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.
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view. They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
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
No, but they do go on psychological warfare, going apeshit at other religions for no good reason. Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims. They all do it.
As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant. You're talking about a minority of extremists. I'm talking about the majority. If you want to go down that route, the AmEvs took a developed nation's army into two (three if you include pakistan) nations for the sole purpose of teaching them our own point of view. Same idea as what the suicide bombers are doing, is it not?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
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?
Wait what? You're promoting censorship of the media?.. Yeah a ban on that because it's violent, let's blacklist those books since they're dangerous to the mental health of our youth, you know what let's just burn them to make sure nobody reads them...
>As this film hasn't been released, I give Network Solutions the benefit of the doubt.
Despite the fact that I think this guy is an islamofobic, racist and generally unpleasant guy, I still have to disagree with you here: before having seen the film, you can't assume it contains legally or otherwise unacceptable material. It will probably do so, but we'll have to wait and see whether this is indeed the case. Until the movie has been published, the benefit of the doubt should be given to Geert Wilders, regardless of his lousy reputation.
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
"Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims" because if you belong to a group you are the group, right? i better get me a group quick
-- arstchnca
--
As the movie has yet to be released and NS has not a friggin' clue as to what's in it -- that is exactly the reason I give them no benefit of the doubt whatsoever.
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
Time out there dude.
Lets be clear about something. Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence. Unfortunately, it only takes one small group to do some pretty horrendous stuff.
Note also, that most muslim violence is directed against other muslims.
Yes there is a problem with poor levels of education, and also that religious leaders can spin any old line of bull and have it believed in its entirety by large numbers of muslims, but if we are to be honest, christians do the same thing quite often, especially some of the christianity 2.0 people. Ok we don't do the suicide bomber thing, but again, neither do the vast, vast majority of muslims, many of whom are just folk. Once again, most suicide bomber attacks are directed against muslims.
What's really going on, in my opinion, is a muslim civil war, orchestrated by powerful people who'd rather like it if only their flavour of beliefs were allowed, oh, and that they be rich and control the entire muslim world. We should butt out and let them solve their own problems.
no one is forcing these muslims to watch it, yet they think their being offended gives them the right to tell me what i can and cannot make up my own mind about.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
And I would say...they aren't Christians. There is nothing in the Bible that gives them leeway to do what they did. However, the koran specifically tells Muslims to kill infidels.
If you're willing to give the Koran the benefit of the doubt, why wouldn't you extend the film the same courtesy?
So where is the 95% condemning suicide bombings? -- No where
So where is the 95% condemning the killing of innocents? -- No where
So where it the 95% condemning all the crap that happened after the publication of cartoons? -- No where
Until the formation of the Nation of Israel, the Jews weren't in any position to engage in the listed activities. Now...now they use a *real* army. And instead of terrorists, they have an intelligence service.
The christians haven't been so limited. But they still prefer to use real armies and real intelligence services.
Do you think it's really about religion? It's US vs THEM. Any "us" you pick. It's not the power that corrupts, it's the immunity to consequences. Peer pressure helps. Riots used to be common after a high school team lost it's game. Now it's less so, as the local community is less supportive. (They've got professional teams to watch on TV.)
This violence *is* common in muslim countries, but not only muslim countries. It's probably related to polygamy, where the less successfully aggressive males are denied all access to women. (Look for an increase of this in China in the coming decades. Different reason, but the number of male children is far higher than the number of females.)
All THAT said, yes, the Koran explicitly encourages violence against the non-muslim. Read your bible. It does the same thing. Less so in the new testament, but the christians have, if anything, been more violent than the jews. This probably dates back to the christians out-competing the mithraists for dominance of the Roman Empire. Ever since then christians have had considerable conventional military power in their hands.
There is only one "religion" that has arguably decreased the amount of violence and that's Buddhism. Even there, it's dubious. One could argue that the violence just became secular. (OTOH, the various schools of hand-to-hand combat were developed because the secular authorities felt it necessary to prevent the Buddhist sects from forming their own armies, so they made it illegal for monks [or peasants] to carry weapons.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
My parents are ex-Catholic. Fortunately their awakening came long before I was born.
Seriously though, you don't need to have any of the attributes you mention to move your domains from NetSol. I also have some domains there, and will be moving them (for this and other reasons.) Me, I'm anti-censorship, which is in itself sufficient reason to move away from a registrar that believes it has any right to turn off Web sites in other countries without some semblance of due process. Once they start taking sides like this (and they are, whether they want to admit it or not) it's time to find someone with more respect for the Domain Name System, and freedom of information in general.
