Slashdot Mirror
Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film
h4rm0ny notes the furor over an anti-Islamic movie due to be released on the Web in the next week. After Pakistan disrupted YouTube worldwide over an interview with right-wing Dutch MP and filmmaker Geert Wilders, Network Solutions, acting as host as well as registrar, has suspended Wilders's site promoting the 15-minute film "Fitna" (a Koranic term translated as "strife"). The site now displays a notice that it is under investigation for possible violations of NetSol's acceptable use policy. According to the article the company's guidelines include "a sweeping prohibition against 'objectionable material of any kind or nature.'" The article describes the site's content before NetSol pulled the plug as a single page with the film's title, an image of the Koran, and the words "Coming Soon." No one but Wilders has seen the film to date. The Dutch government has distanced itself from the film, fearing Muslim backlash. A million Muslims live in The Netherlands. Wilders's party, which controls 9 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, was elected on an anti-immigration platform.
So, being SubGenius myself and rather abhorrent of any and all religions, does anyone else think that I can get NetSol to close down any and all religious websites that they currently host?
No? Me either, but hey, it'd be fun to try.
See, I wouldn't have a problem with his 15 minute film if he pointed out the same problems (which definitely do exist!) in the other two major Abrahamic religions. However, he doesn't. He's flamebaiting people who are as protective of their religion as American Evangelicals are of theirs.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Hi, I don't give a fuck about some dutch movie. Now, back to the..uh..musliming.
Do we even need to see the movie to learn anything about Muslims? As far as I'm concerned these actions speak for themselves.
My only concern is that Network Solutions is so quick to censor their customers over something so trifling as an (anti-) religious statement. I have kept my domains at NSI for over a decade just because I was too lazy to move them to a better registrar, but in light of this they are losing my business immediately.
PS Please don't think I have anything against Islam exclusively. I was raised as Catholic, and I find that religion for more reprehensible. It's not that I'm anti-religion per se... I am merely anti war-mongering, fear-mongering, child molesting, brain washing, suicide bombing, etc.
MP as in prime minister? Luckily Geert Wilders isn't our prime minister!
Nothing much interesting but if you follow one of the 'see also' links there's an old video interview where he talks about his views on Islam.
reilgion>?
Christians and Jews make convenient targets. Hindu and Buddhist would too. It is only the Islam religion that gets these kinds of consessions. Thats because they respond unreasonably and brutally.
Nice going you cowardly asshats.
"It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
Now replace the same word with "Catholicism". Then "Buddhism". Then "Liberalism". Then Conservatism"...
Censorship over mere ideals? Sucks no matter what angle you view it from.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
He he could just mod the film down to -1, Troll. That way it is, for all practical matters, censored.
This is not surprising coming from NetSol. NetSol will shut down hosting and even lock down domain names if enough pressure is put on it, without anything even resembling a court order to do so. Anyone holding Internet property through NetSol that is even remotely controversial or that is threatened by hostile entities seeking to shut it down should move expeditiously to a different host and registrar.
I'm offended by any material served by Network Solutions. Hence all their customers are in violation of the terms of service, so they should all be shut down.
How many complaints does it take to shut down a site? Let's pick one at random, and get it shut down. Then pick another...
If the Netherlands falls to intolerant predjudiced bastards, can Canada 'un-liberate' them, and give them back to the intolerant predjudiced bastard Nazis we saved them from?
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
This is not censorship because Network Solutions is a private company that can choose what content it wants to serve. If the government banned the film from production or release, then that could arguably called censorship. It is ironic that the people crying censorship in the name of freedom want to take away Network Solution's freedom to choose what it serves on its machines.
nearlyfreespeech.net
The government can't save you.
... also means that people with different views can voice their opinion.
I don't like Wilders at all (he's on the same level as Jack Thompson), but NetSol's action is retarded, I hope Wilders will be able to stir up some trouble for NetSol.
Then again, why did Wilder host the same at NetSol in the first place? Wouldn't XS4ALL be a better place, at least they care about things like freedom of speech.
Yeah, the Srebrenica incident was not a highlight in the history of the Dutch Army. Neither is Network Solutions banning a site whose subject matter they haven't even seen... much like the Manhattan coop that wanted to kick out the US publishers of Salman Rushdie's best known work, their own neighbors, least some whack job target their building. Pussies, all. They should all convert to Islam now, the Salafi school at that, for their own sheepist protection.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Someone made a film that consists entirely of Muslims protesting violently to stupid shit all over the planet? I'd say 15-20 minutes of film showing nothing but angry violent Muslims protesting stupid shit should be enough to paint them as stupid, to the point that anytime they protest anything the entirety of the rest of the world would laugh at them.
... well downright antisocial. As such I have less than zero respect for the god of a group of people that want to kill anyone that disagrees with them.
Seriously, not all Muslims are violent. Not all Muslims protest everyone else that does anything anywhere in the world that does not affect them. This whole 'insult to Islam' business is as out of control as political correctness in the US. We should start hanging signs up everywhere that state "Sharia Law not legal here" ()
The non-Muslim part of the world should be posting that loudly and proudly... to the point that ordinary Muslim peoples are ASHAMED of their violent militant Muslim friends. When other Muslims tell them to STFU and sit down perhaps the rest of us can stop worrying about stepping on the toes of Muhammed, prophet or otherwise.
No, I do not for an instant believe that Christians or Jews are any better. All the BS about Mr Gibson's movie was stupid. The crap about The Davinci Code was idiotic. The bruhaha about 'The last temptation of Christ' was ignorant. All of these religious groups that are claiming sacred right to this and that and feel they are being insulted actually need to adhere to the words in their books. Oh, but that's the problem... they think they are. Well, for all their 'righteousness' the have surely fucked this planet up.
If you feel insulted, take it as a reason to ponder for a few moments how well you live your religious beliefs. If you think I left your religion out SMACK!! You too can go ponder your religious beliefs. If when you are finished you still find that you are right to be intolerant of other people's belief systems I have a friend with a gun store and plenty of single use bullets. Use these to massage your temples and all will begin to get better in the world.
Personally I'd like to see more people making fun of ALL religions. ALL of them. If your god is almighty and doesn't want anyone to make fun of them, or tell jokes about them, or in some way portray them in ways that you don't like... well, then I suggest your god come right on down here to little old Earth and tell me about it in PERSON. I will not accept the likeness of his mother on a piece of burnt toast or a water stained wall as a sign. I will not accept that a human prophet speaks for an ALL POWERFUL god. If your god does not want me to draw cartoons or make films, he can come down and explain it in PERSON.
Perhaps that is the problem? god doesn't come down and explain things in person so when there is a challenge to god's authority religious zealots have to act before someone points out that there god is not much good at protecting his image, never mind the feeble lives of his followers?
If that makes you wonder about god... good. I do not want to believe in anything or entity whose supporters are so violent, militant, dogmatic, ignorant, disrespectful, hateful and
Yes, I know that only a small group of people hijack religion to server their militant causes. My point is that others of whatever faith should be rising up to stop such people from ruining their otherwise good intentions.
Final point is that when good people let bad people ruin their faith and do nothing to stop it, it denigrates all of them. Where are those Muslims that renounce violence? Where are the Muslims that renounce suicide bombings? Why did the Iranian vigils after 9/11 get no real news airplay?
Thanks to all the high profile religious people in the world, Atheism is the fastest growing set of beliefs in the Western World, if I can say it that way.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Let him show his film, but please force him to stop bleaching his hair, and going to Milosevic's and Eltsine's hairdresser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm02UAgEJFs&NR=1
Neither do we.
Read a fucking dictionary. This is absolutely censorship. What you meant to say is that this isn't a Constitutional Free Speech issue.
...because if they hadn't then I never would've heard of this movie.
Nothing like censorship to bring a lot of attention to something.....
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
Just give me the Adsense revenue and I'll put it up offshore somewhere and... 3. PROFIT!!
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
The Dutch have always taken pride in being liberal, open-minded and against censorship. Recently, they've completely changed it would seem. Free speech is no longer allowed all of a sudden, the government spies on the citizens, and economic interests are more important than freedom. Go fucking figure.
Fuck religion. Seriously. Fuck it. Religious fuckers should be fucking shot on fucking sight. Fuck you.
so far, for the last few months, MP Geert Wilders has said that he will post his movie Fitna on the internet. It is supposed to be anti-islamic, but no one knows for sure what's in it except himself.
I have a distinct feeling that we're all being misled in the sense that mr Wilders wants to show us what the public outcry would be. There have been rallies organised against the showing of the movie, puppets with his likeness have been burned, death threats, hack attacks, and now the ISP of his website is positioning itself in the arena of Christians against Muslims.
There probably even isn't a movie made. April 1st coming up, his release date? And he has shown us already that the West is terrified of the Islamic masses. Pah, hubbub over nothing. There are enough other movies out there mongering post-911 fear, you don't have to wait for Fitna.
US: Hizbolla - yes, Wilders - no
Network Solutions hosts Hizbolla !!!
US: Hizbolla - yes, Wilders - no: "Fitna fatigue or not, when you see something like this, how can you not blog?
Network Solutions, a US company, is the host for hizbolla.org
view whois.
Until a couple of days ago they also hosted a mostly empty page for Dutch politician and movie maker hopeful Geert Wilders, announcing his upcoming movie will be out soon.' However, now the site is down, while Network Solutions investigates whether this blank page is in violation of acceptable policy.' Maybe you must be a registered terror group in order to host by them?' Klein Verzet brings ways to contact them and complain.
There are rumors Google is also banning the site.' Though I find that hard to believe, even a search for fitnathemovie.com doesnt bring up the site.'
Wilders is facing a court case this Friday by the Dutch Islamic Federation, asking to ban the publication of his yet non-existent film.' He is considering putting it out beforehand, though he says hes not fully ready yet.
The Dutch Muslim Broadcaster is meanwhile the only public broadcaster in the Netherlands who is considering showing the film, with a debate afterwards.
Among the non-Wilders Fitna sites now proliferating, Radio Netherlands put out a site titled About Fitna the Movie, where you can see and hear how tolerant the Netherlands is in English, Arabic and Indonesian.' Wilders is such a tough cookie.. the rule of law applies to everybody, and so you cant stop Wilders until he actually does something.' But, since Wilders wants to treat immigrants differently, hes not democratic.' A very shallow film, apparently addressed to Muslims who are not expected to understand democracy or freedom of speech.
http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/us-hizbolla-yes-wilders-no/
I'm getting sick of registrars acting as the morality police.
Personally, I think this one stupid move has given the anti-Islam film a ton of free publicity. I'll be snatching it off the Pirate Bay the minute it's released by the producer, and you can bet your bible I'll be seeding the everloving crap out of it. I don't care whether something is right or wrong, in all likelihood this movie will be a steaming pile of racist filth like its creator, but the point is: censorship is even worse than racism in my opinion.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
( apologies for the poor formatting thanks to Slashdot's 'junk character' and 'too few characters per line' filters) )
:
..., is it true? A. Nobody beside Wilders, as far as we know, has seen it.
:
Wilders:
Q. Is Wilders an idiot? A. something of a, yes. He incites reactions from colleagues and the public for the sake of inciting reactions, without making a clear point. A tactic not entirely uncommon in politics in general.
Q. Is Wilders speaking on behalf of all Dutch? A. No, although he does have his share of sympathizers.
Q. Is Wilders speaking on behalf of the Dutch government? A. No
Q. Is Wilders releasing this movie in the function of a 'minister' as part of the Dutch government? A. No.
Q. In what capacity would Wilders be releasing it? A. In the capacity of a private individual
Q. Is that how the Dutch see it? A. Mostly, yes.
Q. Is that how, say, Islamists see it? A. Mostly, no.
Q. Didn't Wilders say that the Danish PM was a great man for standing for freedom of speech? A. Yes.
Q. And didn't the Danish PM reject Wilders' support, stating that freedom of speech is a great good, but that Wilders' speech crosses boundaries in unacceptable ways? A. Yes.
Movie
Q. Has the movie been released yet? A. No.
Q. So everybody is up in a tiff about something that has not been released yet A. Yes and No.
Q. What do you mean? A. Although most people are up in a tiff about the movie he's about to release which nobody has seen yet, several are actually up in a tiff about the fact that Wilders has, among other, equated the Koran (Qu'ran/etc.) with Mein Kampf.
Q. Godwin! A. Yep.
Q. I hear the movie will have
Q. Could it all be an elaborate hoax? A. Maybe, but this is doubtful.
Q. Can't the government ban the movie from being shown? A. No, as the content of the movie is unknown.
Q. Isn't a muslim interest group suing to have the movie rated by experts to see if it does actually violate laws regarding inciting hatred, etc. A. Yes.
Q. Must Wilders wait for this to come before the court before releasing? A. No
Q. Will he release before this comes before the court? A. He may or he may not - he has not responded to such inquiries.
Consequences
Q. Do the Dutch fear retribution after the release of the movie? A. Some do, yes - akin to the type of retributions to Denmark after the cartoon affair (economical, import retributions, possibly attacks on Dutch living abroad), although some fear actual attacks on Dutch soil as well.
Q. Wouldn't it be best if Wilders did not release the movie, given the tensions? A1. Yes - it might ease unrest A2. No - it would mean a serious blow to freedom of speech and would make those who have opposed the release of the movie (again, without knowing its content) and threatened with action feel like they have won. The 'those' referred to are not the type you want to give such impressions. In addition, although it *might* ease unrest, given that the unrest itself is based wholly on unknowns, there is no guarantee that this unrest -will- ease if the movie is not released at all.
Q. How is the Dutch government dealing with this? A1. The Prime Minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende, has stated in no uncertain terms that Wilders is indeed free to release his movie, but that Wilders should think long and hard about the possible consequences. A2. The Prime Minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende, has been meeting with foreign heads of state in search for support in case reactions are indeed of the type that Denmark faced in the cartoons affair, or even beyond.
Q. Which states have pledged to stand by The Netherlands if it does all go awry? A. Only known at this time: France.
Q. What sort of assistance can The Netherlands expect? A. It is generally accepted that The Netherlands would mostly enjoy diplomatic support. Other support follows from EU regulations, if necessary.
The site and Network Solutions
It's absolutely accurate. Remember Salman Rushdie? Remember four days of murderous riots over a cartoon? And Islam is called the religion of peace.
Some asshole(s) took their dissatisfaction with the link in my sig to the University's administration... It being a university, rather than a commercial enterprise, I was merely forced to add an obvious disclaimer, that the views on the page are my own, rather than the school's...
Curiously, my request to see the complaint itself was denied on the ground, that there would be no way to preserve the anonymity of the complaining party(ies)... Any lawyers out there willing to file a FoIA-request on my behalf (the school is a government institution)?
These attempts to use the legal system and/or bureaucracy to shut the unpleasant views down are a welcome change from killing fellow country-men to make a point — as is happening in Iraq. But if anybody is hoping to score sympathy-points doing it, they are doing it all wrong...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Who knew?
From my journal:
Free speech is doomed
And so is freedom in general, if we allow this to continue. I simply cannot overstress the need to find a workaround to the corporate/government control of the internet. We must eliminate the need for the ISP with community wireless, and we also need a way to put up information without the need for a far off hosting company that cut you off without notice. Free speech must be completely, absolutely...uh...absolute. Those who can't see the infinite divide between words and deeds are as blind as blind can be. If you can be provoked into committing violent acts by words, then you are an animal, a dirty, filthy animal that should be put outside before you leave your steaming heap on the carpet. Let me see if I can put it another way: FREE WILL MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU HAVE IT??
I'm such a whore:-)
What?
I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and terrorism that occurs by .001% of people who call themselves Muslims and make the rest of well-intentioned Muslims like my self look bad...
I renounce Islamophobia, such as it is shown by Mr Gibson in his film...
Islamophobia is no different than anti-Semitism and if anti-Semitism is hate crime, so is Islamophobia...
Free speech is great as long as people debate respectfully with each other and as long as 'free speech' doesn't become a synonym for 'hate speech' or 'hate crime'
The Danish cartoons were hate crime and so is Mr. Gibson's film...
I am Muslim and I am willing to have an intellectual discussion with someone who respectfully debates with me and argues that Islam is not the right religion or that there is not God, etc... but making derogatory cartoons of what's dear to me is NOTHING but hate crime...
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
>>only because civilians were - guess what - Muslims
Well, that, and the fact just prior to the "massacre" the muslims were murdering Christians like crazy.
