- Home
- Action Alerts
- Blogs
- Comics
- Court Battles
- Culture Wars
- Anti-Atheism
- Anti-Secularism
- Boycotts
- Burqas
- Censorship
- Conspiracies
- Faith-Based Discrimination
- Government-Sponsored Prayer
- In God We Trust
- Intolerance
- Islam
- LGBT Issues
- Miller Kidnapping Case
- Mosques
- Occupy Wall Street
- Pulpit Politicking
- Religious Displays
- Reproductive Rights
- Ten Commandments
- Terrorism
- Under God
- War on Christmas
- War on Easter
- Dominionists
- Boykin, Jerry
- Eidsmoe John
- Engle, Lou
- Garlow Jim
- Howse, Brannon
- Jackson, Harry
- Miller, Ron
- Moore, Roy
- Movements
- Organizations
- 300
- Alliance Defense Fund
- American Center for Law and Justice
- American Family Association
- American Vision
- Americans for Legal Immigration
- Americans for Truth About Homosexuality
- Answers in Genesis
- Catholic League
- Center for Marriage Policy
- Champion the Vote
- Charity Give Back Group
- Christian Anti-Defamation Commission
- Concerned Women for America
- Coral Ridge Ministries
- Cornwall Alliance
- Discovery Institute
- Eagle Forum
- Faith and Action
- Faith and Freedom Coalition
- Family Leader
- Family Research Council
- Focus on the Family
- Institute on Religion and Democracy
- International Coalition of Apostles
- International House of Prayer
- Judicial Watch
- Liberty Counsel
- Liberty University
- Life Site News
- MassResistance
- Media Research Council
- Mission America
- Operation Rescue
- Personhood USA
- Proclaiming Justice to the Nations
- Regular Folks United
- Renew America
- Save California
- Southern Baptist Convention
- Traditional Values Coalition
- Wallbuilders
- World Congress of Families
- Politicians
- Preachers
- Pundits
- Severson, Dan
- Wright Wendy
- God & Science
- God Debate
- God in Military
- God in Schools
- Politics
- Press Releases
- Propheteering
- Regions
- Right Wing Watch
- Site News
Socialize
FUJI MINX music video banned from YouTube; for anti-Pope sentiment, or brief nudity?
Greta Valenti. Photo:Ruby Danger
The video, “The Music Made Me Do It”, features singer Greta Valenti dressed as a devil, complete with horns and body paint clothing her upper torso. During the course of the video, Valenti scrawls “CONFESS” across a photo of Pope Benedict XVI, then lights it ablaze on an altar.
The video in question is embedded below. Warning: Not safe for work.
FUJI MINX – The Music Made Me Do it (Official Un-Censored Version) from FUJI MINX on Vimeo.
Which is the “offensive content” for which the video was removed? Valenti’s breasts, or the torching of the Pope’s picture? Could it have been Valenti’s reverent placing of a framed photo of Sinead O’Connor on a shelf that did it? (You may recall O’Connor tearing up a photo of Pope John Paul on Saturday Night Live some years ago, doing extensive damage to her career in the process.)
An ongoing debate on Facebook’s YouTube discussion board revolves around the likely reason for the removal of the video.
Some believe it was removed for its anti-Pope content. This leaves one to wonder why videos like Tim Minchin’s Pope Song (also definitely NOT safe for work), which could be aptly titled “Fuck the Motherfucker” and which equates the Pope and all Catholics with the child rapists Benedict has protected, remain on YouTube.
Many atheist, non-theist, and similar videos have reportedly been “false flagged” by the Christian evangelical community as offensive on YouTube in recent months, and removed without review or contact with the video poster. Is this a case of false flagging?
Are Valenti’s breasts the issue? A possibility. However, as one FUJI MINX fan points out, the Unkle video “Follow Me Down” has remained on YouTube for over a month despite a similar breast quotient. It does reside behind a warning of potentially offensive content. (This link, the warning page, is safe for work. The video itself is not.)
So, why didn’t YouTube offer Valenti the option of placing her video behind a similar warning?
Look, a poll!
For further information, stay tuned to Valenti’s “Masturbating Catholic” blog or the Facebook discussion referenced above.
Related articles:
- Hagee Discovers YouTube, Warns of Polygamy and Dangerous Muslims
- In Brief: Weekly Poll: Should Pope Benedict XVI be Arrested and Put on Trial?
- A flood of anti-science sentiment: What the ‘Ark Park’ says about Kentucky
- Burning the Koran: Dove World Outreach videos on YouTube
- Pope's Preacher: Criticizing Church for Child Rape is Like Anti-Semitism
Jenny Donati is webmistress and co-editor of Secular News Daily. Jenny is an outspoken secularist who believes firmly in the separation of church and state. She demands evidence to support arguments, and holds herself to the same standard. She doesn't write about herself in the third person . . . but there's a first time for everything.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry.
I think it was removed because of the nudity. But there is nothing offensive about Valenti's breasts. They're beautiful.
I think it might have been the combination of the three: breasts, ridicule of Catholicism and the Pope, and the Sinead O Connor picture. Looked at as a whole, it is a very powerful video. I think it got banned because they (YouTube) were afraid of pissing off too many Catholics. Not that there's anything wrong with trying to getting them to wake up, but that's just it. They won't. To them their God, and in effect, the Pope is infallible. But more importantly, they believe that their God and their reverence of it is above criticism, critical analyzation, and ridicule. And to them, everyone else, i.e., non-Catholics, are supposed to respect and submit because they think that all other religions are inferior. And this goes for all religions, not just Catholicism. There shouldn't be any assumed respect.
And about pissing off too many Catholics…what are we afraid of? A Catholic Jihad? Probably. Probably not. It's just as possible as it is in the extremist Muslim world. It's the same kind of irrational fear. The (metaphorical) fires are just stoked differently.
This issue of censorship in order not to offend the delicate irrational sensibilities of a certain group or people lest they go crazy or something is not the way we're going to move forward. That is how the religious fanatics hold everyone else hostage. That's not democracy, that's religious imperialism.
You Tube are hypocrites, they have their own porn site to upload people actively engaging in sexual acts. What might be perceived as offensive to some is entertainment to others.
Name that site please.
It didn't need to be pulled – it just needed an "Offensive Content" frontpage.
Sorry, its the tits (nice and enjoyable as they are).
I would not classify that as 'brief' nudity unless you qualify it with the word 'repeated'. By American standards this is R rated and does not seem to meet the pg-13 Youtube that I am used to. Youtube is not a private entitiy with a right to control and reject content too racey for its chosen audience. There is no lack of websites that have chosen a different audience and I applaud that.
On the other hand there are some videos on Youtube where I have click "I am an adult'. These confuse me and I've assumed that they have to reach some level of historical/artistic hurdle. How that distinction is determined probably has to do with people appealing the banning decision. That part may support your argument.
And as for Youtube excluding anti pope-ness, I searched Youtube and found “antipope” results of about 569. I often enjoy anti religion/athiest content on youtube so I can't buy your inference.
Your warning of 'not safe for work' tells me all I need to know about how the Youtube audience will react.
Bruce, I think you overlooked in the article the note that there are other, equally or more "racy" videos available on YouTube. They do provide a warning screen, but the video mentioned in the article is quite on par in the nudity quotient.
Why was Fuji Minx not given the option of a warning screen, and simply removed?
On the other hand there are some videos on Youtube where I have click "I am an adult'. These confuse me and I've assumed that they have to reach some level of historical/artistic hurdle. How that distinction is determined probably has to do with people appealing the banning decision. That part may support your argument.
Oops Meant to say
"Youtube is a private entitiy…"