Can anyone recommend a decent registrar? I don't want one that claims ownership of my domains and will hold them hostage.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Contrast your own words to these:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 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."
I don't see anything about, "unless it's speech we really, really don't like," in there at all, do you?
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.
As you can read on the wikipedia page you linked, the dutch were hopelessly outnumbered (400 lightly armed soldiers vs 1k-2k serbs with tanks and morters). The dutch troopers weren't given the mandate, the manpower, the reinforcements or the air-support required to fight back.
I wouldn't know what I would have done in their place, and I hope I never will know. Either way, it shames me that the dutch and the UN were this toothless faced with genocide right under their noses.
This sig is intentionally left blank
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
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.
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.
....As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant....
Yes as irrelevant as all the changes to freedom after Sept 11. The terrorists want to take our freedoms. They will institute sharia law wherever they are able to become politically powerful enough to do so. They may not manage to do this here in the US, but even so we all are considerably less free now than we were before Sept 11. For their first big try at terrorizing the US and especially its government, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
All theory is gray
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 was stupid, in that I'd gotten the impression from TFA that NetSol had seen the film, and concluded that it incited violence against Muslims. I was wrong, and am thoroughly ashamed....
I love mocking religion, but feel strongly that 'hatespeech' (by which I mean, the direct encouragement of violence against an individual or group because of their beliefs) should be banned.
I know quite a few Muslims, and they are as likely to do bad stuff as all the other religious people I know, and just as easy to wind up.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
If you're on about killing, then I guess you don't like muslims very much :
009.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
Since muslims believe this is the literal truth straight from "god", why don't you answer :
1) is this statement true or false ? Are you a murderer, or planning to be one.
2) can anyone who considers these words false be called a muslim ?
The Koran is also very famous for declaring that there is no compulsion in religion. The early Islamic world was well known for tolerating other faiths. In fact, there was a financial incentive for this as well, since people of other religions were taxed to fund the Empire. Al Andalus was a model of religious co-existence for many years. It is no surprise that what is arguably the high water mark of Sephardic Jewish culture occurs at this time.
It's rather pointless to blame Islam, or Christianity for that matter. Both are in fact inert doctrines until they are taken up and interpreted by individuals. Martin Luther King was a Christian, but so was Jerry Falwell, and so were the Crusaders and Oliver Cromwell. Similarly, Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, but Avicenna, Abd Ar Rahman, and Suleyman the Magnificent were Muslims too.
I'm an atheist, but I admire many religious people and deplore others. It's a mixed bad. Idiots like Hitchens can pretend that religion has never done anything good, but has he ever listened to a Bach oratorio or stood in the Mezquita? Only an idiot could say religion has done nothing good.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
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.
It isn't that simple. I can say "Vi users are heathen scum who must all die a slow and painful death". I can't say "Let's all go to 666 Main Street at 8:00 PM and kill all the vi users". To be illegal, it has to be an incitement to a specific illegal action, not just an expression of belief or opinion.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
" 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
Nice try at flaming. However, your article states that evangelical leaders condemned the bombing, and the identity of the bomber is not given let alone his religious affiliation. Assuming he is a Christian solely on the basis of his target choice is weak at best. Finally, 10 year old article?
captcha: distort (how appropos)
The problem of these passages is their context. Some muslims do interpret them the same way as some borne-again christians interpret the bible. These writings where made in very different circumstances and time, and therefore should not be considered any way in the context of modern, gobally interconnected life. Islam and Christianity should learn from their similar mistakes from the examples of each other.
"I don't see anything about, 'unless it's speech we really, really don't like,' in there at all, do you?"
It's in there. You must have an old copy. Get the post-9/11 update.
>Network Solutions analyzing the film's content is overstepping its bounds.
Surely private companies are free to set their own bounds?
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
Are you out publicly condemning this stuff? If not, why not?
Most people are too busy living their lives to spend all their time publicly condemning things that are obviously evil anyway and so don't really need it. Shockingly, this is as true for muslims as it is for everyone else.
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.
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.
Idiots like Hitchens can pretend that religion has never done anything good, but has he ever listened to a Bach oratorio or stood in the Mezquita? Only an idiot could say religion has done nothing good.
I find it hard to accept what you seem to be implying - that religion was required for the creation of those great works of art. The drive for the creation of artistic works is an innate part of the human condition. Religion, as an attempt to understand the world around us, is part of this condition as well, but neither is dependant on the other for its existence.