But you make it sound as though the muslims were just sitting 'round sipping tea and were suddenly massacred. It's called war and it occurred because islam and (basically every other religion) are mutually exclusive.
As some of you might remember, in 2004 a well-known writer director and supplier of social criticism, Theo van Gogh, was murdered by a radical islamist, because he spoke out against aspects of islam that he felt were barbaric. Although you could call me a leftist, I vehemently support Wilders, because he's defending our right to speak out against religion where other politicians pussy out. Simply put, I'd like to be able to go on TV or write a column that talks about women's rights in the middle east without getting shot on my way to work the next day.
Hurry up, take down offending content! We're so sorry Muslims, we didn't realize our free speech enraged you so. We promise we'll never do it again! Praise Allah!
There's a million muslims that we know about. In reality, there's probably double that number. In a country of 16 million, that tends to change our society. Go for a walk in any main street of any city and see for yourself. There are now more mosques than churches in this country, and two thirds of the kids in school in Amsterdam are non-white. Instead of repeating what other people say about the maker of the film, read about what he really says. In my opinion, he has a point, and he's right. He's not racist, he just cares about our own society, as I do, and don't want to see it dragged back to the 17th century.
/. please.
What this has to do with technology, I don't know. Delete this whole subject from
I realize there isn't any comparison in terms of numbers of such actions - but this guy did bomb those he didn't agree with...
> Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
No, it isn't, and fuck you for thinking that it is.
See, I wouldn't have a problem with his 15 minute film if he...
if he said what you wanted to hear instead of what you don't want to hear.
That's what censorship is. That's also why we have free speech protections in the USA -- because speech that everyone wants to hear doesn't need protection. It's only the "flamebait" and other stuff that someone might disagree with that needs protection.
It's appropriate that the author has given Network Solutions the quickname "NetSol," inasmuch as they don't provide solutions.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
J
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
A hate crime has to have SOME criminal element to it. If I say 'Muslims suck', I made a blanket statement, but to even think of elevating it to a crime is absurd. Now, I can run around all day spouting blanket staments, and eventually people will learn that I am acting like a crackpot and have nothing important to say. (Example, Twitter). That is punishment enough.
To start deciding that unpopular content is a crime in itself is the first step in the end of free speech.
I've seen some of the cartoons, I have not seen the film. The cartoons are tasteless, they are not criminal.
What I find frustrating is that you should have to renounce the violence of a small set of whahabist fanatics. Christians are not constantly attacked as a group in the media for not denouncing the ethnic and religous cleansing that is still going on in the region of serbia/kosovo, or the falwell or phelps rants, or the oklahoma bombings, or the bombers of anti-abortion clinics.
Extremists of whatever stripe should be called what they are, and leave the tarring of honest ordinary people out of it. I might be an atheist, but I do respect the right of other people to believe what they choose, as long as they respect the same in others.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Yet one more time again, a company's policy over its own property is not censorship. It is an exercise of property rights. Renting said property does not give the renter the right to use it in a manner they disapprove of. He and we can disapprove of their policy, but that's all.
Censorship is a policy enforced against the information carrier from outside, forcing them not to carry something. While not censorship, forcing a one to carry content they deem unsuitable is just as much a violation of their rights of ownership.
The film maker has no "right" to use any given carrier. Where ever one finds the "right" to free speech on the net, it is either because one owns the carrier themselves, or is only the illusion of the right in the form of permission of the carrier to present one's material through their property. If the Dutch government tried to force its removal, THAT would be censorship. The Dutch government is one of the least likely to do so. Instead, they have "distanced themselves".
That said, NetSol is a lousy carrier in several respects. There are far better hosts. Using Wikileak's host or even piggy backing on Wikileaks itself is more likely to be successful. If he wants his stuff or material about his stuff seen, finding a suitable carrier will be more productive than trying to force NetSol to carry it.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Sharia Law is a "hate crime" against women, non-Muslims and homosexuals. Who's the real "hate criminal" around here?
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
I agree... I renounce all extremist violence... regardless of the religion
The DNC is objectionable. Scientology is objectionable. I don't see them doing anything abut that.
Censorship by anyone is objectionable. ( but not illegal since they are a private company, and yes i realize i'm stretching the definition of censorship because of this small fact )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It isn't a hate crime, but it is being really, really ignorant. Too bad you posted as AC, I'm compiling a list of ignorant fuckwits.
/rant.
Grandparent post had a very interesting take on this issue, and so-called hate crime in general. It's not one I agree with, though. Nonetheless some of his points are valid; as and atheist who grew up in The Number One Muslim Country (Saudi Arabia, and no, not on a compound) I really get annoyed when people bundle all Muslims into the same boat. Some of the most amazing people I met in my life have been Saudi nationals, most (officially, all) practising Muslims. I've never been preached to. No one has tried to convert me. I have never felt so safe as when I am with Muslim/Arab friends. It properly fucks me off to see all these Slashdotters, whom I would usually consider to be intelligent people, making such stupid blanket statements.
Incidentally, all religions are guilty of being overly sensitive (sorry Sallo); here in the UK we have a number of Bible Bashers that love to God-bother at everything from Jerry Springer The Opera to Gay Pride. Hey, it's their right, and I support that, but let's be very clear that there are reactionary fucktards in every religion. And before anyone starts up about how only the Muslims kill people, pull your (generally) Amero-centric heads out of the sand and look at, among other places, Northern Ireland. (Hey, how's that for hypocracy on my part!) Jews are just as prone to jump up and down, especially at any criticism of Mother Israel; that isn't really anti-Semitism but Medinat Yisrael uses it rather well to deflect critical comments.
Long post, short point - there's lots of assholes out there, and like it or not, some are of the same nationality/belief/creed as you. Call them out as such whenever you see them but don't be bigoted asshats.
JG
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Can we just agree and summarize by saying that the world would be a better place without any religion? Just imagine ... (yea that song)
As someone else above hinted, a prohibition against "objectionable material of any kind or nature" cannot work. There is no possible way to know in advance what is objectionable to others... and you can just about guarantee that anything will at some point be objectionable to someone! So you end up censoring everything... and not just freedom of speech, but any speech at all gets suppressed.
That is why I do not support or endorse companies with those kinds of "agreements". They are unworkable, and in practice unenforceable. And in the attempt to enforce something unworkable, everybody suffers.
http://www.fitnathemovie.info/
The internet can't be censored by manipulative Muslim Brown Shirts.
Make no mistake, the resurgence of *any* religion is the end of progress or people toward freedom. All religion is about control. All religion is about hate. All religion is about making the peasants suffer in quiet while they dream of a better after-life.
Anyone that believes in a "religion" that professes non-sense like heaven or an after-life without any supporting real and verifiable proof is an idiot. Sorry to you believers, but you are fools of the worst kind and your belief or your support of such beliefs supports those who are far more radical than yourselves.
Anyone who gives any money of any kind to a religious based charity is just as guilty as the religious terrorists themselves.
You may say this is harsh, you my think this a troll or intolerance, but anyone who has studied history or current events will be forced to admit that all money spent by religious charities or missionaries, regardless of the stated purpose, is done for the single purpose of expanding the influence of the religion. Conversion by the sword, the destruction of central american cultures by "christian missionaries," the push against science in education, the push of christian doctine into U.S. law, islamist censors, etc.
You are all guilty, so stop whining. Being tolerant of any religious doctrine in the public sector simply invites more abuse of human rights. There's no half way, you either reject religion outright or you become a subject of it.
he and the mods are right. ...
It appears that site still can be reached at http://www.fitnathemovie.org/ or http://www.fitnathemovie.net/
fuck humanity.
Ridicule of a religious belief or political persuasion is NOT a hate crime. I consider myself an agnostic science-is-religion libertarian - you can make fun of my beliefs all day long, draw cartoons of political leaders I respect or make jokes about those who I consider prophets (Newton, Darwin, etc.). I won't sulk around with hurt feelings or have promptings to harm anyone. Such absolute reverence to an ideology almost always ends in persecution and evil.
Further if you really feel you worship the "right" vision of God and this God is almighty why doesn't this God make a public statement and strike down such provocateurs directly? Why does this God need protection from puny humans.
Seems to me the Truth needs no local support but can stand on its own.
There is no such thing as "The Sharia Law"... "Sharia" is different from one country to another, from even one community to another... If you are in North America, or in Europe, or any country for that matter, and know even just one practicing Muslim, they are following the Sharia, but not committing "hate crime". I totally agree that in many countries, especially Saudia Arabia and Iran, the laws are oppressive and downright stupid, under the guise of "Sharia Law", and definitely needs to change, and I already advocate that, but, go ask an average practicing Muslim what Sharia means to them... to my self, it means leading a moral life with certain guidelines, some of which are practical for me, i.e. don't gamble, don't smoke, give money to poor, and some of which are ritualistic for me, i.e. don't eat pork, pray, fast which at the end of the day make my beliefs complete. I totally don't endorse any 'laws' that are of oppressive of women or other minorities... In my definition of Sharia, there are no oppressive laws... that's just simply not part of my definition of Sharia Law...
h4rm0ny notes ... The Dutch government has distanced itself from the film, fearing Muslim backlash. A million Muslims live in The Netherlands. Wilders's party, which controls 9 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, was elected on an anti-immigration platform.
I dunno if anyone else noticed this but that line seems a little silly. There is a difference between fearing and not wanting to offend. Who says the dutch government fears this at all. Rather the government isn't totally made up of bigotted assholes. I like to think this as a possibility.
As for the video i want to see Wilder release a video about how Jewish people are violent and ruining the country. Just to see the reaction. But its perfectly ok for an MP to make a public video about his dislike for muslims. Yay racism...
The movie hasn't been seen by anyone yet except a bunch of politicians who can't say anything about its contents. This is really a failure on the side of NetSol, as there was no objectionable content hosted whatsoever (a cover image, a title and the words "coming soon", zomg, the horror!). If the upcoming movie is really offensive to some religious groups, then they've just fueled the backlash some more. It just gets worse with every news item about it, and this has been going on for months. See what happened in Danmark, no media circus means the muslims get mad about it 3 months late. Now even with NO MOVIE RELEASED WHATSOEVER there are already flags being burned: http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/buitenland/2008/03/protesten_tegen_fitna_de_fotos.html
And those who still want to burn a flag and haven't yet done so: Please get it right (the least you could do!): Red bar (not dark purple), white bar, blue bar, top to bottom! Don't be these guys http://forum.fok.nl/topic/1133672 Unless you add a star, in which case it's the SFR Yugoslavian flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_SFR_Yugoslavia.svg
" negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime..."
No, it is mere insult. Insult is not a crime, except under Islam, which does not tolerate a wide variety of other Free Speech.
You are invited to make all the derogatory cartoons of me you like, and of my beliefs (I'm theism-free). It bothers me not.
I've deployed to the richest Muslim societies on the planet, and seen the best they can do under the guidance of your oppressive, barbaric, pseudo-Nazi superstition. I will not yield to demands to change our social discourse just because it is not on Islamic (or Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc) terms.
Your Prophet can kiss my fat white arse.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps you forget about the '96 Olympics? The bomb that when off? That was a series of bombing from some right-wing Christian nuts jobs. No, Christian never ever force their views on everyone else...
Does net SOL get any public funding at this point? Or are they strictly funded by their products?
If they accept one dime of public funds, i say they should be bound by the 1st amendment.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...I have to say I see it ALL in the same light. All this discussion about Christians did this, Jews, that and Muslims are commanded to kill in the Qur'an... it's all the same crap with a different brand name. With a few exceptions, what religion you are is largely a matter of what parents or environment you were born to. That could HARDLY be a matter of deist truth if the same god also created your "enemies."
If more people could somehow manage to take a step back from their own faith to look at the larger picture, you'd see you're truly no different from the rest.
Prove your propaganda.
Where are the mass graves?
The muslims of Srebrenica would venture beyond the city and burned down about 100 villages.
Are you counting those among the dead?
As for numbers, there have been scores of electoral lists that featured the 'missing'. So either they werent dead, or there was massive fraud.
And let's not forget the tens of thousands of muhajeddins that were roaming the countryside. How many do you think they killed?
Bosnia was the start of the propaganda wars, which were then honed in Kosovo and finally Iraq.
Repeat your version enough time and it becomes the truth.
I still remember the copy of Nouvel Observateur from the mid-90s that had an interview with then french premier Edoualrd Balladur and a few generals who said they knew that the muslims were responsible for the two marketplace massacres (the 2nd one had a french/russian report which said the projectiles coudlnt have come from where it was claimed. But Balladur said it didnt matter to them since it served them and the fact that they came before important UN votes.
So even when a prime minister says he knows what happened, it doenst matter if it helps the 'official' truth.
When I was in school, I interviewed Lewis McKenzie who led the UN forces in Bosnia, as well as Scott Taylor, a jarhead who edits Esprit de Corps magazine and is among the best war reporters with Robert Fisk, and Rollie Keith, a canadian RCMP officer who was the only canadian observer in Kosovo (who couldnt get one single network to interview him).
Interview these people and then contrast it to the 'official' truth we are fed.
James Harff from PR firm Ruder-Finn was so confident in how news are created that he showed french TV producer Jacques Merlinot how he can get any news out he wants thanks to his Rolodex. Whether the message is true or not, matters little, as long as his clients are served.
But the serbs are the white niggers of europe, you can say anything you want with no fear of repercussions.
Support them and you will be like the Buchenwald survivors group that got kicked out of the Holocaust Memorial center.
I guess I shouldnt have to remind all history buffs that the muslims (thanks to their US patrons) refused to sign the first 4 peace plans for Bosnia while the two other sides signed. Of course not, Im sure everyone is aware of that (!)
Here's how a certain prophet reacted to criticism. If you don't believe this is moral, then you are not a muslim (first pillar of islam).
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so `Umayr went back to his people.
Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).
Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. 'Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.
Source
It looks like I get to exercise my right to tell Netsol to take a hike by moving to some other registrar. I've used netsol for 12 years and never realized they'd stoop to this. Godaddy is no better, and quite possibly, worse.
Can anyone recommend a registrar that doesn't have absurd terms of use?
Educate yourself.
sigh... if you are judging Islam through the "richest Muslim societies", you are totally starting at the wrong place... Christianity is as American as those societies are Islamic... and again, solely for emphasis, Christianity is as American as those societies are Islamic... I do applaud free speech in America however, and do agree to advocate it in all societies, but you can't just Islam through those societies just as you can't just Christianity through Americans... Please go start a conversation with an actual practicing believing Muslim and openly ask them what their beliefs are and then judge... Thanks.
to a social problem.
If he wants to put out the film, put it out on torrent.
The fact that Netsol was completely out of line is something else. I wonder who pushed them and wether this has been done before. This all irregarless of the subject the movie might handle.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You cannot exercise the same free speech rules when it comes to politically agendized Islam. That's called intolerance. Never mind that there's about 30 countries I am barred from entry to, simply by virtue of my religion - that's just 'ethnocultural diversity'. One would think that Holland with its 300 year history of no holds barred, freewheeling liberalism wouldn't cave to a tiny minority of people promising arson and death threats, but I guess this is the new Europe. Next up - burning the collected works of Jonathan Swift.
sigh... if you are judging Islam through the "richest Muslim societies", you are totally starting at the wrong place... Christianity is as American as those societies are Islamic... and again, solely for emphasis, Christianity is as American as those societies are Islamic... I do applaud free speech in America however, and do agree to advocate it in all societies, but you can't just Islam through those societies just as you can't just Christianity through Americans... Please go start a conversation with an actual practicing believing Muslim and openly ask them what their beliefs are and then judge... and discuss... and have debates... but please don't hate... Thanks.
EVERYTHING is objectionable to someone. You either close down the entire Internet, or none of it. No picking and choosing in-between.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Not to sound offensive,but your speech is exactly the reason why Muslim immigration is seen as a plague by Europeans. Everything is "hate crime" and suddenly we must go to some sort of doublespeak sensitivity training to accomodate that.
"making derogatory cartoons of what's dear to me is NOTHING but hate crime"... this sums it up *perfectly*: anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law.
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus liked to dress in drag and had an affair with all of the apostles while smoking a joint and nobody wlil prevent me from saying it, nor will anyone - not even he "equally bad" Christians that are used as some sort of "they did it to!" scapegoat - try to kill me. But the moment I even *draw* a depiction off Mohammed I'm an hateful bastard who must be stoped because I'm infringing someones feelings.
