Slashdot Mirror
New Australian Laws To Censor Terror DVDs
An anonymous reader writes "Within a few weeks, Australia may introduce new laws to censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism. This is not the first time material has been censored in Australia, which has previously censored films and banned publications, including one titled Defence of the Muslim Lands (censored in mid 2006 by Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock). The proposed laws are aimed to target material such as a DVD by Feiz Mohammad containing some of his past controversial sermons calling for jihad and comparing Jews with pigs. The Office of Film and Literature Classification previously classified this DVD as 'PG', suitable for viewing by anyone under 15 years of age with parental guidance."
Reducing how much exposure such DVDs get may reduce how many are produced, which is hard to argue as a bad thing. On the other hand, giving them the kind of exposure that, say, Slashdotting something does, kinda nullifies that view in the short run ~_^
I like basketball!!1!
Will that include archival news and documentary footage about the US funding of the taliban and Iran contra?
Censor only those who would censor!
First, "terrorist" means radical Islam.
Next, "terrorist" means minority party.
(IANAL)
You guys are getting worse than the US, mates. Who would have thought that was possible. Tell you what, bloke, when we're done with Bush we'll send him over to you. Prime Minister Bush. Hmm. That has a nice ring to it.
Canadian Bacon
'nuf said
This just allows them to switch from spending their time burning DVDs to spending their time cutting the heads off of US Servicemen in Iraq.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The Australian government banned Grand Theft Auto also. They actually had it pulled from the shelves.
i n712700.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/29/tech/ma
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Does that mean they're going to outlaw anything that's Pro-US?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Smarter just to let the terrorists have their DVDs legally. You can easily track the distribution for intelligence gathering purposes. Furthermore even if you fail tracking the distribution say you do a covert house search & find such DVDs: at least, at operational level, this points you out to be on right track. Also post doing a house raid if at least you find some "terrorist paraphenalia" you can allay community fears that the bust was random/purely motivated by racial profiling.
Terror DVD, is that a new name for a movie with Rosie O'Donnell in it? If so, what a great law.
The proposed laws are aimed to target material such as a DVD by Feiz Mohammad
Wow - Who does this guy know in government to do him such a favor?
If the US government did this, I'd own his complete works a week later. Hell, I've never even heard of him, and even the threat of another supposedly-1st-world government banning him makes me at least curious.
Good job, guys - Someday, you'll learn that for some problems, ignoring them will do a whole lot more to make them go away than active intervention ever could.
Look, without having some idiot who doesn't understand the word call me a racsist, let's just say I'm against islam. But censorship is never the answer. Not only is it stupidly innefectual, it sends the message that "freedom" is only for those who toe the line.
:(
Of course, it's not about stopping "terrorism", it's about having something else to threaten / charge uncooperative third party muslims with
And what about people like me with a morbid curiosity about how the other side is planning to ruin our world? I'm allowed to watch 20 minutes of just-as-evil evangelical bullshit on telly as long as it's about jesus.
"God will (and wants us to help him) stike down $FOO" is always bad, be it "Atheists", "Jews", "The west", "Fags", or "Abortion doctors"
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
1. Make home movie
2. ???
3. Every teenager wants it! Profit!
Thank you Australia for missing in the lost step in our business model!
Beep beep.
Incredibly dumb move. It just draws attention to some material that probably sucks.
Back in 1989, during the 2 Live Crew censorship controversy, I remarked, after listening to their stuff, that without the censorship, they would have never made it off the South Florida club circuit. With the censorship controversy, they hit #29 on the Billboard 200. But by 1991, they'd peaked, and broke up around 1992. There was a "New 2 Live Crew", which went nowhere and broke up in 1995, a reunion in 1998, and another reunion in 2005. Nobody cared much. Wikipedia says "The two core members are still popular within the Miami Bass community and Dancehall goers".
Or, in other words, they're back on the South Florida club circuit where they belong. Censorship gave them their 15 minutes of fame.