Had the people who created the Mezquita not been religious, they would have created their masterpieces in other places, in other forms. Had Bach been an atheist, he still would have been driven to create , and we would still be able to enjoy his genius today.
I'm sorry if you consider me an idiot, but religion has never done any good. Any good that is ascribed to it would have come about without it, and to claim otherwise is to denigrate what it means to be a human being.
This is not the "right not to be harmed". This is pure and arbitrary censorship. In some Muslim countries, the most vicious anti-Semitic and anti-Christian propaganda is freely broadcast for all to enjoy. See MEMRI for translations of this charming material that would have made Hitler's propagandists proud (for its viciousness if not its sophistication).
Muslims pretend to be offended by the slightest denigration of their culture and religion while they reserve the right to totally trash talk all other religions and cultures. Then weak-kneed liberals in the West come along to support them in their outrage.
I say, let the movie be shown and judged on its own merits, and ban internet censorship before it gets out of hand.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
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.
You saw it on TV? Wow, it must be representative of the whole Middle East then.
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.
---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.
It is? Christianity originally was a religion of peace and subservience. Go back and read (critically) the books of the Gospels: what other meanings does Matthew 5:39 have? It tells to not resist evil. The Pentarch discusses how to treat non-Jews, but the Gospels tells how to treat everybody. Or, does "love one another" mean only that when they're looking at you?
Only after 300 AD did things change for the worse. Then, the church was established, as the First council of Nicea convened, and a "government" was created. After that, things went downhill rather badly: library burnings of 'pagan ideas', the Crusades, Dark Ages... all of that. Christanity went from what was once small groups of followers who feared for their lives of being found out Christian, to statewide mandatory requirement that destroyed all traces of other beliefs.
A more common thread than "Religion is teh evul" is more apt: government will try to stay in power by hook or by crook. The government in this case defines a religion.
---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.
Perhaps, the idea that you will return to be worm food comforts you, but I know many weak people who couldn't stand to think of that. Frankly, if somebody needs to believe that some earthly (or non-earthly) part goes somewhere else and does something to continue them, so be it. That is one major thing that all religion-systems have belief in: what happens after death.
I frankly am not going to tell somebody that their idea what happens after death is stupid just because I can handle the truth (mmm worm food). I'd rather have friends than be "right".
What you're saying is if you insult enough people it's a hate crime.
It's not.
By not acting, the Dutch showed that they were as morally weak as the attackers. All these religious conflicts are never going to end unless a few show some unprecedented heroics. Just my 2 cents.
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
Where does the New Testament incite violence? And you speak of the Crusades as if a bunch of Christians woke up one morning and decided to embark on a stupid bloody war. Instead, after 300 years of Muslims enslaving and exterminating Christians, the Christians woke up one day and decided to embark on a series of stupid bloody wars.
As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant. You're talking about a minority of extremists.
When the extremists regularly kill people, they can get what they want. If moderate voices publicly disagree with them and stand up to them, the extremists can just kill the moderates, can't they?
So the extremists get their way until someone stops them -- presumably by killing them. If no one ever stops them, then ultimately, they simply win.
Killers might be a lot of things. One thing killers aren't is irrelevant.
You are being shown a filtered version of reality that fits someone's agenda.
Long ago. Where were you, in a cave? In the nation with the world's most advanced concepts and legal frameworks relating to liberty, in order to Save The [insert fear-inspiring potential Victims here], free speech is not free; freedom of religion is not freedom; the explicit right to keep and bear arms is no right; the commerce clause is the inverse commerce clause; the orderly and specific requirements of probable cause, oath or affirmation, warrant, and then search have become search, followed, perhaps, by warrant; the freedom from incriminating one's self has become the freedom to be tortured until you speak the desired confession; the absolute dictate against ex post facto laws spawns them instead of stopping them; enforcement of the prohibition against being deprived of property without due process is only a dim memory; and the government wages a violent war against personal and consensual adult choices in such a way as to create black markets of equal violence and danger.
Certainly, more remains to be lost. So enjoy what you have now. It's only going to get worse. Save The [fitb]!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So, uh... how is that not free speech? Telling someone to commit violence is a far cry from actually inciting violence.
Christians? The perpetrators grew up in the good old Communist Yugoslavia, where the state religion was Atheism and no career growth was ever possible without it. Who are you calling Christian, a Communist party functioner and then Serbian president Milocevic? Or an army general Mladic thought to order the massacre, who reported to the Communist party during all his career? Or the Scorpions security forces officers, no less loyal to the Communist party?
Killed because they were Muslim? Sorry, no: the Yugoslavian war was territorial, not religious. Even the article that you cite admits that: "a fierce struggle for territorial control... ensued among the three major groups in Bosnia: Bosniak, Serb, and Croat.". And let's not forget that the Serbs were war victims just as much as the Bosnians; both suffered because they lived in a particular area, not because they were going to a particular church.
The last but not the least, using a tragedy as a pretext for flawed thesises like "Christians bad, Muslims good" (replace the confession names any way you wish) is, IMHO, not exactly ethical. More on attempts to capitalize on the Srebrenica events can be found, e.g., in a recent review Using War as an Excuse for More War.
As a Dutch resident, I would like to apologize for the traitor to free speech who created that torrent.
The movie is most likely just a rant about the danger of trying to use ancient religious texts to rule peoples lives today. Regardless of that, I'm sure Muslims will take offence, since any criticism will cause them to take offence. These people just have a hard time dealing with free and open societies, and like to purport that their religious feelings deserve extra constitutional protection.
In a free marketplace of ideas like western Europe, asking for this kind of protection under the law for your ideas gives a rather obvious indication of the lack of confidence in those ideas in my opinion. But then, i don't claim to understand religious people.
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."
doesn't the bible have passages in it that directly advise violence against homosexuals? the problem with the whole hate speech nonsense is that hating something is a natural human thing to do. it's not unhealthy and it's not wrong. expressing that shouldn't be wrong either, it's when you try to cordinate attacks on someone or group that it becomes wrong.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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
Really... it takes some seriously pathological disingenousness to compare that single incident to the hundreds of incidences of Islam-approved-and-sponsored suicide bombings.
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 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.
Freedom of speech is precisely freedom of offensive speech, particularly offensive political speech. When the party in power in a givernment can arrest an opposition party member or candidate (or censor his speech) for simply stating his platform, democracy is over.
I believe the term for inoffensively destroying democracy is "velvet fascism". It seems to be gaining ground in a great many countries. You should be outraged by this!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Freedom of expression is not complete. Freedom of expression ends where offensiveness begins, where you start to hurt other people."
Bollocks. Get a thicker skin. If you can't put up with freedom of expression, fuck off and go back to the hellhole you came from. I don't have to respect someone's idiotic beliefs just because they have religion status. Religious people are the scum of the Earth...
Exactly! We have many rights, but the right to not be offended is not one of them.
Fight words with words, using logic and facts.
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.
"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.
That is why it was pulled - it was hate. This is quite normal all over the world.
I would just like to point out that in this, as in many other things, the rest of the world is wrong.
It is possible to make a child porn film without hurting a child.
If that is an accurate quote and not a typo and without any missed words, you are a truly sick person.
So why is it ok to be offensive to Muslims?
Huh?
Ever hear of the "Piss on Christ" uh...sculpture? Crucifix in a tank of urine. Statue of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung? Sign in guest book with a US flag on the floor so that you need to walk on the flag in order to sign the book?
So, to answer you question, because it's OK to be offensive to ANYONE.
Hell, with your logic, we'd need to turn off all comments on slashdot. 99.99% of all comments on slashdot offend someone else on slashdot. Your comments offend me.
The better question that I'd like you to answer is: Why should Muslims be exempt from criticism and offense?
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
Don't be such a moron.
Valerie Plame's husband lied about his role in Iraq and about what he found out.
And, once again, ARMITAGE "outed" Plame. Not Bush.
There was no abuse of power. There was no crime.
You can come back to reality now.
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
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.
I wish I could mod you +10, but at the same time I'd like to mod the parent +10 so EVERYONE could see just how many people these days think (and I apologize for using the word "think" in the same sentence with people who support "anti-offensive" or whever you want to call it, laws). You do NOT have the right not to be offended. My $DIETY I don't know why or how or when this "right not to be offended" BULLSHIT came about. I'd call it a slippery slope, but its not even that. It'd a freaking CLIFF to fall off of when you start trying to implement such laws.
Best buy stock in duct tape now, as everyone will have to walk around with it stuck over their mouths all the time if enough people like the parent poster ever get in charge. Might as well get rich off of the downfall of a free society, I guess. Personally, I'd rather the stock tank because it will mean people like that will have been told to collectively sod off once and for all. I fear it may not go the way however, and the momentum seems to be heading in the wrong direction. I hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm not.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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
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.