by Lucius Trae

Created on: December 27, 2010

For those unfamiliar with the term "DMCA," it refers to the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act." As one of the Internet's most popular video sharing sites, users of YouTube submit videos covering topics ranging from surprised kittens to, yes, religion. Along with politics, religion is one of the world's most notoriously controversial topics. Unsurprisingly, there are individuals who are opposed to atheism and dislike videos about the topic. Consequently, they are filing false DMCA claims against atheist videos. Essentially, they are claiming that the videos are engaging in copyright infringement, which can lead to YouTube removing them from the site. The catch is, of course, that there is no copyright infringement occurring. They merely want to utilize false DMCA claims to engage in censorship.

Such instances of filling false DMCA claims is not merely childish behavior. It involves an individual or individuals actively seeking to censor the free speech of others. This is unacceptable in a democratic society. YouTube sets clear expectations for its users and actively seeks to remedy situations where false DMCA claims occur. While they may take a censor-first, review-later approach, that is not inconsistent with the law and is likely in their financial interests. The culprits are the individuals making the claims.

They can go somewhere else and talk about atheism? Sure, but YouTube set standards that provided atheists with reason to expect an atmosphere that allows their videos. Imagine a sign on a bar that says "everyone welcome." Once an atheist enters, someone says they are a notorious criminal (who are a noted exception to the open-door policy). This lie gets them removed from the bar. Sure, they can go somewhere else, but that's not the point. How far does the next bar have to be before they are being treated unjustly? Five feet? Five miles? This is a matter of principle. In fact, many would argue that even a private establishment should not be permitted to prevent any religious individual from entering "if they so choose." There are nuances to this view that are context-dependent (a male-only support group differs from a bar that refuses minorities). Even if one doesn't want to infringe on the rights of private establishments to discrimination, YouTube is an "everyone welcome" bar, for the most part. Atheists had the right to expect freedom from censorship given that they were obeying the rules of the site.

What legal punishments, if any, should occur? It's

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>