Video vigilante questions Youtube's heavy-handed tactics

February 2, 2009 @ 2:35AM

Video vigilante questions Youtube's heavy-handed tactics

By Carlos Miller -...

Jimmy Justice is one of those guys who doesn’t have to be told he has the right to videotape police in the line of duty.

For two years, the New York City resident has been doing just that; videotaping traffic cops who are violating the law as they are enforcing the law. He brazenly confronts them on camera, demanding to know why they are parked illegally.

Then he posts the videos on Youtube where he has become an internet icon or as MSNBC called him, a “video vigilante.”

But now he says that Youtube is clamping down on his videos, using a lame excuse to remove the last one he posted. This has kept him from posting more videos.

“They claimed it violated community standards, but I do not feel there was anything offensive about it,” he stated in an email to Photography is Not a Crime over the weekend.

“There are other videos I have posted on Youtube that have foul language and Youtube does not seem to have a problem with that.”

The video in question, which is posted above (on Vimeo after I recommended it to him), is hardly offensive if you’re going by Youtube standards. By Jimmy Justice standards, it is actually mild compared to some of his previous, more confrontational videos with police, including one where he berates an officer for parking in front of a fire hydrant in order to buy lunch as a fire fighters respond to a fire outside.

In typical Jimmy Justice style, he pulls up to a female NYPD cop who is double-parked and asks her why she is parked that way. She denies it, but it is clearly evident from the video she is double-parked.

She then justifies it by telling Jimmy Justice that the officer standing on the other side of the car “is on duty” – as if that would make a difference. Jimmy Justice responds by telling the bewildered officer:

“Duty is a brown substance which comes from an anus.”

His response might be a bit sophomoric but is it offensive enough to warrant removal of the video from Youtube?

“There seems to be nobody at Youtube that can tell me exactly what was offensive in my video that they removed without warning,” he said. “Many people now feel that Youtube in censoring free speech.”

The debate on whether Youtube is censoring free speech has been around since 2006 when it removed a video by right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin. According to The New York Times:

YouTube users can flag any video as containing pornography, mature content or graphic violence, depicting illegal acts or being racially or ethnically offensive. A video is removed — as Ms. Malkin’s was on Sept. 28 — only if a review by the company’s customer support department agrees that it is inappropriate, or that the video is on its face in violation of the site’s terms of use.

But the incident raised some questions about the fine line YouTube’s administrators walk when they decide to respond to users’ complaints about contributions to the site — a mechanism that is fraught with the potential for vindictive shenanigans.

It doesn’t appear that Jimmy Justice’s video was either pornographic, violent or racially or ethnically offensive. So maybe they received complaints from the New York City Police Department.

The debate over censored videos intensified after Youtube was purchased by Google for $1.65 billion in October 2006. Just last week, a website called Stop the ACLU ironically accused Youtube of censorship.

Facebook has also been accused of censorship when it started removing photos of mothers breastfeeding babies, proving that the more conglomerated and powerful a company becomes, the less flexible they will be with their customers.

Perhaps Justice Jimmy will start posting all his videos of Vimeo, which doesn’t have the reputation of censoring but is not nearly as popular as Youtube (although I prefer it because it allows you upload high-resolution videos).

Since this article was posted, Photography is Not a Crime reader Martin sent in a link outlining his own experiencing with Youtube censorship where they claimed it violated “community standards.” He has since posted the video on Vimeo. This is what Martin said:

Regarding your article about youtube censorship, it appears they dont like anyone posting videos of cops.

They pulled this video of mine and put one ‘strike’ on my account for it.

The video in question was titled “Fat Bottomed Big Gulp girls of Homeland Security” and is an extremely short video where he follows two uniformed females Homeland Security guards around LAX drinking Big Gulps.

Oh, the horror.

-30-

I am a multimedia journalist who has been fighting a lengthy legal battle after having photographed Miami police against their wishes in Feb. 2007. Please help the fight by donating to my Legal Defense Fund in the top left sidebar. And feel free to join my Facebook blog network to keep updated on the latest articles.

Comments

Anonymous

3 years ago

At worst it could be flagged at mature content (which it obviously is not) then requiring acknowledgment of mature material and an additional click thru.

Unfortunately, the only way Youtube will listen to him is if he sues or gets national media involved.

Anonymous

3 years ago

In most jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, police are exempt from traffic and parking laws and regulations while on official duty. I doubt the NYPD really cares if someone wants to spend his time photographing police officers.

Anonymous

3 years ago

LAPD Captain III,

Does this mean the officer can park in front of a fire hydrant as she walks into a fast food joint to buy her lunch?

During a fire when fire trucks are trying to access the fire hydrant?

This happened in one of his previous videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=052S1yg-zR0&feature=channel_page

Anonymous

3 years ago

Gee LAPD Captain III,
You make it sound like it’s okay to be exempt from traffic laws and regulations while on official duty. So, it’s okay to drive fast and wreckless, run red lights, and disregard traffic control devices? You don’t think that this type of behavior will not endanger another driver’s life?

Anonymous

3 years ago

LAPD Captain III,

Being exempt from the law menas that they are not subject to being summonsed for committing the offense.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that those actions are condoned by the department’s Policies and Procedures.

I would venture to guess that P&P states that parking in front of a hydrant is not allowed except in cases of extreme emergency.

Clearly going into a restaurant for food would not qualify.

Anonymous

3 years ago

All of this misses the point – Why is Youtube censoring an obviously unoffensive video? How do you fight them?

Anonymous

3 years ago

I guess you really can’t fight them. Only boycott them.

Anonymous

3 years ago

if youtube handles complaints the way most sites do, it’s volunteers that do the screening.

Maybe 16 of them had a bad weekend.
Unless they can give a clear reason, i’d delete the video, and reupload it. And make sure that the “info” states “if this is going to get flagged, i’d appreciate an email detailing what is wrong with it to my youtube account”

Anonymous

3 years ago

A meal break is not official duty. Police officers routinely run red lights and exceed posted speeding limits while on duty. That’s why all department vehicles are equiped with sirens and rooftop or dashtop light bars to warn other drivers that a police vehicle is approaching. In most states, including California, a driver who fails to yield to a police vehicle that is sounding a siren and/or flashing its lights are subject to a citation, fine, and points on the driving record, even if under normal circumstances the civilian driver had the right to way. When an LAPD officer is on duty, if he or she cannot find an open place to park, he will typically park in a red zone.

Anonymous

3 years ago

The Fire Hydrant video is about the only one I can agree with Jimmy on. The rest of his stuff he is clearly looking for his 15 hours (Not minutes – Just to clarify I know Andy Warhol’s famous quote) of fame.

Jimmy is an antagonizer who resorts to profane rebuttals in order to get his point across. He’s more of a sad commentary on Photographers rights and does nothing to help our cause.

Now Checkpoint USA, there’s a REAL Hero in my book. Checkout his vids on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6uw7506xMw&feature=related

Anonymous

3 years ago

Who cares where a cop parks. A cop runs into pick up food and he parks in front of the store in the firelane I don’t see what the big deal is. Just because he is not on an emergency call that doesn’t mean he won’t be sent on one while he is there. If he has to respond to a shooting do you want him to have to run half a block just to get to his car.

I don’t think they should park in a handicap spot because somebody might need one but anywhere else no big deal. In front of a fire hydrant is ok as long as they can move it in case of an emergency.

The guy going around filming these cops needs to get a life. Are those even cops he’s filming, they have police cars but they say parking enforcement. Are these actual police officers or just glorified meter maids. If they are just parking enforcement and don’t respond to emergency calls then they shouldn’t park illegally.

Anonymous

3 years ago

The Video I’m speaking of is the one where the Fire Dept needs to access the hydrant the cops are in front of while inside ordering Deli Sandwhiches. This is the one instance where Jimmy Justice was in the right to really be pissed. Most times he’s just an arrogant prick who does what he does for no reason other than to be famous.

The Cops should obey the laws however. Why should they be able to break the same Laws they give tickets for?

Anonymous

3 years ago

Why should they be able to break the same Laws they give tickets for?

Because you never know when they are going to get called to an emergency and you never know when 30 seconds will be the difference between life and death.

Anonymous

3 years ago

Sorry, that’s not an excuse to block a Fire Hydrant which is what these cops were doing during a Fire.

Anonymous

3 years ago

In December 2008, YouTube removed 3 of my videos depicting my encounters at a suspicionless internal homeland security checkpoint in Southern Arizona.

I reposted the videos on LiveLeak and blogged about it here:

https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2009/01/19/p124

Anonymous

3 years ago

Terry, your Checkpoint USA videos are a breath of fresh air. You Sir are one of my many Hero’s in life. Keep up the great work you do for all of us.

Because of you, I don’t allow myself to be walked on by Government thugs. Rock On!

Anonymous

3 years ago

YouTube is like high school.

If you ain’t in the “in” crowd, then you’re out.

And if you’re out far enough, you get the shit beat out if you.

Cops ain’t the only thugs.

I’m shutting down my YouTube account – they suck so much. All I use them for is bandwidth anyway.

If you dissent, they purposely throttle your hits. I have proof.

Anonymous

3 years ago

@ LAPD Captain III

Yeah, we know. You’re the ONLY ONES.

Besides, if the department does something to deal with the p.r. problems of the praetorean guards offending the peasants….

It’s suspension WITH PAY. lol

Anonymous

3 years ago

John said, All of this misses the point – Why is Youtube censoring an obviously unoffensive video? How do you fight them? Carlos Miller replied, I guess you really can’t fight them. Only boycott them.

This is what I was referring to on the Pennsylvania Cops Intimidation Tactics thread. The link is here.

A “boycott” won’t work, because obviously everybody is going to continue to use YouTube. However, I believe that independent sites, especially sites focused on issues that make corporations, the police, or governments uncomfortable, should host copies of video clips themselves. If copies are widely distributed, it’ll be harder to shut things down.