hiding behind free speech. there is a reason it is so prominent in our constitution - we need to encourage conversation to further education and awareness of the difference between right and wrong.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 9:27 pm:
What’s a few niggers for a Dem victory in ‘08?
Rock on Charles!!!!! Rock on Blip!!!!!
In Liberty and Reason,
Pompous Ahole
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pm:
Nice response Charles. I agree wholeheartedly.
Thanks for doing the right thing.
on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 11:48 pm:
Grossly offensive is in the eye of the beholder. Look at the image-of-the-Prophet-Mohammad cartoon flap from awhile back if you don’t believe me. As long as your policies reflect those of the people you want to have as users, customers, and contributors, they won’t abandon you in protest. If you are financially dependent on advertisers or donors, you risk losing their financial backing if you do not consider their opinions as well.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 12:15 am:
bravo blip.tv
hey, dont like it? dont watch it.
i enjoyed it and im not racist, in fact i hate every race equally including my own.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 12:52 am:
I believe in free speech. But freedom for speech comes with enormous responsibilities. If people lack the discretion to understand the responsibilities, others should step in to stop that. Your argument doesn’t make sense. Tell me. How is this different from someone who talks in support of terrorists? Can we allow such talks as freedom of speech in this country? If people lack responsibilities, I would expect blip.tv to be responsible. Just because the client is big, you should not compromise on the core values.
I also suggest that you remove the following from your terms of service.
Content that is or may be deemed to be grossly offensive to the online community, including but not limited to, blatant expressions of bigotry, prejudice, racism, hatred and profanity.
If you don’t remove it, you will be a perfect hypocrite. You just lost a member in me. I am off blip.tv now.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 6:03 am:
As the poster above, I have always respected Loren’s right to make such garbage and even Charles’ right to support it (in a subsequent post not included in the above post).
However, freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences, protect distribution of such speech, nor does it somehow magically remove my (or others’) right to be grossly offended enough to be supportive of any movement that seeks consequences for making such speech or supporting such distribution.
“T”
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 7:22 am:
I am against censorship. You do have options.
You have the option to document your anger, express your opinion and then let the community decide. You also have the option of confronting LF directly.
You can also boycott, ignore or shun LF and his work and ask others to do the same.
We are not television. We are not pandering for ratings under the guise of being “concerned.”
Let find better ways of dealing with racist content than what M$M tools have presented to us so far.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 9:09 am:
It became apparent to me during PodCamp Pittsburgh 2 this weekend that social media is a tricky animal: 99% of us use it to share opinions that the other 99% of us consider relevant. We may not always agree, but we at least agree to disagree.
But there is 1% of the general population whose ideas are so extreme, they’re actually dangerous. I’m not saying Loren Feldman’s are, but THIS discussion DOES lead to a larger one: What happens when people misuse social media to trumpet inexcusable messages of hate, violence, etc.?
I don’t believe in censorship, but I DO believe in healthy discourse, with an emphasis on HEALTHY. If the social media community at large ever identifies someone using this media for unmitigated evil, I believe it’s our right and our duty not to silence that person, but to raise our own voices and educate the masses (and, by extension, that person) through example, not isolation.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 9:44 am:
Good job Charles. Very well stated and I couldn’t agree more.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 9:49 am:
Hi Charles and Blip en mass–
As a guy who noodles on community all the time, my thoughts are sort of a mix of what Justin Kownacki said tied to others like Schlomo.
I worry that someone will decide what’s good or not FOR me, and that bugs me. I mean, we don’t have to watch the video, right? But then again, HBO slaps a “whoa, this might bug some people” on shows they know might bug some people. (The first and only time I saw Rome, I was sick to my stomach with the realism of the violence. Not a judgment on the show, and I’m sure it’s great, but me personally, the stabbings were SO REAL I didn’t choose to watch.)
I’d feel the same way about Blip content that might be itchy in the eyes of the general populace. And yet, that’s that sticky wicket. What’s porn? I’ll know it when I see it. (Guh! That’s always been a beast).
What I *do* know is that I’m glad this conversation is happening. Thanks for bringing this to the surface.
One last thing: I agree with the comment that Loren is as racist as Colbert is right wing. Not so much. I don’t think.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 10:05 am:
As a lawyer, I take the first amendment pretty seriously. Here it is in full:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech, and what self- expression constitutes “speech” has also been the subject or a long line of court cases.
I think Blip.TV is doing a great job at balancing interests, terms of services, and competing interests about what may constitute reasonable restrictions on free speech versus censorship.
Community restrictions on free speech have been held to depend largely on community norms. The internet is a big place, and a new place, with people from all over the world and all sorts of real world communities. I think it will be a while before we work out what our community norms for free speech are in the online world, and I commend Blip.TV for its reasoned and reasonable stance on this matter.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 10:17 am:
Agreed with most of the above (and boy do I hate lemmingdom). It’s not as if the video is in any way branded Blip with a watermark or the like, and it’s not to my knowledge even featured by blip staff. No brand damage is apparent to me, and I’ve been doing PR-type activity in my professional life for a long time.
Sadly, though, Loren’s video does not seem to be inspiring lots of conversation, lots of attention for his vlog, and very little creative product (save the above commenter Gena’s eloquent response video, which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/286edbl) .