And how long will it be until some religious zealots includes such films as "The Wizard of Oz" because you know the wicked Witch of the West was doing all sorts of things that might be considered "terrorism." Oh, and that Harry potter series THAT has got to go and...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I mean it is a film of a man being tortured for two hours...
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
I guess V for Vendetta would just be a blank screen and bleeped from the opening title?
If it was up to the current junta one should not read anything but the Bible and should not watch anything but romantic comedies and action films where the all-around good American hero beats/shoots/blows the shit out of all enemies of freedom and democracy or possibly where friendship and courage paves the way to a better future and/or eliminates all vampires, evil aliens and those who do not vote the right (pun intended) way.
Don't forget that this is a country which took Fatcat, a children's programme featuring a big cat off screen on the basis that the cat had no clothes and thus indecently exposed him/herself (hard to know with a cat costume, really) to innocent children. On the other hand, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Power Rangers were perfectly OK. This is a country where on a BBC science show about the human reproduction pixelised the placenta (held by the reporter, no woman or baby in sight) for its explicite sexual nature...
There is already a terror censorship on books, now there will be one on DVDs. Business as usual.
OK, here goes any karma I may have. First off, I am an Australian. Secondly, I hate our current government, John Howard is George Bushs' lapdog. Thirdly, I totally agree with these measures, if indeed they become law. Why, I hear you ask? Simple, really. People, there are serious NUTJOBS running around, not only in Oz, but all over the world. Why should we as a community fan the flames of their insanity by providing them with inflammatory video material? I see absolutely no redeeming qualities in any pro-terrorist video or book. If somebody, anybody, wants to study this garbage for some obscure reason, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult to import a copy or whatever. Free speech is all fine and dandy in the abstract, but when that extends to exhorting terrorism or violence or jihad, well, fuck off, I prefer that it is not allowed. I am serious.
I'm in to sadism, bestiality and necrophilia. Am I flogging a dead horse?
Ripped Off! That war cost Aussies $3 Billion and now they won't let us watch the movie?
Here's an Idea: Why don't don't they get SONY to distribute the Terror videos?
Most 'customers' would find it doesn't work on their video player. When they try to watch it on their PC, they get a SONY RootKit.
Now imagine the look on Osamas face when he sees a 'Spyware Detected' Popup. I can't think of a faster way to flush a band of Mujahadeen out of their cave.
But the British Empire never gave its subjects one...
Then, again, even the Free Speech-protecting Constitution is no guarantee of Free Speech, as the presence of rather draconian laws against possessing child pornography in America demonstrates...
We may all be revolted by the child pornography, but we have to remember, that the defense of pornography in general (Larry Flint et al.) was based on the Free Speech argument — not on the usefulness of the art or anything like it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Heh; I guess our friends down under can't play the Final Fantasy series anymore! Well, at least George Orwell can live on in Metal Gear... ...for a time, I suppose.
any critic of the world's most dangerous person.
I hope this helps the criminal investigation of The White House.
Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout, ACTIVIST
Example: "I think Bush should go!" well some terrorist group might have that goal too so by saying that I could be considered to be supporting the goals of some terrorist group and could open myself up to prosecution.
Oppressive societies have used and abused laws like this quite effectively. In Apartheid-era South Africa there was a law against furthering the aims of communism or the ANC. So if you spoke out against racism/the church you could be harrassed along the lines of reasoning that: the communists promote equality/ are anti-religion, you promoted equality/ are anti-religion, therefore you furthered the aims of communism.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
According to TFA, all they're talking about is changing the designation of films from PG to higher ratings by the *film censors* and not about banning the film from sale or distribution or anything of the sort. The proposed bill would simply require certain topics to have higher censor ratings.
Any free-thinking adult can still buy them.
Any banning of the Sheik Feiz DVDs will only boost their popularity amongst disgruntled western suburbs muslim youth. Illegality increases desirability. And the 'cheap dvd burner' genie has already escaped from the bottle.
What's needed to counter this is not repression - "repress a religion, and it will flourish" (Frank Herbert), but a social outreach campaign to seek to discover why these pissed-off young westies are so easy to reach, and how to entice them into other less destructive outlets for their energies.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
like suitable for terrorists? :P
Would this include a movie such as V for Vendetta?
Censorship is a beauty only held in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the "Nappy headed Ho's" off the cuff remark by Imus. Press conferences were held, meetings with the governor and Imus were held, the "Ho's" in question went on Oprah, and also Jesse Jackson wants the word "Nigger" actually banned. BUT, some jagoff can produce a dvd/post on the internet calling for the DEATHS of the Jews, and actually incite violence against another race and religion, but nobody cares. There is no such thing as a totally "free" society. Saying you hate Jews and calling them pigs is one thing. Inciting others to kill, or attack a religion or race is not something that should be allowed but is, especially if the "free speech" advocates are Islamic Extremists.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
Doesn't Borat compare Jews to the devil, claim they have horns and can turn into all sorts of nasty creatures? I guess that does it for Borat in Australia then.
You're not debating with the fanatics who're producing the material. You're presenting your counter-claims and viewpoints to the OTHER people who might be listening to them.
Besides, where is the line drawn? When you allow the government to "censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism", does that mean the DVDs used as an example? Or does that also include any news story that mentions any weaknesses in any industry, port, airline, or in safety procedues? Any news story critical of the military or armed forces? Any book or website that in any way, discusses anything that conceivably (or inconceivably) could be used as a weapon?
Is disagreeing with your government's stance on terrorism "supportive of terrorism"?
Is all of our news subject to redaction by official goverment goons?
Sorry, but censorship is not "appropriate".
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
the summary says the australian government MAY propose new laws..
I'm not up to par on the finer points of aussie government, but it sounds like this nerd rage wankoff is based simply on speculation of something that might happen. Like the "Canadian DMCA" article.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
In this case the "where they belong" (ie where the CDs are currently sold) is outside Mosques. Frankly you would be hard pressed to convince me that limiting DVDs preaching violent jihad and and hate to that "circuit" is a good thing.
I don't think there's much chance of Joe Public hearing about it in the news and the DVD hitting the charts.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
i am an australian and i think this has been posted wrong slightly...they arent banning the DVD's, they are just stopping children from watching them as it is children being mentioned with regards to suicide bombing. the last thing i think anyone wants is children committing suicide in any form
If you really feel like that, ban the Christian bible and we'll talk.
Man, it seems like no matter where I turn, many countries are shooting themselves in the foot. At least, the politicians are. Australia looked like the place to be for copyright law, judging from the anecdotes I've read here on /. (Yes, I know, anecdote doesn't equal law, but all the same.) In all fairness though, the nations that spout "freedom!" so often seem to be not so free. It seems that for every good point a place has, a few go sour. I live in Canada, where I've been all my life (not that long, granted), but even we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot in that regard. Apparently something akin to the DMCA is going in front of the legislators here some time soon. I'm not looking forward to that... It looks like I'm going to have to learn a new language, what with basic problems like this...
UK -- survelliance, censorship
Australia -- censorship
Canada -- amending copyright law, some dubious, boneheaded decisions
United States -- DMCA, RIAA, etc.
Yeah, I left out a few, but that's because I'm ignorant. I don't know what exactly is going on in places like Ireland, Scotland, South Africa, or any of the other random spots around the globe were you can get by on English. (I say get by because I've been planning to learn another language at some point anyways.) I was seriously considering moving to Australia if things get too out of hand here in Canada. As I've heard said, you fight it by taking action. I hope it doesn't get to the point where I have to move to a different country, though...
Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
Imagine I make two DVDs. In the first DVD I argue that it was quite right and proper for NATO to bomb the Serbian TV station during the Kosovo crisis. I argue that although some 15 civilians were killed, it was a legitimate target since it was a Serbian propaganda tool (which is what NATO argued). On the second DVD I argue that it was quite right and proper for the IRAQ to bomb the BBC because the BBC is a tool of British propaganda.
