The CFE Calls Out Zoom and YouTube for Censoring Academic Content

Yesterday, the Centre for Free Expression issued a statement of concern about Zoom and YouTube: “When Zoom and YouTube blocked a San Francisco State University [virtual] academic panel discussion on September 23, 2020, they forced to the public eye the dangers of placing content regulation in the hands of tech companies. While the issues presented for discussion in the panel were controversial and many would consider them extreme, we believe that ideas and people must be heard before we can understand them and decide whether we agree or disagree with them. Only by protecting the free exchange of ideas and engaging in critical discussion and debate is social change made possible.”

Let’s admit upfront that the discussion was controversial, as Inside Higher Ed (IHE) has documented: it was “a virtual roundtable discussion on Palestinian rights called ‘Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice and Resistance: A Conversation with Leila Khaled’.” Khaled was involved with a plane hijacking in 1969 and has said “When you defend humanity, you use all the means at your disposal. Some use words, some use arms and some use politics. Some use negotiations. I chose arms and I believe that taking up arms is one of the main tools to solve this conflict in the interest of the oppressed and not the oppressors.” IHE notes “For obvious reasons, Khaled remains controversial: she was banned from entering several countries, including Italy, in 2017, on the grounds that she is a member of terrorist organization. Khaled remains a member of the Popular Front militant group, which the U.S., among other countries, has designated a terrorist organization.”

Facing pressure to cancel the event, San Francisco State remained firmly committed to free discourse. Zoom and YouTube, not so much so. Zoom pulled the plug the day before the event. YouTube started streaming the event but cut it after 20 minutes, with Facebook all promotional materials for good measure. Both cited their policies: {Zoom] “Terms of Service, including those related to user compliance with applicable U.S. export control, sanctions and anti-terrorism laws,” and [YouTube] “content featuring or posted by members of violent criminal organizations, specifically ‘content praising or justifying violent acts carried out by violent criminal or terrorist organizations’." ​

Zoom is a private company and does not have to support public expression of ideas. One wonders how frequently, however, they monitor and shut down conversations. YouTube and Facebook have some nerve banning anything when a search reveals content that certainly discusses views justifying violent or terrorist acts, and in the latter case private groups abound advocating both. Try searching “Proud Boys” sometime.

When faced with a legitimate academic panel that presented a controversial speaker within a context that may have led people to reject her views, all three have clearly knuckled under to pressure from people opposed to the speaker.

The Centre for Free Expression and San Francisco State have taken the principled stand to “call on online technology providers to acknowledge civil liberties and human rights; to leave decisions about what content should be discussed in the hands of the universities, schools, and libraries that use their services; and to recognize that censoring events based on the identity and history of individuals runs the risk of impeding movements for social change at a time when society is calling out for transformation.”

RF agrees, wishes it might be so, and calls upon librarians to continue to support free expression and intellectual freedom, allowing libraries and universities to shape their own programming without Tech Company censorship. Realistically, though, let’s be honest: the integrity of content will forever be imperiled if put on big tech platforms, and libraries and universities should be ready to host and promulgate their own content if they want it to be free, even if that means sacrificing some global reach.