There are places where this sort of behaviour is law. Saudi Arabia, for example. I would recommend to people displeased with my ability to say that Mohammed was a camel-sucking homo to move there.
PS: Just to be democratic, it's also perfectly legal to say that Jupiter likes little boys and Ariadne is a slut. Fine with me.
The average income in the Muslim world is $3,700USD. In the west it's around $27,450USD as of the year 2000 Ref.
One of the two things you can almost always correlate with crime rates is average income (the other is the number of young men in a population).
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Very true. The books of all radical religions deliberately contains wide range and subtle contradictory verses so that the leaders and clergies can easily justify whatever they want you to do. On some times and places, like religious sessions with their own people, they can pitch use of whatever means to defend the believe; on other times and places, like photo-ops with American politicians, they can pitch peace and appear as good people.
Speaking as a Discordian myself, I approve of people of all religions getting their panties in a twist and trying to blow each other to smithereens. It's exciting fun and makes for fantastic television. It would go against my beliefs to take any of these religious websites down. I therefore find it necessary to declare a counter-Fatwah on you! Double double neener neener to you, good sir. And all that.
Onward Christian Soldiers,
Onward Buddhist Priests.
Onward, Fruits of Islam,
Fight till you're deceased.
Fight your little battles,
Join in thickest fray;
For the Greater Glory,
of Dis-cord-i-a.
Yah, yah, yah,
Yah, yah, yah, yah.
Blfffffffffft!
Chaos is everywhere - the Goddess reigns supreme. =)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You can contact the CEO of Network Solutions and explain to him your disipointment with the company. The CEO and Chairman of the Board is W. G. Champion Mitchell.
His office number is: (703) 668-5200
His company email is:
Cmitchell@networksolutions.com.
>they were supposed to protect.
This is at least partially incorrect or misleading: The UN 'peacekeeping' 'mandate' did not authorize direct armed intervention, and I recall the UN commander who let the Serbian troops through describing his calls to superiors, and his agony, knowing what was about to happen.
In the end, I think he would have done well to drop the radio, "look at his troops, draw his weapon," and tell the Serbian commanders that they were going to have to take some causalities before they entered Srebrenica.
On the other hand (from the WikiPedia article you cite:)
Indeed, the attempt would have been suicide even with NATO bombing; the entire UNPROFOR force was insufficient, and insufficiently structured, to prevent the capture of Srebrenica.
First of all, Christians almost unanimously condemn abortion clinic bombings, while Muslim advocating suicide bombings, and Muslims celebrating in the streets are relatively easy to find. Moreover, Christians carry out abortion clinic bombings in order to prevent the murder of unborn babies. Muslims carry out suicide bombings simply to prevent people from being free. Finally, abortion clinic bombings are rare. Muslim suicide bombings happen literally every day.
"if we go ahead and examine some history we can cover a huge host of horrific things done in the name of Christianity"
You can always find a lot of horrible thing done in the name of "the greater good". May I remind you that the Soviet Union strictly prohibited the practice of religion. Yet they killed more innocent people than the Nazis (though over a longer period of time). China also has a similar prohibition, and look at what they are doing in Tibet right now.
"none of the religions that sprang forth from that area are exactly civilized"
That means a lot coming from someone who was likely raised in a culture that advocates drug-use, promiscuity, homosexuality, money worship, easy answers, and infanticide (my assumption is based solely on the fact that you are posting on slashdot, and therefore have access to a computer). I guess it depends what you call civilized, but that seems like a backward way of living to me.
This demonstrates the problem with allowing private organizations to serve as the gateway to the network. The nets, like the roads, should be a public resource; otherwise, they're going to be filtered by the views and fears of those entities providing access.
This is a perfect example: Network Solutions is in no way the author of, or the sponsor of, this content, but they will filter it because they don't want to be another target of violent factions of Islam or hordes of politically correct, censorship-minded people / investors. So the site is censored. Today it is someone speaking out against superstition and violent social coercion; tomorrow it may be a site against the drug war, or one against the war in Iraq. Or one that speaks out against your local school board. Or one that promotes Catholicism over Protestantism.
Personally, I think access-provider censorship is the kind of behavior the FCC really ought to be watching for, if they were really looking out for us. But of course, they aren't. They're watching out for corporate interests. And of course, Network Solutions is a corporation.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As many people have pointed out, violence is found everywhere. There have been religious people of all religions who have promoted violence. Atheists also have been violent. People have put the blame on religion, on politics, on nationalist pride, on you name it. People have promoted Utopian solutions. All have failed. The real problem is not with the government or with a group of people, or with a set of laws. Rather the real problem is that each and every one of us at our core are selfish self-absorbed self-centered bastards. We are the problem. We are at our core not good. The solution to the problem can not be found in us.
Who the fuck is Network Solutions to do this? Given all the other crazy sites they host?
expandfairuse.org
Heh. The thing is, most of us aren't really Christians any more either. Or at least not what it used to mean.
E.g., most people self-proclaimed as Christians think that the Christian thing to do is respect other people's religions, and believe that a nice guy is a nice guy, and will go to heaven anyway. Even the Catholic church nowadays came up with the "Anonymous Christian" doctrine to that effect.
That used to be a major heresy, namely that of Pelagius. Those are (according to at least one interpretation) the "snakes" that St Patrick drove out of Ireland.
So, yes, the Christian thing to do would be to say that if you're a Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist, or were born on an island somewhere and never even heard of Christ, you're a monster in the eyes of the Lord and will fucking burn in Hell for eternity. Serves you right. Only by Christ can you be saved, and if you never even heard of him, well, tough beans for you.
But when someone goes and says that, pretty much 99% of the "Christians" are revolted.
E.g., most "Christians" nowadays believe that Jesus was the son of God, as in, really, a different person. That was the doctrine of Arius and the early church and Byzantine Empire fought hard to drive _those_ heretics off the continent.
Since I've already mentioned St Patrick, that's what the clover is supposed to symbolize: the three are _one_. It ended up a badge and the symbol of those believing just that, against those who insisted that the 3 are really separate entities.
E.g., tolerating other religions? Heh. That's why the early Christians were thrown to the lions, ya know? The Romans weren't opposed to your worshiping whoever the heck you want, and accommodated a large number of other religions. But they had laws against you telling other people that their gods are false. Well, ok, only the official Roman gods. You can worship this Jesus guy all you want, but don't go upsetting people by telling that Jupiter or Sol Maximus are false gods and they'll burn in hell for worshiping them. You know, because it's not nice, and it makes people upset.
Look at all those martyrs in your religious calendar, and the better half of them got killed for being insensitive arseholes towards other people's religions. We're honouring their memory for... being bigotted, intolerant, insensitive arseholes. Puts it into perspective, IMHO.
E.g., nowadays we think that the old Tridentine Mass was mean and insensitive, because used to call the Jews "faithless" and contain a prayer that they too are converted to Christianity. Excuse me? That's what the other half of the martyrs are honoured for. We _honour_ people for going to various kings and chieftains and telling them just that: your religion is false, your gods don't exist, and you'll freakin' burn in Hell unless you join _our_ religion. You're _supposed_ to think that you must convert everyone else. To save their souls, you see.
Etc.
What am I saying? I guess that most people proclaiming themselves Christians, aren't any more. You may identify yourself as Catholic, or Orthodox, or Protestant, but chances are you're not.
And probably if you wanted to really be one, you'd find that occasionally at odds with being nice and open minded.
And it gets funnier when the easy-going, open-minded, we-can-all-get-along "Christians" berate the others for not being Christian enough. No, chances are they _are_. _You_ aren't. If you were, you'd genuinely believe that God hates Muslims and Jews for being, well, non-Christians, and that he'll roast them alive for eternity for just that. Maybe he didn't explicitly say you should kill them, but, you know, it's only one step to inferring that. And maybe he won't be that happy if you go and help them print their islamic stuff or carry it on your servers.
We had _crusades_ based on that inference, and
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Liberal-at-all-costs policies have allowed the Netherlands' (France's, etc.) society to be infiltrated and ruined by stuck-in-the-Stone-Age morons wearing towels and beekeeper suits.
San Francisco (and Berkley, in particular) has another population of crackpots -- thankfully kept in check by the rest of the United States.
Europe, you reap what you sew.
Network solutions are considering taking down this site, because they take Muslims seriously.
Why do they take Muslims seriously?
Because Muslims are standing up seriously for what they believe. They fight, they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.
That's the only thing that matters. Your values cost only as much as you are willing to pay to defend them.
Look at our history since Bush took power. He steadfastly stomped out the very rights you are so eager to cry for in every post on YRO.
What did you do? What did you do to deserve your rights? You ancestors who fought against British with arms in hands did deserve their economical freedom.
What did _you_ do to deserve your rights?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
If I wrote a book saying 'kill the Muslims' and outlined specifics on how to do it, that would be a hate crime. I'm clearly inciting violence.
If I draw a cartoon or write a book depicting Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or Buddha as a terrorist, I have not committed a hate crime. I personally wouldn't do something like that, because I don't believe it, but I will defend the right to be able to do it.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right. I will never condone removing that right for something as petty as avoiding insulting someone.
Militant Buddhists have raised a little Hell in Sri Lanka, burning down Christian churches and whatnot, but we don't really hear much about it because it's not white Christians who are dying. Western media does tend to ignore conflicts where the victims aren't lily white. Heck, look at the war coverage in Iraq. Depending on whose numbers you go by, over a hundred Iraqi civilians have died for every American soldier, but who makes the news nine times out of ten? There are, sadly, many more examples in Africa, such as Rwanda. Genocides nearly on the level of the Holocaust go almost completely unreported. But, I digress. My point was that Buddhism can be twisted towards the ends of violence like any other religion, even if it's tenets are somewhat more pacifist. It's the followers that matter, not the religion.
Although Christianity has mellowed out somewhat, it is still used as a tool of intolerance and violence from time to time. The Bible really does contain some rather contemptible passages. The Koran and Torah are no different, since they all come from the same roots. It's strange that religions which share a common root harbor more hatred for each other than for completely alien religions.
Islam, as a religion, is fundamentally no more violent than any other religion out there. At present, however, some of it's followers are. Yes, I did just say that. Jesus can be portrayed as a exhibitionistic homosexual pedophile on prime-time TV (e.g. Family Guy and Stewie's encounter) without too much fuss but, if some Danish cartoonist draws Muhammad, the death threats start flying. This isn't because all Muslims are violent, but rather, because a rather significant subset of them are. In today's society, any organization, religious or otherwise, should be open to public criticism and even satire. Currently, Islam ranks up there with Scientology when it comes to a complete inability to laugh at themselves. That just isn't healthy and needs to change. Those few violent Muslims out there need to learn that they're actually doing Islam a disservice by standing up for it in such disgraceful ways.
As for the West's part, I really don't think we're doing Islam any favors by censoring anti-islam speech. If followers of Islam want to move beyond their current "suspected terrorist" status and find wide acceptance, Muslims *everywhere* have to learn to suck it up and take it when their religion is criticized or satired. If they can show they can shrug off an insult or take a joke then Muslim populations in Western countries might start to find acceptance easier to come by.
Network Solutions has no problem with Hizbollah
http://english.hizbollah.org/index.php
WHOIS:
https://my.mirahost.com/order/viewwhois.php?domain=hizbollah&ext=org
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
By that standard "convicting an ideology = racism" everyone is extremist :
Proof : Either you are pro-nazi(1) or contra-nazi(2).
(1) nazi's condemn (for example) catholicism, therefore they qualify
(2) is trivial
For a politician who lives by stirring the pot, Wilders will be most grateful to NS. Slashdot, CNN, BBC News, his movie is promoted and discussed across the globe. Win. I predict a big torrent hit.
What you're saying is if you insult enough people it's a hate crime.
It's not.
OK, I have read the Bible, several times. And have it installed on my computers. And have read enough of the Koran to understand the problem. And what you say is misleading.
There is really no comparison between true Christianity and Islam. However, false christianity and Islam do have some similarities; Islam is still by far worse. It is the complete opposite of Freedom and Liberty. The U. S. Constitution itself is the opposite of the Koran, written much more succinctly. And one, unfortunately, diluted and chipped away at in a destructive way; especially since 1900 AD or so.
No they aren't. If someone kicked the shit out of you for being a muslim, that would be a hate crime.
Again, no, it is not a hate crime. Making unjustified negative statements about a group of people may be morally wrong, but it is not a hate crime.
I suggest you do a little research on the meaning of "freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech must include the right for someone to say something that you find reprehensible, or it means absolutely NOTHING.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Or burns witches at the stake,
Or kills in name of god (well, I guess almost all do that, maybe except for Buddhism and look where the peace/love got them in popularity contest).
Don't pick on Muslims - not much different from Christians before reformation. Maybe Muslims are going through their own reformation atm, hint, hint.
Religions are screwed up, and as Mr. Ventura said (regarding organized religions) "for weak minded people". Why not believe anymore in Aphrodite or Zeus? You got killed in name of god back then too if you didn't believe in Zeus.
Geert Wilders is someone that got this far in politics by feeding on fear and hate.
The man is dangerous and should be ignored, not shut down.
Is anyone tries to shut him up, it will cause publicity.
And we know there's no such thing as bad publicity in politics.
I agree NetSol has very little business in taking down his site, but
I just wish the people would see the man for the windbag he really is.
(a few years ago, we had someone running for government with an agenda slightly like Wilders.
The man got shot (by an 'animal lover', the irony) and they continued the party in his name.
Strangely enough, that empty shell of a party even got into power.
Unfortunately, very few people in that party actually had any knowledge of politics.
Yes, chaos ensued...)
Now, quite some time later, the exact same thing is happening -again-...
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
Once (a couple of years ago) I heard from a Serbian on how things happened there. I don't remember the details, but it was something like this:
When the Ottomans came, they instituted a rule which opressed everyone who was not Muslim (well, the local population). Basically everyone else was a second-class person, lacking any rights what-so-ever. One could not work with commerce and other things, all you could do is to work in the fields and live as a peasant.
Eventually, the Bosniaks realised that instead of fighting against the invaders, it would be a good idea to turn themselves into Muslims. And so they did, they kicked out their previous beliefs and decided to become someone else. They upgraded their status by doing so, gained privileges accordingly and became part of the oppressing force.
Well, one day the Russians came and expelled the Ottomans.
The Bosniaks, being native people, stayed and became part of the Muslim island of Europe we know nowadays.
Accurate or not, it's an interesting history and makes one think about.
We sit around all rich and advanced and western, but beneath it all we just need someone to hate. Another tribe to vilify.
Islam, which does not tolerate a wide variety of other Free Speech.Shenanigans my good man. The canons of Islam are no more nor less ridiculous than those of any other major religion. Just as Richard Dawkins points out that "Christian morality" cannot possibly come from the bible, "Muslim intolerance" is also a myth.
Which is not to say that there isn't something barbaric going on in the Muslim world. Could it have something to do with the average income of Muslims being about 1/7 of incomes in the west? Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?
I've deployed to the richest Muslim societies on the planet, and seen the best they can do under the guidance of your oppressive, barbaric, pseudo-Nazi superstition.If you are referring to Saudi Arabia, let's talk about Aramco, through which American money has supported the rule of the House of Saud and the Wahibbist's grip on Saudi society for decades. Dontcha think that would piss some people off, particularly those who live under that regime without profiting?
No, Islam itself is not the problem. It's economics and politics that are the source of this era of Muslim weirdness. This is definitely not a case of we are better than them, it's a case of, boy we are lucky we weren't born in one of those countries.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Censorship is immoral. I have not viewed the film, nor do I plan to view the film; but I will make an effort to find and download this film. Censorship is IMMORAL!!!!!
I will do (nearly) anything to promote ANYTHING (in regards to visual, oral, or verbal representations) in regards to media that ANYBODY finds to be questionable, immoral, illegal, unethical, etc.)
Fight the good fight Slashdotters! Make an effort to download only things that are illegal!
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/3619543/_Wilders_slaat_aanbod_af__.html?p=14,1 in Dutch
http://canadianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/03/wilders-declines-offer-from-muslim.html in English
So apperently the Muslims in the Netherlands are willing to show it if they can see it upfront to make sure it contains no legally libel content.
Nice to see that the Muslims are more willing and open then a US based company when it concerns free speech.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
> There are more than enough passages in the Koran to justify the
> killing of non-Mulsims
False
> 4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who
> disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols (unbelief).
> So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.
The words translated as "believe" (iman) and "disbelieve" (kufr) don't refer to the state of being a Muslim or not. They refer to
1. "putting belief into practice" (iman) through good and righteous works; and
2. "covering the truth and fighting it" (kufr), ie, persecution on account of believing and practising Islam. In the second case there is not a hint of fighting, let alone, killing, someone because of their belief.
Also, the word is "fight", not "do battle". Fighting is not necessarily something physical.
> 2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for
> Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against > wrong-doers.
Again, the context is defense from persecution. The word mis-translated above as "wrong-doers" (zaalimiin) actually means "oppressors". That is, oppression must be fought and defended against, not someone else's belief.
> The second one sounds good - except that the Koran defines a wrong-doer
> very broadly. It is a class that includes freethinkers, polytheists,
> atheists and non-Muslims that preach their own religion.
Who on earth told you this?!? Islam, as exemplified by the Prophet, is more interested in actions than belief. There are many cases of people in the early generations of Islam who were openly atheist etc and left alone to themselves. Again, the context is persecution and oppression.
> 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye > may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till
> they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take > them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper > from among them.
Again, very bad translation. Better:
4:89 They long that ye should cover the facts even as they cover the facts, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not comforters from them till they migrate in the way of Allah; if they betray you for another allegiance then take them and kill them according to the manner in which ye find them; choose no comforter nor helper from among them.
This refers to hypocrites who claim outward allegiance to your community but who would betray you to your enemies given half a chance. The test for this particular hypocrisy is that they "migrate" with you and share in your hardships and difficulties -- assuming they are really sincere. But if they betray you then the penalty for treason is death.
Death penalty for treason is a well-established norm in law throughout the ages. Nobody likes a traitor.
Note also the "according to the manner in which ye find them" as opposed to "wherever ye find them". The second is a very bad translation. The point is that if you find them red-handed in the act of treason then their punishment will be death. Otherwise they may be forgiven or given another punishment. Again, there are many cases of this in the Prophet's life, where he forgave or commuted.
> 4:101 And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail
> (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In
> truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
Those who oppress you, steal your property, and otherwise persecute you on account of your belief and practice are certainly an enemy to you. Who could possibly disagree with that?
==========
When these verses are put into historical, logical, and linguistic context they make perfect sense and are quite reasonable, even by 21st century standards.
The equation of salvation as a function of faith in a dogmatic set of
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus [...] smoking a joint and nobody will prevent me from saying it, [...]
Maybe I should have gone to church today [Easter]. That's one Jew I'd like to get to know better... With his long hair and cavalier way I'd bet he would have made one hell of a programmer today.
*Caveat: I am Christian and my best friends are pot smoking Jew's.
"No, Islam itself is not the problem."
Then by WHICH Muslim societies should I judge Islam?
"Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?"
MMkay, how about IRAN? They tossed the Shah, have had free reign to establish an Islamic society, and are ruled by Mullahs. No secular Saddams in sight.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
No, Islam itself is not the problem.
Hmm, I think your argument misses the point a little.
You are saying that since Islam is no worse than any other monotheistic, dogmatic religion (true; though lets limit it to those, rather than "major religions" in general), and since we, as a people, are not somehow inherently better than Arabs or Persians (perfectly true), then any differences in our societies cannot be attributed to religion or culture? That's kind of a leap.
How about the fact that we live in a secular country, and many of them in theocratic ones? That while our predominant religion is as morally abhorrent as theirs, it has far, far less influence on our daily lives (especially those of us who don't subscribe to it)? For some reason it's extremely tempting for us, the oh so multicultural liberals, to just give religion a free pass on all this: "Why, it's all because of economics and standard of living, and theosophy is just the window dressing!"; but, when you have countries, founded and run on the precepts of a religion, that continuously flaunt the most abominable violations of human rights in the name of that religion, it becomes a little hard to say that with a straight face.
We sit around all rich and advanced and western, but beneath it all we just need someone to hate. Another tribe to vilify.
Because we think that a theocratic regime that, for starters, does not recognize a universal right to life is not a just society? I don't get how that reasoning goes.
Huh, I guess all that boils down to: "I'll see your Richard Dawkins, and raise you a Sam Harris."
Also, the West is to blame for the majority of social problems in the Middle East? Give me a break.
sic transit gloria mundi
Call me old fashioned, but in my view every Right brings with it a corresponding Duty. In this case, the flip side of the Right to Freedom of Expression is the Duty to be Civil in what you say and not go around pushing the limits of good taste [or even taste, period] as Messrs. Wilders and van Gogh are/were wont to do. So, IOW, say what you like but be polite about it.
Using an ellipsis instead of a period is a Hate Crime. Also, it's...
annoying.
NS has reserved the right to control what people can use their servers for - because in this instance, they are operating in capacity as the web site host. The people making the video agreed to this limitation when they signed up. NS is just working within their own not-unreasonable interpretation of their ToS. If the ToS policy is too broad, then it's up to the site owners to receive clarification before signing up for the service. At this point, there is absolutely nothing stopping the owner from taking their business elsewhere (which is exactly what they /should/ do her).
NS is no longer providing the service that these people wish even though they acknowledged the possibility to start with; so they should be taking their business elsewhere -- free market at its finest.
Now, if NS was acting in their capacity as a registrar/root DNS provider, then it can rightly be called censorship. But this? Just a web host deciding it doesn't want to host a certain type of content.
There does need to be some moderation of the internet.
Kiddie porn - this is illegal for a reason, not just on the internet. It's a crime, because there is a victim.
Snuff - same as above.
Libel - in some communities, professions and industries, you can ruin a person in days if you come up with a convincing and clever lie. If you can't say it in real life without it being actionable, you shouldn't be able to say it on the internet either.
Anything that lacks a direct victim should be acceptable. This includes inciteful speech(not 'insightful', I mean truly speech to 'incite' action that may be illegal), pornography, political matters and anything that someone might find 'offensive'.
I want to protect the rights of my enemies to speak their mind, lest I become an enemy of my own state and have no right to speak.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Heh. Apparently the person who modded me flamebait felt it should not be free speech - probably because of the emotionally weighted words and phrases I deliberately chose. (Mid-career Heinlein should be required reading before being allowed to mod... )
Humans suck.
I guess I just gave the entire world permission to stone me.
Regardless of which religion or belief, it seems to me the root cause of taking such great offense to insults comes from a great insecurity or emotional immaturity.
Is this the case for certain groups of adults in our society and/or evidence or reinforcement of their religious "studies" through life?
This is why port blocks and other terms of service are evil. If you can't serve something on your own machine with bandwith you buy, you are at the mercy of others. When they want to censor you, they will. The reason for that censorship does not matter. If it can happen it will be abused.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
Why should the speech be restricted if it is offensive to a billion people? Simply being offensive isn't a good enough reason. There are things you could say to me that I'd find offensive, but I'd never advocate making your speech illegal.
First of all I'm an atheist who is puzzled that religion in all it's mystic forms continues to have so much influence in our nominally enlightened times. Don't take me as an apologist for Islam.
...since we, as a people, are not somehow inherently better than Arabs or Persians (perfectly true), then any differences in our societies cannot be attributed to religion or culture?How do you separate the different factors: economic, political, historical, religious, demographic, and "cultural" (whatever that is) and say that just one, the religion, is the problem? I can't. I didn't say religion and culture have no influence, but you seem to be saying they should be the prime suspects until proven otherwise. That makes no sense to me.
Particularly because religious doctrine is so open to abuse by megalomaniacs with the gift of the gab, and doubly so in Islam where there is no central authority, so local Imams can make all sorts of crazy pronouncements based on that they are wannabe tinpot dictators of the local village.
Because we think that a theocratic regime that, for starters, does not recognize a universal right to life is not a just society? I don't get how that reasoning goes.Well I'm sorry, but it just doesn't look to me like the problem in the Islamic world is Islam, it's poverty and rotten political systems. Which is the fault of history, greed, and power, not the type of magic the poor slobs believe in. But the type of exchanges in this story show, people just want a relgion to hate. Still after all these years and in this gathering place of supposedly educated people, so many just want to hate a religion. *Sigh*
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
There is only one question: If no one else volunteers, will SourceForge, Inc volunteer to host the movie for free! If the answer is no, then Slashdot has no right to an opinion.
If you are that easily offended (by what someone says or writes), then you REALLY need to lighten up.
Sticks and stones man. Sticks and stones...
Network Solutions is giving in to terrorists in censoring this.
But I'm sure it will be available everywhere real soon, probably on everything from BitTorrent to the Internet Archive.
Back in the 1970s, there were Islamic threats of bombings over "Mohammed, Messenger of God", and it was pulled from theaters. Yet today, nobody cares. That film is a straight biography of Mohammed; some of the less crazy Islamic countries use it as an educational film. You can buy it on DVD for $29.95 if you like. I've seen it; the battle scenes are impressive and the Arabian horses are very good ones, but the acting is disappointing.
On a threat scale of 10, with WWI and WWII as a 10, and the USSR as an 8, Islamic terrorism scores around 0.5. They'll probably make trouble again, and we'll deal with it when it happens. Meanwhile, ignore their threats.
No you're not. Not by a long shot. In particular, if this book - and books don't generally "incite" violence BTW - is giving your opinion, then it is free speech no matter how f-d up. To incite a riot you practically have to be at the head of the mob pointing the people towards a car to flip or someone to throw rocks at. It is not enough to say that people ought to riot or should riot.
Maybe now, christians don't behave that way, but Islam's relatively young. Christianity has a 600-odd year head-start on maturity. Now, think about how christians behaved 600 years ago, and how many of the world's peoples are still recovering. I guess this is just how 1400-year-old religions behave.
Just wait until Islam's balls drop and it gets laid. Maybe by the time it gets to college it'll be calmer and more thoughtful. Until then, why don't we stop looking down our noses and accept that our own religious heritage is full to the brim with ignorance and atrocities barely matched in human history.
As a dutch colored guy, I would be assumed to not be a fan of Wilders (the guy that made said movie that no one has seen yet)... and that's true, in fact, if I didn't have half a brain, I'd probably go out and punch that guy as hard as I can in the face because he's advocating seperation and instead of working together, advocates hate and stigmatizing all people that aren't white as criminals.
But I don't... I severely despise everything he stands for, yet I will fight for his right to say so. Even if the movie is offensive and inflamatory (and no one has seen it yet), I think if we ban this or any other speech, it's not just bad for "free speech" but mostly, a threat to an open society. I think his kind would never have gained the support if we would all allow him to say whatever stupid things he wants. When it's not allowed to talk about it, all good reasons against it aren't heard either. I say, let's view his inflamotory, hatefull movie and laugh about / discuss it.
That said... I really fear what will happen to him, cos we can't really expect a guy that's so full of **** and so much in the public spotlight to *not* get some crazy muslim to kill him... I mean, I hope it doesn't happen and just degrades to another "Jan Maat", but if he does get killed (and he's really working hard to make that a reality) his views will only be adopted even more... and he will have gained more support in death than he ever could in life...
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
...if the torrent was posted on it. Would the fanatics listen to the argument that it is only holding the torrent and has nothing to do with the film?
Islamophobia is no different than anti-Semitism and if anti-Semitism is hate crime, so is Islamophobia.
Great. Anti-Semitism is not a crime. I can hate all the Jews I want because they are Jewish and I've committed no crime. So you are asserting that Islamophobia is also not a crime. I agree. There is no crime in hating you for your religion. There is no crime in insulting you because of your religion. There is no crime in making fun of your religion and your religious figures. There is no crime in any of that, so you agree that it shouldn't be prevent for anyone to do that to any religion, including yours. That's the core of the Freedom of Speech, to say that which everyone hates and thinks is wrong.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
That makes you a terrorist. You want to make a crime my ability to speak my mind. I hate you. Not because you are Muslim. Not because you are a radical (and you are, despite your claims, or you wouldn't want to make it illegal for people to speak their minds about any subject). I hate you because you are claiming to be renouncing violence, yet stating that you want the State to enforce, through violence (the only way to enforce a law, including those against "hate crimes") when you are unable or unwilling to use violence yourself. Not only are you a spineless coward, but you are a hypocritical spineless coward. Oh, and please note, I didn't insult your religion. Whatever religion you had or didn't have is irrelevant to your condemnation of violence, followed by your support thereof. It is the ignorant hypocricy that I hate, and anyone that displays it with such vigor in a public forum is worthy of my disdain.
Learn to love Alaska
I find it offensive to human intellect and advancement that billions still believe and fight wars over religious bullshit. I find the mere existance of a church in my community to be offensive. But I will fight, maybe even with my life if I have to, to protect your right to be deluded and to express those delusions.
or is that slop reserved for christians alone?
muslims are lower then animals and deserve to be put into mass graves with all speed. muslims are the nazis of today. bow to allah or die? allah is a myth and mohammad was a child rapist.
you're a subscriber to a hateful and intolerant religion. if you had an ounce of logic you would reject it lies. allah is a myth and mohammad was a child rapist. your religion is being used to promote hate and if you support it or defend it you are among the haters and their victims blood is on your hands. you are part of a problem that is destroying society. reject it now and help become part of the cure for this sickening illness.
down with islam, it's a liars path to barbarism.
You do realize that the US and British governments, through the CIA and Secret Intelligence Service, overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh and the most democratic and secular government Iran ever had, to protect British oil interests in 1953. And put the Shah, a brutal and hated dictator in power in his place. Iran was so destabilized by this that the Ayatollahs were able to take the place over. Read "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" by Stephen Kinzer for a good history lesson on this subject. Free reign to establish a fair government my ass. When Iran was getting close to having a stable secular government, it was wiped out by the US. And we wonder why they hate us in the Middle East.
If he wants to present volatile material (truth or not) from one religion, he should do the same for all of them. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a hate film.
There's no such thing as an objective work solely against just one idea, nor is there any such thing as an objective work solely in favor of just one idea.
Now, if the film presents objective, irrefutable proof backing up its disdain towards Islam, then sure, it's fine. However, judging from who the person is and what he's been doing so far, I seriously doubt that this is the case. I'm bookmarking my reply for when the film is released and I'll get back to you once I watch it.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Eh, that was most certainly a mistranslation. The proper text means something along the lines of malconvokers. Yes, it's in the female form but it's also plural, which tends to include both sexes. So, basically, thou shalt not suffer a practicer of evil magics to live. Of course, by presupposing the presence of evil magics(which is not the same thing as assuming all magic is automatically evil), one also presupposes the presence of good magic.
So free speech is only ok when everyone's polite and no one says anything too disagreeable?
Meaning that if someone questioned the historical events of the Nazi Holocaust, they would be free to speak right? Ummm...I guess not! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial It is illegal in Europe to question the Holocaust.
(Pssssttt it's me again Skybuck hihihi):
Finally, dos-attacks are nothing new.
This raises the question:
Don't they have DOS-preventation technology ?
This pretty much illiminates the bandwidth argument for me.
Bye,
Skybuck.
Q- How USA would react to a Russian movie depicting american soldiers, civilians, well any, killing people, devastating countries, terminating life..destructing...etc
...hmm...
A- probably a missile war in Tchad
Q- or, say, the cousin of the cable guy, who is turkish, painting in the wall of your house the message bellow:
[your name here]'s a gay, a Nazi and a fat liar
A- you will send him an sms saying " I think that you are mistaking, but in the name of freedom of speech I will not harm you"
russia tinkers in british affairs. china tinkers in american affairs. cuba tinkers in angolan affairs
etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum
most every country that exists and has ever existed and will ever exist has tinkered in the affairs of other countries
and you want to do two things:
1. conveniently forget all tinkering by any country except american tinkering
2. leverage that american tinkering into direct accountability by the usa for whatever bullshit someone else does
example: britian, france, russia, china, and the usa all had arms deals with iraq. but we'll forget all of that and just think about the usa. next, saddam hussein gassed kurds. so obviously, the usa is responsible for that
this is your superior understanding of the world?
your example of this kind of bullshit is saying this:
1. an american gas company had dealings with the house of saud. you are conveniently forgetting the involvement of companies and businesses from almost every nation on earth in saudi arabia
2. the house of saud does bad things. therefore, the usa is directly responsible for whatever it is that is done
i find this bias of yours
1. sheltered. you are only aware of western and american activites in the world, none else
2. condescending and patronizing. only westerners and americans can ever be responsible for their actions. other people can't?
people like you just blow my mind. you have this incredible bias, and you will stretch accountability and responsiblity into the most incredibly creative lines of reasoning, and not once think "hmmm, maybe other governments and peoples in this world are capable of doing bad things?"
how do people like you function?
i for one, think maybe i can't beat you, i should join you
but my bias is anti-philippines:
1. the philippines has 800,000 guest workers in saudi arabia. we all know that the filipino is a wily manipulator, so this means the philippines is responsible for what happens in saudi arabia now
2. saudi arabia is the source of a most of the hijackers on 9/11. it is impossible that most of those saudi hijakers didn't meet and conspire with of one of those 800,000 filipinos at some point
therefore, the philippine government is 100% repsonsible for 9/11
sounds pretty stupid and funny, right?
now you know you sound
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nuts to them. If you can only insult 1/6 of the world population at once you're not even trying.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I like the Dutch people. They go out of their way to make people feel welcome. But this is a case of the guests holding the hosts hostage. So here come these Muslim nutzies holding a nation in fear. You will believe in our god or we'll cut your head off? Nonsense. How do you tell someone that their faith is misplaced. How do you deprogram somebody of their religious fervor or zeal. How do you tell someone they're wrong. That their fanaticism is a disease of which they must be cured. You don't do this by being timid. You do it by being rational. You do it by challenging the belief of the group of individual that challenges your rationality. To do anything less is surrender to the madness which has claimed so many lives.
That was not my interpretation of the cartoon at all. Perhaps it was the author's interpretation and intention. I don't know. But perhaps not and I am personally inclined to think not. Any writing or work of art is necessarily interpreted by the reader or viewer often times in ways the author did not even consider.
My thought upon seeing the cartoon was not that it was intended to depict Muhammad as a suicide bomber but to show that many Muslims must think of him as one since they justify their suicide bombings in His name. In other words, the cartoon is not intended to show the author's thoughts about Muhammed but to show what the author thinks radical Muslims must be thinking about Muhammed.
Consider an equivalent work of art for Christianity: The Piss Christ. At first glance it is disgusting that my religion's most important prophet, the one we consider to be no ordinary prophet but actually god in the flesh, is depicted defiled in a jar of urine. But the artist succeeded in making a very profound statement with the work, namely that the actions of some christians are tantamount to pissing on the image of Christ. Was this the artist's intention? I don't know. To me it seems the guy just likes vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity and he may not have had any deeper meaning for it other than wanting to take a picture of a jar of urine and call it art. That said, I am not alone in interpreting the work as a statement not against Christ but instead against those who would use his name to justify their bad actions.
There was, inevitably, a huge media uproar regarding this work of art. But no bombs went off. No cars or houses were burned. No one fired off rockets. No one threatened the artist's life and if someone had he would have been arrested. In fact, the biggest uproar and the real meat of the story was not so much that the artist created it. After all, we live in a free society and this artist's speech is protected by the first amendment. No, the meat of the story was that this artist was actually paid by the U.S. government to create it! Some argue that because of "separation of church and state" the government has violated that very same amendment by producing (or rather paying to produce) this work.
I would not be one of them though. Our constitution, in the first amendment, does not say "separation of church and state" as many like to claim it does. What it does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and continues "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." To me the text is quite clear and quite specific. It's actually the latter half of the first part that applies in this case: "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The artist can very easily claim that he is exercising his religion by creating this work and thus congress can do nothing to prohibit it.
In the end nothing was done and some number of people have used it as a starting point for philosophical thought. Those who view the Piss Christ purely as an example of anti-Christian hate do so to their own detriment. Likewise those who view the Muhammad cartoon as an example of anti-Muslim hate do so to their own detriment. Think about it.
God be with you.
you have to go back 10 years to find a christian bombing? i can go back about 10 days and find dozen muslim bombings.
this is crescents to crosses. very different.
More about the anti-media campaign is linked here, including videos:
http://www.mediamatic.net/article-34157-en.html
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
I've read a lot of the comments here, and it's great, lots of well balanced argument and things out of context being put back in context. Sadly however, I don't believe any amount of discussion my us (non-Muslims) will help in the slightest. The onus is on the "high priests" of the Islamic faith to be outraged at the actions of their brothers taking up arms against civilians or otherwise declaring war for no good reason.
Those who preach violence must simply be excommunicated from the faith. The reason why mainstream Islam is being poked and ridiculed is because of our collective anger and frustration at not hearing enough condemnation from Muslims and Islam in general against that kind of violent, evil behaviour.
*I* don't believe in good and evil, but they do, so those acts of terrorism and barbarity should be declared EVIL and the WORK OF SATAN by those who preach mainstream Islam. That's the only thing that will make us feel safer and more at peach with Muslims in our midst, and deter young people from joining the club. But I just don't hear it! It leaves people wondering, "do they care? do they agree?"
Muslims themselves complain about discrimination and getting queer looks - well, what do they expect, given such a resounding silence? If some branch of Christianity was going off on another Crusade, and the Bishops and clergy weren't riled up and ranting about what a corruption of the Bible it was and being as vocal as possible about it, they shouldn't be surprised if non-Christians think they're a bunch of ignorant savages.
The PR department of Islam just isn't stepping up to help. On one hand Islam is being belligerent and nasty, and on the other they're not saying much about it. Things won't get better until that changes. It's THEIR faith, they need to throw out those who subvert and corrupt it, and do something to fix the damage in people's minds.
I think anybody should be free to practice whatever religion they like, as long as they don't harm anybody else or infringe on anybody else's right. But we cannot let Muslim fundamentalists attempt to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. To me, there is nothing holy about Mohammed or the Koran, and I have the right to pick it apart and criticize it any way I want to, even if it is offensive to Muslim.
What's ironic about the Muslim position is that Muslims say incredibly offensive and blasphemous things day after day. For example, Muslims deny that Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of humanity; it is difficult to imagine something more blasphemous and offensive to say to a Christian. Let's not even talk about all the flag and effigy burning, and all the vitriol, these people are heaping on the West.
Muslims have gotten used to living in countries where their own religion dominates all public life and all speech. We cannot allow their censorship and attitudes to spread to the rest of the world. The ability to criticize and offend other religions is an integral part of free speech and religious freedom.
If you think your religion should be respected, then you should also respect mine.
My religion teaches that there have never been, are not now, and never will be human prophets. There are no magical human beings. To my religion, belief in human prophets is a blasphemy to God.
How else can I express my religion but to insult yours? The things you profess are a gross repugnancy to me. Your religion's teachings exalt humans over God.
The only way to puncture this false balloon that you raise teaching that there are magical humans is to insult your magical humans. Making negative blanket statements against your religion constitutes the sacred holy expression of my religious faith.
Another tenet of my religion is that denial of the right to criticize is a denial of humanity. Civilization itself, raising men and women above and different from beasts, depends on rational thought and criticism. Your telling me not to be critical is like telling me to be a subservient beast instead of a human being. Telling me not to be critical is disrespecting God, and the capacity for criticism which God imbued in all of us.
Have the guts to leave the temple. Know God, instead of your fallible mullahs.
Not that i agree with their actions, and I absolutely abhor the idea of censorship through the DNS system, but I've got some food for thought:
Would this have been tagged cowardice if they had taken down an anti christian site under threats by the KKK? Or a anti-jewish site under legal threat from the jewish ADL? I tend to doubt it.
Not trying to make any particular political statement, or say that those situations are entirely comparable, but I think that the cowardice tag nicely portrays this aspect of the the adversarial relationship between the western (primarily US) and Islamic worlds at this point in time... Cowardice not only would indicate that they were doing the wrong thing, but also essentially challenging the "manliness" of the company making the decision.
Just a thought.
The ex-Yugoslavian conflicts, like "The Trouble" in Northern Ireland, and the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, are all more tribal than religious in nature, despite that the grouping has religious names.
In Yugoslavia it would be more correct to characterize the people who committed most of the atrocities as Serbian nationalists than as Orthodox Christian fundamentalists.
.. is an Arabic word and since the Quran is in Arabic, hence the use of word in it. But it cannot be said that Fitna is a Quranic word. Secondly, why is it that slashdot is discussing something religious? I thought it was a tech related site ...
You're wrong. Discriminating jews because of their race may be anti-semitism. Insulting the stupid, backward, superstitious jewish religion is not. See, I just did it, no problem at all.
X.
Reasonable? Apparently you already have made up your mind that it will be an '[...] inflamatory, hatefull [sic] movie', whereas you even state no one has seen it yet. So it is a bit hypocritical to say such a thing. And the fact that you are afraid that 'some crazy muslim [will] kill him' already points out a problem with said group when it comes to accepting critique.
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
I spent my web hosting budget contracting for hosting services at Network Solutions. I do not set their policy, and while I do vote with my wallet most of the time, the next time I vote on them is several years out. I think it is rash and unfair to bash their clients for the provider's actions. I object strongly. They are a corporation and are subject to civil and criminal laws, as well as economic pressures in the marketplace. If you don;'t like them, don't use them, but get off my back.
Wilders, it seems to me, has simply found an intricate and very public way of committing suicide. Of course, we should hope no-one actually succeeds in killing him, but is it wise to parade into a pub frequented by hooligans of team A, when you're all dressed up in the colours of team B, and announcing team B's utter superiority, and inevitable victory?
I, like many others here in the Netherlands, am quite fed up with professional hate-mongers like Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I live in a "mulitcultural" part of the city, and get along just fine with my muslim neighbours.
Of course, Wilders has every right to release his movie. But perhaps he could pay for his own security, from now on?
With 1 in 16 people being Muslim in the Netherlands, if all Muslims are really that dangerous, I expexted the Netherlands to be a Muslim country a long time ago. Fact is it isn't.
People like Wilders fail to see that.
I won't deny there are dangerous Muslims with dangerous ideas. But there are Christians aswell that rather have their children die than allow them a blood transfusion, wich is, in my opinion, also a danrerous outing your religion.
I came across traffic death statistics last week. In the EU last yeas 40000+ people were killed in traffic accidents. I bet it's about the same in the US. Now let's take the US and the EU together for a period of 5 years. That makes.. 2 * 40000 * 5 = 400000 lethal traffic incidents.
Compare that to 4000 (rounded up BIGtime) deaths by terrorism and you do the math.
I agree terrotism is a LOT scarier than traffic, but fact is you're way more likely to be killed in traffic than by terrorism.
So coming back to that movie. I think politicians and especially Wilders take things way out of proportion. In general, most people just want to have a house, food and some money (some want more than others) to have a nice living and no matter what background or religion, there ale ALWAYS some fanatic nutcases.
Some make it into politics, and we have had some bad experience with that in Europe, and others form terrorist cells, but in most cases it's a small group with a lot of impact that spoils it for the rest and now Wilders gets waytoo much attention for his movie, wich, at this moment nobody has seen yet.
Privacy is terrorism.
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points. So I assume, unlike the grandparent, you have seen the film.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
The content of the website was no more than a single sentence "Coming soon - Fitna", and a picture of the Quoran. If that is considered objectional, than any and all websites can be declared in violation of those terms and conditions!
No-one knows the content of this movie. Mr. Wilders has announced that he will show the dark sides of Islam. However, he has not been seen with camera teams, not has anyone else seen camera's in action. With the amount of media attention his announcement got, it would be naive to think that any related movie set would go unnoticed! Most likely the movie will be a documentary using existing material from previously shown sources.
Mr. Wilders does not have to release his movie anymore - The ridiculous responses to just the announcements, including Network Solutions becoming a censor, proves his point that Islam has no self-reflection and should be considered a dangerous movement to Western freedom.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
A conflict between human social groups has escalated to one between secularist orthodoxy and muslim orthodoxy. Lots of people are trying their best to show how fiercely orthodox they can be, in a "I am more righteous than thou be-est" contest. Network Solutions has just been caught in the middle. Having this site up long before putting his movie on it (if it even exists), is clearly a major tactical blunder of its creator.
Abortion clinic bombing. Abortion doctor killing. True those are not suicide bombing. They are even more coward, they pose their bomb and then go away.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think Wilders is a classic example of someone with absolutely nothing better to do. It serves no purpose to create this sort of aggravation - it's cheap and cowardly. It takes guts to start a honest dialogue, but people like Wilders aren't interested in dialogue - they just like the disruption.
In a way, people like Wilders are terrorists themselves - attention seeking idiots.
There are plenty of countries where various religions co-exist (and I include the Middle East in that, Oman is a good example), it's a matter of respecting each other. But maybe that's what people like Wilders are afraid of? No more media prominence? Afraid to disappear into the void like the zeros they are?
The killing of the politician was bad enough. I personally don't think that crime should be made worse by giving zealots like Wilders free reign. He's wilfully inciting religious hatred.
in many middle east countries, hatred towards west, christianity, jews, abd, europe is propagated through even publications and media of state. apart from that 'private' media, sects and such are preaching every kinds of hate towards everything west counts sacred too. stuff that one wouldnt dare repeat in a post here goes as ordinary sermons in many places. and mohammad cartoons pale in comparison to whats being spoken and circulated about west and its holy values in middle east.
west tolerates it. they dont go rioting and threatening to kill people over constant disrespect that is being done towards west and western values in middle east. not only that, but they even endure the filthy terrorism that results from this atmosphere when the radical sources make use of that hatred to recruit and make people go kill themselves and others.
yet, muslims do not offer the same kind of tolerance and enduring to west. in any smallest criticism or comment brought towards anything they think that is relevant to themselves, they make big stampede, create diplomatic rows, threaten to kill people, even they do kill people.
this is the biggest hypocrisy that exists on the face of the world as of now. just like a selfish, extremely self centered persona wants everything his/her way, intolerant of anyone else.
just check out the replies to this post. you'll find out that that intolerance can exist even among people who read slashdot.
Read radical news here
I don't know if you're posting this excerpt in support of their actions, or merely providing interesting information. But I'll make some comments on the quoted paragraphs.
Whilst I empathise with their desire to disassociate themselves from the beliefs of this politician, their statement that they are "against censorship" is not compatible with their activities of spreading disinformation and drowning out of the original message.It's only bias and double standards that allow them to think they are not trying to censor the original movie. Their defence against that charge, if you look at it logically, is merely that they aren't completely successful in censoring the movie, not that they aren't trying to do so! And whether or not they are successful is a point of debate. After all, I tried to download what I was told was the movie, to find that it was an archive of pirated music. I personally avoid pirating music as I don't agree with it and now I find myself torrenting the bloody stuff. You can imagine that I resent being lied to.
If these groups wish to counter the message of the film, then they should produce a commentary to the film that addresses the points within it. If they can do this, then they will more successfully undermine the politician's beliefs and convince people of their case. If they can't do this, then they do not have an argument against what he says. Preventing people from seeing the film by whatever method is still censorship. Do I need to expand on what is wrong with that?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Network Solutions have absolutely no objections against hosting the worst of objectionable material in existence. Guess who hosts .. Hesbollah.org?
http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/us-hizbolla-yes-wilders-no/
This is cowardice, pure and simple. I think we need legilative improvements to protect our freedom of expression. And communication. This includes protecting ISP's from at least some kinds of legal responsibility for their contents - Common Carrier (see Wikipedia) seems a suitable model.
Defending Civil Liberties has never been more important. It's so good to see at least _some_ individuals standing up for this.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
> Apparently you already have made up your mind that it will be an '[...] inflamatory, hatefull [sic] movie
Talk about selective quoting.. Who moderated this up?
The GP said 'Even if', so he's mind is not already set as you're saying.
I despise religions but that's not a reason to make false statement with 'selective' quotings.
'objectionable material of any kind or nature.'
i.e., everything on the internet. Wow, what a bunch of sackless cowards.
"Lot's of Dutch folks are very upset about the young firebrand politician Wilders, and wish he'd go shut up and go away. So, they are planning a googlebomb, to in the hopes of undermining the exposure the film Fitna receives."
Just because of this, I will now watch the movie, even though I had no plans to previously.
I wish people trying to censor other people would shut up and go away.
Dictatorships don't tolerate free speech, and almost all states that have majority muslim populations are dictatorships of some sort. We won't know if islam tolerates free speech until those country's have an educated population and a government by the people. Of course once a population is educated then religion dies off so perhaps we will never know.
There are a few cases where muslim countries have transitioned (Indonesia), but their democracies are still very shaky and have not yet been established long enough to educate the populace. Watch this space tho.
Which is not to say that there isn't something barbaric going on in the Muslim world. Could it have something to do with the average income of Muslims being about 1/7 of incomes in the west? Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?
I think its not so much the people taking an analytical view of the situation and making an educated decision on who to blame for their predicament here, but more the dictatorial governments needing someone else to blame game. They blame the west, much like many african countries do, and rather like Georgie boy blames the terrorists. Its not the fact that the country is run by corrupt fascists lining their own pockets, its the west you see, there's a conspiracy to keep them down because we in the west all hate islam/are neo colonialists don't-cha-know. Tactics like this appeal to the ignorant and uneducated, and when most of your population is that, it forms a pretty good political base.
Muslims living the US do pretty well for themselves, higher than average incomes, and there's never been an 'incident' involving a US Muslim. What's the difference? I'm betting its education & opportunity.
Give the muslim world good government, good education and the opportunity that comes with it and you'll have open dialog instead of violent protest. Simple.
...so now even Slashdot is 'in to it' ?
....
I think I'm freaking out - we hardly hear anything else than "Wilders' new movie" here on the news (in The Netherlands), now even my favorite slack-log is detailing it.
I think I'm going to work for Micro$oft now
because he's advocating seperation and instead of working together,
Curious....what's your opinion of the muslims there calling for their own little societies, completely removed from Dutch culture, with their sharia law replacing Dutch law?
Note that I really don't know much about Wilders, but I am always suspicious of people who say someone "advocates hate" and is against people who aren't white, as that usually is just not true. The same things are said in the US about anyone who thinks illegal immigration is a problem.
I would also like to point out that Hirsi Ali is also "really working hard to make that a reality" (getting herself killed by some crazy Muslim), merely by criticizing Islam. Is she one of those hate filled, white-loving bigots as well?
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
There's a slight chance the film will not be inflammatory and hateful (quit the ad hominem sic please, we're all Dutch here.) There is very little chance that certain religious groups will not be offended at all.
I think the GP deftly avoided the blanket statement you fell for: "certain groups." Just like with Theo van Gogh (for the rest of the world: a cinematographer who made a short film about women's rights under the Koran and was killed by a crazy Muslim) there will be crazy folks with an axe to grind.
About the validity of Wilders' points, I'm sure we can find good sides to every person. I also think that the Netherlands as a nation is worse off with this clown in our parliament. The man is one-issue (rest of the world: the issue being "there are too many foreigners in the Netherlands.") He's trying to instill fear in the Dutch people, fear of the Islam and of foreigners in general. There's a word for it: xenophobia. In a multi cultural society like ours, xenophobia is a bad thing.
In this Saturday's Volkskrant, there was a large piece about all kinds of Islamic groups in the Netherlands, like the LBM (Landelijk Beraad Marokkanen / National Morocan Society) actually and actively defending the Dutch government and society by sending messages to Islamic "hot zones" explaining our stance in the matter, telling them how well integrated they are, how many mosques there are in the Netherlands, etc. The piece is titled "We're not Denmark," an unfortunate title for a text that communicates openness, referring to the Mohammed cartoons.)
Of note is the anti-movement on Youtube: people posting short films saying sorry, titled "Fitna by Geert Wilders", in the hope that a search for the film will yield only apologies.
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society. If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament. I think it's very unfortunate that he's getting so much attention, especially from abroad. People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
The only historic context most of Islam seems to care about is which part of the Surahs came later.
To the muslim invasion. Once again, we can stop people from insulting muslims, but let fly the attack web sites on Christanity. It's insane.
Again I urge any of you that are currently buying into this 'peaceful' religion BS to do some research.
Unlike Christanity, where the ten commandments apply to dealings with everyone, Islam's versions of the commandments only apply when dealing with other Muslims. Think I'm lying? Good. Don't trust me. Don't trust the muslims. Go read it for yourself. It's there in black and white in the Koran.
EK
while risking an offtopic mod, I'm always on the look out for something to read that I might have missed.
Which titles fit your mod requirement? want to make sure I'd not missed anything.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I know that my country holland was one of the most liberal countries in the world and proud of amsterdam being the gay capital.
Now dutch teachers are afraid to discuss homosexuality in class because muslim kids take offence, violently.
Teachers are afraid to teach about the holocaust because of the reaction from muslim kids.
Islam is tearing this country apart because for far too long everyone has tried to cover up any problems. The really bad part is that if this had been dealt with from the beginning their wouldn't be a problem, but now an entire generation of muslim kids has grown up who think they got the right as a minority to dictate how the country should be run.
Make no mistake, some muslims want to introduce Sharia law into this country and are deadly serious about this.
The problem is not the religion itself, we got other extremists here, but the fact that nobody dares to stand up to it.
There is a small religious party that does not allow women to be elected. They are condemned, but when a muslim group suggests that it should be okay to marry at 14, all the powers that be shit their collective pants for fear of offending.
Wilders and others are the voice of the people who are sick to death of this cowardly behavuour and no longer want the problems ignored.
The sad fact is that muslims extremists simply aren't dealt with the same as other extremists and this had led to problems. Take the riots in france, now says that catholics had done the rioting, would the world have been nearly as apologetic? What if it had been blacks? No.
Wilders says a lot of things, but mostly people hear someone who finally is showing a backbone. Don't think Wilders is alone, the socialist SP is riding on the same wave of resentment against how the mainstream has been doing business.
the current goverment only exist because Pim Fortuyn got killed. If he had lived he might well have had the largest party. Wilders is a lot more extreme and people know this, but they hope that he will force the major parties to finally do something and not just bury their heads in the sand.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, the nmo.nl (Dutch Muslim television) even agreed to put the film on show, but for some reason mr. Wilders did not want that. We will probably never know what really went on behind the scenes. As others have said, I might not agree with mr. Wilders, but as long as is is not too insulting (how could we, mere mortals, insult a big almighty anyhow). He has a nack for living right on the edge, so i do not believe he will call for the destruction of Islam, but I'm sure there are enough things that were previously on CNN or Al Jazeraa, combined with specific verses, that will do about the same.
What is ridiculous is that it isn't the film that people are concerned about - it is the reaction of some section of the Muslim community.
I live in the US - we have tons of nutty, racist or homophobic groups running around. Some make news, but never on this scale. Why not? Because whatever negative things may be said about 'Americans' one thing we as a nation do reasonably well (not perfectly, but reasonably) is let asshats speak. Then we ignore them, and they generally fade into the woodwork. A Few examples:
- Nation of Islam. Hasn't gotten much bigger over the last 40 years, despite all the hoopla when Louis Farrakhan calls whites 'Blue eyed devils' or such from time to time.
- A tiny church in rural Arkansas (I believe) that pickets the funerals of dead servicemembers because they believe god is allowing US soldiers to die because America tolerates Gays and Lesbians. No kidding. Point and laugh, they get media attention, but no one takes them seriously, except as a bunch of asshats.
The big deal here is not some (alleged) wingnut politician and a 15-minute film - it is the anticipation of a few million oversensitized Muslims (note: I am not saying *all* muslims are oversensitised, I am saying some are) rioting and killing each other and a few innocent bystanders in reaction to a film that in the grand scheme of things makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. Oh, except the people who get mauled by the rioters.
Freedom of speech is about being able to speak your mind without fear of censorship or 'undue' consequence - i.e., being murdered for said speech. I submit a part and parcel of that freedom is the freedom to ignore anothers' freely-made speech, or respond with your own. To those Muslims who may be offended by this film (which no one has as yet seen):
1. Make your own film. Blaspheme Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, etc. as you see fit. Watch as the rest of the world refrains from rioting and killing people over it.
2. Prepare a point-for-point rebuttal of the films' key themes and arguments once you see it. Upload the rebuttal to Youtube. Observe how people will listen to you and consider what you have said.
3. Ignore this film when it is released. See how fast is falls off the memetic map.
In the US, unlike Europe, speech that is controversial or even factually wrong is allowed, unless it is actually defamatory toward a person. You can't say someone is a prositute unless you can back it up with proof, but you may publicly deny the holocaust here all you like, in print and in person. The US also has more Jews than Israel. You might expect then that such denial would be a big deal, right? Wrong. The only media coverage of holocaust denial we really see here is when some idiot who writes a book on it goes to Germany and gets arrested for holocaust denial, or an occasional overwrought member of B'Nai Brith crying in the media about antisemitism and pointing to three pointy-headed rednecks in rural Nebraska who have a pro-Nazi website set up, thus gaining the neo-nazis more media attantion than they ever would have received had BB never said anything about them at all.
I'll go out on a limb and further state that despite the fact that we have a frightening number of 'new Earth' creationists here and American secondary education is terrible, asshats who deny the holocaust are vanishingly few and of no importance in the American media environment. Yes, you can tell the 'big lie' over and over, but it only sticks if you can make it stick by removing competing messages. In a truly free-speech environment, lies can't survive over the long-term or gain real traction because more people are concerned with truth than with lying (we can debate exactly what proportion, but it only takes >50% for truth to eventually win).
Take the 'free speech' lesson from us, oh enraged Muslim masses. It is far more effective to say 'Eh. She/he is an asshat. Ignore them.' The Asshats will go away, and pretty quickly at that. Paying attention to them, though, will make them breed like roaches. Or trolls.
"Freedom of speech" implies ahead of time that all opinions on any subject are all inherently worthless.
Or would you have expected a treaty about the greatness of Jewish heritage from a certain moustached little Austrian?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And the fact that you are afraid that 'some crazy muslim [will] kill him' already points out a problem with said group when it comes to accepting critique.
Oh, don't be stupid. If I created a movie that went out of it's way to deeply criticize baptist Christians, it's probably not unreasonable for me to be afraid of visiting the deep south in the US. *Every* religion has it's extremists. It's not unreasonable to be at least somewhat fearful if you go out of your way to bait them into violence.
Muslim claims to be victim, blames west, while squelching what might be a voice speaking in the interests of (current or future) victims of islam. That's what's wrong about censorship and why free speech is important: every voice you squelch could possibly be that of a victim, or speaking on behalf of (possible) victims. Censorship is an aggressor's tool, and islam makes intensive use of it. Everyone supporting censorship and not denouncing it is in turn the tool of the aggressor. Don't be a tool like Network Solutions.
Everyone responding missed the point that the O.P. could be lying. There's evidence (perhaps in that movie as well?) that the islamic world views the current conditions (i.e., the entire world hasn't become islamic) as war, and deceit and propaganda as acceptable means of achieving this, especially if it demobilizes and disorganizes the enemy. BTW, it seems that most muslim clerics view anyone not muslim as an enemy.
I wonder if scientology was inspired by islam? The stigma associated with apostates bears resemblances.
> The US also has more Jews than Israel.
Big deal. Israel has a population of ~7 million. The U.S. has a population of ~300 million. So even if every single person in Israel is a jew and only one in forty Americans is a jew, you still have more jews.
> You might expect then that such denial would be a big deal, right?
The thought that the U.S. will be more concerned about jewish issues because it has more jews than Israel is ridiculous. It is like saying you expect a 500-pound male to be more female (well he IS more likely to have huge boobs...) than a 100-pound female since the former has more copies of the X-chromosome than the latter.
Free speech should not be undermined just because some religious people are overly sensitive to any criticism to their beliefs. All beliefs must be subject to questioning - especially those held close to the heart. Stiffling free speech is the beginning of the downfall of any society. No religion (Islam, Christinality, Judaism) is above criticism and the pursuit of truth. If their religion has merit, then there should be nothing to fear.
*Every* religion has it's extremists.
True, but some religions seem to have way more extremists, both total and per capita, than others...
If radical Islam wins, it will be because of pussy-ass shit like this. Until the West stops being nice and tells these backwards medieval Koran-thumpers to go fuck themselves, they will only get stronger and stronger.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
if they pass a law that is anathema to only a loud shrill fringe, say those who don't believe in abortions, or those who don't believe in income tax, then bombing then is inappropriate
if they pass a law which wholeheartedly and majorly impoverishes a majority of the american people, then yes, bomb them
however, we are a democracy, and one of the wonderful things about a democracy is that it is responsive to the people's wishes. in other words, in a healthy democracy, it will never come to bombing our own government, since our government is always a pretty good approximation of our wishes. all you have to do is vote the senators out, not actually kill them. in a healthy democracy, the wishes of the people get reflected in the makeup of the government, in a close enough approximation
however if our government mutated into a sham democracy, such as what you have in russia or iran, or an autocracy like china or north korea or zimbabwe or burma, then bombing the government is very much an option on the table, since the average citizen there has his wishes usurped by the agenda of a special clique or class of people who is not beholden to the will of the people in that country
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Cultures don't change in the space of a generation. Militant Islam might confuse civilized behavior for cowardice, but this is the same world Hitler was born in. If militant Islam keeps creating martyrs in the west then shit is going to hit the fan in the next big economic downturn.
"I suggest you do a little research on the meaning of "freedom of speech.""
I suggest you do a little research on European law. This isn't the United States we're talking about, and most countries in post-Holocaust Europe have laws against "hate speech."
A hate crime has to have SOME criminal element to it.
Not here in the U.S. A guy in NYC was charged with a hate crime for putting a koran in a toilet. Back when hate crime legislation was being passed a lot of us pointed out it was going to end up being thought crime legislation and were told that was silly, because a crime would have to be part of it. The "hate" part was just to enhance sentencing.
That didn't last long, and I (and others) turned out to be right.
I am consistently amazed by the rights that people, particularly Americans since this is where I reside, think they have. It used to amuse me. Then it saddened me. Now it frightens me to see the "false rights" that people want defended. They include, but certainly are not limited to:
;-)
1. Freedom from being offended.
- I've actually heard people who think that offending a person audibly is equally punishable as assaulting a person physically. When I tried to argue this idea, they kept yelling "It's the same thing. It's the same thing. It's the same F---ing thing."
2. Freedom _from_, not _of_, religion.
- It's arguable (as are all things regarding religion http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Usage_notes ), but everyone has a religion. (Religion as in a person's believe _regarding_, not necessarily in, deities.) So, just because you are an atheist, you don't have a right to total isolation from religion. Although I sympathize at how annoyed you must be.
3. Constitutional right to vote.
- This was even spoke of recently by Barack Obama. I'm disturbed to see how many people think the U.S. Constitution affords them a right to vote. The truth is, the Federal Government only restricts the criteria that can be used for denying a person the privilege of voting. Your state's constitution may protect additional rights, but that is rarely ever spoken of. I think that it would increase voter turn out if we properly described voting as a privilege instead of a right.
4. The right to drive an automobile.
- This is certainly a privilege, not a right. It is also a privilege that is too freely granted, and too infrequently denied or revoked.
Please feel free to contribute to the list. I guess you have the _right_ to argue with it too, but why would you want to?
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the
We should not have to risk our lives for something to deserve it. We have our for-fathers to thank for that. We just need to stay vigilant and make sure that it stays that way.
"Everything is "hate crime" and suddenly we must go to some sort of doublespeak sensitivity training to accomodate that. "
Assuming you're in Europe ("we"), it's your countries and your laws.
"anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law."
And it also describes laws in Europe in the past few decades, even predating the current influx of Islamic immigrants. Protected speech in Europe doesn't include, for example, Holocaust denial.
With your command of English, it seems safe to assume that you've spent a great deal of time immersed in American media and American pop culture, and American views on what "freedom of speech" means. However, simply because you feel something should be does not make it so, and your own duly elected representatives have crafted your own laws shaping what speech is and is not protected. But you would choose to blame the newly-arrived Islamic immigrant for seeking the protection of laws that you the native-born have crafted for yourselves long before his arrival? Because it goes against the ideals of a foreign-produced television drama?
In this case Network Solutions is what i would call dangerous to western freedom.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
"As a dutch colored guy"
What color is dutch, exatly?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Could you provide an example of violence perp'ed by baptists because of religious critisism? Based on what I see, pretty much every day it seems someone comes out with something saying "Christians are dumb", and I haven't heard anything in the news about retalitory killings. Shoot Trey Parker and Matt Stone haven't had any trouble and they've made some less than flattering South Park episodes.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Assuming you're in Europe ("we"), it's your countries and your laws.
That's a correct assumption, and the laws are not sacred by virtue of existing. I'm highly critical of the latest EU-wide directives concerning "hate speech" since they are overly generic and encompassing, but that's another topic.
And it also describes laws in Europe in the past few decades, even predating the current influx of Islamic immigrants. Protected speech in Europe doesn't include, for example, Holocaust denial.
Which is not something I agree with.
With your command of English, it seems safe to assume that you've spent a great deal of time immersed in American media and American pop culture, and American views on what "freedom of speech" means.
I appreciate the compliment, but I wouldn't say I was - or am - "immersed" in American pop culture, at least not more than any other European due to the sheer magnitude of US influence in Western Europe and the world. One thing is for sure, I do not base my views on this matter on American perception and I'm generally quite critical of US policies and even cultural influence in Europe. Just as an example I'm socialist in most of my views - real socialist, not what passes as Socialism in the US.
However, simply because you feel something should be does not make it so,
That's a given for any topic where we present our opinion isn't it? I'm stating why I think Muslim immigration raises specific concerns by replying to a "moderate" Muslim and pointing out some rather essential divergences on what should and shouldn't be allowed. That doesn't mean it's the law of the land: actually, I'm under the impression that most laws are being changed to accomodate what shouldn't be accommodated, IMO.
and your own duly elected representatives have crafted your own laws shaping what speech is and is not protected.
Of course. Which I'm free to disagree with. You're basically saying that we're digging our own grave, and I agree with that.
But you would choose to blame the newly-arrived Islamic immigrant for seeking the protection of laws that you the native-born have crafted for yourselves long before his arrival?
I'm not sure what you're implying here. The secularisation of European society since the Enlightenment is something that I would consider an advancement. If you're comparing the Holocaust laws with this, then I can agree with you: those laws should disappear, if not only to stop giving that argument to those who are so keen to turn Europe into a Caliphate but at the same time fight against the dominance of Christianity. As I said elsewhere I'm a Pagan, so I don't really care for either, just find it interesting that so many people in the Left seem to complacent for a situation that is deeply reactionary, simply because it's born out of "newly-arrived Islamic immigrants".
Because it goes against the ideals of a foreign-produced television drama?
Sorry? Are you referring to the supposed US-based nature of my comments again? As I said, that's not my position at all, much to the contrary. If anything I'm generally accused of being excessively European in my approach of this issues.
This debate must however stop since it would probably lead us to a discussion about not only free speech but immigration, culture, race, nationality laws, identity, etc. And that's a debate I can't afford to have for several reasons, not least of all the laws you referred and the fact that the simple mention of such angles is enough to be labeled hate speech.
Meanwhile, most radical islamic web sites, which explicity call for the murder of innocent civilians, continue to be hosted in the United States by other Web hosts.
[source]
The site you criticize is a rundown of the latest headlines from the ME, with a slight focus towards Lebanon:
...
* Fatah & Hamas Ink Reconciliation Deal
* The Gaza siege claims its 115th victim
* Parcel Bomb Wounds "Israeli" Settler
* US Death Toll in Iraq Hits 4,000
What is so objectionable about that? This one perhaps:
* "I am a human being," young Guantanamo prisoner says
send + more == money?
"Anti-Semitism is not a crime."
In many European countries, you have.
"I can hate all the Jews I want because they are Jewish and I've committed no crime."
Deny that the Holocaust happened and you have.
"That's the core of the Freedom of Speech, to say that which everyone hates and thinks is wrong."
This isn't the United States.
"yet stating that you want the State to enforce, through violence (the only way to enforce a law, including those against "hate crimes") when you are unable or unwilling to use violence yourself."
So... you're bitching about European Muslims seeking the same legal protections afforded to other religious and ethnic minorities because they're not being violent enough? It would be better for them to seize control in a bloody coup?
You lecture about what is and is not illegal (in the United States), about when forcible action is and is not justified, but then follow it with an assertion that all forcible action is inherently wrong, and he's the hypocrite?
Tell me, AK Marc, where's your bloody insurrection to justify the pork sent to Alaska?
"I'd probably go out and punch that guy as hard as I can in the face because he's advocating seperation and instead of working together, advocates hate and stigmatizing all people that aren't white as criminals."
You aren't DUTCH. Jared Taylor isn't Japanese. Bill Clinton isn't Indian.
He advocates separation because WHITE people DON'T WANT YOU HERE. Non-whites stigmatise THEMSELVES as criminals, by COMMITTING PROPORTIONALLY MORE CRIME.
You, and several million of your friends, have to be willing...no make that eager, to murder people if you do not get your way. You must constantly remind all who will listen of how sensitive you are to any hint that you will not get your way. "Spontaneous" demonstrations in which your followers wail, thrash themselves about, and burn your enemies in effigy are generally pretty effective, especially if said followers can be encouraged to act like complete fuckwads on camera.
At the same time, you must promote your group as a "religion of togetherness" or something equally pleasant sounding but meaningless phrase. Should anyone ever call you on the tendency of your group to murder people, you must respond by calling them bigots, reminding them that you are the religion of togetherness, and finish off with veiled threats that if they don't shut up, you'll murder them too.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You're association of a spoken interview that included things offensive to a specific political and religious group with the *act* of filming the rape or molestation of a child is facetious and destroys most if not all of your credibility.
That said, I will answer your statement that freedom of expression ends with offensiveness. The trite phrase "no right to not be offended" is just that, trite. The issue goes much further.
No political, religious or social group has the right, or legal authority, to tell me, and individual, what I can think, write, or even scream from the rooftops; laws about public nuisance not-withstanding since their content neutral as written.
If someone says something in a public forum that you find offensive, inaccurate or inflamatory, then you have the right to take up a public forum of your own and espouse your opinions on that topic. You do not, nor should you in any free society, be able to use force of arms to silence that opposition.
Contrary to the discussion here, though, I support NetSol's rights to shutter that website. Their terms of service are a contract signed by the film-maker when he put his website on their servers. They have every legal amd moral right to act as they did. They are a private organization who said up front "do this and we'll pull the plug".
What are his options? Simple. Find an ISP or web host who has a bit more testicular fortitude and move his site there. It's called free enterprise and it works quite well.
Should NetSol have pulled the plug? In my opinion, as a business owner myself who deals in sometimes offensive and edgy content, I say "hell no". You can not BUY the kind of marketing that this type of contoversy can build. You also can not, and wouldn't want to, buy the kind of negative marketing their actions took.
I'd love to see the numbers on how many accounts switch to other providers and registrars over the next 90 days.
Liberty, if it means anything at all, is the right to tell other people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
When I said outlined specifics, I meant:
'At 9:15 am, no one will be watching the door, so you can slip in and plant a bomb here, here and here, please refer to the blueprints on page 12' type of specifics.
not
'kill em all, shoot em in the head. kill em all, shoot em in their bed'
Actually, I was mistaken - I had assumed these two particular stories to be mid-career works, but they were in fact early - these are what I was thinking of when I made the comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_(short_story)
Of course, nearly all of Heinlein's work is good stuff, and it's interesting to watch his own beliefs as expressed through his work change and broaden over the years.
There is absolutely nothing new in what Islam preaches. Considering the immense level of faith that Europeans displayed in the 11th century, its a wonder we don't start calling it the 'Age of Glory' rather than the 'Dark Ages'. Based on Christian dogma, all those superstitious victims of ignorance in the dark ages are now laughing it up in divine splendor. Muslims want nothing more than what the every God fearing Christian soul apparently gets.
And far be it for me or anyone to make God or their prophet look like an ass. God hates those who are unjust.
At least the Quran is clear that if God sends you to hell, its because he hates you. Christianity seems to hold the position that eternal damnation awaits those whom God loves.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Simple solution, Network solutions is not the only company anymore, simply stop using them. I did long ago, and now I definately won't again. I agree whole heartedly that the company is not a company we should do business with. Taking down sites without even knowing if it violates their policy first is hilarious. They took it down and then went investigating whether it violates their blanket policy. This world is a joke, everyone needs to learn to deal with each other and stop the whining and bitching.
I don't like it any more than you do, but you are in violation.
NetSol terms of service clearly says "objectionable material of any kind or nature", and someone just objected to your material, thus they make claim* of the right to revoke your services.
* Make claim of the right. Not the same as Has that right. But clearly by their actions, NetSol doesn't care about the difference. They need a good smack in the face with some law.
There's a slight chance the film will not be inflammatory and hateful (quit the ad hominem sic please, we're all Dutch here.)
Based on Wilders statements, it's pretty clear what the film will be showing: atrocities committed in the name of Islam (both historically and contemporarily), as well as an analysis of the language of the Koran itself. Of course, that will be "inflammatory" to Muslims; what is wrong with that? There is no indication that it will be "hateful". Can you point to a single actually hateful thing Wilders has said about Muslims?
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society.
With attitudes like yours, the Netherlands won't have a multi-cultural society much longer: free speech and freedom of religion requires the freedom to offend people. Questioning the moral and spiritual foundation of a religion must be protected in a free society, and, of course, it is offensive and inflammatory for adherents of that religion. Protestants fought hard for that right, and we're not going to abandon it.
If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament
If the Netherlands is still a democracy, then Wilders has the right to represent the people who elected them.
People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
You are not a good advertisement for your nation either, because your vision of multi-culturalism is undemocratic.
And they're the only "fanatics"?
I'd consider the entirety of folks in Pajamas Media(LGF, Malkin, etc.) fanatics of an equal degree for them not even documenting much if anything towards peace. They foam at the mouth when things like this happen. The universal opinion with their walled garden is that they are not fanatics, yet foam just the same.
* Someone on Digg threatens their small (unseen) corner? Attack!
* Someone wishes to show that there are peaceful people in Gaza that would rather be uninvolved? Demonize!
* Someone points out that they're paying for oil that comes from Saudi Arabia, pointing their policy on Israel? I'm not sure, but my guess is (short of a prepared talking point in their possession) is that they'll look towards their cooperation towards the US.
* Someone amongst them misfires, and quits in shame? Attack those calling it victory!
* Someone states that they're a "one opinion" community and that restriction of opinion is good? Demonize them as a Kossack(even if they aren't)!
But that wouldn't make for good news if they showed the lives of the peaceful among the claimed fanatics. Nor would it be news to show that both protect their own communities in their own form. Digg does it by keeping them in their own corner, DKos for banning, both on open terms(to name a couple of the groups attacked).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If I created a movie that went out of it's way to deeply criticize baptist Christians, it's probably not unreasonable for me to be afraid of visiting the deep south in the US.
Can you give examples of baptist Ministers pronouncing death sentences? Can you give examples of film makers or cartoonists being killed by baptist terrorists? Can you name any baptist terrorist organizations?
I never violated their terms of service... What are you talking about? I am just a guy with a personal web site. You are just someone with a loaded gun I walked into. They began their life as INTERNIC and I just stayed with them from the beginning. Who are you mad at exactly?
I myself think that it's difficult to be too nasty to any religion. But difficult is not the same as impossible. For instance, if this film incites violence against adherents of Islam, then a ban (and prosecution of those responsible) is the right move. Unfortunately the mods missed - the movie itself is flamebait. Those who come from both ends of the spectrum on Islam will no doubt make their voices heard.
If that was what he intended, fine - but he should have been a bit more careful about selecting a provider.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Kansas, actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps
The only reason I remember this is having listened to a radio talk show that baited his wife and kids (not very difficult) into making some real humdinger statements in a phone interview.
---PCJ
Which means you don't have freedom of speech.
When you suppress speech because it might offend someone, you leave the door open to suppress anything and everything. No matter what you say, there's always someone who will be offended. For example, "I love kittens" could offend people with cat phobias.
The muslim world is offended by all criticism. They are offended by the slightest bit of disagreement. Unfortunately, Europe has allowed their ultra-thin skin to destroy free speech. I forget his name, but there's a billionaire muslim in England who keeps suing people (using the hate-speech argument) who criticize islam, not matter how even handed and fair the criticism might be. No one can afford to take on a legal battle with someone who has virtually unlimited funds and the support of an idiotic law.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The cartoons weren't even tasteless, only the one of him with a bomb in his turban. The other cartoons were of a sheik protecting a flock of sheep with a sword, or Mohommad and Jesus looking down on the planet with pity together, etc. But western newspapers (especially in America) kept repeating that one with the bomb-turban, and harping on how the bad danes printed pictures of Mohammed with bombs, and no mention of the other cartoons which were in general not even negative in the slightest. That was if you could find a paper that would even publish any, which were very few. It took me about a week to track down actual images of the cartoons, and I thought "what? except for the one none of these are offensive in the slightest"
The really bad ones were actually created by Imams trying to enflame hatred, so the cartoons people were protesting were not even the ones published by the newspaper.
Of course that's immaterial to free speech. The truth is if the Imams had their way 90% of this thread would be censored and we'd be punished.
No, that is thanks to learning history, science, math, and should I say history? Not repeating mistakes of the past is probably something that creates sceptics to mass dilusions.
Sorry, but indoctrinating a 3 year old into any one of these groups is a lot easier than trying to show the reality to them and let them decide for themselves. Reality of the above True Believers (don't say that any of them are not!) is enough to say "I'll just live my life according to human morality and laws. And when I die, I'll see if there is anything there". Any real "merciful god", if any, would not have problems with that. If they do have a problem, they can go and fsck themselves.
Remember people, when you see the light, run. It is a trick!
The Quran, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. -- Sam Harris [skepticsan...dbible.com] 1. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6 2. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10 3. Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18 4. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24 5. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90 6. Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61 7. Only those Jews and Christians who convert to Islam will be rewarded with heaven. 2:62 8. Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66 9. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85 10. Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88 11. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. 2:89 12. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96 13. Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98 14. Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99 15. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104 16. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114 17. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119 18. Disbelievers are losers. 2:121 19. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126 20. "Who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?" Cited in the Hamas Charter (Article 27) to condemn the idea of a secular state. 2:130 21. Those who reject the proofs, are accursed of Allah. 2:159 22. Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men. 2:161 23. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162 24. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167 25. Disbelievers will be deaf, dumb, and blind. 2:171 26. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174 27. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175 28. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178 29. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2 30. Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193 31. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206 32. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216 33. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217 34. Intermarriage is forbidden. 2:221 35. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. 2:254 36. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257 37. Allah does not guide disbelievers. 2:264 38. "Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 2:286 39. Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4 40. Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10 41. Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12 42. Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19 43. Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21 44. "They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion." (The Fire will burn them forever.) 3:24 45. Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. 3:28 46. Allah loveth not the disbelievers. 3:32 47. Allah will punish disbelievers in this world and the next. They will have no helpers. 3:56 48. Don't believe anyone who is not a Muslim. 3:73 49. Theirs will be a painful doom. 3:77 50. All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 3:85 51. Disbelievers will be cursed by Allah, angels, and men. They will have a painful doom. 3:87-88
I have noticed people tend to think of corporations as individuals. Network Solutions is a company of people, and someone somewhere made the decision about the movie and the domain hosting, but it is probably not anyone you or I will ever run into. If you decide to put up a web site that challenged their sensibilities, you can choose to litigate or move your site when the time comes. Network Solutions has made several wrong headed decisions in my memory but they have also made millions of good decisions in the history of their company. Did Network Solutions board of directors vote and are they somehow involved in the censoring decision, that you should make them responsible and blame the entire company to the point of boycotting their registration services? In the old days of the Arpa network, you used to have to get the signature of a sponsor before you were allowed to get on the net. If the sponsor didn't like your behavior, you might be warned, or simple gone. If you embarrassed your sponsor, you might be warned or just out. Things are dramatically easier these days, and you really have to work at it to get kicked off the Internet. I guess what I am saying is that Network Solutions only pissed me off once since 1991 and has been a good registrar and provider for me since then. Business people need reliable provider's so they can sleep at night. I would rather they make some decisions and err on the side of caution than behave as a mindless machine. Just my opinions...
Addition to any criminal sentence of the prohibition of owning firearms -- after the sentencing. In other words, there was no such prohibition in place, the sentence was passed and served, then later, the same person was forbidden to own firearms as a consequence of having been previously punished (convicted or not, for instance, adjudication withheld) for [a very broad class of] crimes, and no subsequent offense and related conviction exists to directly add such punishment. (Fails [3] below)
Addition to a criminal's sentence by publicly listing personal details about them as a sexual and/or violent offender when no such law was in place at the time of their sentencing, no such listing was ordered as part of their sentencing, and no subsequent offense and related conviction exists to directly add such punishment. In some states and in certain situation such as transfer of probation such additional penalties are applied to those who have had adjudication withheld. Also, federal legislation following this practice is either in place or being worked on for a national registry. (Fails [3] below)
Addition to a criminal's sentence by forcing them to report their place of residence to authorities (such as the local sheriff's department) under threat of further punishment when no such law was in place at the time of their sentencing, no such reporting was ordered as part of their sentencing, and no subsequent offense and related conviction exists to directly add such punishment. In some states and in certain situations such as transfer of probation such additional penalties are applied to those who have had adjudication withheld. (Fails [3] below)
Addition to a criminal's sentence of being punished by forbidding them to live in certain areas, such as near schools or parks, when no such law was in place at the time of their sentencing, and no such restriction was ordered as part of their sentencing, and no subsequent offense and related conviction exists to directly add such punishment. (Fails [3] below)
"Three strikes laws" in every case where any of the preceding "strikes" occurred prior to the instantiation of the three strikes laws. (Fails [3] below)
The currently pending attempt to pardon the telecommunications companies for breaking the law with regards to wiretapping. (Versions have failed [4] below, keep watching as this effort continues to mutate)
Constitutionally speaking, the following is the definitive case law, Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), via Justice Chase:
In the case of sexual and violent offender's registries, these laws have at least once gone to the supreme court and have been upheld by the court with the preposterous excuse that such listing "is not punishment" but rather simply and exclusively represents "an interest of the state." In the case of gun laws, I am unaware of any challenge having made it to the supreme court.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You're berating the parent for describing the movie as inflammatory and hateful without having seen it, and then go on to say that Wilders "makes very valid points" in it? Come on. I don't mind either of you basing your expectations for the movie on what you already know about Wilders, but if you tell the parent to not judge the movie without having seen it, then neither should you.
Sentences end in 1 period, not 3. You also might want to look into paragraphs.
And that is because the Holocaust has been verified as unquestionable FACT. I still rememeber those Jews that were lucky enought to survive. They had the numbers still tatooed on their arms. Unlike Stalin the Germans were very precise. They recorded the names of all the people put to death because of the "Final Solution".
There is no actual need to dispute over the holocaust unless you are a IDIOT or a ardent ISLAMOFASCIST.
Either way let me tell you: Europeans have strong laws protecting freedom of speech but also very bad reputation when it comes to embrace arms and go to war... if musling keep pushing our limits it won't take too long for Europeans to get upset. And when WE do get really upset you get another holocaust because we are expert at it and because you ask for it, but it won't be jews this time. But don't worry, you are going to enjoy a full debate about holocaust, when taking your shower.
Surely if Network Solutions wanted to stop a website if they broke the AUP thenthey would have put a "Server Hold" on the domain rather than just redirect the website? Check out archive.org and then http://www.fitnathemovie.co.uk/.
I've had a domain registered with Network Solutions for ten years. I haven't moved it mainly because the cost of moving it was not worth the money I would save by doing so. But now I have a reason to incur the cost (in time) of moving the registration, and here is the letter I just sent Netsol in response to their email asking how they could keep my business:
"I wanted to explain why I am transferring my domain from Network Solutions, after 10 years of hosting with you.
It has recently come to my attention that a domain registered and hosted with Network Solutions, fitnathemovie.com, was suspended by Network Solutions for AUP violations, despite the fact that at the time it was suspended (and prior to that) it contained only a "coming soon" notice. It is my understanding that this was done because the site was to promote a movie that offended some Muslims. I assume that Network Solutions' decision was that there would be a monetary cost (either through lost business or through fighting frivolous lawsuits defending the domain registration) if Network Solutions did not pull the domain. It is my considered position that freedom of speech, including the freedom to offend, is critical to any conception of Liberty, and must at all costs be defended. It is, of course, Network Solutions' right to feel differently and to act upon that feeling. And it is, of course, my right to cease doing business with Network Solutions, publicize the reasons for that, and encourage others to do the same. I will do all of these things, because it is my hope that Network Solutions will find a larger financial downside in acting against domains expressing an opinion that some find offensive than it finds in promoting free expression.
I can do nothing about the moral downside of an American organization blinking in the face of threats to free expression, except hope that Network Solutions' chains, in the words of Samuel Adams, rest lightly.
Sincerely,
Jeff Medcalf"
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
So... you're bitching about European Muslims seeking the same legal protections afforded to other religious and ethnic minorities because they're not being violent enough?
No.
It would be better for them to seize control in a bloody coup?
No.
You lecture about what is and is not illegal (in the United States), about when forcible action is and is not justified, but then follow it with an assertion that all forcible action is inherently wrong, and he's the hypocrite?
I made no such assertion. I'm slanted towards the USA because this is an American site and that is the default assumption by the people that run the site and those that read here. The right of Freedom of Speech is the same everywhere, at least by my understanding of "inalienable" and such. That a government infringes on that right does not mean that the right itself doesn't exist. If you think that's an odd position, perhaps you should look to places like China that declare their violations of "human rights" are legal, and the international community claiming that you can't just declare away Human Rights. I'm not the one that came up with such assertions, I'm just passing them along to you. And you obviously don't understand what "hypocricy" means. He claimed that he was against violence, then called for the government to enforce, through violence, that which he did not like. That is hypocricy. Do you understand my point, or should I explain it a little more slowly?
Tell me, AK Marc, where's your bloody insurrection to justify the pork sent to Alaska?
What does distribution of federal funds have to do with a bloody insurrection? Per area, Alaska receives the least of all states. Per capita, Alaska contributes the most to the federal government (and that number doesn't count just income tax, but all taxes and fees paid to the government for operations and people in Alaska). So, we pay the most and get the least. But when you focus on just income tax and nothing else, and only on per capita, rather than a mix of land area and population, like representation in Congress, then yes, you can make it look skewed. It's not like there is anyone up in Alaska that notices they pay the most per capita and receives the least per square mile, right?
Learn to love Alaska
"When Iran was getting close to having a stable secular government, it was wiped out by the US."
That was not an Islamic government. What Iran has now, is.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Those fucking Eastern Hemispherians all suck, each and every one.
So apperently the Muslims in the Netherlands are willing to show it if they can see it upfront to make sure it contains no legally libel content.
I find it interesting that they are concerned about "libel".
Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?
A SLAPP Against Freedom
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
BS.
Films and television shows are ALWAYS being made about these kooks.
For the last half-century.
Of late I haven't heard of any crazed Baptists sawing off heads of Canadian or European film crews.
Or American film producers either.
Try and a do an Ismlamic version of "Inherit the Wind" in the middle east.
Or better yet, LOL! - get Scorcese to re-do "The Last Temptation of Muhammed"
.
- aqk
F U
Whta colour is "dutch"?? LOL!
Why, it is ALL COLOURS!
And as I recall, they have a pretty good scouring cleanser too.
So just be careful with your comments!
But after viewing the little girl on the above website who "wants to grow up to be a princess..", alas I fear, she will grow to wear a bhurka, given the Dutch rate of reproduction.
.
- aqk
F U
My goodness!
What is all this controversy about Billy Wilders?
I LOVED his comedy "Some like it Hot"!
Is it because Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis dressed up as "girlies" that these Muslims are now upset?
I know there is a lot of homosexual innuendo in the movie, but -
How can they possibly threaten him with death? He died several years ago!
Please explain! I am totally confused!
.
- aqk
F U
No, some religions seem to have more extremists MAKE NEWS HEADLINES.
A Christian woman drowns her children in a bathtub because "God told me to do it" won't get the same news coverage as a Muslim killing his daughter for the same reason
Can you give examples of baptist Ministers pronouncing death sentences?
Sure, Southern Baptist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, and said Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment.
Can you name any baptist terrorist organizations?
If the KKK has Baptists (certainly not Catholics judging by its history), does it count?
Wow, you're reading things into my post that just aren't there... Talk about tunnel vision!
Here's my result of hateful things he says after a very very short search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Position_on_Islam
In a multicultural society like the Netherlands, where 1 out of 16 is muslim, there is no place for people spouting such nonsense. There is no need or want for his bland populist statements. It's just unnecessary.
I'm all for openness. I'm for freedom of speech, democracy and peace. What did you think? The multicultural part of this society cannot be reached in a democratic way by infighting and hardlining. If Wilders wants to represent the people who elected him, why doesn't he do that? Are these people served by him creating problems where no problems need to be? By alienating muslims in the Netherlands? Muslims are part of the Netherlands. There is no changing it. What would the next Wilders want, abolish tulips? Fatwah on Friesland? We need people who can represent the Netherlands as a whole, not as a sum of its parts. Wilders is not that person.
How does making the Fitna movie represent the people who elected him? Does it make all their troubles go away? Does it help integrate muslim groups in our society? Does it create a better healthcare system? Solve problems with our education? As said, the man is one-issue. Yes, he got this far on that issue and it needs to be addressed. Making a movie is not the way.
The movie will most likely be seen as hateful. I can't say I blame the offended muslim groups much. In a world where it's necessary for people to communicate, he's closing up. In a world where people need to work together if they want to reach anything, he's being xenophobic.
I would suggest that in your reply, you refrain from offending me personally. This is the exact thing Wilders does; create issues when they just aren't there. It's also a very cheap way of arguing your point.
whenever such a thing happens, someone comes up with the 'extreme case' and 'exception' excuses.
its ALWAYS exceptions. the millions rioting in middle east because of caricatures constitute exceptions, someone criticizing what islam does constitutes an exception because s/he is a "right wing extremist", muslim youth cutting throats of 3 christians in center of turkey because they were just guilty of publishing bible and handing them out to whomever asked for one are an exception. so it goes.
i live in turkey. EVEN here, a secular country which does most of its business with the west and lived with the west for the last 60 years, there is much hatred against west now. it wasnt so 15 years ago. for 15 years sources that are openly funded from middle east have been doing hatred propaganda against west, and u.s. to the extent that mainstream newspapers here are openly propagating hatred towards west, and even christians with or without a relevant cause every day.
dont tell me about problem. i live IN the problem.
Read radical news here
It's one guy, claiming to have made a movie which nobody but the single creator has seen (my biggest fear is for the production quality ;) ), and yet an ENTIRE F**KING NATION (and then some) is actively apologizing in advance.
What kind of bullshit is this?
I'm Dutch and don't agree with Wilders' statements either, but all the crap that seems to be happening right now, even before anybody has even SEEN the movie, only helps him to proof his statements. It wouldn't surprise me if there never was any movie, and he just claimed to have made one in order to demonstrate the state of fear that is currently destroying our own moral values such as freedom of speech.
If there really is such a thing as a "war on terrorrism", we've already lost it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
In a multicultural society like the Netherlands, where 1 out of 16 is muslim, there is no place for people spouting such nonsense.
(My added emphasis)
That's a very sinister statement. If there is no place for him, what are you going to do with him? Expel him from the country? Where to? Lock him up? Or just censor him with threats of legal action? Or just tell him he's 'not wanted' (i.e. do nothing)? Do you think any of those actions apart from 'do nothing' will increase or decrease general support for his (possibly unpleasant) views and message?
Exactly so. Freedom of speech isn't constrained to just "speech that doesn't offend anyone" or only "morally upstanding speech". And if you don't like what someone is saying -- you're free not to listen. That's the real beauty of freedom of speech.
Conversely, societies that restrict speech often REQUIRE that citizens listen to propaganda, and/or REQUIRE some level of indoctrination in "correct thought". We've to some degree reached that point, what with "sensitivity training" often being used as punishment should someone utter a politically incorrect phrase.
The entire concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech" only serves to point out and exacerbate our differences, and to criminalize those who honestly feel or believe a certain way. Whether their feelings or beliefs are justified, morally reprehensible, or completely full of shit is not the issue.
And the big problem with defining certain topics as prohibited speech is that what's acceptable or reprehensible changes as societies mature... and change again as they become senile.
(Personally, I think our nanny state, with its concepts of "protecting" certain classes from hate speech, is an example of a society becoming senile.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Basically its grim. What few people really get into, or really discuss, is what is really going on. You'll hear a lot about hate speech. The liberal left, and no end of NGOs, and media types will jump up and down about things, but only one side of things, and its a warped view. In a moment I will post an interesting thing.
Before then, the people who claim Islam is peaceful, and the usual political correct claptrap are as guilty of generalising as anyone whom attacks Islam. Its not easy to define or comment on because in the WEST, a great many Islamists have a different view to others. But there is plenty of Islamic jihad going on and you do not have to go very far to find it.
For those who talk about Christian or other crimes in terms of other religion, feel free to quite what you like, and remember, each time you do, in a more general sense, you don't get the lunatic response. If you make a joke about the Pope, you are less likely to have people burning effigies of you in the street, of have priests issuing dictates to have you killed.
There are ongoing efforts to contort, and restrict freedom when discussing Islam, and there is a significant and disturbing wish not to upset the nut jobs. If I was to replace Islam with mad christians, or Nazi's or any other grouping in the US, or in many places in the west, you would not see this response. I cannot talk about others, But I grew up with it being IMPORTANT and required to make fun of and question religion. I'm British, and I am sure you have heard of monty python. Nuff said.
Now, to cut to the chase, if you really are going to limit 'hate crimes', then the first port of call should be those coming from the Islamic quarter. With due regard to the leftists, liberals, media types, There seems to be no end of publishers, papers, TV programs fawning of that bastard Bin Laden's every word, no matter how gut wrenchingly disgusting or provocative it is, and yet anyone who counters that gets censored.
I appreciate Islamics may not like my point of view, but you either have an Umma, or you don't, and if you do, then people in MY civilisation have a right to ask what the hell its playing at, its basically how the Christian church was handled.
I think what I am trying to say, is we are granting Islam, and *some* of its followers things which are not our values, and are extremely contrary to our values.
Now, back to the hosting, I found this, which is reasonably interesting.
Network Solution's Easter Egg For Islamism
March 23, 2008
Network Solutions, the oldest domain name registration company, has marked Easter by censoring one of its customers for potentially being beastly to Islamists. We should thank them for exposing this vulnerability - then deep six them.
This story is hat tip LGF.
The censoree is the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who is planning to post a 15 minute video that apparently suggests Islamists are prone to oppression of their women and kids, and killing the rest of us.
Wilders' site is registered with and (I think) hosted by Network Solutions and you can see it here. As at 16:23 GMT, it says:
This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation.
That's a reminder that the Internet is a very fragile vehicle for free speech, since terrorists can infiltrate, bribe, or cow the people we pay to register and host our domains.
There's some safety in numbers - it's harder for them to shut down a multi-user service such as Wordpress or Blogspot. But not impossible.
Here's a good suggestion from an LGF commenter (comment #67):
If Wilders wants to distribute the film on the net, then he is going to have to pack it up and stick it up on hosting sites like rapidshare and torrent the thing and let pe
We`re all equal
Sure, Southern Baptist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez and said Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment.
I despise Pat Robertson, but that's not the same thing. Robertson wasn't pronouncing a death sentence, he was making a statement about US government policy (and quickly apologized and retracted it).
If the KKK has Baptists (certainly not Catholics judging by its history), does it count?
No. The issue is not whether people who identify as some religion do bad things (every religion has those), but whether they are part of doctrine and accepted practice.
You're spouting a double standard. Pat Robertson said America should assasinate someone, essentially murder a leader, how is that any different? Pat Robertson never apologized, heck he never even did for saying that 9/11 was feminists and gays' fault (his apology at the time was an "I'm sorry you're fat" sort) If you have proof of his apology, I'd like to see it.
Terrorism is not a part of Islamic doctrine nor accepted practice. Scholars worldwide have condemned terrorism, and public opinion polls in the Muslim world show that support of killing civilians is even less than that of American polls. Three times as many Americans said that bombing civilians can ever be "justified". (source)
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society.
race traitor
but you seem to be saying they should be the prime suspects until proven otherwise. That makes no sense to me.
I never said that. I said they are a large contributing factor that is too often given a free pass (mostly because people are afraid that any criticism of any religion will instantly label them as xenophobic fascists).
Well I'm sorry, but it just doesn't look to me like the problem in the Islamic world is Islam, it's poverty and rotten political systems.
Right except, at lest to me, Islam is a huge part of that "rotten political system", I'm not sure where you can draw the line between the two. Are you really saying that the system which dictates every aspect of political, public, and private life in those countries has no influence on their societies?
sic transit gloria mundi
As you pointed out it's hard to draw the line between politics and religion in some predominantly Islamic countries. When religion and politics get mixed I find it unlikely that the true character of the religion will emerge unscathed.
Are there barbaric passages in the Qu'ran? Yes. Just as there are in the bible. So why has Islam arrived at this point? Apart from the capricious whims of history, one reason totalitarianism gravitates toward Islam is the decentralized nature of the religion.
There is no centralized authority structure in Islam to pronounce upon the actions of radicals. The vast majority of Imams in the world would disavow the "violence" interpretation of jihad in the modern world, but there is no universally recognized body that could throw violent Islamists out of the religion for attempting to speak in it's name.
If Islam as a religion has a problem, it is that.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller