Really? Which one? This would have created an uproar and lawsuits against the government and been front-page news (not the video, but the attempted suppression). If you have a reference to what/when this was, please share it.

thanks

Hank

>Hank,
>I don't want to waste my time with this. Just as a reference a video on YT was supressed (about US president).
>Cetin
>
>>I can't think offhand where that's the case in US law, i.e., where political parody was suppressed, and have followed many rulings stating that it could not be suppressed; but your point is empirically testable. It certain varies among nations. In some poltical parody of the ruling government gets you killed, in some gets you jailed, in some gets suppressed. In the US we make money off it <s>: Comedy Central's (cable tv channel) two hottest shows (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report) are politcal parodies, and The Onion (www.theonion.com) is a very popular web site (supported, of course, by advertising).
>>
>>Hank
>>
>>>Yes not only different perspectives but different standards as well. When it bothers US then it's not called supressing freedom of speech else it is.
>>>Cetin
>>>
>>>>In the U.S., freedom of speech does in fact mean the right to insult anyone you want. Parody is specifically permitted (via Supreme Court Decision). And that's where Pertti's comment about having different perspectives is right on target. For perhaps a majority of the world, insulting/making fun of others is a major offense. Without attempting to decide who is right and who is wrong, we can agree that there exist significantly different perspectives on freedom of speech.
>>>>
>>>>Hank
>>>>
>>>>>"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean freedom of insulting any who you want. It's not only a YT and Turkey matter, it happened between US and YT too. I don't agree with Turkısh court decision, it was insane. Youtube should not let such content in the first place.
>>>>>Cetin
>>>>>