Slashdot Mirror
Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech
Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to
questions of free speech. First YouTube: reader skraps notes that the Google
property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick
Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments
against Christian beliefs; but when he
turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another
user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members
of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below
has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated
attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been
permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.' Amazon.com
provides a second example of how to react to questions of free speech.
Reader theodp sends along a story in
TheStreet.com about how Amazon hung up
on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of
selling animal-fighting magazines. The article notes that issues of free
speech are rarely cut-and-dried, and that Amazon is doing itself no
favors by going
up against the Humane Society.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by KD : updated Nick Gisburne link to new account.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by KD : updated Nick Gisburne link to new account.
Doesn't surprise me that someone who criticizes religion gets censored. After all, religious ideas are completely sacred and can't possibly be questioned by anyone. That would be progress, and progress is WRONG.
Care about privacy? Read this!
So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to, and Amazon refuses to be intimidated or allow them to intimidate others on their property. Sounds more like a good way to handle free speech to me.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
when it was Christianity, it was OK.
Maybe now some of the Google is wonderful nonsense will stop. Censoring people on religious grounds qualifies as being evil in my book. Of course, after Google sold to out to please the Chinese government, it was clear Google had decided that greed was a better motive than not being evil.
Private parties can do as they please. You have *NO* constitutional right to say what you want on their services. It may not be "nice" to do, but no one can stop them from doing this. Your right may vary by state, though.
Amazon has a right to sell that filth if they so choose. I also have the right not to shop there, and to tell everybody I know that they condone this sick shit. I still don't see what this has to do with free speech.
I don't respond to AC's.
Come on, this should be a no-brainer. Google, Youtube and Amazon are privately owned, privately administered and privately funded organizations. They are no more obligated to keep the videos of controversial speakers on line, or engage in conversation with people who have animal-rights concerns than anyone is obligated to read this post, or Slashdot is obligated to prevent it from being deleted. There is no contract implied here beyond a social one; said speaker can take his videos to other sites, and people who have a problem with Amazon selling cock-fighting magazines can take their business elsewhere. If Slashdot banned me for whatever reason, I could continue to post on Kuro5, or Digg, or any other equally private site that would let me in.
OK, I think I get the gist of the OP but let me see if I get this straight.
You can make a movie called White Guys can't Jump but you can't make a movie called Black Guys can't swim (fill in swim with whatever).
You can make "logical arguments" against Christianity. You can even make jokes about the religion and it's Members.
But as soon as you breath a word against the Muslims you are silenced.
We have a new minority in America. It's call the muslims. Please, if you are a male white American, add to your list of people not to offend: the Muslims. But remember, anyone can publicly deride the whites, males, christians but never speak ill of the jews, muslims, blacks (oh shit! sorry -- African American), mexicans, or anyone else who didn't have an ancestoral basis in North Western Europe along the paternal lines of the family tree.
It's getting kind of crazy around here with all the people who are demanding both freedom of speech and respect for their own beliefs.
A lot of people here have noted that free speech does not extend to corporate America. Quite true - no one has a right to speak on youtube. But the interesting question is why does google choose to exercise their corporate prerogative so as to permit anti-Christian argumentation but not anti- Islam argumentation. This does intrigue me. I haven't seen either the anti-Christian or the (now banned) anti-Islam videos. Is there a real difference that would explain why the former is welcome on youtube but the latter is forbidden? There are a great many arguments revealing the fundamental irrationality of both religions. I don't see why google would not welcome both.
It's not the free speech, it's the hypocrisy. It's OK to bag Christianity, but not Islam? WTF is up with that?
I can tell you: Christianity is used to being harrassed, and Christianity has shown itself to be nothing, if not resilient to this kind of thing. Whereas Islam is extremely poor at handling criticism; you might find yourself dead, burned, having some bizarre rushdie-like death sentence on you, or being chased by a bunch of brainwashed muslims.
