Here's their statement on the subject:
On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don't consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.
As I've commented before, I sympathize with distributors who feel pressured to remove materials for fear of violent retaliation. I have argued that "leading bookstores, like leading universities, need to take some risks -- and, yes, even risks that involve potential risks to customers and employees -- in order to protect the marketplace of ideas that sustains them." But I recognize that we can't expect everyone to be heroic on this score, and that goes double for smallish outfits that might not have a great deal of money to invest in security.
Still, while those who give in to threats shouldn't get much blame, those who resist the threats (even with a brief delay for ramping up security) deserve praise. So, good work, LiveLeak: You've struck a badly needed blow for freedom, and against the thugs.
Seconded.
For official followup, there are plenty of both state and federal statutes to charge any USA citizen or resident perps with.
So, what about all the government offices authorized to track down and prosecute crime? Will they track down and prosecute any domestic perps who made the threats?
Will they even bother to find out if any USA IPs or phones were involved?
Probably not.
The automatic islamophobia accusation machine would go off.
Who needs the grief?
Way to snatch hyperbole from a commendable example.
Now we have many, both public and private, who counsel timidity. Once great newspapers refuse to print the whole news by suppressing photos and images because they fear a violent rebuke from the Muslim community. LiveLeak has now set an example of courage. After a wise tactical retreat, they regrouped to help protect the freedoms that others preserved for them.
I was thinking about the threats too and if there is any recourse against the threat makers. It's disturbing that we are so used to Islamic threats that we just assume nobody is going to bother to pursue those that make death threats.
And, didn't someone from the UN just tell us that the movie makers were to blame?
"Still, while those who give in to threats shouldn't get much blame, . . "
Except for the British and American governments who do not protect the free speech rights of their citizens. That LiveLeak had to endure the expense of such precautions, or that bookstores had to do so with the Rushdie affair, is an outrageous abdication of government's basic function: to protect innocent citizens from domestic and foreign criminals.
h/t MP
Risks are actually pretty low and would be even lower if a few attackers were killed.
Nor for "lighten up".