Both should be condemned as terrorist acts and their justifications dismissed. Governments are just as capable of committing terrorist acts as small non-government groups are. The problem is we allow governments to get away with it time and time again, whereas we actually make some effort to pursue the "small guys".
This is just an idiotic election ploy. Clearly this isn't going to affect the distribution of radical Islamic material, nor should that be a valid goal. But for those who have fallen prey to the bullshit propaganda that goes with the 'war on terror', hoWARd's is seen to be much stronger than Rudd, so it's obvious that he'll be looking to beat his chest on the issue in an election year.
Just how many people have been prevented from downloading movies via P2P software with all the efforts of the DVD cartel? Not many. So how many will be prevented from getting access to this material that hoWARd deems to terrible for our eyes and ears? Most likely, none. There is, of course, the chance that some Muslims will be charged over distributing said material, again, because this is an election year. But is this going to prevent terrorism? Not at all.
The biggest factor in raising the threat of terrorism in Australia is not radical Islamic material, nor is it the lack of security, nor the lack of invasions of our privacy, nor the lack of attacks on our civil liberties. The biggest factor in raising the threat of terrorism in Australia is our foreign policy, and the degree to which Dubya's dick is being rammed up our collective arses in the name of democracy.
Our government is in the stone age on anything that involves technology. They don't realise that DVDs can be downloaded off bittorrent just as easily as bought from the shop. Censorship is not only the wrong thing to do but its also useless. Unless they want to block 60% of the net like the Chinese do.
It appears that the Australian government doesn't think much of the smarts of the average Aussie.
If you treat people like children , people behave like children. Australia deserves better.
One thing to note about this story Philip Ruddock when he held a press conference about this issue he had not himself seen the dvd in question as was noted in the abc news (australia) report on this issue. Material is classified by the office of film an literature classificaitons, it is set a series of rules of what is ok and what is not. There already exists law banning "insciteing terrorisum" and the oflc assesed the dvd in question and found in it's independent assesment that it did not break this rule and was therfore fit for general consumption. It seems strange that the government just wants to make noise about something that fully compiles with the classification laws especially when the person in charge has not reviewed thie material itself. There are occasionally some films that are incorrectly classified, what normally happens is the government can request that it be reassesed and they change it's rateing. This reclassification stage (from what i can see) has not been requested
A Canadian government panel has recommended a similar law here, making it illegal to glorify terrorism.
Better hide your copies of Michael Collins or rush out to see the Wind That Shakes the Barley before it's too late.
If the glorious nation of Australia wants to see what good being a Closed Minded Politician is, then one only has to watch Machiavelli's personal nightmare, President Bush. theOnion goofs on this weekly, but when one listens to the tape, one cannot truly tell if it is a comedian, or the president; It is that close to the real thing.
"The difference between a terrorist, and a baby is?" - Larry the Cable Guy
Great, So next time I try to hand out DVDs proving the involvement of certain people within the US administration and elsewhere (not alqueda) in 9/11, or questioning how a mentally disabled guy with an IQ of 60, who had only ever shot a gun a couple of dozen times (and an air rifle at that), managed to get an inverted kill to wounded ratio of 1.6 killed for every wounded, in the port arthur massacre (he actually wounded or killed 31 people with his first 29 bullets!!!! in under 2 minutes!), Im going to be arrested as a "Terrorist" for calling our governments evil and saying they need to go/be removed/replaced? (I can see where this is going),
watch "the money masters" on google video
I'm sorry, your post has been redacted. All references to: " for endetta" hae been modified. In the future, oluntary compliance is demanded. Please reiew your posting procedures.
Really, though, what's terrorism? The media (and gubbermint) use the term pretty much indiscriminately. One of my local news stations referred to the massacre today as an "act of terror". I don't know what the guy's reason was, but there was a girlfriend angle suggested. If that is considered terrorism, then the word has become meaningless. I'd rather not trust a gubbermint (or media) linking reality and meaningless (but evocative) definitions.
>So instead of being able to counter racist propaganda with reasoned debate and counter evidence,
I have yet to see this ANYWHERE. When has racist propaganda ever been debated openly?
Hell, try to debate something like AIPAC financing and you are branded an anti-semite. End of discussion right there.
Your theory is a nice...theory but in the real world we never debate things which are politically incorrect. We like to think we do.
Reason vs. insanity fails 100% of the time because it is insanity. Do you understand? You cannot fight insanity by appealing to someone's reasoning - their reasoning isn't at play here. This is the one message that people seem to fail to understand.
And until we understand that people who think it is a valid form of political expression to behead schoolgirls cannot be reasoned with in any manner we will have people beheading schoolgirls. And stoning women to death. And killing people that wake up one day and feel their religion is no longer the driving force in their life.
You are trying to shout back a tidal wave. The water doesn't care but you are going to get washed away.
Have you, personally, held a placenta? How about a not-particularly fresh one?
I'd vote for pixllation for the same reason that they don't show cattle being disembowled on network television. It's gross.
Good luck. Theo van Gogh tried reasoned debate. A Muslim stabbed him dozens of times & then slit his throat, for criticizing Islam. What kind of a reasoned debate would you like to have with him? Do you have a dog? Your dog's existence offends and oppresses Muslims. (This includes seeing-eye dogs, by the way.) Do you let your dog in your house? Your existence offends and oppresses Muslims. Are you a Jew? a Hindu? a Christian? a Buddhist? Your existence is offensive and oppressive to Muslims, too. Tell us how you intend to debate these points ... or how you intend to beg for your life as your throat is slit.
so go easy on me.
I've been a loyal Slashdot reader for years, but have just signed up for an account. It has been apparent that over time the readership has gone from IT professionals with cute little quips to overangsted teenagers who know how to turn on a computer and sign up for an account.
While there have been many articles that have been brought to my attention that would have otherwise been overlooked in my busy schedule, there has recently been a rash of, well put nicely, stupidity being spouted at every chance these keyboard warriors are able.
These comments being brandied about are excellent examples of this downward spiral. Please bear with me whilst I point out the fallacies being brandied about.
1) The government is being racist by banning material?
Since when is Islam a race? Did I miss a memo? Granted the founders of it were Arabic, but since they only constitute ~20% of the total numbers, is it really their religion anymore? If it is, than anybody that hates Christians are racists toward Israelis since they started that religion.
2) Stopping the spread of violent material aimed toward youth means you can not counter it.
This is patently absurd. Remember when you were a kid? And how bitching Britney Spears, MC Hammer, or Christie Lauper was (depending on your age group could be some other 'pop idol')? Could you not agree that the decision making process of a child's brain is not formed well enough to make rational choices? It continues to blow my mind that Christians are crucified on Slashdot, but Muslims are not even though the propaganda they're postulating is so very much more damaging than what comes from the Chistian camp.
3) The government will not know when to stop censoring.
Ahh, the good old "They'll never stop, so we shouldn't have even a little bit". That logic works both ways, remember the Prohibition? For all the hand wringing that goes on in Slashdot, I'd dare anyone to prove that the government has abused their powers to the extent that we have an Orwellian society.
4) Islam is bad. But Christianity is worse.
I want to keep this a short post, but will just throw out some examples of that absurdity. Bombing Internet cafes Mosques telling people they'll die from a "deadly phone virus" Spreading racist rumours that melons will give you AIDS Murdering elderly Buddhists The courts giving free reign to serial killers Attacking university students, vandalising property, and stealing buses
Let me reiterate that the proposed Australian bill is not seeking to ban this material, rather change the system to avoid allowing media that is racist and advocating violence towards others from influencing childern. You must remember that their film board, by the very act of allowing the film to recieve a "PG" rating has essentially given the parents that do a poor job of raising their childern a go-ahead to plop them down in front of a tv and watch this filth.
