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.
You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation. The US Constitution guarantees that "government" shall not infringe the right to a citizen's free speech. Any time you have a non-governmental agency "it doesn't apply".
Amazon can cut off anyone they wish, so can Google. Google is not obligated to do a damn thing concerning free speech. They can censor anyone they want because they are a corporation, not the government. The law/Constitution isn't going to protect someone from posting in a forum/newsgroup ran by Google. Too bad, that's what you accept when you post in Google's forum/newsgroup; a place owned by essentially a private party.
The only repercussions from something like this (private censorship) is the free market system. Boycott, attention getting, etc. But you can't force them to make them accept your free speech.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
If YouTube decides that a video is offensive to a segment of its users, then it has every right to remove the video. Expecting free speech protection from a private entitity is a bit absurd. The local mall would throw my ass on the street if I stood inside protesting leather products.
The lesson here? Host your videos somewhere else, provide your own video hosting service, or deal with YouTube's practices.
Okay, apparently half the posters don't understand what Freedom of Speech is all about. Google and Amazon are not the government (yet at least). The first amendment protects you from the government taking away your rights, not corporations and individuals. So what if Google removed a video, it's their property that he's posting it on. If they don't like something, they have a right to remove it. To say they don't have this right, would be like saying if someone put up a political sign in your yard of someone from the party you don't support, that you don't have a right to remove it because you're violating someone else's free speech.
As for the Amazon case, sure, you have a right to call and complain. Nothing says that Amazon has to actually listen to you.
In the end, these aren't issues of free speech. These are people getting their panties in a knot because someone wouldn't listen to them.
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.
The religeon defines a lot of our culture even if we don't believe it. It depends on how this is done - going after extreme loonies doesn't make the entire thing invalid.
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.
That video is about Mormons, not Christians. It's true that Mormons claim to be Christians, but that claim is very controversial and is not accepted by most of mainstream Christianity. There are literally thousands of different Christian groups, and to some extent they all reject some of the beliefs of others, but most groups accept that most of the others are in fact Christians. The hit rate with Mormonism, however, is very low, in both directions. That is, most Christian groups do not accept Mormonism as a form of Christianity, and Mormonism rejects most other groups as well.
Of course, the question of who gets to define the term "Christian" is a complex one, but if you let the majority of people who apply it to themselves also be the ones who define it, then it probably doesn't include Mormonism.
Also, one other telling difference is that most Christian groups use only the Bible as their sacred text. Mormonism also has the Book of Mormon, which (as I understand it) takes precedence in case the two disagree. The only other major difference between sacred texts within Christianity is over the exact canonization of the books within the Bible. Catholics have a few more than Protestants, and there are a few other differences here and there. But this is a comparatively minor difference: all books that Protestants and Catholics disagree on are from the same historical time period, and the disagreement is really more about authenticity and authorship than anything. If you categorize groups based on what their sacred text is, Mormonism has about as much similarity to Christianity as Islam has.
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
English-language translations of the Quran vary so widely that Islam doesn't accept them as translations, they are all regarded as paraphrases. You should read this short article to get a feel for how the various translations make errors.
Here are some other translations of that same verse (Al-Qasas 28:62):
Khalifa: The day will come when He calls upon them, saying, "Where are those idols you had set up beside Me?"
Pickthall: On the day when He will call unto them and say: Where are My partners whom ye imagined?
Shakir: And on the day when He will call them and say: Where are those whom you deemed to be My associates?
Sher Ali: And on that day HE will call to them, and say, `Where are those whom you allege to be my associates?'
Yusuf Ali: That Day (God) will call to them, and say "Where are my 'partners'?- whom ye imagined (to be such)?"
Transliteration: Wayawma yunadeehim fayaqoolu ayna shuraka-iya allatheena kuntum tazAAumoona
South Park has lampooned a multitude of religions since the first season. Last year Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) forced them to remove the image of Mohammad from an episode.
Work.
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
His new YouTube profile
Unfortunately he hasn't reposted all of his videos (God's Magic Banana Factory was hilarious) but God willing, (ha) he will soon.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
http://www.youtube.com/user/NickGisburne2000
The full story is on there. If someone in Slashdot can change the story link to go there, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Nick Gisburne
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
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. Mormonism rejects most other groups as well. The claim that Mormonism rejects other groups is false.
From the Articles of Faith :
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
Many Mormon charity and humanitarian groups work hand in hand with Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and other religious and non religious groups.
