It seems this author rarely misses a chance to slam the US (or at least this admin) in her articles and it gets tiresome.
A few points if I may:
Lieberman is an Independent, not a Republican. Google can not "censor the internet", it can (and does) filter youtube content. Thanks for caring about the FBI and CIA but filtering youtube content won't deny them access to the rest of the internet.
As Sylvie well knows (or should, had she done a bit of research) this is not about filtering anti-American content, it is about removing ethnic, religious, racist content that incites to violence from youtube.
There is no lack of virulent anti-American content from inside or outside the US. This author can't or won't get her facts straight in her rantings and does the INQ a disservice. Sylvie should give it a rest or the editors should give her a rest.

to Robert, very swift response calling people anti-semites and nazi's after stating obvious facts such as all jewish politicians in the US are faithful to israel and the zionist agenda.

Robert his one is for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

By the way in Europe the zionists already censor your every day google searches, so why not regulate the entire internet against any 'defamation' of the jewish superior race that only seek to manage their cattle and slaves?

"Educated fools from UNeducated schools"
-Curtis Mayfield

Inq...You have GOT to drop these "stories" by Sylvie Barak. I (yet again) see NO evidence of journalistic integrity, or even a grasp of basic journalism. All right, Joe Lieberman IS an anti-free speech Senator, and probably the biggest anti-video game nut in Washington.

But do your friggin' research! Nearly ALL U.S. Senators want to stifle the other in some way. Liberal Dems want a "Fairness Doctrine" that would only implode on them if passed (which it never will), and Republicrats want to sue just about anyone that starts mumbling truths or the like, just adding to the conspiracies (Seriously, the Patriot Act IS a frightening read!).

So here we sit, are we all ready to talk about what we need to talk about? ...

All PEOPLE are equal in this country, beliefs, sciences and political leanings are NOT. They are to be debate-able in this land...PERIOD. (Sometimes even made fun of!) Can Islam handle it?
This sets up an inevitable confrontation:
TRUE FREEDOM vs. DIVINE RIGHT. 

This is a Nation where Sharia Law cannot/will not EVER exist, and, we just might like to research each other's religions on occasion! In this country, we enjoy freedom OF religion, as well as freedom FROM it! ;)

There are MANY happy, forward-thinking, yet still faithful Muslims of all backgrounds here, but the backwards, hate-filled sects like Wahhabism (our prisons are FULL of them) have made themselves known. 
Most other worldly faiths have grown more peaceful, a concerning amount of Muslims have not and will not. Islam will never again conquer and convert like it has in the past, well, not by sword anyway. The spotlight is on Islam; does it have the strength to muster a second renaissance? Or at the very least, "lighten up"?

Considering that the first renaissance produced 'Divine Right', here's hoping...

I hate having to do this, but Sylvie, GET A CLUE! 
And to "Fred", are you actually Jimmy Carter? Or just a fellow card-carrying anti-semite?

Deep breath folks, still ready to talk about all this, seriously, and without Politically Corrected dialogue? Here's to peaceful debate!

Soon to be branded "Xeno-cist-aphobe"
Robert

Totally took my comment out of context there number9. I was just pointing out that even though I don't agree with Lieberman on most of his viewpoints he does what he thinks is right and represents his constituents well. After all, that is what he was elected for, and if those he represents doesn’t like it, than they can vote for someone else. Democracy can be a beautiful thing.

I am with you on on war, socialism and censorship..although I think socialism and censorship can exist without the threat of a gun.....not that they should mind you, exist that is. 

Of course that is the black and white of things...there are shades of grey when it comes to necessary censorship...like the recent post on child pornography. I suppose however that there will be those who say that should not be censored either.

Google & YouTube are a bunch of 2-faced hypocrites! Rah-rah free speech to terrorists, but censor free speech to all of China. Ridiculous!

No more YouTube (and terrorist propaganda) in my home!


@Todd: 
Lieberman has zero conservative leanings. He's a yes-man for the neocons, but they are also not at all conservative, just as the Republican Party is no longer at all conservative.

Small government, States' rights, fiscal responsibility -- none of these are part of the Republican platform, or that of Lieberman.

Free speech, on the other hand, IS a conservative ideal (and a liberal one, too!) No one in government is all that interested in such an antiquated notion, though.

Joe has the right first name if we add Mc to his last name the guy he brings to mind spent a lot of time destroying his ancestors. Additionally he is representing the party (cult?) that says that they are for "getting government out of our lives". Say it ain't so Joe..............

re: comment: "Aside from his support on the war he has pretty socialist points of view... and that is why I like him"
-------
and like war, socialism and censorship can not exist without the threat of a gun...

Citizens of repressive regimes should have free speech. The regimes themselves shouldn't get free help, including stateless regimes like the terrorist groups. It'd be like saying that Youtube should host National Socialist (Nazi) recruitment videos if such a thing were possible back in the day. Giving aid and comfort to a mortal enemy isn't just treasonous, it's suicidal. I understand that no one gives a rat's furry behind about treason anymore but could you at least recognize the need for self preservation? When a person calls for the world to submit to Islamic sharia enslavement or die, worrying about the free speech rights of that person who is actively working to destroy such rights for everyone seems incredibly shortsighted.

I am a registered republican and I like Lieberman, even though he is a democrat. I just want to say that I don't agree with censoring opinions. I also don't agree with some of the opinions in this article either. In your closing statement you seem to suggest that we - the U.S. - Lieberman, are trying to censor both Iraq and Afghanistan because "we" - the U.S. - Lieberman want to censor videos posted by Islamic terrorist groups. Is that what you are suggesting? Well, if so, that is your opinion...I however feel that there is a difference between the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan and Islamic terrorist groups.

ALSO, I do not agree with your assessment that Lieberman is a Democrat turned Republican, just because he has some conservative viewpoints on how we should defend our country. Aside from his support on the war he has pretty socialist points of view on other issues. Which suits him and his constituents and that is why I like him.

He may masquerade as Joe Lieberman, but his real name is Joe Likudman, and he's a closet member of the Knesset. If he gets his way on this, the next thing he'll try is making criticism — any criticism, including 'unkind' words — of Israel a crime.

If the United States starts banning videos off of Youtube just because they are anti-democratic, doesn't that mean they are swooping down to the level of China (in the sense of suppressing opinions against the government)?

"The voting American public might not take too kindly to having censorship imposed upon them, especially by one of their democratically-elected representatives."

Sylvie at it again... What the heck did you smoke? Pass it over....