So no, you CAN'T make fun of Islam or point out the stupidity of living 14th century dogma in the 21st century.
It's telling too, because a confident religion doesn't care what is said about it. Witness what's been said about Christianity! No, it's only a scared religion which reacts poorly to criticism - and the main reason (I maintain) is because even "devout" Muslims KNOW that what they've been told is a load of stinking horse shit, but it is impossible to speak out against it.
Loud voices openly criticising Islam might start the tide against Islam, and that would result in the modernisation of that religion, and those who currently hold the power in Islam would see their power vanish almost instantly. So this issue continues to be about the power Islam wields over women, and other people. It's certainly got nothing to do with religion per se, in my view.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation.
That's because everyone perpetually equates "free speech" with "censorship". Censorship CAN be a violation of your right to free speech, but not always- and this case is a perfect example. Others say that censorship cannot be done by a corporation; that's also wrong. Everything you watch on TV is run past network censors. Anything you watch in the movie theater, also (most likely) run past censors.
Youtube's actions are censorship. They are not violation of anyone's "free speech" rights. Nothing stops the gent in question from posting his commentary on his own website, or publishing commentary in any number of forms of other media (for example, printing a booklet or printing a newsletter.) If the government comes knocking on his door and takes his computer and printer and says, "You can't print this, Muslims don't like it", that is a violation of his right to free speech.
Please help metamoderate.
So corporations can take away your rights?
The founders flat-out messed up because they had no idea that big business would have the power it has today. They had no idea that the internet would put the ability to curtain free speech in the hand of corporations rather than the government.
Had they known that, I suspect rather strongly that they would have phrased the Bill of Rights differently.
The rights of corporations are secondary to the rights of individuals.
Care about privacy? Read this!
Posting videos to a website isn't a "right", it's a freebie offered by a corporation so that they can make revenue by showing ads alongside the video. Saying you have the "right" to post to YouTube is like saying that you have the "right" to get a free toy when you buy Cheerios.
In what way, exactly, is Google taking away somebody's rights? Please, I'd like to know.
Comment of the year
Okay, say you run YouTube, and you've got some guy ranting anti-Christian bullshit. What's the Christian reaction? 'Hey, you're an ass' Now its anti-Muslim bullshit. What's the general Muslim reaction? 'Hey, you're an ass' Problem is, Islam has more fringe loonies than Christianity, and mocking Christians is less likely to get you killed. In their position, I think a lot of people criticizing the move probably would have chickened out and pulled the guy off, too. It reminds me of some play that was canceled in Germany because one scene had the decapitated heads of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Poseidon, and the prophet Mohammad on chairs, and it was cancelled because everyone was afraid of the Muslim reaction. This has happened before, and it will happen again.
So wait.. YouTube is bad because it didn't defend free speech, but Amazon is bad because it did and it is Kevin Kelleher's opinion that going up against the Humane Society might be a bad idea?
Hartman: I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops, or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
So corporations can take away your rights?
Exactly what right is a corporation or person taking away from you when it decides to hang up on your phone call? Surely you do not have a right to force someone else to listen to your speech.
Similarly with Youtube. There isn't anything in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to use somebody else's web site, printing press or megaphone to distribute your viewpoint. Such a concept would in fact infringe on other rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Constitional ban on bills of attainder. You can speak all you want - how you get your message to others is YOUR problem, not someone else's just because they have an jim-dandy established distribution channel that you might want to use to put forth your opinion because it would be a lot more work for you to build your own distribution channel.
The founders certainly DID NOT mean to abrogate property rights when they cast the First Amendment. Just because Youtube is a convenient forum you are not suddenly granted an inalienable right to use it however you want irrespective of the rights of the owners. If you want to get your message out there is no guarantee by anyone that they have to pay out (Youtube like any other web site has to pay for the bandwidth it uses) to give you a free ride for your crackpot theories.
Your concept of corporate power holding back your free speach is also ridiculous. Exactly what is Youtube doing that prevents you from setting up your own web site and publicizing it? Nothing.
They had no idea that the internet would put the ability to curtain free speech
Exactly what does the internet do to curtain(sic) free speach? To me it looks like it does exactly the opposite. $8.95 for a domain name and $10/month for a hosting package and you can spout off in almost unlimited fashion. In fact never before has it been as easy to get out whatever outlandish idea you might have.
Had they known that, I suspect rather strongly that they would have phrased the Bill of Rights differently.
In exactly what way? Even in the days of the Founders channels of distribution like the press were owned by individuals. In fact since such channels were more limited than what we have now it was much harder to get an idea out without significant financial backing.
The rights of corporations are secondary to the rights of individuals.
Poppycock. The two are exaactly the same. Corporations are the private property of individuals. By threating the two differently you are depriving these individuals of their property rights without due legal process as guaranteed by the Constitution. Forcing a corporation by law to carry your video is EXACTLY the same thing as forcing Joe Smith to pay a tax that will give you financial support for your package of wacko ideas. The idea is totally unacceptable and contrary to all basic ideas of life in modern society.
You do realize that Amazon _didn't_ cave, right?
them and it is very clearly defined in federal law that you cannot sell or even possess such videos for profit.
I saw a video on the National Geographic channel last night that showed hyenas eating the guts of a gazelle while it was still alive. Pretty sure they were selling commercial time on that show, too.
Anyone who criticises Islam is accused of being racist, and has the full weight of Political Correctness thrust down upon them. This is utter bullshit.
It is our RIGHT to criticize ANY religion, be it in the spirit of Martin Luther, or in the spirit of Frederick Neitzche. It doesn't matter.
Now, to ban a man for making a video of quotes from a book, simply the quotes, and calling that "inappropriate hate speech", that is a fucking travesty, and a symptom of everything that's wrong with giving certain groups special treatment. It may not be a violation of any of his rights, since Youtube is a private entity, but it's still a bitter pill to swallow. A man has been silenced because quoting from a book was deemed "inappropriate".
I suppose nobody at Youtube figured that, if the quotes are inappropriate, maybe it's the author(s) of the book itself that should be blamed, and not the messenger. No, truth takes a back seat to making damned sure nobody could possibly be offended by anything.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
I'm not kidding that the Terrorists win again (most terrorists we fear these days are the Muslim Jihadists like Bin Laden). Yes Google is being hypocritical, and I know they can choose what is banned or allowed on YouTube. The reeal difference between the two in this case is mostly they fear being blown up or shot at. It would be better if they just admitted they were scared.
Remember the Mohammed cartoons last year? The violence, and most newspapers or other outlets would not show them. Remember SouthPark getting censored? Hello, is anybody there? This is the fear by the terrorists and Jihadists want you to have if you cross them.
They may not represent all Musilims, but there are more than just a few loonies, it looks more like 10 to 25% of them think this way. This accomodation will not work long term, they will want more, and there will be more fighting not less. Better to stand up for our culture, than let it be taken away piece by piece.
Indeed, the Mohammad episode concluded with a purposely blasphemous hodge-podge of Jesus crapping on people and the like. Comedy Central let it through. (The cut Mohammad scene was an innocuous three-second clip of Mohammad handing a guy a fish.) When the usual folks complained about the depictions of Jesus they were making South Park's point for them - there wouldn't be a violent retaliation for the completely disgusting and inflammatory images they had portrayed.
Actually, I think the lesson is that if you want Google/YouTube to respect your religious sensitivities, you need to make a practice of blowing things up and beheading people. Civilized protests of the sort that most christians do just doesn't seem to have the same impact.
> but never speak ill of the jews
You haven't been paying attention. Anti-semitism, Holocaust Denial and outright jew hatred are now pretty much mainstream on sites like Daily Kos and DU. So as long as you are a deranged leftie Jews are now in season. Best I can figure they have decided that if they throw Israel under the bus the terrorists will stop hating us. Pathetic if you ask me, but I'm just a right wing reactionary neocon.
Sorry if this is too much truthiness, but when I have to pick sides in the Middle East I'll take the only one with a representitive government and basic liberties over the 7th century rejects. And as for the "Palestinian", to paraphrase Kos himself, "screw em." They elected a terrorist government when they could have had peace and a real country of their own, let em live with the consequences of their stupidity.
Democrat delenda est
Other than holding the most disproportionate amount of economic, political, and military power of any population in world history, you're absolutely correct.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
If the Koran has a meaning, it can be translated, and of the millions of English-speaking Muslims in the world there must be a few who are up to the job of translating it correctly. ... The difficulty of translation always gets raised any time anyone mentions any of the terrible things the Koran actually says that Muslims and Muslim sympathizers would like it not to say. It gets tiresome, particularly as it always gets raised as if it were a new and interesting issue instead of an old and tired one. Muslims have been complaining about this for decades. Don't you think its about time that some Muslim leaders got together and produced an authorized edition?
Subtle gradations of meaning can be lost during translation. The fact they you don't know this simply shows that you haven't done a lot of translation, especially of ancient languages. Jews don't consider translations of the Koran as authoritative (or even "holy", in any sense) for exactly this reason. The same is true of many Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist texts. For example, any "serious" student of Taoism is expected to learn ancient Chinese.
Bible translations vary widely too, and there are a few cases where even good translations differ on substantive matters, but the gist of the sentiment is almost always clear
No it isn't. There are often radical differences in translations which can lead to serious doctrinal differences. Part of the split between Protestant and Catholic has to do with the interpretation of various passages. You're coming from the perspective of an unbeliever to whom such fine distinctions don't matter. They do to Christians.
And you also don't seem to recognize the awesome effort put into translating the Bible into English by Christians. Literally BILLIONS of USD has been spent, and literally centuries of effort. There certainly ARE English translations of the Koran, it's just that they aren't as precise as the Bible translations because nowhere near as much effort has been spent translating them and there is less incentive to do so as the Islamic academic culture strongly prefers study of the Koran in Arabic (see above). I find it unlikely that Islamic scholars are going to risk the integrity of the Koran by altering this culture.
Who cares about silly differences in beliefs. If an individual or group chooses to believe in christ and follows his teachings, that makes him or that group christians. That's the definition of the word "christian". A church that is officially called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", states that Christ is the savior and central to their beliefs and teaches that their members should follow his teachings, is clearly a christian church regardless of other beliefs. The same could easily be said about Catholics because others don't beleive that praying to saints is correct. Realize that this practice is as backward to many christians as modern day prophets and other books of scripture beyond the bible. I've always found the "Mormons are not christians" statement ridiculous. They are Christians but with different views like many other churches.
What's the difference? Figure it out for yourselves:
-----
Martin Scorsese releases a film that was mildly heretical to Christianity. Some Christians stand around with placards protesting. Some boycott his movie. Most yawned and flip the newspaper to page two.
The very same year Salman Rushdie publishes a book that is mildly heretical to Islam. He received death threats and had to go into hiding. Noted peace activist turned Mulsim, Cat "Peace Train" Stevens, affirms that Rushdie should be killed. A fatwah was issued against booksellers (I was one) selling the tome. To this day, Rushdie remains in hiding.
-----
Over a decade later another movie was released that was mildly heretical to Christianity. A bunch of Christians boycotted it. A few sermons were preached from a few pulpits. That was it. Dale Brown and Tom Hanks made a lot of money.
Near the same time, a Danish newspaper publishes some cartoons, a few of which were mildly heretical to Islam. The Islamic world threw a shit fit, and engaged in violent protest for weeks. People died. Newpapers around the world tossed out principles held since the dawn of the Enlightenment and refused to print the cartoons.
-----
An opera that is planning to portray the severed heads of religious leaders is cancelled out of fear of violence... not because of the head of Jesus, but because of the head of Mohammed.
-----
Are you beginning to see the picture? Certainly Christianity has a checkered past, but it embraced the Enlightenment and Reformation. It has moved past its sins. But Islam remains rooted in a violent medieval mindset.
I used to think it was just a small group of fanatic extremist Muslims that were the problem. But then I started to realize that mainstream Islam was not condemning the fanatics. They were being awfully quiet. Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over suicide bombings? Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over Hamas and PLO thuggery? Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over Wahabism? Over femail genital mutilation? Over "honor" killings? Over the torture and murder of homosexuals?
Western Civilization needs to STOP pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. It needs to stop sheltering Islam in the blanket of political correctness. It needs to stop pretending that the camel isn't in the tent. It needs to take a break from bashing Christianity and recognize where the real danger lies.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
What more does it take to be called Christian? Christians are followers of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.
"Orthodox" Christians are Trinitarian and follow the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not, therefore they are not "orthodox" Christians but heretics as defined be the universal catholic church (by this I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and most Protestants). Mormons follow a prophet and holy texts that contradict large sections of the New Testament and who are specifically rejected by the universal catholic church as frauds.
In fact, from a doctrinal point of view, the Mormon faith sits in a very similar position as Islam. Muslims accept the validity of Jesus as a prophet, but reject the Trinity and instead follow a later prophet and his holy texts.
So Mormons are Christian pretty much in the same way that Muslims are Christian.
theres nothign wrong with the bible. nothign at all but ...
...
its not the word of god, its a biography of jesus and what ALLAH told him. by paul and mark and matthew and
oh and also it wasnt translated correctly by king james ii et al (how many hundreds of years and what kind of mutation did the meanings of those words go thru?)
plus the translators had a bias and a direction to their translating
as far as i know the most accurate gospels would be the red sea scrolls and the gospel of barnabas.
what never heard of them? i wonder why the pope dint tell u about them
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
"Orthodox" Christians are Trinitarian and follow the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not, therefore they are not "orthodox" Christians but heretics as defined be the universal catholic church (by this I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and most Protestants).
I agree that Mormons are not "Orthodox" Christians as you've defined them. Mormons do however worship and follow Jesus Christ as their Savior, God, and Messiah. A Christian is simply a follower of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.
It's also quite interesting that you bring up the idea of heretics. There was a point in history where Protestants were viewed as heretics and were persecuted for their beliefs. Are they Christian? Obviously they are. Were they Christian? Obviously they were, but weren't accepted into the majority because their beliefs differed from the mainstream.
So Mormons are Christian pretty much in the same way that Muslims are Christian.
There is a difference between acknowledging Christ, and worshipping him. Muslims don't believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
Many Jews acknowledge Christ as a prophet, but they don't believe that he was the Messiah.
Some Buddhists see Christ as an 'enlightened individual'
Mormons are Christian because they worship and follow Christ. These other groups are not Christian because they neither follow nor worship Him.
Aye, the King James version of the Bible does have some inaccuracies in the translation, but they have been corrected in more recent versions translated from the original Gree, Aramaic, hebrew, etc. and because the original texts in the original languages are much more available to common people than in the 1600's (I believe that's the right century...), they can't exactly hide any intentional mistranslations anymore- there are enough (though not a whole lot) of people who learn the old languages that could call them out. And I'd have to disagree with your thesis that the Red Sea scrolls would be more accurate gospels than the ones we have today, since the scrolls contained only copies of the Torah and other books which are now part of the Old Testament, and make absolutely no mention in Christ, as they were for the most part written before his ministry. They do, however confirm the accuracy of Old Testament texts to at least Jesus' time, which was heartening for Christians and Jews. As for the Gospel of Barnabus, I have no first-hand knowledge of the text, but from what I understand it was removed because its authorship is under scrutiny, and because it goes against the whole rest of the New testament in the basic tenets of the faith- basically the equivalent of Jesus saying to love your neighbor, then turning around and commanding his disciples to stone the prostitute, a practice which although unfortunately practiced by a lot of Christians, is not really in keeping with the faith. Oh, and I was not under the impression that Allah would have told Jesus to tell everyone he was the son of God, if he were only a prophet secondary in importance to Mohammed who would come later. Of course I also don't understand why Mohammed's followers would want to destroy those who follow another of Allah's prophets as infidels. I know the Christians haven't exactly been nice to the Muslims, what with the Crusades and all, but certain leaders inn the Muslim community do more than reciprocate- something that I'm sure is as much out of keeping with the Quran as the Crusades were with the Bible.
Christians is a name Christians define as those who believe the bible with first preference and everything else in relation to that. The reason we do it that way is because we don't want people saying they have more authority than what's there because what's there is what Jesus taught or fairly well consistent with what Jesus taught.
Is this not a fair distinction?
As for the King James being mis-translated (which someone mentioned above), that's hardly significant, especially in the modern era, as all the different translations are based on the earliest available manuscripts (not on previous translations, and the dead sea scrolls have since been included).
Also, on the topic of Nick Gisburne, can we have this article changed slightly; I don't generally accept misquotes as part of logical arguments. For example, he asserts that Mark 7:9-10 is telling us that "Jesus criticises the Jews for not killing their disobedient children", which is grossly inaccurate. Jesus is being criticised for not following the law to the letter (something Gisburne tries to tell us Jesus is all for at another place), which Jesus replies to by giving an example of where the Jews don't follow the law to the letter, but consider themselves justified in doing so. I'm doing a quick statistical analysis of his claims, and so far he's averaging around 13% accuracy per claim (weighting based on the severity of the quotes as presented, the relative severity in context, and how fair what he claims the verse says is, given the first two points), but keep in mind he gives no hint of counter points (verses that contradict his view); that 13% is purely on the points he gives as arguments for Jesus supporting cruelty.
Sadly, despite the hype this is just another in a long line of arguments that attempts to explain why a rational person can't believe in God and fails miserably. If you do have a rational argument against Christianity, or just that disproves God, please let me know. (I'd give you my email, but the spam protection it has is lousy; I'm looking into an alternative address (preferably that I control) that I can publish safely for this purpose)
Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
While there is Google playing up to China, and other such "evil" things, Google in my book is much better than Yahoo or other companies in terms of policy. This situation it was one lowly Gootube staff reviewer, not a company-wide policy that messed up. Yahoo made it policy to hunt down and hand over dissenter idenities to China.
Islam is particularly not a religion that says 'turn them your other cheek' - it actually encourages retaliation against 'the infidel'. 'infidel', 'against the religion' concepts are broad, and can be reevaluated to suit anyone's wish.
hence, whereas christians wont be attacking the site, trying to ban the site in sweden, argentina, russia or anywhere, it cant be said for the muslims, especially those in arab countries. even so that the guy himself would easily be the target of attempts on his own life, if only some sheikh (curious concept, as islam does not allow priest class) showed him as a target with a 'fetva'.
it seems that youtube is covering itself from islamic intolerance, something which we experienced with the denmark cartoon event.
in middle east, and immediate nearby islamic countries, for over 50 years now, unlimited number of varied publications, some even with the hand of government, are condemning, villifying, demeaning, insulting west, western countries, their prominent contemporary and historical figures, demeaning christianity, jews, buddhism, anything you can think of that are not islam, and even insulting. they have all been doing that, or allowing that. however when not even the same thing, a much lesser offense is done in a western country, it suddenly became a scandal.
Read radical news here
Please, tell me you aren't being serious. The Christian religion is every bit as violent as Islam. Perhaps you've heard of the Crusades -- how many people were killed by Christian hands back then? It's really not terribly different than the Jihad some Muslims are trying to fight today. Need something directly from the Christian holy book to prove the point? Try Matthew 10:21 -- "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father to the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." A few verses later (Matthew 10:34), Jesus clearly states "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword." The Christian Bible is full of this stuff if one actually bothers to read it. It's a quintessential example of Orwellian doublethink.
So yes, you're right, the Islamic terrorists are truly the most devout Muslims. Will you now carefully consider who the most devout Christians might be? The answer may surprise you. Isn't it also time for the entire world to realize that Christianity, by its very nature and essential principals, openly supports, encourages, and propogates terrorism of the worst kind?
Getting back to the point, though.. I suspect the video was flagged for review by people who thought it was offensive to Muslims, but was subsequently removed due to copyright infringement in the audio portion. Call it a technicality, I suppose.
I just watched a video yesterday where Nick was talking about his situation. This was only a few days after having watched a video from someone else, TheAmazingAtheist, which was a critical rant about Christianity.
Personally, I'm getting just as sick of fearful, ranting atheists as I am of militant monotheists who insist that everyone must subscribe to their beliefs or die. I don't believe for one moment that YouTube should be silencing only the atheists and allowing Muslims and Christians to continue to speak, but I'd have no problem at all with it if they were impartial in shutting both groups up. Their debate is entirely subjective and emotional on both sides and benefits nobody.
Both groups need to accept that other people have every right to their own beliefs, and that if we don't want to accept their belief system, that that is a valid choice. I will also admit to being less sympathetic towards Islam in this situation; Muslims have never been willing to accept the idea that other people should not have to accept their belief system, and I really feel that the only reason why the atheists are being as vocal as they are is because of how threatened they are feeling. There are some atheists who think that the only way that their belief system can survive is if monotheism ceases to exist. Richard Dawkins is only the most prominent of these, but there are many others as we're seeing here.
The Islamic world needs to accept once and for all the fact that, apart from anything else, the non-Islamic world is several times larger than it is. It would also seriously help Muslims' case if they'd stop behaving quite so much like the Borg. Resistance in this case fairly evidently is not futile; Charlemagne and the Knights of Malta were among the first to prove that, and other members of the non-Islamic world have managed to fairly consistently demonstrate it since.
To both groups, I say this. You can keep your own beliefs yourselves, but I am not either atheistic or Islamic, I have no desire to be, and I'm not going to be. Deal with it.
I also have no real sympathy for Nick Gisburne as an individual...from everything I've seen, the guy is a whining pain in the neck, and I can also remember thinking what a truly moronic jackass TheAmazingAtheist was when I was watching his rant a few days ago. The rest of you might say that Gisburne being obnoxious as an individual isn't the point here, and that it's free speech as a principle that's at stake. What you're not seeing is that as someone else said, YouTube aren't a government, and Nick also wasn't paying them for the hosting service. He has plenty of other options for hosting his material, archive.org and p2p being only the two most immediately apparent.
He made a claim about 'most denominations'. You declared him wrong, and as proof, offered one source about one denomination.
I can also tell you, with certainty, that many catholics believe the bible is without error, regardless of what the official policy of the higher ups in their organization may say.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
"I am not sure why you feel the need to offend people."
Good point.
So why are Moslems offending Americans by calling the US the "Great Satan"?
Why are Moslems offending non-Moslems by calling them "infidels"?
Why is that insane jerk who runs Iran offending Jews by claiming the Holocaust didn't happen?
Why are Moslems constantly commiting acts of terrorism and barbarism against innocent people? Hmmm, I agree with you absolutely - I am not sure why they feel the need to offend people. Are you? Tell me, why are these violent so-called "religious" people being such offensive assholes?
Martin Luther King basically said, "Judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin."
It seems to me like those who are "offending" any religious zealots are doing basically the same thing. The character of religious zealots SUCKS! So of course they should be offended. Offending religious zealots is the only rational response to the offensiveness of their zealotry.
There is something truly perverse, sickly, and un-Godly wrong with someone who offers violence in response to a mere cartoon.
When, oh when, oh when, will the few Moslems who have a sense of humor (if any) rise up against their humorless violent zealot cohorts?