The true tragedy here is that this is garnering more attention for such a poorly executed videoblog when there’s piles more entertaining and edifying content out there, including many featured by Blip.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 10:22 am:
I’m with Charles and Blip on this one. In my experience, which spans the Civil Rights battle, Vietnam, Women’s Rights and a host of other societal skirmishes, a bigot’s own words are his most damaging indictment. People need to hear what hate and prejudice sound like, taste like and see how it makes them feel. And as Charles points out, it needs to be countered, not muffled.
Censorship is the weapon of choice for the fearful, the lazy and the insecure, and its potential for abuse is frightening.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am:
Solid reasoning, Charles. Ten points and a hug to you.
This is a tricky tightrope, but I think blip.tv is walking it with grace.
One thing I’m glad for: this conversation has not died. The videoblogging community and the internet in general is a fickle beastie; always ready to move onto The Next Big Thing. This issue has far-reaching consequences and reflects not just our little community but humanity-at-large.
Let’s not move on just yet.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 11:50 am:
Voltaire’s famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”
And Noam Chomsky
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
Let him speak. Let all speak.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 12:04 pm:
Blip.tv for teh win!!!!
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 12:48 pm:
Loren doesn’t definatively state his intention with those videos. Possibly to show people’s reactions minus himself. How people construct and assign meaning rather than discover and find it out.
Most people think it’s racist, a few satire. Skits close to this that where on “In Living Colour” were not considered racist probably because of who was producing it, the Wayan Brothers, and their clear intent to satire race.
If we are so certain that something is racist when the intent isn’t clearly stated, then I think we have put too much importance on words themselves and not the intent of those speaking it. Lenny Bruce said, “…The point? That the word’s suppression gives it the power, the
violence, the viciousness,…”
— Enric
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm:
Its great to see blip have an open discussion about this issue. I think Charles handled things very well so far, these are not the easiest of issue. Personally I found it rather easy to hate Loren’s video’s, and rather easy to come down on the side of anti-censorship, as per those excellent quotes from Voltaire and Chomsky above.
It sounds like some will try to take this to the next level, I hope circumstances allow blip to remain firm on this issue. If it is too easy for a few people complaining to cause videos to be removed from the net, then this has the potential to be even worse than TV which takes hundreds or thousands of complaints to get action.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pm:
I think blip is handling this well.
and i wonder why “T” doesn’t use his name or connect his comments to a website or email. What’s he hiding?
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm:
Great thing about anything is if you don’t like it, don’t f’n watch it, view it, listen to it, etc.
Right on Charles. Right on Blip.
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 10:55 pm:
I like the Blip crew more every day. Thanks for opening this conversation, Charles.
I believe the greatest asset this country has is the soapbox. We are all able to speak loud and clear, and the misguided, foolish, hateful and irresponsible ideas will be heard by all. The level headed among us can stand on an equal platform and denounce the hateful and foolish, and collective intelligence usually (not always) leads to an assertion of common values in the best interest of the community at large.
However, some speech is simply offensive, while other speech moves people to action. Typically, “fighting words” are so inflammatory and timely that when expressed they can incite people to act before they can reason or hear an opposing view. That is where free speech becomes threatening to the public interest and there is (I feel) a moral obligation to halt the speech, regardless whether the censor is a private company or public agency.
In this situation, I don’t see anything that is especially inflammatory. The offensive content is simply ignorant and myopic, and speaks for itself. Frankly, I found the exhaustive mainstream news coverage of Paris Hilton’s prison experience more quietly, deeply offensive than this tripe.
- Rob
PS: Incidentally, if there are any legal nerds out there who want to read some commentary on this issue, I was just reminded of a Supreme Court case that I never thought would relate to online video… go figure. In 1990, a white boy burned a cross in the yard of a black family and was charged under a local “hate crime” law. By 1992, the case (R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul ) made it to the Supreme Court, where Justices Scalia, Stevens, White and Blackmun all wrote opinions well worth reading (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZS.html).
on Tuesday, August 21st, 2007 at 10:34 am:
I don’t believe Blip or any of the other video on the net hosting sites should be engaging in censorship if they can avoid it. Let’s be careful not to slip on that slope.
Great job Blip. I’m looking forward to T’s video response to Loren’s video and other comments I hope he’ll post to this thread.
-Grace
on Tuesday, August 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am:
What offends me is this Loren F is perceived as a stereotypical New Yorker by people who don’t like New York.
on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 am:
It looks for all the world that most of the commenters on this post haven’t watched the video, nor watched several of Loren’s updates since.
Now, I’ve followed Loren’s work as a blogger and now his stuff as a videocaster, and I find him to be intelligent and informed. Not only that, but he pushes the envelope and makes people think. His follow-up post about social media and the pointlessness of people sitting around in internet forums is thought-provoking and well made.
Blip obviously did the right thing here, standing up against a someone who seemed more motivated to take down Loren and was using the video/racism angle to validate it.
on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 am:
hey Charles, really nice ping-pong! when you make RIAA kiss your ass - pls blog news about that :)
they got annoying sending takedown notices on videos that are public on every other site…
cheers!
on Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 8:35 am:
way to go blip and i stand behind you logic as well. both sides make good points. i think a video response would be highly effective and correct.
on Sunday, October 18th, 2009 at 9:52 am:
I agree. Instead of railing against a crappy comedian, why not get involved in an after-school program and create an African-American tech blogger from a tech savvy student.