I propose we get rid of the whole "War on Terrorism". You could never win it. Shoot, the Americans entrance into WWII was pretty much spurred by an act of terrorism. And you know what happened? The US didn't say they were going to fight terrorism. They said they were going to go and get rid of Shintoism and baggage that it carried with it. Only after they had broken that were the Japanese ready to rise to the current power that they now enjoy. The same thing needs to happen in Islam. The followers need to realise that the sway that the evil has over them needs to end. Only than will it be a legitimate religion.
smoking used to be banned in some places. people there just suddenly stopped smoking...
I already called the office of my representative to tell them how I feel about these laws. I'm against the laws on the grounds that I don't care how much of a nut some people are, I want my right to free speech and I don't appreciate any effort by the government to take it away, no matter how good the reason they give. There are hundreds of reasons why its a bad idea anyway but other posters can explain them better than me.
I'd advise any other Australians here to do the same: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memlist.pdf
The Australian Government also banned Mark Ecko's Getting Up. A game where the goal was to graffiti the word "freedom" in a city living under an oppressive Government. It was banned because it promoted illegal behavior, which is tremendously ironic. Some time later, and to the dismay of those behind the initial ban, the game was made available for download to Australians, so it has only really been banned from retail and rental outlets. The net effect of that ban was to bring people together, below the radar and in opposition to the Government, you can bet the net effect of this ban will be much the same.
It's probably worth mentioning that Australia has a federal election due sometime late this year. This is likely just the Australian government trying to prove that they're "tough on terror" without having to go to the trouble of actually doing something effective.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
... it's about politics.
Figure this. The chief censor is normally chosen by a board consisting of the state censors, and appointed by the Governor-General. A few days before this latest announcement the Federal Attorney-General announced he was going to ignore the state's recommendation and appoint an as-yet unnamed person to the position - strongly suspected to be Donald McDonald, long-time personal friend of the Prime Minister and previously a politically-appointed chairman of the ABC.
What better way to justify this in an election year than to imply the States are weak on "terror" and require the strong and decisive leadership of John Winston Howard's government?
It's a complicated smokescreen and lever, and there's a whole lot more to the machinations, but that's the surface of it. Throw in the government's favourite attack dogs (Fred Nile & Alan Jones), and you can see it's a little more Machiavellian than the "OMFG, Mooslims are plotting terrah to kill innocent Aussies!" that it's being made out to be...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
That would be the Australian Federal Police. The were originally going to be called the Federal Law Enforcement Agency but some people thought that would be a bad idea.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Here is a solution to the problem: before censoring the material, force (by law) the producers/protagonists spend a few days with the people they blaim. If, after that, they still have illogical claims, censor their stuff. If not, make their new opinion known worldwide through the internet.
Those disks weren't annoying in the beginning. I remember taking a piece of tape and putting it over the WP hole and got a new, free 1.44MB diskette every couple of weeks. I had entire backup sets made with AOL disks. Now the CD's, they're useless, unless you're making something that requires a shitload of CD's; Lamp, blinds, etc.
You appear to be one of them.
In any case, why don't we define "nutjob"? And what does any of this have to do with these videos?
No one is asking you. I don't provide such material either.
There's a fine line, however, between simply not providing such material, and actively banning it.
Even if you're right, when did it become your job, or the government's, to remove useless videos or books?
I see absolutely no redeeming qualities in yet another Madonna song, ever. But it is Madonna's choice to create this crap, and other people's choice to consume it. It doesn't affect me, and I see no reason I should be stopping it.
Why search for obscure reasons? What if I'm just morbidly curious about their insanity? (Incidentally, I wouldn't even be thinking about this if I hadn't heard of the censorship. So, in censoring these videos, they've actually made me curious about them, and I have the means to get them.)
Unless I'm misunderstanding, these are censorship laws, which would make that illegal. No one would be stopping me from catching a plane to somewhere else and watching it there, but why should I have to?
Wait, what?
That's a bit like saying, "Nonviolence is all fine and dandy in the abstract, but when it comes to real life, sometimes you just gotta kill someone."
Alright, you have a better justification -- you want to stop terror. But have the balls to say what you want to say:
You are against freedom of speech.
If not, you had better take back your whole post right now. I am serious.
Now that we've cleared that up, maybe we can really talk.