I am a Christian and a Mormon. Some of my closest friends are atheists. I work with and respect people of all faiths.
1. In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him.
:)
2. And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord over all the earth when it was suited to Man.
3. And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.
etc.
was that the concept was taken seriously at all levels he saw and that proposals died quickly in meetings if someone questioned the ethical implications.
That's "former employee", so it's not like he's defending the source of his paycheck.
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!
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.
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
>>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.
It isn't that bad. Some of the newer versions hashed out the major problems. Somethings already were well enough accepted to be unfixable. Young woman being translated into virgin, using the name of the lord in vain rather than in a false oath. NIV might be better, but when referring to inaccuracies... many of them are not translation errors. They are contradictory in the original text as well.
>>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...),
Actually the original texts in the original languages are just as unavailable as ever. We still don't have a copy of the original, not even a copy of a copy in the right language. We have a huge number of different versions from the 4th century which differ widely from each other. We also have some earlier fragments which also differ pretty widely.
>>they can't exactly hide any intentional mistranslations anymore- there are enough (though not a whole lot)
They didn't hide them exactly. For example, 2 Samuel 21:19, typically have the version (KJV) italicize "brother of" because the words "brother of" is simply added regardless of not being in the original text. They obviously realized that Elhanan killing Goliath would clash with the same story of David killing the same person. Other translations go ahead and ignore that and have Goliath die twice (as happens in the original text).
>>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
The Red Sea scrolls have less editing than the modern versions we have. Accuracy is completely different as they all pretty well depict events that we are more and more sure did not happen. Archeology tends to disagree with the Bible when the two meet.
>>and make absolutely no mention in Christ, as they were for the most part written before his ministry.
The work dates to the late first century early second century. They are all written after "Christ's ministry" (mythicist quotes) -- Though, they probably do predate the Gospels which were written mid-second century or so.
>>They do, however confirm the accuracy of Old Testament texts to at least Jesus' time, which was heartening for Christians and Jews.
They no more confirm the accuracy of the OT than finding a first printing of Great Expectations would prove the existence of Pip.
>>basically the equivalent of Jesus saying to love your neighbor, then turning around and commanding his disciples to stone the prostitute,
The "don't throw stones" story is actually added in the 4th century.
>>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 Mohammad who would come later.
Muslims do not hold that Jesus was the son of God, nor that Allah would have told him to say such. Rather that people later made that claim as they were misguided.
>>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.
You don't? Well, because Muslims are not followers of Mohammad. They are followers of Allah. If they were worshiping Muhammad they would be idolaters. Just as worshiping any prophet of Allah would be idolatry. Further, those who deify Jesus are accused by the Koran of making "Partners unto Allah" -- beyond idolatry this is blasphemy. Both are punishable by death. A quick read of the Koran would answer these questions for you.
>>I know the Christians haven't ex
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
"Can you prove that, assuming that that is true, that it is indeed a facet of the respective religions, and not the persecution of Muslims (don't tell me there isn't any)?"
Islamic countries have practiced institutionalized religious intolerance against unbelievers long before any decently founded complaint of "oppression" could be launched. (I.e. British and French (semi-)occupation of the non-Saudi ME between roughly 1920-1946 after the Ottoman empire collapsed. Also, the brunt of Islamic intolerance is not directed at westerners, but at any indigenous apostates.
"because of the actions of a few"
Well, the Talibs weren't *that* few. The idiots in the White House who thought the Iraq war was a good idea were indeed initially rather few in number though.
"the Christian world is bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan"
For the last couple of years, most of the bombing has been from various indigenous groups that blast the crap out of each other for religous and / or ethnic reasons. Mass bombing is not presently seen as an effective counterinsurgency tactic. (It can work, but it causes too much bad press)
The latest situation is that I posted 2 near-identical videos to YouTube, in the account I was forced to create after my original accounts and videos were removed:
One contained information showing negative passages from the Qur'an
One contained information showing negative passages from the Bible
Their formats were similar, just the origin of the material differed.
The Qur'an video has just been removed by YouTube and flagged as 'Content Inappropriate'
The Bible video? It has not been touched. It's there now.
YouTube is censoring any comment which puts Islam in a bad light. Negative Christian comments are being ignored.
I have posted a new YouTube video about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEaC6Azs9DE
And there is more information on my web site:
http://www.gisburne.com/
Please contact YouTube with any protests you may have. This is censorship, and YouTube is caving in to pressure from Muslims, undeniably.
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion