Should Google censor an anti-Islam video? Close Read

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/14/opinion/york-libya-youtube/index.html?hpt=op_bn5

Jillian C. York, a columnist for Al Jazeera, thinks that Google took the wrong response in blocking the video that was widely disputed and caused the death of the U.S. ambassador in Libya. She uses elements of rhetoric diction, details, and syntax to make her point.

York's use of diction emphasizes certain things in her editorial. Her use of diction is used to stress the violence and outrage in other countries. For example, "the video, which was made in America and crudely characterized the Prophet Mohammed, understandably offended many Muslims" (York para. 2 ln. 4-6). The use of the word "crudely" reflects her opinion of the video itself. This gives the connotation that the video itself is not well put together and is a misrepresentation of the Prophet Mohammed. The word "understandingly" gives off the impression that she sympathizes with offended Muslims and maybe even the rioters. York uses diction to show her opinion on what is happening and to create favorability  with offended Muslims. 

York provides specific details about laws and other similar cases to prove her point. York provides "When it comes to copyrighted content, YouTube is required to abide by the law, specifically the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which allows a copyright holder to report content posted by other users as belonging to them (it also allows for a rebuttal)" (York para. 5 ln. 1-5). By giving information about laws concerning copyright, she shows that she is knowledgeable about what she is talking about. York also gives a case where the country actually blocked the website for offensive content, "When Pakistan blocked Twitter after the company refused to take down offensive content, citizens were outraged ...  the outrage of citizens forced the government to reverse its decision in less than a day" (York para. 14 ln. 1-3, 5-6). York gives an example of what the citizens of the country would do, showing that they would rise up against censorship. She gives this example to show that Google should model Twitter, which is her basic point in the article. The use of details shows that York is knowledgeable in what she is talking about and provides similar situations to Google's.

York uses Syntax artfully to direct our focus to what she wants the reader to remember. York tells us "Instead, by placing itself in the role of arbiter, Google is now vulnerable to demands from a variety of parties and will have to explain why it sees censorship as the right solution in some cases but not in others" (York para. 16 ln. 1-4). She ends with this statement, making sure the reader remembers the point that she wanted to get across. She leaves the thought that twitter is doing the right thing by censoring things that had "valid legal order" and Google should have responded in a different way. York's use of syntax leaves the reader with her opinion and thoroughly convinces the reader on how Google should have acted.