You see, I don't agree with you, and I don't think you should say what you're saying. I really wish you would shut the fuck up, because someone might believe you.
But my ideals won't let me say that I wish someone would shut you up, or even that your post should be deleted from Slashdot. My ideals include free speech, which means that you have the right to say what you want to say, even if I don't agree with you.
That is what Free Speech means. Terrorists get to say what they want to say, even if you don't agree with them.
This is based on a fundamental faith in human intelligence. (Cue jokes about stupid people now...) It's also based on a fundamental faith in right and wrong. Essentially, my faith is that given two opinions, equally well expressed, an intelligent person will choose a right opinion over a wrong one.
It's not always so black and white, true, but you seem to believe it is, so this should work for you: A reasonably intelligent person, given the choice between terrorism or peace. Do you really, honestly think they would choose terrorism?
And if they would, then why are you so convinced that you're right?
Now: What about the stupid people? What about the nutjobs?
Well, you're right, there are insane people out there. Do you really think you will stop them from being insane by removing terrorist propaganda? Do you really think that terrorist propaganda is enough to turn a sane person into a crazy one?
Let me give you a more concrete example: My father would not let me see The Matrix when it came out. H
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
This is unfortunately part of the Australian election cycle. There is a racist conservative vote to be obtained and John Howard and co. will do and say anything to get it (see Tampa).
Free thinking adults? The statement by Federal Attorney General Philip Ruddock in this news story http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s18970 19.htm indicates that we might not be allowed to be free thinking any more.
Ruddock said:
So Mr Ruddock wants to make Australia safer by stopping people from thinking in certain ways. Does that seem a little bit troubling to you?
I don't, but I heard enough from my grandma. It became IMPOSSIBLE to find good beer or liquor after prohibition. In fact, you couldn't find GOOD beer until the 1980s. You do realize that all prohibition did was close breweries and distileries that were founded by some very famous founding fathers. George Washington ran a still, and his distillery JUST reopened. We lost a major heritage from Prohibition.
Organized crime? You know that was a problem too, right? Crime went UP, not DOWN. Drinking became MORE of a problem. Prohibition ENCOURAGED drinking, by driving people together in gin joints. It became a fad, and organized crime stepped in to fill the vacuum.
What? Not ALL Christians or Muslims are, nor is anyone other than you making sweeping generalizations. Yes, there are radical Wahabbists. There are crazy cultist Christians too. The reason you may see some bias is that most Slashdotters know jack-all about Muslims, but probably suspect they aren't all violent extremists. However, we all do know vastly more about Christianity, and know that God never said he "hates fags," that Revelation isn't ecclesiastical, and other common but very unchristian beliefs. If most Slashdotters knew more about Islam, they'd probably have a MUCH different view, and you would see more outrage. It's hard to get outraged when you have no knowledge of a subject.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I majored in Japanese. That statement is wrong on more levels than I can imagine. Were you being sarcastic? I really don't know where to begin, but I hope you realize the Marshall Plan did not include squat about religion. The Japanese attacked us because we were moving to help China, and we cut off scrap iron and petroleum sales (due just as much to our need of war resources as a condemnation of their actions in China). They thought we were ripe for taking (and at the time, we were), lacking much in the way of an army. Their generals honestly didn't think we'd build a war machine as fast as we did, and a major blow to our navy would cause us to reconsider our actions. Just be glad they didn't land in San Francisco first. They would have done far more damage in occupying us.
But Shinto? You realize the Japanese are just as much Buddhist as Shinto right? And it's far more cultural than religious, like Christianity is to many Americans.
Seriously, I agree with your main point. This isn't censorship, and fighting against Islamist extremists is a good idea (as is fighting ALL religious extremists, really). Pretty much all modern, 1st-world terrorism is based on religion (the IRA was 50% religious, 50% political). But, be careful of arguments that not only have nothing to do with your thesis, but are uninformed as well. You probably had the best point in this thread. Just some education and advice for next time.
Supportive of the insurgency in the British colonies?
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego