Pakistan Lifts Ban After Facebook Deletes Offending Page

crimeandpunishment writes "Facebook is back in Pakistan today. A day after Bangladesh banned the social networking site, the Pakistani government lifted its ban after officials from Facebook apologized for the 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' page and removed it from the site. The page caused outrage and protests among Pakistan's Muslim population, and led to the ban two weeks ago. A spokesman for Pakistan's office of information technology said Facebook assured the government 'nothing of this sort will happen in the future.'"

Comments

Face palm

[PilogBue]

I'm doing it.

Re:Face palm

[PilogBue]

There were a lot of submissions, and Muhammad had taken an unimaginable amount of forms. Although, quite a few took the oppurtunity to show their hatred towards muslims in general (nukes at the Kaba etc.), which made the impact of the images sort of embarrasing after a while. Another trend also occured, namely death threats. They seemed to flourish, judging by the amount of print screens that were posted. I think they actually ended up making a seperate death threat gallery. In my oppionion that just makes this caving even worse. Yet another victory for the unevolved.

Re:Face palm

[Anonymous Coward]

ah! we need no stinking opposing thumb!

Re:Face palm

[Teancum]

My concern about caving into the extremist Muslims on this issue is that it is it gives legitimacy to their viewpoint.... to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. The freedom of speech is something that is incredibly important to preserve, including preserving viewpoints that are on occasion distasteful and against your own viewpoint.

The dilemma of "new media" groups is to see how much editorializing will be done.... and sticking to your guns in terms of that editorializing. Facebook unfortunately, for good or ill, has become a community bulletin board where they have at least to this point cultivated all sorts of viewpoints including overtly political viewpoints that they are broadcasting and supporting.

If Facebook, or any other similar group starts to engage in censorship for what is overtly political speech, and much of what is done here in regards to cartoons of Muhammad is explicitly political speech by its nature, it puts that group onto incredibly slippery ground to be "forced" to censor other kinds of speech to the point they are really only advocating a particular political point of view. I don't have a problem with censoring types of content, such as pornographic images or perhaps groups that are advocating various kinds of illegal activity (aka some video on YouTube that is a "how to" for making meth.... to give an example). What concerns me here is more that the topic itself is somehow forbidden.

I don't see that Facebook would be censoring a cartoon depicting either George W. Bush or Barack Obama with nuclear missiles in a hat they are wearing. Why should the fact that the subject of the image simply being Muhammad be singularly targeted if anybody else would be acceptable? This is where it really goes over the top. If Muhammad were to be depicted in a manner that would be otherwise offensive and censored regardless of who is the subject of the image.... fine, get rid of the image.

The other aspect here is that those who are promoting the Islamic faith are cramming that faith down my throat, and the throat of everybody else in the world too. I respect the freedom of worship and belief. This is something which is essential to a free society in general and something I claim for myself. That freedom includes even the complete and total rejection of a belief in a god of any type, or worshiping things that I would consider down right silly.

By telling me that I, a non-believer in the Islamic faith, can't make a rendering of the image of Mohammad and use that image in a political fashion, they are in turn forcing a religious belief upon me and others who may wish to engage in this kind of activity. It is especially galling when the target of the activity (in this case the cartoon) is in fact directed toward other non-believers and is not being done explicitly make to flamebait or otherwise cause a reaction out of the believers.

As a Christian, I am particularly offended that in this case the Islamic faith is somehow being protected when in fact religious icons and symbols of Christianity are routinely depicted in a negative light as well and are not similarly protected. Perhaps it is a valid point where something which is held as sacred should be respected in some fashion and not trashed. This includes even symbols that are not overtly religious but are still held in some reverence such as a national flag. If Facebook is going to be consistent here, at least set up some general and broad policy that all sorts of similar symbols ought to be treated with respect. That isn't exactly an easy policy to implement nor enforce.

I certainly don't understand why death threats ought to be made over non-believers (or believers for that matter) making light of these things. When people make light of religious symbols which I consider important, I certainly am willing to grant them some latitude and don't necessarily get angry with them. I still am disappointed, but I wouldn't seek to harm somebody for doing that.

Re:Face palm

[pizzach]

I salute you sir and your good will.

My proposal is the country outlaws the images (possibly they already did) that their country seems to find offensive and just block the sites instead allowing this intra-country turmoil. This is exactly what the US and China do. Yes, the US blocks sites it finds objectionable. They tend to be the kind that Americans would make death threats about.

The US has it's own history with death threats in history. Some of the most memorable has been against African Americans. I'm pretty sure there would be all kinds of death threats from Americans if the right images and text were posted one of the main hubs of the internet like the Google homepage.

Re:Face palm

[Omestes]

Yes, the US blocks sites it finds objectionable. They tend to be the kind that Americans would make death threats about.

Could you cite this? I don't recall the US blocking any sites on a national level. I'm not saying that they haven't, but I have seen no evidence for it.

Re:Face palm

[Anonymous Coward]

My concern about caving into the extremist Muslims on this issue is that it is it gives legitimacy to their viewpoint.... to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. The freedom of speech is something that is incredibly important to preserve, including preserving viewpoints that are on occasion distasteful and against your own viewpoint.

Yeap, agree with you.

I don't have a problem with censoring types of content, such as pornographic images or perhaps groups that are advocating various kinds of illegal activity (aka some video on YouTube that is a "how to" for making meth.... to give an example). What concerns me here is more that the topic itself is somehow forbidden.

Ahh, the old attitude from someone who sees themselves as religious: you can do and say stuff that other religions oppose, but not what my religion teaches.

Fucking hypocrite.

And besides, what is wrong with people learning how to synthesise a chemical? Who is harmed if someone watches a video? Who is hurt when a person takes drugs? Is a person's body not their own? If you think otherwise, then you are saying someone else owns that person's body. And that means you are advocating slavery. Much like many so called christians from history....

Designer chemical drugs like crystal methamphetamine are a consequence of the long-term prohibition of some drugs. A policy advocated frequently by those who call themselves religious, but to anyone with an IQ of more than about half a point it is clear that prohibition does not work.

And due to the shitty policies prohibitionists come up with, when I have a cold or flu I can no longer get pseudoephedrine to treat symptoms. Sudofed now contains some chemical that is about as effective as a placebo (though if you know this, its effectiveness is even less).

I don't see that Facebook would be censoring a cartoon depicting either George W. Bush or Barack Obama with nuclear missiles in a hat they are wearing.

The US is the only country, after all, to have used nuclear weapons in battle. So censorship of US leaders being depicted as warmongers would be contemptuous to the memories of the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

The use of nuclear weapons on Japan was a war crime, and there were no consequences because the US was on the winning side. Just like the atrocities committed by other allied forces.

Why should the fact that the subject of the image simply being Muhammad be singularly targeted if anybody else would be acceptable? This is where it really goes over the top. If Muhammad were to be depicted in a manner that would be otherwise offensive and censored regardless of who is the subject of the image.... fine, get rid of the image.

The other aspect here is that those who are promoting the Islamic faith are cramming that faith down my throat, and the throat of everybody else in the world too.

Like you are doing with your avocation of censorship of porn and drug info? You are willing to enforce your moral standards on others.

I respect the freedom of worship and belief.

Hahahahaha, bullshit.

Or maybe you are one of those fuckers who is cool with people as long as they are stupid enough to subscribe to any system of faith?

You know, faith. The thing where you accept what the world is like from what people in positions of authority tell you, rather than what your own eyes tell you.

This is something which is essential to a free society in general and something I claim for myself. That freedom includes even the complete and total rejection of a belief in a god of any type, or worshiping things that I would consider down right silly.

You nearly understand!

When people call themselves atheists, they are frequently trying to explain their world view in a way that people who practice religions can unders

Re:Face palm

[Moryath]

Why is it that showing pictures of a 7th-century pedophile who started a death cult is somehow "offensive"? The whole fucking religion is OFFENSIVE to anyone sane anyways...

Re:Face palm

[boxwood]

simple policy:

"Any content which will get us banned by a country for being obscene, we will remove it"

They don't really need to spell it out, its implied. They choose between have a couple of million less people clicking on ads or having one less page where asshats can be have a few laughs at the expense of someone else's religion. Its a no-brainer.

Re:Face palm

[bjourne]

My concern about caving into the extremist Muslims on this issue is that it is it gives legitimacy to their viewpoint.... to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. The freedom of speech is something that is incredibly important to preserve, including preserving viewpoints that are on occasion distasteful and against your own viewpoint.

Their viewpoint has already been given legitimacy to. By Jews wanting to outlaw Hitler salutes, swastikas and even buildings that are swastika shaped. By think-of-the-children moralists who wants lolicon outlawed and the Virgin Killer album censored. By Chinese who successfully forces search engines to filter Tiannamen Square massacre results.

Re:Face palm

[Merls the Sneaky]

http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/13/sKncDLnqYh8

Thunderf00t FTW IMO.

Re:Face palm

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Ever wondered what would happen if they had NOT used nukes?

We do not need to wonder. We know. Japan was about to surrender (it attempted an increasing number of peace overtures beginning in April 1945) but its great mistake was that it attempted to involve the Soviet Union in the surrender proceedings (as an assurance against more US atrocities) and so the US had to show both Japan and the Soviet Union who's the boss.

Also, the US was involved in mass scale atrocities in japan well prior to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like for example the March 9-10 1945 firebombing of Tokyo which killed 100,000 people.

Consider the numbers, and you can't say a little nuke here and there was really that bad for them.

As we now know from history (and things that have been declassified long after the war) that the main "target audience" of the use of nukes was the Soviet Union, the only viable threat to the freshly nascent in 1945 Global US Empire.

Re:Face palm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever wondered what would happen if they had NOT used nukes?

Yes, and there's so many possibilities with hypothetical situations that debating them could almost be a waste of bits.

But here's some spares: The Soviet Union might not have been friendly right at the end of WWII, had America not had a piece of tech that the Soviets wouldn't have (working) for another 10 years or so. Dropping the nukes on Japan was a clear message to the Soviets that the US could project its power thousands of miles from home, "so don't have any big ideas, commie".

The allies went all the way to Berlin to make sure Europe wasn't ruled by the Soviets after WWII, there would have been other decisions made along similar thinking for the Pacific war too.

Remember, Japan didn't look like it was going to surrender.

No, the US was demanding an unconditional surrender. The Japanese offered a conditional surrender. The US rejected that, and proceeded to use nuclear weapons against non-military people.

The planned invasion would certainly have caused several million deaths, mainly civilians.

Don't worry, the PR machine would have kicked in. They would have been labelled insurgents, or something, and the invading and occupying troops would have been called heroes for shooting people.

Whilst I'm boat-rocking, does anyone know what the Nazis called the French resistance? Or were things so controlled that any notion of opposition to the Nazis just wasn't talked about?

Consider the numbers, and you can't say a little nuke here and there was really that bad for them.

Spoken like a true capitalist.

Re:Face palm

[erroneus]

Were any of those forms porcine? I rather expect it did.

I am seriously disappointed in the violent muslim community. I've got Turkish friends and they are Muslim and are quite accepting of the fact that other people live completely different lives. They do and don't do as Muslim should and shouldn't do according to their beliefs. That is great. It doesn't interfere with my life and every time someone refuses to eat pork, I don't go on any sort of murderous rampage. (More pork for me anyway) Seriously, if the coin were flipped and every time non-Muslim people saw something that Muslims did that offended them, would it be fair to threaten and even murder Muslims over it? Of course not.

What just happened is a major company on the internet just rolled over for a bully.

I am perfectly okay with people practicing their religion until it interferes with my own rights to freedom of speech and expression. That's then a religion becomes an enemy of the people. In this case, that is exactly what is happening. But what can you expect from a religion that, according to its scriptures, expects you to kill offenders. Any religion that preaches murder should be abolished from the planet or humanity will never completely mature. (And yes, I know the Judaism and Christianity also preach murder... same goes for them as far as I am concerned.)

Re:Face palm

[Posting=!Working]

No, the US was demanding an unconditional surrender. The Japanese offered a conditional surrender. The US rejected that, and proceeded to use nuclear weapons against non-military people.

You do not accept conditional surrenders from someone who has repeatedly attacked you without provocation. Should we have accepted a conditional surrender from Hitler when we got to the German border? Left him or the Nazis in power? Let the holocaust continue? Let him continue to develop the V2? Why should Hirohito and the Big 6 be left in power in Japan?

The US, Great Britain, and the Soviets all agreed to accept nothing but unconditional surrender. Accepting a conditional surrender was not an option for the US, and at the time very few citizens of the US would have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. The Japanese were only starting talks with the Soviets about a conditional surrender, which the Soviets rejected and built up forces on the Manchuko border. There was no conditional surrender on the table when the bomb was dropped, they had been warned at Potsdam on July 26th by the 3 powers to unconditionally surrender or face prompt and utter destruction. Even after the second bomb was dropped, it took the emperor another 5 days to formally declare surrender. None of this is consistent with the bullshit theory that the US rejected an offer to surrender when the bomb was dropped.

Read the actual histories, not revisionist crap with cherry picked quotes, to get the actual information.

Re:Face palm

[sycodon]

Would Slashdot have the balls to post an picture of Mohammed ?

Probably not.

Re:Face palm

[hashp]

Ever wondered what would happen if they had NOT used nukes? Remember, Japan didn't look like it was going to surrender. The planned invasion would certainly have caused several million deaths, mainly civilians.

Yes, I have wondered and thought Japan would have surrendered anyway. They had nothing left. No invasion was necessary, Japan was ready for truce, if not total surrender. All they wanted was to keep their Emperor's dignity. US didn't want that. Or maybe something was lost in translation. http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf

Re:Face palm

[hashp]

Should we have accepted a conditional surrender from Hitler when we got to the German border? Left him or the Nazis in power? Let the holocaust continue? Let him continue to develop the V2?

The terms of the condition could be to stop the holocaust, to remove Nazis from power, imprison Hitler or whatever, but the answer to your question is "yes". Especially when the alternative is assured death for hundreds of thousands of innocent people and radiation damage for future generations.

A conditional surrender is still a surrender, it's different from a truce.

Re:Face palm

[gullevek]

Why is this marked troll. The bombings were a show to the Ruskis to tell them "Guys, we have nukes, you don't, so don't try anything stupid".

It was a prep for cold war.

Re:Face palm

[Shotgun]

You do not accept conditional surrenders from someone who has repeatedly attacked you without provocation.

Read the actual histories, not revisionist crap with cherry picked quotes, to get the actual information.

I should probably consider myself to be somewhat hawkish. I'm a strong military supporter, and believe that the best defense the the ability and willingness to use a strong offense....but...this is bullshit.

The US was not sitting idly by 1940 when Germany and Japan just wantonly jumped up and attacked us. This country was running a friggin' oil embargo around Japan, supplying troops and air support to China, and running arms to Britain. When you're reading that history, how about reading the whole thing, and not just the "we were forced into being the savior of the world" propaganda foisted by "the greatest generation".

Re:Face palm

[Posting=!Working]

Japan attacked us, Germany did not. And it was 1941, not 1940. Yamamoto first submitted plans for Operation Z, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Singapore and other Pacific islands/territories on January 7, 1941. The oil embargo started July 26, 1941. They had been building their attack forces for years. The oil embargo may have advanced the attack, but was not the cause, or even a cause, for the attack on the first place. Did you bother to even find out the reasons for the embargo? Start with the Rape of Nanking.

Since the attack had long been planned, the oil embargo was the right thing to do. Or do you think it would have been better to supply them with oil for an additional 5 months before they attacked us?

Again, cherry picking your information is revising history.

Re:Face palm

[Posting=!Working]

A conditional surrender only hinders the victors. The Allies stated repeatedly during the war that they would accept nothing but the unconditional surrender of Germany. Read Churchill's history of WWII, it contains the correspondence between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin concerning this if you'd like to learn why.

Re:Face palm

[Shotgun]

Cherry picking, indeed. How long had we been supplying war planes to China? How long had we been supplying arms to Britain?

When you see a fight on the playground and you stick your nose in it as anything but a neutral party, you can't cry foul when you get punched in the nose. We kicked ASS in WWII, but I won't for one second swallow the idiotic revisionist bullshit that we were sitting idly by, minding our own business, when we were preemptively attacked without provocation.

Re:Face palm

[Posting=!Working]

Cherry picking, indeed. How long had we been supplying war planes to China?

Less than three weeks before Yamamoto's plan was submitted, Roosevelt approved for the first time selling China aircraft. in 1937, the US was selling planes to Japan, that ended after the Rape of Nanking, when the Japanese soldiers massacred hundreds of thousands of civillians and raped between 20,000-80,000 women. No warplanes were actually delivered to China (actually, Burma) until late 1941. Large scale invasion plans involving three separate fleets attacking and/or invading multiple islands across thousands of miles take longer than a few weeks to put together. They had been building their fleets for years. The attack on Pearl Harbor was so we couldn't stop them while they invaded and took over of our territories in the Pacific. None of this was caused by us agreeing to sell a few planes to China at the end of 1940, or by an oil embargo in mid 1941.

They shot first. They invaded our territories. We were not, in any way, shape, or form about to attack them. We weren't even a threat at the time, their army was larger, more experienced and better trained. We did not have the landing craft necessary to conduct an invasion. How in the hell is that provoking an attack?

I'm done teaching History 102, 1937-1941 for now. Read some history outside of Wikipedia.

Re:Face palm

[WNight]

Obviously the correct thing to do would be treat the emperor like a hostage taker - lure him out on the pretext of a conditional surrender, sign whatever he wants, wait for him to tell his troops to stand down, then try and execute him for war crimes.

But for some reason politicians prefer to keep enemy bigwigs alive, regardless of their crimes or usefulness. Many wars could have been ended early had our government only targeted the tyrant instead of their conscript armies.

For instance, Gulf War 1. Once Saddam had threatened the lives of anyone (the Kuwaitis though in this case) and we decided it was serious enough to mobilize we should have immediately targeted him for personal assassination. Instead we killed how many of his conscripts and subjects?

Re:Face palm

[WNight]

They do and don't do as $Religion should and shouldn't do according to their beliefs. That is great.

No, that is not great, it's ... nonsensical religious twaddle.

You know how it'd be ludicrous if one of the new-agers who thinks they've been Cleopatra in a past life decided to act as if they were her. It's just as crazy when it's a space-ghost cult who've told them that to appease the world-creator they must follow specific rules.

I am perfectly okay with people practicing their religion [...]

I'm perfectly okay with people believing whatever they do. It simply is what it is, not being okay with it wouldn't change it anyways.

But the thoughts themselves shouldn't be given a free pass just because they're held in honest error. If the rest of us would treat religion as the fairy tale it is the members might not find it so easy to be sucked in.

until it interferes with my own rights to freedom of speech and expression.

It does as soon as they want to be respected for the sacred nature of their stupid. If they'd object to you saying "Hey look, it's a group of the pedophile cultists and they're holding some fertility ritual" when a catholic wedding passes then it interferes with your freedom of expression.

That's then a religion becomes an enemy of the people. In this case, that is exactly what is happening.

You say that because the religion preaches murder (if only in some circumstances). That's not good enough.

All religion is the enemy because it preaches the lack of critical thinking that lets people be told what to do, from crazy holiday rituals to murder. Faith is incompatible with reasoning and as long as it gets a free pass so do the atrocities.

Re:Face palm

[Posting=!Working]

This country was running a friggin' oil embargo around Japan,

I just noticed you've misunderstood what an embargo is. It's the cessation of trade, not a blockade. We stopped selling Japan our oil, we did not block oil shipments to Japan. Other countries were free to sell and ship oil to Japan.

pathetic

[Lawrence_Bird]

way to cave face book. please move your hq to islamabad.

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Exactly.

We just became a little more Islamic fundamentalist by giving into their way of life, rather than standing up for freedom.

Facebook, you suck.

I'm so tired of people bending over for Muslims and their way of life. Muslims will NEVER give us an inch, so we we give up our freedom? What a shit deal.

Re:pathetic

[cduffy]

sed -i \
  -e s/Islamic// \
  -e 's/[.] Muslims/. Fundamentalists/' \
  -e s/Muslims/fundamentalists/

With those replacements made, is the position espoused something you would support? Why or why not?

Re:pathetic

[siride]

For me, yes. Any fundamentalist ideology is extremely dangerous to peace and sanity.

Re:pathetic

[MadKeithV]

Now wouldn't it be fun if the US government blocked Facebook now because they are offended by the violation of the right to free speech....

Re:pathetic

[Sir_Lewk]

Of course. However the discussion here is decidedly about MUSLIMS. Does that make you uncomfortable? Why or why not?

8===> O:

^^ That is Muhammad sucking cock. Does that make you uncomfortable? Why or why not?

I could go on all day you want to be troll.

Re:pathetic

[Abcd1234]

Yes, because Pakistan is, I'm sure, a major source of ad conversions...

Re:pathetic

[Pharmboy]

They didn't do a very good job of it.

(yes, you likely need to be logged into facebook)

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

nice try.

So you're saying that you would call me an intelligent, well educated individual if I just gave up my rights and bowed down to Muhammad?

Well.. I'll a be an uneducated redneck twat then.

But I'm not... I'm an American who understands free thought, freedom of expression, and the great American tradition of simply saying "Go fuck yourself".

Re:pathetic

[TitusC3v5]

I'm looking at the page right now. It still appears to be available?

Re:pathetic

[mrsteveman1]

way to cave face book. please move your hq to islamabad.

I think you mean Cavebook

Re:pathetic

[cduffy]

Sure, but when we have an article about the actions BP is taking to avoid future spills, it's also topical to talk about what Exxon is doing likewise. Further, taking a comment that applies industrywide and adding a great deal of verbiage with no effect other than narrowing its scope to only apply to BP without despite the arguments applying to other companies makes it seem like the poster has an agenda, or a chip on their shoulder, or a belief that some oil company other than BP can do no wrong, even if it's just a news item about BP that started the conversation as a whole.

Re:pathetic

[Thanshin]

8===> O:

^^ That is Muhammad sucking cock. Does that make you uncomfortable? Why or why not?

It does make me feel uncomfortable. It's wrong.

The '>' should, obviously be a 'D'.

Re:pathetic

[MadKeithV]

If you opened your eyes and looked around the world you would realize that muslims have to put up with more crap from us non-religious capitalists, than we have to from muslims.

Citation needed.

Re:pathetic

[maxume]

I didn't become more fundamentalist, I've never made the choice to associate myself with Facebook, so I should hardly start pretending that they speak for me.

We certainly learned something about some of our neighbors.

Re:pathetic

[Thanshin]

I have just one question.

Am I the only one who doesn't give a flying fuck about what facebook censors, as long as it doesn't affect me?

It's not like it's a fundamental need. If they ever bother me, I'll stop using it.

I'm not interested in what they do with the info I post, as I consider it about as secure as screaming that info in a train station. I'm not interested in whether they cave in to fundamentalist claims, nor any other kinds of claims; I don't use it as a platform to spread my religious disbeliefs. I'm simply not interested on the politics of Facebook.

Just as I wouldn't care if gmail decided to write "ISLAM IS THE BEST!!!!1111 lololol" in every mail sent by someone in the middle east. As long as I find it useful I'll use it. As soon as it bothers me, I'll stop using it.

Would you care if the S of slashdot was actually a picture of a million diminute swasticas?

Re:pathetic

[Sir_Lewk]

Nah, it's an uncut infidel dick.

Re:pathetic

[Iamthecheese]

No, he's saying you would be an intelligent, well educated individual if you didn't make broad generalizations like "they" want to take away your freedoms.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually people do this all the time against Christianity and the US, even in Alabama, with nary a peep. We don't kill anyone, burn something down, or attack innocents. In fact, your British art galleries are carrying a crucifx in urine, and you call it "art". It does in fact seem the only religion you can safely insult is Christianity.

So perhaps you should grow up.

(Just FYI, it's the Muslims that lynch people now. You can find things like that out by a process we quaintly refer to here in the US as "education". Perhaps you should check into it.)

Re:pathetic

[jez9999]

I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?

Hell yeah. I'm a British atheist too, and PC attitudes like yours are the reason this country's lost so much freedom under New Labour.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

"What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it?"

Yes it is! Go do it; no one's stopping you.
You might get charged with indecent exposure if you do the whole "defecate on a bible" thing in public, though.

Re:pathetic

[Cyberax]

"If you've got a really good reason to draw a picture of the prophet, other than something along the lines of "I have a misguided idea of what free speech means, and I want to be offensive for a laugh" then I'd love to hear it. "

Like: "I want to show support for those who receive death threats over trivial matters"? Free speech also means that you have to live with something you don't like. Deal with it.

Re:pathetic

[Sollord]

At most you'll get in trouble for disturbing the peace since you're trying to instigate trouble. How about you man up and fly to Pakistan deface and piss on the Qur'an then burn it oh that right you will be dead faster then you can say Allah Akbar.

Re:pathetic

[Monkeedude1212]

I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?

No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it. I'd get lynched, and rightly so. Grow up, the lot of you.

The fundamental difference between what happened and your scenario is the "I go to Alabama". If someone took the bible, defecated, etc etc, over in a country like Iraq or Iran, no one would think twice about it.

Don't get me wrong - I understand your point, the only "right" that's being taken away is one to be a total douche. But the reason they are being total Douches about it is to send the message that they don't like their rights taken away.

People COULD have drawn Mohammed as a highly regarded prophet. People COULD have not made total asses of themselves and shown the religion some respect.

This would have still been intolerable though - any drawing whatsoever would have been condemned. With such an adamant stance towards something as simple as drawing (whether to be respectful or disrespectful) than you can expect people to be angry and respond as such.

What if Muslim Extremists said you are not allowed to draw pictures of your own mother and father? How is it any different than a prophet?

Re:pathetic

[mibe]

You think it would be "right" to lynch someone for being an offensive dick? That's horrifying.

Re:pathetic

[gsslay]

I'd be more in favour of the US Government blocking those who do not understand what their right to free speech is, so that we are not bothered with the thoughts of those who haven't a clue.

Right to free speech in the United States is as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This says that the government cannot limit freedom of expression. Facebook is not the government. Facebook can decide what it will permit people to say on its website and what it will not. The right to free speech does not extend to obliging others to promote your opinions. There is no free speech violation here.

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

And you would be an intelligent well educated individual to know that obviously I'm NOT speaking about every Muslim. But you instead proclaim its intelligent to point that out at every turn?

I mean I thought intelligent people already knew all Muslims weren't bad. Do we have to have this politically correct disclaimer every time we speak? Dont we all know this by now?

"This Broccoli taste like shit... but not all broccoli is bad..."

Fuck this PC shit. I'm a progressive independent politically, and I'm even tired of it. Its just fucking dumb to end every god damn statement with a fucking disclaimer.

Arent we smart enough to know that there are no absolutes?

But you go right on pointing it out at every opportunity. Use that to win your arguments. Hell point it out so i dont have to point it out every fucking time.

Re:pathetic

[Nihixul]

No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it. I'd get lynched, and rightly so.

If being offensive (for whatever reason and to whomever) is part of what determines that which shouldn't be considered "free speech", then "free speech" isn't very valuable.

Re:pathetic

[regular_gonzalez]

Freedom of speech does no good if it only protects the freedom of speech that is generally non-controversial. As to your example, I suggest you google "Piss Christ" and look up how many lynchings the artist endured (hint: exactly zero).

I personally didn't contribute any Muhammed drawings because I thought the whole thing was rather silly, but to say that only certain types of speech deserves protection (and that speech you disagree with, doesn't) kind of undermines the entire concept.

Re:pathetic

[poity]

>I'd get lynched, and rightly so.

Well, it took you a while to discredit yourself, but you managed it at the end. Congrats.

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

What crap are they putting up with?

Seriously?

Are you talking about foreign policy? or socially?

It's no secret that historically that part of the world has dealt with a lot of political bs. We get that. But it has nothing to do with altering our ideas of freedom of expression and censoring our culture.

Re:pathetic

[cetialphav]

ree speech doesn't just mean you can speak out against real injustice, it means you should be intentionally abusive of other people's cultures and religions!

So I guess you don't consider pointing out the intolerance and violence that is central to many muslims' religious beliefs a valid usage of free speech. Many activists are using Islam to justify the killing of anyone that they don't like. This includes the killing of barbers in Afghanistan who think it is okay to shave someone's beard. There are lots of ways to express disapproval of this type of conduct and they should be protected as free speech. Some people will be offended. So what? If people want to wrap violence in a religious veneer, then I don't care if they are offended by my criticism. It's not like muslims have a reputation for being tolerant and open minded.

What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle.

I'd get lynched, and rightly so.

I don't think you know as much about the US south as you think you do. I've lived there my whole life. You would not be lynched, though you would certainly make a lot of people mad. The legal apparatus would not turn a blind eye to a lynching as that is illegal even in the south.

It seems really strange to me that you think it is okay that violence should be inflicted on people who offend others. It is not. Part of being in an open, diverse civilization is that you hear a lot of ideas and some of them challenge your views in fundamental ways. Some of those ideas can even be considered offensive. People need to grow up and accept this and not demand that the entire world make an effort to not step on their toes.

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

You might be right. :) Case dismissed :P

Re:pathetic

[corbettw]

Fuck you, you pathetic piece of shit. You do not have a right not to be offended. No one does. That's one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Every time someone whines and bitches about how something or other offended them and forces other people to conform to their notions of decency, a little bit of our culture dies.

I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?

And I think most people in Alabama would just ignore you if you did that. I'm thinking you've never actually been to Alabama or else you'd know that already.

Re:pathetic

[LordLimecat]

Its a private business, theyre free to block whatever they want. Its not a violation of free speech if its being blocked by Facebook on their own webpage. I like how you got modded insightful for that though, it would be really swell if the US Govt started dictating what private businesses could and could not do content-wise on their own sites, totally not a worse evil than this.

Re:pathetic

[trytoguess]

There is a small problem with the don't insult rationale. Too many of them already attack each other simply through their dogma. Islam states the other Abrahamic faiths are a corrupt and impure version of the true faith, and a Christian might say it's offensive a misguided man (or maybe Satan) is considered holier than the Lord and Saviour. And of course both faiths don't have anything nice to say about Hinduism. I do agree it would be in in bad taste to, I dunno, draw Muhammad pooping on his followers, or something. But there is a reason why such drawing must be permitted. The alternative is to go back to the bad old days when we'd try to ban faiths for their offensive and intolerant content.

Re:pathetic

[LordLimecat]

Youre right that its offensive, and youre right that we arent really loosing rights... but NOT for the reason you gave. We havent lost a right because Facebook is a private enterprise and we are free to not use it if this offends us. You seem to be implying that, for example, it would be OK to have a law mandating the death penalty for being offensive; I disagree.

Im not sure you are aware of this, but burning a US flag is protected speech. If you were lynched in your example, there would be a murder investigation; it is certainly NOT ok to lynch people for what you described.

Re:pathetic

[arkane1234]

Congrats.. you got his analogy...

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't give an intelligent reply to someone who does not know how to properly draw an ascii dick.

Re:pathetic

[bbbaldie]

What the world needs is more people with thick skins.

Re:pathetic

[arkane1234]

a non-religious "capitalist" (why did you combine capitalist and non-religious together?) doesn't follow the beliefs of a Muslim.
Failing to follow their belifs is by no means doing anything to any balance.

Capitalism is an economic structure, Islamic faith is a religion.
The two have no correlation. It just so happened that a faith did not like it, so they bitched, that's what it boils down to.
Any other way you attempt to structure it only dilutes it and attempts to paint another picture.

Re:pathetic

[theheadlessrabbit]

Hell yeah! Free speech doesn't just mean you can speak out against real injustice, it means you should be intentionally abusive of other people's cultures and religions! As often as possible!

This attitude utterly disgusts me. You people are pathetic. "Not drawing pictures of Mohammed" (PBUH) takes away precisely one "right" of yours, the right to be an idiot with no sense of tact or respect. ...
I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?

No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it. I'd get lynched, and rightly so. Grow up, the lot of you.

No, it is free speech.

During protests, Muslims will often protest by desecrating or burning flags, and openly uttering death threats. All of these are actions that are intentionally offensive. Media outlets will routinely insult Christianity, especially Catholicism, Judaism and other belief systems, as well as insulting atheism, certain nationalities, etc. without ever receiving a threat of violence. Everything we hold dear to us in this culture is open to offence.
Only Islam is magically off limits and unable to be criticized. People who insult Islam fear a very real possibility of a violent death, including the South Park creators, who were threatened, sent pictures of another filmmaker who was murdered for criticizing Islam, along with having their home addresses published on an Islamic fundamentalist website.

This specific act of causing offence to Muslims in this situation had a very important function. The South Park guys had their lives threatened for daring to present images of Muhammad. The idea behind "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" was to present the world with so many offending images that the South Park guys would be flooded out. Their would simply be too many offending images out their for the Islamic fundamentalists to murder everyone who had drawn one.

As soon as certain topics are declared forbidden, freedom of speech dies, and a dangerous precedent is set.
"If that topic is forbidden, then surly it's ok to ban this topic, too" "well, since those topics are banned, we can also ban this list of topics."
Freedom of speech makes certain undesirable things possible -offence, hate speech, pornography, evangelicals, etc. but developed countries are based on the idea that free speech is a greater good than all those negative side effects combined. One slashdotter's sig sums it up nicely "The act of censorship is always worse than what is being censored. Always."

Offence is a necessary part of free speech for the simple reason that not every shares the same views and opinions, and the way to handle this difference of opinion in an open and civilized country is not by censoring one side of the debate, driving it underground, or brutally murder your opponents, the way to deal with it is to have an open debate, and discuss the issue, knowing that no matter how offensive some may find the topic, it is still safe to discuss.

Re:pathetic

[SanityInAnarchy]

Apparently you don't. I'm a bit confused -- maybe they just blocked it for Pakistan?

Re:pathetic

[sv_libertarian]

Go for it. I'm not going to call for your death, or demand pictures of it be taken down off the internet. That's the whole point of free speech. One must tolerate the offensive along with what they view as benign.

Re:pathetic

[uberjack]

"Not drawing pictures of Mohammed" (PBUH) takes away precisely one "right" of yours, the right to be an idiot with no sense of tact or respect. I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?

Right. And that's exactly why you added 'PBUH' to your post. Nice going.

Re:pathetic

[billcopc]

Capitalism is a faith-based system rooted in the belief in an imaginary construct that represents wealth.

It is no less a religion than Buddhism or Baha'i.

Re:pathetic

[unkiereamus]

This attitude utterly disgusts me. You people are pathetic. "Not drawing pictures of Mohammed" (PBUH) takes away precisely one "right" of yours, the right to be an idiot with no sense of tact or respect.

...

I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?

No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it. I'd get lynched, and rightly so. Grow up, the lot of you.

Two points: First, the defense of rights, particularly free speech, must be vigorous, it's a tremendously slippery slope, but moreover, there is a great reason why people should draw Mohammad, it's a group of people expressing their displeasure with something, in a manner which draws a great deal of attention to itself without causing any direct harm. How is this a bad thing? As a nation, the US is big on protests, we find they work rather well. Would you suggest that certain things shouldn't be protested? If so, where do we draw the line? Freedom of speech means that you are not only free to hold whatever opinions you want, but you are free to express them. How is this a bad thing?

Second, go right ahead. Now, you may or may not get lynched, but if you made it out alive, and someone sued you over it, or you were arrested for it, the government would land squarely on your side. That is in fact an expression of free speech. More over, if you did it where I grew up in California, you wouldn't even be beat up, lynched or arrested for it. You still might get sued, but the odds are against it being by a Californian.

PS. when you looking for a highly conservative and reactionary state, it's more common to call out Mississippi.

Re:pathetic

[ultranova]

This attitude utterly disgusts me. You people are pathetic. "Not drawing pictures of Mohammed" (PBUH) takes away precisely one "right" of yours, the right to be an idiot with no sense of tact or respect.

Not being allowed to draw pictures of Mohammed takes away the right to say anything anyone might find offensive - unless, of course, you are suggesting that Muslims should have special privileges in this regard?

If you've got a really good reason to draw a picture of the prophet, other than something along the lines of "I have a misguided idea of what free speech means, and I want to be offensive for a laugh" then I'd love to hear it.

Free speech means that neither I nor anyone else need to justify us drawing pictures of Muhammed, nor any other expression, to you or anyone else. That is what "freedom" means: I can do what I want, not what you graciously allow me to.

I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?

No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it. I'd get lynched, and rightly so. Grow up, the lot of you.

No, you wouldn't be lynched. You would be told you are an offensive dick, and possibly sued if you did this in public for the defecating in public part. If some mentally disturbed individuals were to take violent action against you, they would then face charges for their criminal behavior.

It is you who needs to grow up, and realize that murdering someone because he offends you is not acceptable.

Re:pathetic

[5pp000]

What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it?

No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it.

Actually, it depends. If you did it just to be an offensive dick that would be one thing. But suppose the US government had done something to you that, it could fairly be said, ruined your life; and suppose you had written about it, blogged about it, contacted the press, etc. etc. and had failed to get anyone to pay attention to you. (I am certain there have been a few people who have been in such a situation.) Since you mention the Bible, let's suppose that whatever was done to you had some connection to Christianity and the efforts some have made to establish it as the state religion of Alabama. I don't think that stretches the imagination much at all.

Given all that, maybe in your frustration you might have reached a point where the only mode of expression you felt was left to you, that would make the point you were validly trying to make, was to defecate on a Bible, wrap it in the American flag and burn them. In that case I would support you in doing so. Once you got everyone's attention, maybe you could then make your point in a more conventional manner.

Perhaps not everyone who would do such a thing has such a good reason. But it's not up to the law to evaluate their reason. The guarantee of freedom of speech means that you can do that if you want to; and then it's up to everyone else to form an opinion about your motives. If we outlaw any form of expression at all, we eliminate the valid uses of that expression, rare though they may be, along with the invalid ones.

So for those of us who believe in freedom, being told that drawing images of Muhammed is forbidden is itself offensive. Worse, going along with that is dangerous -- once one form of expression is outlawed, it gets easier to outlaw the next one. There is a real clash of belief systems here, and I think it is critical that we make it clear that we will not be intimidated into outlawing any speech at all. (The line here is not really between Americans and Muslims; indeed, a sizable minority of Americans would love to have state-enforced censorship of various kinds -- witness, as just one example, the periodic agitation by some for a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw burning of the US flag.)

The original motivation for the prohibition, in Islam, against images of the Prophet (or anyone else) was to discourage idolatry. I think it is fair game to show people that it has failed to do that: that Muhammed is as much an idol as Jesus. The violence of the reaction to these drawings only proves the point.

Re:pathetic

[Cruciform]

The Qu'ran, like the Bible, definitely wants to strip you of your freedom.

Muslims and Christians DO want to take your freedom away.

If someone paints themselves as a moderate, they're certainly not Muslims or Christians in the sense that they are adhering to their scripture.

Don't want to be associated with the stupidity in either book? Then they should stop calling themselves Muslims and Christians.

Re:pathetic

[muffen]

I dont think he is worried about "most of the people" in Alabama, I think he is worried about the people that do not fall into the category of "most of the people". Are you afraid of "most of the muslims" or are you afraid of the ones that do not fall into that category?

Re:pathetic

[tenco]

Citation needed.

Did you live in a hole in the ground for the last 50 years? Seriously, just take a look at the history of the middle east.

Re:pathetic

[ultranova]

What the world needs is more people with thick skins.

Trolls are working on it. Remember, every time you can get someone look at Goatse you are helping to create a bright future for humanity!

Re:pathetic

[couchslug]

"No, he's saying you would be an intelligent, well educated individual if you didn't make broad generalizations like "they" want to take away your freedoms."

When "they" are devout Muslims, that is precisely what they are commanded to do as a collateral effect of establishing a Muslim state. Islam demands submission, it does not preach freedom, end of fucking story. Anyone asserting otherwise is either malicious or delusional.

Go visit Muslim lands, and note that the more devout, the less "free" (in the Western, secular sense) they are.

Been there (on friendly terms, I have social skills and get on smoothly, (ask me about my canned fake anti-Zionism rant), done that, still have some of the T-shirts. Islam and personal freedom don't go together. The best effort to play that game was by a gentleman named Ataturk, and it requires a secular military willing to kill local Jihadists to make it barely work. The jury is out on how long that will last.

Re:pathetic

[Johann Lau]

No, not me; because fundamentalism == "a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles", and depending on what the principles are, I might either applaud or abhor any given kind of fundamentalism.

For example, I don't like the principle that you shouldn't have any principles (or that actually adhering to them is a bit too much) -> therefore I don't like anti-fundamentalist fundamentalists =P

Re:pathetic

[vegiVamp]

I'm not even american, but for once I'll be happy to join you lot in uneducated redneck twattiness.

I bow for no religion, let alone one whose dictatorial, self-perpetuating leading class thinks that everyone in the whole wide world should shut up and follow their stupid little rules.

Re:pathetic

[boxwood]

Yeah, how dare you not host content that a billion people think is obscene!

I demand that facebook martyr it's revenues for the cause of anti-islamicism!

Re:pathetic

[vegiVamp]

Dear teacher,

"Why or why not" type questions only work in a school setting, not out here in the real world where you have not a smithereen of power or influence over those you attempt to tort^Winterrog^Wask questions of.

Sincerely,
The Internet.

Re:pathetic

[bky1701]

Just because this censorship is not being done by the government, does not make it right. Free society is free everywhere, not just on public or government property. Facebook needs to be slammed down for this.

Re:pathetic

[couchslug]

"Actually people do this all the time against Christianity and the US, even in Alabama, with nary a peep. We don't kill anyone, burn something down, or attack innocents"

No, you disclaim inconvenient Christians such as Eric Rudolph and the Ku Klux Klan.

Re:pathetic

[sjames]

Blah blah blah limited to government blah blah blah.

Isn't that horse dead yet? Blocking free speech is against the way and spirit of tthe United States no matter who does it. The Constitution only says government because that's what it was written to cover. Facebook may not be violating the law but that doesn't mean they're not behaving in a most un-American way.

Maybe we're just tired of watching American companies with American CxOs wipe their ass with the flag.

Re:pathetic

[couchslug]

I'm an American atheist. I served in the military to defend the country, not the flag, and understand the difference as did the Founders.

Bring on the flaming turds of Free Speech!

(E-hugs Brit Freethinker buddies.)

Re:pathetic

[cduffy]

Clearly untrue; there were some pretty good answers (well-formed, consistent, and establishing a position one could argue persuasively -- regardless of whether I happen to agree).

Re:pathetic

[Skjellifetti]

No, you'd be stoned, not lynched.

Re:pathetic

[corbettw]

Even the people who don't outright ignore him are more likely to just bitch about it than do anything. The worst that would happen would be someone suggesting he go "back where you come from". But he wouldn't see any riots, he wouldn't see anyone torching the UK consulates in the states (the closest one to Alabama is in Atlanta, GA, for what it's worth). And he wouldn't see anyone trying to block Facebook over it.

Re:pathetic

[sjames]

I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?

Yes. As a matter of fact it is. I suspect many people will then exercise their right to free speech in response, and if I were you, I'd go live somewhere far away after that, but it is your right.

Because it is your right, if the many many outraged people then asked the local sheriff to jail you or run you out of town, he would decline. He MIGHT mention to you that for your own safety you should leave town, but he won't actually order you out in his official capacity.

As for me personally, I would also consider it un-American if Facebook took down a neo-Nazi page or a "death to America" page.. In the later case, I would probably njoy the irony that the page only remains available because of the principles of the country it decries.

Re:pathetic

[Cwix]

The whole capitalism argument isnt that strong. How much profit do you think they get serving ads to a third world country? Now how much profit will they loose by pissing off the people in the countries they do make good revenue from? If A>B then yes they did the right thing, i have a sneaking suspicion that B may be greater then A especially if they allow religious groups to continue to dictate what can go on their web page.

Re:pathetic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Just because this censorship is not being done by the government, does not make it right.

But it does make it an issue where Facebook is exercising their protected free speech, not violating the rights of others... or would be if Facebook had deleted the page, instead of the page creators.

. Free society is free everywhere, not just on public or government property.

I demand that you go out in public and yell about how you rape kittens. Otherwise you're censoring me. My freedom of speech isn't restricted to the government not telling me what comes out of my mouth, but I'm also free to express what I want through your mouth, right?

Re:pathetic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Isn't that horse dead yet? Blocking free speech is against the way and spirit of tthe United States no matter who does it.

Alright, please respond to my post with a comment that says, "sjames is a twat". Otherwise you're blocking my freedom of speech in your posts you evil un-American censor.

Re:pathetic

[shentino]

It would be right for them to throw rotten tomatoes at you and boo you out of every bar you ever went to.

Lynching someone because of what they said is a major violation of due process, let alone the right to free speech.

Re:pathetic

[sjames]

You have your free speech and I have mine. I will call you a silly ass (either for very awkward wording or for thinking that your freedom of speech means you get to tell others what to say), but I won't be sending a fuming email demanding that /. delete your post.

Re:pathetic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You miss the point. Facebook decides what free speech they want to put up on their Web site. You decide what free speech you want to put in your posts. I decide what to put on my website and in my posts. It's not a violation of freedom of speech for you to refuse to put what I want in your posts just as it's not a violation of free speech for Facebook to not put any particular post on their Web site. It's only a violation of free speech if the government prevents you from speaking in your own speech, Website, post, etc. You have as much right to have an particular page on Facebook as I have a right to have you post particular content in your Slashdot post. You have done the exact same thing as Facebook, err, well, you would have if Facebook had actually deleted the page, which it seems they did not. Rather the creators of the page deleted it themselves.

Re:pathetic

[sjames]

There is a significant difference between asking me to post something myself and simply posting something up on a site that claims it is for you to say what you like simply because someone else said they don't like it.

It's not a violation of freedom of speech for you to refuse to put what I want in your posts

Correct, but taking your post down would be.

What Facebook did was not as serious a violation as a government demanding that it be taken down, but it doesn't speak very highly of Facebook that they chose to take it down. Of course a lot of Facebook's actions don't speak very highly of them lately.

Re:pathetic

[sjames]

I never said they violated the law or even close. Just that it was as you say, a dick move.

If indeed the people took their own page down, then shame on TFA for saying otherwise.

Re:pathetic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I never said they violated the law or even close.

No, but you did write that they were violating the right to free speech, mangling an important concept every american should understand.

If indeed the people took their own page down, then shame on TFA for saying otherwise.

From the Guardian, "Facebook officials tell the Associated Press they played no role in the removal of the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" page". Multiple sources are good.

Re:pathetic

[Merls the Sneaky]

We are also free to have a boycott facebook for being giant kowtowing douches. Wonder how that will effect their bottom line.

Boycott facebook for offending our right to free speech IMO. Damn it I can't boycott facebook 'cause I don't use it, but I can encourage others to.

Re:pathetic

[cgenman]

This has come up as an issue because of political cartoons referencing Mohammad for completely legitimate reasons. The nature of political cartoons as a speech medium basically requires caricatures or personifications of famous people in order to make a point. In the case of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the point was the censorship of dialog about Muslim and how it relates to modern Danish living. Compare the outrage and censorship of those pieces, to how we treat other major public figures, and you'll find that a definite double standard is being applied. Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc deal with blasphemy all of the time in western cultures. Part of freedom of expression involves dealing productively with not liking what other people might say.

Which is not to say that political cartoons haven't become superficial in the last 30 years. But the medium requires pictograms, and the legitimate representations of those particular players is essential to the communication. If you can't draw Mohammad in a political cartoon, you can't critique Muslim culture.

Re:pathetic

[mapkinase]

I wonder where have you been when Facebook closed "Deny the holocaust day".

Re:pathetic

[EdIII]

Not sure why I feel the need to point this out but on uncut infidel dicks the foreskin pulls back so it doesn't cover the end during use.

A salient point my friend. As we are apparently in the company of experts here I would like to take the opportunity to question my learned colleagues on the finer points of ASCII art and their proper use......

How does one represent Head Cheese?

Re:pathetic

[Merls the Sneaky]

Or this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NymRecFWgAs

Penn and Teller burn a flag in the white house.

(Yes I am aware of the fact that it was a television show but the point is the same.)

Re:pathetic

[sjames]

They did appear to be mangling an important concept every American should understand. One could say that's a "dick move" but that's not quite strong enough IMHO.

Re:pathetic

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

"This Broccoli taste like shit... but not all broccoli is bad..."

Uh no. You wrote:

Muslims will NEVER give us an inch, so we we give up our freedom? What a shit deal.

Clearly you understand that the word 'this' changes the reference from the set of all broccoli to the specific broccoli on your plate.

Arent we smart enough to know that there are no absolutes?

You appear to be, but you also made a clear word choice that indicated that an absolute was precisely what you were talking about. Furthermore, you did it twice - first with, "I'm so tired of people bending over for Muslims and their way of life. " and then immediately again with the line quoted above.

So you claim to be numerate but you make specific word choices indicating innumeracy.
And then you get hyper-defensive when someone points out your math sucks ass.

Who else do we know who gets hyper-defensive when their fallacies are challenged?

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Well by that definition the, Verizon could block offensive words on their telephone, or on the internet all together...

But you dont want that do you?

See the problem?

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If its as you say it is (which i understand is true for the most part)... its still wrong. The goal was always freedom. We may not have it entirely... but its still the fucking goal.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

It just shows how pathetic and fragile the political ideology that is known as 'Islam' is - it cannot stand up to the slightest public debate. It cannot stand up to even the most basic of investigation.

The 'prophet' of Islam was a mass murderer, multiple rapist, bigamist with 14 wives, and a paedophile, who 'married' a nine year old girl when he was fifty four.

All documented by MUSLIMS for 1400 years. They saw no reason to hide any of this information, and in fact, revelled in their 'great leader' committing these crimes.

Need I say more?

No wonder you can't have a rational discussion with a muslim - their world is literally upside down. Good is evil, and evil is good, in Islam.

Re:pathetic

[NotBornYesterday]

Whoosh. He is declaring himself an uneducated redneck twat because he refuses to kowtow to the PC establishment. In other words, he's saying what you're saying, but you don't realize it.

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Stop. Its just silly. I understand your point but instead of addressing the topic, you want to proclaim me as a racist. Because as we know, racists are all wrong, and the easiest thing to do in an argument is not discuss the issue, but find a way to call someone a racist.

If someone says the government is corrupt, they obviously do not mean everyone in the government.

Islam is a religion of hate. That general enough for you? :)

All religions are worthless fairy tales.

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

So you and I agree, they're cowards.

Good.

Re:pathetic

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Stop. Its just silly. I understand your point but instead of addressing the topic, you want to proclaim me as a racist. Because as we know, racists are all wrong, and the easiest thing to do in an argument is not discuss the issue, but find a way to call someone a racist.

You know what would have dispelled all doubt?

If you had just come out and said that you made a mistake.

Instead you've gone on now with at least two posts full of hand-wavy emotional appeals about political correctness and your own personal victimization in the discussion - all buttressed with terribly poor logic. That's exactly what people think bigots do when cornered. You don't want to be a duck? Stop quacking.

Re:pathetic

[LordNimon]

Am I the only one who doesn't give a flying fuck about what facebook censors, as long as it doesn't affect me?

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

-- Martin Niemöller

Re:pathetic

[darkjohnson]

I don't understand, I was a member of that group on Facebook and well over a week ago the Admins said they were removing the page because it had served its purpose and was at this point only attracting trolls. Now Facebook is taking credit for removing it? Feh.

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yes, we get it. Calling me a racist, is the easiest way for you to vilify me and ignore the topic. Nice diversion. Classic no doubt. This is the way we battle these days. The first one to call the other racist and reference hitler, wins.

So how about those muslims that teach hate and murder? You seem to have no problem with them?

Re:pathetic

[Danse]

There is a significant difference between asking me to post something myself and simply posting something up on a site that claims it is for you to say what you like simply because someone else said they don't like it.

Facebook makes no claim that you can say whatever you like. Game over. You lose.

Re:pathetic

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yes, we get it. Calling me a racist, is the easiest way for you to vilify me and ignore the topic. Nice diversion. Classic no doubt. This is the way we battle these days. The first one to call the other racist and reference hitler, wins.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Who do think you are convincing with that argument? That's not rhetorical either - look at the guys responding to your posts in support of you -- talking about dhimmis and conflating "devout muslims" with extremists, claiming muslims are commanded to use violence against people who insult islam. What, are those guys also fooled by political correctness?

So how about those muslims that teach hate and murder? You seem to have no problem with them?

Ah, the two wrongs make a right defense. You just keep on quacking away like a duck, its like there is a playbook and you've decided to follow it point by point.

If you really just made an error in grammar then why won't you cop to it?
Why do you insist on behaving exactly the opposite of what you claim to be?
Either you have such a massive ego you that you can never accept your own faults or you meant exactly what you wrote.
If you've got a third answer that isn't just a repeat of blaming political correctness I think we'd all like to hear it.

Re:pathetic

[mog007]

Small quibble, but the Qu'ran isn't where the prohibition against drawings of Muhammad comes from. It's from other, non-Qu'ranic sources called the Hadith, I believe.

Re:pathetic

[mog007]

I dare say it's offensive, and he's a dick for implying it. But as a better person, I wouldn't lynch somebody for that.

Re:pathetic

[mog007]

Maybe it was intentionally ironic?

I doubt it, but it's POSSIBLE.

Re:pathetic

[diamondmagic]

Just keep in mind what Facebook did in this case was in response to coercive government power, something they would not have done otherwise (perhaps, it was still against their terms of use, though if those terms of use would even be worded the way they are without government censorship is a different issue). This is an issue of coercive government censorship in addition to (otherwise acceptable though not good) cooperate censorship.

Re:pathetic

[laddiebuck]

I think he's just trying to say there's a difference between free speech for some reason and free speech for speech's sake. Words without meaning are just hot air, and I'm not terribly bothered that Facebook, being a private corporation, decided to enforce one further censorship. After all, they already don't allow things to do with nudity and sex and gore and other random stuff. Many forums filter out words like fuck and shit. I don't agree with these types of rules, I think they're all misguided, and I don't like the forums that do it. But I know some people will always want to run their boards (and what else is facebook than a really big forum/board/BBS) in a way they hope will promote a decent community and reasonable discussion, and though I think the efforts do more harm than good, I don't care. The only thing in this incident which I deplored was Pakistan's blocking of Facebook, because as a government, it ought to be held to a higher standard -- Pakistanis can choose not to use Facebook, but they can't choose not to use their government, and they couldn't choose to use Facebook once their government decided it didn't want them to. But I'm not from Pakistan so all I can do is be disappointment at their backwardness and small-mindedness with respect to things like political freedom and the other rights delineated by documents like the UDHR which they only pay lip-service to. In an ideal world, Facebook wouldn't have backed down, but let's not forget who are the real infringers of freedoms here -- the government of Pakistan.

Re:pathetic

[SakuraDreams]

I'm just curious how pointing out 'intolerance' and 'violence' which a minority of Muslims follow by using insulting depictions of their deities gonging to work to help them become more moderate. Remember you seek to impose your FOREIGN point of view on a distant culture which already sees itself as being victimised in that the West usually sides with their opponents, the West spreads pornography et al and the besides it's a foreign criticism we're talking about. It's difficult for a Westerner to understand this. The West has been imposing its POV and law on other cultures for hundreds of years but when the British decided to do this in America the War of Independence broke out and later the American Civil War when the South did not want to have Northern laws imposed on themselves. A society needs to change from within. Take Central Europe for example and Iraq. Iraq never had a history of democracy but countries like Poland did. The Poles had the second democratic constitution in the world after the American one. Guys like Lech Walesa knew very well what freedom and democracy means - it was part of their culture - when liberation came they accepted it and now there is a multiparty democracy in Poland. In Iraq however the population never had that ideal and after US liberation they turned on each other - well extremists from both groups turned on each other but there would be less extremism if Iraq had been truly democratic before Saddam Hussein.

My points are thus - understand how change has to occur. It has to be from within and it can't be imposed by foreigners especially when culturally important aspects are seen as being insulted by people far away who themselves are seen as supporting their enemy (whether that is objectively true or not). The Muslims themselves must start to make their own satire and learn to laugh at themselves before letting others laugh at them. Remember that if you in the West say you don't care about being laughed at it's really because you never had foreigners occupy your country. This is also a reason why it's OK to portray a white guy as a dimwit in some TV ads and not a black one. Blacks lived under white oppression but not vice versa.

Re:pathetic

[gsslay]

Facebook may not be violating the law but that doesn't mean they're not behaving in a most un-American way.

Facebook are behaving in the most American way you can get. Why do you hate America?

The freedoms we have are as much about not being obliged to promote, support, host, relay or otherwise put up with the opinions of others on our property. I do not have to put up with you holding your rally in my house if I feel it is not in my interests. Even if I support your cause, I may believe that your rally is a bad idea, counter-productive, provocative, immature, making a mess of my carpets and likely to annoy the neighbors. So it is my right to tell you to go elsewhere. Why do you want to remove my rights from me?

Like all rights, this applies to everyone, even if you loath the organisation wishing to control what happens on their property.

Re:pathetic

[mr100percent]

Does facebook allow swastikas? Anti-hindu hate groups?

No, Facebook's TOS bans hate speech. The page was meant to be hate speech, nothing more. It's gone, and we can be a better place because of it. If you're upset it's gone, post it on your own webserver and leave us alone.

Re:pathetic

[wITTus]

One slashdotter's sig sums it up nicely "The act of censorship is always worse than what is being censored. Always."

This sounds like an anti-pattern in programming. I wonder if the pattern/anti-pattern based design approach would work for politics.

Re:pathetic

[Laurence0]

You're exactly right. Free speech includes speech that you may personally find unpleasant or repulsive, but it should never be blocked or censored.

I remember seeing someone (an American) write a blog post a few years back where he posted photos of himself burning an American flag, and saying it was actually a really patriotic thing to do, because he was celebrating the freedoms he had in the US, and those freedoms include the freedom to burn his own flag. It was a slightly tortuous point, but I see where he was coming from.

Re:pathetic

[Jedi Alec]

Actually, you're wrong. First they came for all the dickheads who use that quote when it's not relevant and complete hyperbole, thereby demeaning its original meaning.

Re:pathetic

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Basically, I'm right... and you're trying to flank me with nonsense... and you keep trying.

It doesn't work. You're so typical of many internet conversations. When a point is made, instead of arguing for or against the point, you go for character assassination. Stop being a baby and talk about the issue.

Islam preaches hate and death...

Re:pathetic

[TheFaithfulStone]

Arent we smart enough to know that there are no absolutes?

Well mostly. I mean - besides that one.

Re:pathetic

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Basically, I'm right... and you're trying to flank me with nonsense... and you keep trying.

Islam preaches hate and death...

Why do you keep saying that? Do you believe it or are you trying to flank me with nonsense?

Re:pathetic

[Grishnakh]

Wrong. Censorship doesn't have to be done by the government to be called "censorship". However, you're right that Facebook does have the right to practice censorship on its own site. But we also have the right to complain loudly about it, and to call it what it is: censorship.

There is a free-speech violation here. It's just not one that is within the government's power to correct. But Facebook, by acting as an open forum for people to congregate and speak (virtually), has a moral responsibility to promote free speech, and not to practice censorship, in accordance with our cultural values. No, the government has no power to compel them to promote free speech, but Facebook users have every right to publicly criticize them for their behaviors.

Re:pathetic

[Cruciform]

I didn't mention the drawings.
I'm talking about both religions in general.

But regarding the Hadiths, it honestly sounds like Muhammad was suffering from a form of mental illness. He didn't just have a problem with pictures of himself. He freaked out when encountering any drawing of living things. He would fly into rages or leave and refuse to come back until the images were removed.

Something was misfiring there.

Re:pathetic

[mog007]

A man who had a six year old wife suffering from mental illness? Don't be silly.

Re:pathetic

[WildBlueYonder]

"If that topic is forbidden, then surly it's ok to ban this topic, too"

No it's not. And don't call me surly.

Proxy

[xrex]

So do anyone know about an Bangladesh proxy server ?

Their own Petard...

[elewton]

May Facebook continue to mess up for long enough that an open alternative can prosper.

Re:Their own Petard...

[theY4Kman]

So... forever?

Re:Their own Petard...

[witherstaff]

Microsoft has been messing up for much longer and I'm still waiting for the year of the Linux desktop.

Re:Their own Petard...

[Shihar]

Facebook's position is not actually all that secure. It wouldn't take much to topple them. It just takes a few geeks in Austin or Silicon Valley to adopt something else in addition to Facebook for Facebook to decline. Hell, I bet that there are popular enough geeks in this world where if they adopted something new, they could drag enough to send Facebook to its slow death. It only takes someone like Leo Laporte to declare to the nerds that he also likes product XX to start the process. Enough nerds use the new thing that it is functional within their social circle. The second round of tech savvy but not bleeding edge folks then show up. Not too long later, mom, dad, and grandma have followed the crowd to the new in place and don't even know why they are there. They were just following the crowd.

The thing about Facebook is that its competitor just needs to be compelling. It doesn't need to fight Facebook directly. I can only easily use one OS, but finding a few minutes a day for another social networking site is a pretty low bar. Hell, we have already seen how it works. Facebook came into existence during the reign of MySpace. Facebook didn't fight MySpace. They just offered up something compelling and people just added Facebook to their daily rotation on top of MySpace. Next thing you know it, MySpace is an Internet wasteland the likes of which we have not seen since the fall of AOL, and Facebook is king.

Facebook is king now, but it is a pretty easy get knocked off the throne when alls a competitor needs to do is catch a few key users attention for a few minutes each day to begin Facebooks fall. Facebook might still be around in 5 years, but I would be utterly shocked if most Slashdotters use it for anything more than a glorified address book and are already on to something new. Users don't need to delete their profile to dethrone Facebook. They just need to show up less and less.

come on

[cntThnkofAname]

Don't tell me you guys didn't see this coming...

Beard stroke

[somersault]

I'm turning my face into a caricature of the Prophet.

Re:Beard stroke

[davester666]

It already appears to be a caricature of the Prophet.

Re:Beard stroke

[dangitman]

I'm turning my face into a caricature of the Prophet.

Let me guess, you're into Free and Open Source Software, right?

Re:Beard stroke

[somersault]

It's an explosive combination.

Re:Beard stroke

[dangitman]

So very hirsute.

Why, why, why?

[DogDude]

Why do all of you Facebook bitches still use it? It's like Facebook is an abusive husband, and y'all just keep going back again and again.

Re:Why, why, why?

[couchslug]

"It's like Facebook is an abusive husband, and y'all just keep going back again and again."

They really love me and the sex is great, you insensitive clod!

Re:Why, why, why?

[arkane1234]

The myopia of a monolithic website where the entire world has an "avatar" profile is never going to happen.
Hell, great example is the people that actually matter aren't usually on Facebook.

It's not like everything on the net dropped off when Facebook started to exist. There's your option.
Oh, what's that? Facebook is "cooler" than that? There's your problem... redefine your coolness factor.

Telling people to shut their trap does no good for your argument, it shows people you're an ass.

Re:Why, why, why?

[snowgirl]

Why do all of you Facebook bitches still use it? It's like Facebook is an abusive husband, and y'all just keep going back again and again.

He said he was going to change this time, and this time, I think he really really means it...

Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[grub]

Rather than knuckle under to anti-free speech zealots, they should have let the people in Pakistan raise enough of a stink about it to the government and (hopefully) have the block lifted.

Does any site really need delusional whiners on it?

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[TheRaven64]

You know, I really don't have a problem with people posting pro-Klan stuff online, especially somewhere like FaceBook where it's linked to their real name. Makes it much easier to avoid having anything to do with them. If you think that people of a certain skin colour are inferior, then I'd much rather that you said it in public and self-designated as an idiot than that you kept it private.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[MightyMartian]

No more than we need to keep people from posting pro-Klan materials on the site. Ultimately, people weren't doing it as free speech, they were doing it out of ignorance for Islam. Free speech has never been about saying whatever you could to offend other people. It's been to assure the people of the ability to speak out about meaningful things. This isn't any different than bans on homophobic, racist, antisemitic posts that most websites of that sort have.

Um, Larry Flynt might differ with you on that one.

Beyond that what you write is troubling. Who gets to decide what is meaningful? That's always been the issue surrounding free speech and censorship. We can all agree, to one degree or another, that some forms of speech are damaging, but beyond the "yelling fire in the theater" kind of speech, where there is a very direct correlation between the speech and the harm it can cause, it becomes far more difficult to meaningfully quantify.

I hardly expect Facebook to a beacon of free speech. It isn't even a beacon of security or privacy. Still, these people were exercising a legitimate right, and while I think they're rude and crude, I believe they have the right to be, just as Muslims have the right not to look.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[grub]

No more than we need to keep people from posting pro-Klan materials on the site.

If people want to post pro-Klan material on the site, let them. I'm an adult, I know it's bullshit. Having Facebook Thought Police removing content others find distasteful is just bullshit.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[Abcd1234]

Ultimately is is both derogatory and hateful.

Agreed. And yet South Park showing a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding out of her ass is tolerated. Gotta love hypocrisy...

the fact is that there's a lot of bigots out there to get their lulz by insulting Islam.

Yeah, unfortunately that's true. The sad fact is, there are many who choose to attack Islam as a whole, without realizing that the real issue is with the extremists. Unfortunately, that makes the battle against the extremists rather tricky, as inevitably, the fucktard racists/bigots end up jumping onto the bandwagon.

More than that it's hardly an effective way of bringing the extremists into check.

Yeah, but you'll *never* bring the extremists into check. They've *already* decided that the western way of life must be stopped. The best you can do is paint them as the ridiculous zealots that they are, and hope that the rest of the world realizes that bowing to their demands is tantamount to surrendering to their beliefs.

The real problem is that the moderates aren't out there attacking the zealots with equivalent force. IMHO, moderate Islam needs to start actively working to cut the cancer of fundamentalism out of their ranks, as it's the only way these people will finally be marginalized.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[icebraining]

Defending the speech you agree with isn't defending free speech. Defending free speech is defending the others' right to say stuff you do disagree with and even find hateful/offensive.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[fustakrakich]

Free speech has never been about saying whatever you could to offend other people.

(I know...feeding a damn troll)
That's exactly what free speech is about, you loon! The freedom to offend is sacrosanct. And all those other bans you mention are just as offensive..

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[shutdown -p now]

Rather than knuckle under to anti-free speech zealots, they should have let the people in Pakistan raise enough of a stink about it to the government and (hopefully) have the block lifted.

Why do you think the people in Pakistan would raise a stink about it? Most of them are Muslims, you know. Check the talk page of the Muhammad article on Wikipedia (which includes teh picturz) some day...

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[arkane1234]

Definitely agreed...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[grub]

I realize that, some will bitch, others will not. The fact that any site would knuckle under because of primitive religious beliefs in the 21st century is mind-blowing.

.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[PRMan]

You assume that moderate Muslims are moderate in belief and action, when in reality they are usually only moderate in action. They believe the same (it's in the Qur'an after all), they are just too cowardly to do it themselves.

This is the only explanation as to why they do not criticize the radicals...

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[IICV]

Yeah, unfortunately that's true. The sad fact is, there are many who choose to attack Islam as a whole, without realizing that the real issue is with the extremists. Unfortunately, that makes the battle against the extremists rather tricky, as inevitably, the fucktard racists/bigots end up jumping onto the bandwagon.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

From what I can see, moderate Muslim groups are doing nothing.

When that Christian fundamentalist murdered a doctor performed abortions, the moderate Christians were everywhere decrying his action (even if some of them kind of approved of it); where are the moderate Muslims saying "no, you guys should not be sending death threats to people who offend you"?

I mean, I might just be blinkered by our media who don't report on this sort of thing, or because the blogs I read generally don't link to moderate Muslim websites - but I have honestly never seen moderate Muslims standing up to this ridiculous behavior.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[Kjella]

The real problem is that the moderates aren't out there attacking the zealots with equivalent force. IMHO, moderate Islam needs to start actively working to cut the cancer of fundamentalism out of their ranks, as it's the only way these people will finally be marginalized.

I'll tell you where the moderates are, they're shit scared of Taliban as well. Look up some of the news, for example here they killed 93 people in a terrorist attack on a mosque on Friday. A mosque. You don't have to be white or Christian to be a target, anybody who is not fundamentalist enough is a target. I'd rather try reasoning with a rabid dog than these brain-washed suicide bombers, because you know they'll only hold up the Qu'ran, say that you have fallen from Allah and blow the shit out of you.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[couchslug]

Why is insulting the idiotic beliefs of others "sad"? Why shouldn't everything be open to ridicule?

Pretending the real issue is with extremists is to deliberately ignore what Muslim societies are really like, and what believers do as they get power.
That plays into the hands of Islamists who know they can exploit people who share your oh-so-very-PC _ideological_ worldview.

The car bombers aren't the problem. Islam is the problem.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[Abcd1234]

Pretending the real issue is with extremists is to deliberately ignore what Muslim societies are really like

Bullshit, buddy. It's trivial to cite progressive societies that are primarily muslim. Turkey, Iran, and Egypt immediately come to mind.

And what, pray tell, is the difference between these nations and their more fundamentalist brethren? Wealth. It's trivial to build support for fundamentalist ideology among people who are desperately poor. Increase their standard of living, and suddenly they no longer feel the need to turn to religious fanatics.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[Abcd1234]

They believe the same (it's in the Qur'an after all)

This very statement illustrates your ignorance regarding Islam.

Those who subscribe to the Shi'a branch of Islam have absolute no problem at all with depictions of Muhammad. Why? Because the only outright proscription of such depictions is in a few hadith, and not in the Qur'an itself.

Furthermore, even among those hadith, the proscription is against *Muslims* creating depictions of the prophet. Only the fundies believe it applies to non-Muslims.

Source.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[Abcd1234]

I'll tell you where the moderates are, they're shit scared of Taliban as well.

Muslims exist outside Taliban/fundie-controlled territory, and they have no excuse not to speak out if they disagree with these crazies.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[elucido]

I realize that, some will bitch, others will not. The fact that any site would knuckle under because of primitive religious beliefs in the 21st century is mind-blowing. .

Maybe if you don't call them primitives you will have more success in educating them. You cannot educate a student when you call the student a primitive.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[grub]

All religions are primitive. Well, except Scientology because Xenu came here in an advanced spaceship.

Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots.

[carp3_noct3m]

The following is copy pasted from one of my earlier posts since I didnt feel like rewriting, most of your points are true, but I would like to bring the following to your attention.

When are people going to learn that, though often the rhetoric we pay close attention to calls for action against the west because it is the "Great Satan", and all that goes with that, that the line many westerners have been fed in the lead up to the wars about Muslims hating the west because of its democracy, freedom of speech, and general ideals is a crock of shit. This is a line fed to the masses that has unfortunately become almost universally accepted by those with only cursory knowledge of Islam. Muslims hate the west for our international policy regarding them. A very good book I just recently finished explains this quite well (Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq ; Micheal Sheuer) even states that although our president and others starting talking about the importance that we bring democracy to the middle east, even bin Ladens early warning clearly stated the grievances muslims had with America in particular. Schueur says "the Islamists' indictment sheet against the united States has been precise...for more than a decade.
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula and other parts of the Islamic world
2. Unqualified U.S. support for Israel
3. U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India, and Russia, and the Arab police states.
4. U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price

All of these things are facts of our policy, and our neglect or unwillingness to recognize these as some of the core issues feeding not only radical Islam, but even moderate Islam. (Really, be objective and put yourselves in their shoes, would you not feel the same way?) In fact, Bin Laden and his ilk were around during Ayatollah Khomeini's utter failure to get Muslims to kill themselves by attacking America because they drank beer, voted in elections, and attempted to ensure that women and men are treated equally. "Even the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters who killed themselves in attacks against the U.S. and French targets in Beirut in 82-83 did so under the umbrella of the ayatolla's rhetoric, but they were in fact executing nationalist operations aimed at driving what they perceived as occupying Westerners out of Lebanon."
For anyone to believe otherwise, that "The Islamists and their supporters are warring against the United States because they hate Americans as Americans, as well as everything they stand for in the politcal and social spheres, and in the end intend to eradicate our society from the planet. ...If true... our choice is black and white simple: we can completely abandon our beliefs, our lifestyles, and how we behave in the domestic, political, and social arenas to appease our enemies, or we can undertake the task of killing every last Muslim because that is what they intend to do to us."

If we truly were on a campaign for hearts and minds, it would require an out of the ordinary grasp of reality and common sense from the elite, and would also require that the last 3 presidents "recant most of what they have sworn to be true about our enemies motivations, to take on the Saudi and Israeli lobbies, and to begin to destroy the energy-policy status quo..."

"This is the reason why Americans hear so few "moderate Muslim voices" opposing bin Laden and the Islamists; the moderates are out there and often do not approve of the Islamists' military actions, but they hate U.S. policies with just as much venom and passion as the Islamists, per the polls by Pew, Gallup, BBC, and Zogby."

Most of this is the result of an western population, political elite and else, who have studied little of the widely varying cultures, nations, and peoples that make up the "Muslim nation". By increasing deamnation of the entire Muslim religion, we enrage and "contribute to their silent acquescence in the face of the Islamists' arguments and mili

The right thing? No. Profit!

[Jawnn]

So as soon as the furor has died down, and the controversy is no longer driving as much traffic to Facebook as Pakistan's ban reduced it, Facebook decides to "do the right thing". The right thing, that is, to make the numbers.
I rather enjoyed deluding myself that Facebook was standing up for free expression, denouncing idiotic religious extremism, etc., but I now realize the folly of that thinking. Thank you, Facebook, for restoring my faith in the utterly amoral nature of American business.

Re:The right thing? No. Profit!

[drinkypoo]

So as soon as the furor has died down, and the controversy is no longer driving as much traffic to Facebook as Pakistan's ban reduced it, Facebook decides to "do the right thing". The right thing, that is, to make the numbers.

Yes, Facebook sure has done all they can to eliminate the group.

I rather enjoyed deluding myself that Facebook was standing up for free expression, denouncing idiotic religious extremism, etc., but I now realize the folly of that thinking.

That was pretty silly given that Facebook's founder thinks his users are idiots.

Thank you, Facebook, for restoring my faith in the utterly amoral nature of American business.

Maybe Zuckerberg thinks it's holy to make money.

Re:The right thing? No. Profit!

[Drakkenmensch]

If a newspaper in Denmark, a prominently non-muslim country, can't do the same without being subjected with worldwide cannon fire from muslim authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), what are the chances that a website in a muslim country would fare any better?

Re:The right thing? No. Profit!

[Blue Stone]

Maybe we need to create a religion where Facebook is categorised as an abomination against god, humanity and an insult to all right thinking people (I know, it's a stretch) and have Facebook take itself off the internet!

Re:The right thing? No. Profit!

[arkane1234]

That's a branch...

Re:The right thing? No. Profit!

[muffen]

Denmark should not be held up as an example of free speech. Denmark is a country where access to thepiratebay was/is blocked by the ISPs without the court having found (at the time the block was initiated) the site guilty of doing anything illegal. I dont care about mohammed, i do however care about free speech. Denmark is often held up as an example which is wrong. Inface, in this case i have more respect for pakistan then i do for denmark. At least pictures of mohammed are illegal and access to the site was therefore blocked. Exactly what crime has thepiratebay been convicted of in Denmark?

Re:The right thing? No. Profit!

[vegiVamp]

> That was pretty silly given that Facebook's founder thinks his users are idiots.

Well, given the number of people that stay on there regardless of how he behaves, I'd say his assessment is pretty much spot on.

Re:The right thing? No. Profit!

[masterwit]

Look, look, look, your missing the point!

One of the major internet pipelines runs straight through Pakistan, what if they suicide bombed it?!?! Talk about a major internet leak...and to think this all can fixed by a little diplomacy!

Re:Another point of view

[theY4Kman]

Anybody can practice whatever they want, as long as they don't try to kill me in the process. But these radical Muslims have been doing just that.

Neville Chamberlain

[fustakrakich]

The world is full of these types now in our age of appeasement. Another repeat of history is almost due. And after such a short time, while people are still alive from the last time this happened. UGH! Sickening!

Re: Neville Chamberlain

[Black Parrot]

The world is full of these types now in our age of appeasement.

The world has always been full of these types. There are lots of people in the USA who think you should go to prison if you burn a US flag.

Re: Neville Chamberlain

[fustakrakich]

They can blab all they want.. It's much worse when people actually cave in to this shit... We are so fucked..

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[couchslug]

Nuremburg conditioned the world to believe there are no bad religions (as if someone trying to kill you indicated virtue).

There can be bad political beliefs, but it is taboo to understand that superstition IS a political belief. Most superstitionists buy in to the lie because to admit it is embarrassing.

Godwin time:

"Nazism isn't bad, but there are bad Nazis." Ridiculous except to apologists.

Islam is in many ways, particularly womens rights, worse than either Nazism or Stalinism or Maoism, but it is Flamebait to criticize religion.

WHY should anyone respect superstition? I don't.

The thing to do is prepare for war while pretending something else, build alliances with modern, logical governments (China, etc) and wait for opportunity. Agitate against Islam as you would any other toxic nonsense, and rely on the Jihadists to react badly. RELIGIONISTS CAN BE MANIPULATED BY THE DICTATES OF THEIR SUPERSTITION. This is a permanent vulnerability, use it.

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[maxume]

The problem is that there really are plenty of moderate, reasonable people that self identify as Muslim.

I suppose you might be able to make an argument that they can't be reasonable and identify themselves as Muslim, but I think it would be pretty thin.

Of course, those are not really the people running Islamic countries.

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[SanityInAnarchy]

Maybe I'm sheltered, and I'm sure they exist, but the most moderate, reasonable Muslims I've talked to have tried (peacefully) to convince me that Sharia is a good thing, and should take over the world.

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[PRMan]

build alliances with modern, logical governments (China, etc)

Wow, you almost had a point there...

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[couchslug]

I do have a point. Just because you may not _like_ the ChiComs doesn't mean they can't be useful against religious enemies. They still have the courage to kill religionists, and they have the will to fight their domestic Islamovermin using methods the effeminate West dare not.

Would you say that supporting Stalin against Hitler was a bad call? It worked superbly, bled the Wehrmacht to death in the East, and cost the Commies dearly at the same time.

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[cain]

Wait, what? Are you saying that because Facebook censored itself, that a war on the order of WWII is going to break out?

"Age of appeasement"? Seriously? You do know that the US is currently fighting two wars, one of which just became the longest US war on record? Maybe you think that because we're not bombing North Korea or Iran that we live in an age of appeasement? Douchebag.

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[fustakrakich]

Appeasement is a problem no matter where it comes from. It always starts somewhere. Anyway, you're not worth my trouble... I don't feel like feeding trolls today. Come back tomorrow.. Have a nice day :-)

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[cain]

You don't get off that easily. You stated that we are living in an "age of appeasement". Please tell me how you can justify this statement.

Also: clarify what you meant by "another repeat of history is almost due". You seem to imply that a repeat of WWII is coming, but back it up with nothing.

I'm engaging you on your own terms and with your own statements and you ignore me. Coward.

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[mapkinase]

"The world is full of these types now in our age of appeasement"

I beg to differ. There are more Christians than Muslims, yet when somebody draws the portrait of Mary, may Allah bless her, using elephant dung as a material, not a single hair falls from the head of the "artist".

It's not about appeasement and PC, it's about the simple fact that Muslims follow up the words with a concrete action (look up the shitbag Theo van Gogh)

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[fustakrakich]

Violent words are no problem. When followed up by violent action, they, and those who enable them should hang..

...not a single hair falls from the head of the "artist".

Exactly as it should be. We need a jihad against censorship. I'm perfectly ok with extremism in the protection of freedom of expression and against various other prohibitions.. Whatever it takes to put and end to it.. Fuck anybody who gets in the way..

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[mapkinase]

"We need a jihad against censorship"

Big words should be spoken in a human language, not chickencluck.

Re:Neville Chamberlain

[fustakrakich]

oh please! Do tell...

My version of Mohammed

[Valpis]

If noone ever has been allowed to porttrait Mohammed, how can they tell that it is Mohammed they have portraited? This is my painting of Mohammed "|" , is this enough for being banned?
I could understand that they would get upset if he was porttraited in a less flattening situation, as christians would have some problems with Jesus being dressed up as something visiting the blue oyster bar

Re:My version of Mohammed

[Foobar of Borg]

There are older depictions of Mo. The ban on any images is in the Hadith, but not the Qur'an IIRC. IANAMS (I am not a Muslim scholar).

What are the rules?

[jmichaelg]

First Facebook redefines its privacy policies making private data public.

Now it yanks a political expression page because the page offends another group.

One might be inclined to think Facebook Zucks.

Re:What are the rules?

[canajin56]

Well, except on May 24th the creators of the "Everybody Draw Mohammad" page deleted it themselves. Note that although the Slashdot summary says Facebook deleted it, the actual article only quotes FB as saying "The page has been removed" without ever declaring that they did so themselves. The stated reason is it became a 24/7 job to delete the endless flood of people calling for genocide against the muslims, and people posting gay porn of Obama and Muhammad (roughly 90% of the image submissions), or posting Muslims being disemboweled by assorted Aryan Americans. (I'm sure they were also tired of doing the converse). Naturally, pulling the page caused those same people to turn their hatred on the creators, calling them secret Muslim terrorists, and expressing murderous outrage that they ever dared to censor in the first place.

Re:What are the rules?

[jmichaelg]

Do you have a reference that FB had no role in yanking the page? This article says:

Pakistan lifted a ban on Facebook on Monday after officials from the social networking site apologized for a page deemed offensive to Muslims and removed its contents, a top information technology official said.

Further in, it continues:

Facebook assured the Pakistani government that "nothing of this sort will happen in the future," Malik said.
Officials from the website could not immediately be reached for comment. They said earlier the contents of the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" page did not violate Facebook's terms.

Maybe Malik got his facts wrong or he's outright lying but given FB's recent mendacity about what is and isn't private, it's hard to know who is telling the truth.

Re:Another point of view

[rotide]

Fine, if that's the way you want to go with it, lets all be "tolerant" of what _any_ other group doesn't like.

I mean, if Russia doesn't like something, lets get rid of whatever it is they don't like. If France doesn't like the anti-France jokes, lets scrub sites of anything resembling it. If MADD doesn't like alcohol references, lets be "tolerant" and get rid of those as well, oh hey, 2 birds there. Oh there are a lot of groups who are offended by the idea of evolution, scrub that. Oh hey, there are other groups who only believe we come from aliens, etc. Scrub anything anti-alien created/derived.

It's a slippery slope. If you don't want to read something, click away, or hey, just don't click it in the first place. It's not _my_ problem if you don't like something that is legal in my country where my post is located.

Huge slippery slope. Cave to one groups demands and now you've set precedent. Now the next group sees that you cave to demands, so lets all demand what we want. I mean, hell, we can't police what we view ourselves so fuck it, lets have everyone self censor so I can live happily the way I want to. Fuck the rest of the world and their ideas!

It's draw Mohammad MONTH now!

[RyanFenton]

Yeah! Selective censorship fixes EVERYTHING! Just cave into the most aggressive believers, and you tend to generate more aggressive believers.

So, what happens when 1000+ pages are now created, celebrating Draw Mohammad Month, Draw Mohammad Brunch, Draw Mohammad Restaurant, Finger-Paint Mohammad with your Toes, Bake a Mohammad Cake, etc., etc.

If you ban all mockery of religion that gets offended, then many religions will suddenly decide to get offended - and many groups will decide to define themselves as religion in order to get the censorship ability.

There's always going to be overlap between validly interpreting religion as an outsider, and taking an insulting view from the perspective of an insider - making that perceived insult a crime is equivalent to making observations as an outsider a crime. I am not prohibited from drawing Mohammad. Creating a system where I am prohibited is saying my view isn't as valid as the aggressive believers in that space.

Ryan Fenton

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now!

[dosun88888]

[i]If you ban all mockery of religion that gets offended, then many religions will suddenly decide to get offended - and many groups will decide to define themselves as religion in order to get the censorship ability.[/i]

We kinda missed that boat, though. To get people to give a crap what your group says about anything you need two things.

1) Ability to do a lot of damage.

2) A lot of followers.

3) The reputation of being completely unreasonable.

If you're just a psycho with a few people in the club they'll take you out like you're a Branch Davidian. If muslims never killed people or hijacked planes nobody would give a crap about them. To be fair, if the christians never had the crusades nobody would give a crap about them either. If we could reason with them we'd try that every time instead of moving on to the "delete offensive content" step. I suppose, though, that if those in question were reasonable they wouldn't be very religious.

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now!

[irid77]

If you ban all mockery of religion that gets offended, then many religions will suddenly decide to get offended - and many groups will decide to define themselves as religion in order to get the censorship ability.

This could happen in principle, but it won't because nobody else is threatening the mockers with violence. Only radical Islam takes it this far, so they get special treatment.

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now!

[ScrewMaster]

If you're just a psycho with a few people in the club they'll take you out like you're a Branch Davidian. If muslims never killed people or hijacked planes nobody would give a crap about them. To be fair, if the christians never had the crusades nobody would give a crap about them either./quote? I've heard it said that a cult becomes a religion when it begin to kill people outside its own membership.

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now!

[ScrewMaster]

If you're just a psycho with a few people in the club they'll take you out like you're a Branch Davidian. If muslims never killed people or hijacked planes nobody would give a crap about them. To be fair, if the christians never had the crusades nobody would give a crap about them either.

I agree. I've heard it said that a cult becomes a religion when it begins to kill people outside its own membership.

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now!

[jeffhoy]

I’m surprised that the general consensus on this topic is that free speech unequivocally overrides moral values. It’s easy to judge a moral that we don’t share, but how would Slashdotters feel about this situation if it were a stigma shared by the majority?

Consider a Western stigma such as cannibalism. What if someone created a Facebook page promoting cannibalism with a photoshopped image of a glutton eating President Obama? Should that be removed from Facebook? I think we would agree the page falls under free speech, however it could be seen as a threat against the President and get censored anyway.

What if someone created a Facebook promoting sex with children and incest? What if they posted a photoshopped image of President Obama having sex with his daughter? Should it be removed? I expect some Slashdotters would defend this, since the assault on free speech addresses the symptom rather than the root cause. At least a subset of Americans would disagree however, and existing laws would censor the page.

What if a foreign internet group then decided they would spraypaint this image everywhere on American streets, just to prove how stupid and ignorant Americans are about their censorship?

When South Park addresses the topic it can help push social boundaries and invite constructive thinking. When Slashdot posts promote decorating Islamic neighborhoods with Mohammed it crosses the line from discourse to hate. If you really want to address the stigma, discuss your views with local imams rather than judging your neighbors based on a distant theocracy.

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now!

[moz25]

Actually, I happily and respectfully welcome such a thing. Freedom of speech extends to people of all cultures, not just our own. Anything less is hypocrisy.

BTW, they have a "draw the holocaust" day as a response. Tasteless? Yes. Pointless? Yes. Their right? Also yes.

Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now!

[Attila Dimedici]

You misunderstand, they will only ban all mockery of a religion whose adherents kill those who offend them.

Re:Another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with Bill Maher on this one. Religious thought, in all it's forms, is a cancer of our civilisation. If you can't reason with something which threatens you, and you can't avoid it doing damage to you, then it needs to be exterminated.

primitive bunch of screwheads

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck those over sensitive whiny fuck-ups. Its ok to gang-rape the daughter of another tribe because the tribe owes you a debt, but its not ok to draw a political picture.

hey pakistan:

1. Get a fucking education you illiterate fucks

2. Stop the 200 generation cycle of incest (arranged marriages with your first cousins you sick fucks)

EVERYONE should protest and put ridiculous drawings of Mohammad taking it in the ass by a camel

Re:primitive bunch of screwheads

[SteveFoerster]

If you can call the prospect of millions of dead people a beautiful thing, then you are one seriously fucked up person.

Re:primitive bunch of screwheads

[mrops]

Stop the 200 generation cycle of incest (arranged marriages with your first cousins you sick fucks)

I have always wondered about this. Few years back, I wrote to my MP asking his view on same sex marriage. He said its a matter of freedom.

Isn't incest the same thing. Why is incest not a matter of freedom. My personal point of view doesn't matter, further I am not talking about where a dad rapes his daughter. Furthermore I am not talking about genetic abnormalities. I am talking about freedom to do so.

Why in this enlightened society, incest is looked at differently than same sex marriages in terms of freedom. Yah, you may think cousins getting married is sick and disgusting, why is that an issue to you if they choose to do so. Whats the problem here? Whats your problem with it.

Re:primitive bunch of screwheads

[icebraining]

Has Pakistan attacked you? Why did your opinion that "all cultures are equal" and "$COUNTRY belongs to $HABITANTS and not anyone else.If they wreck it, that's their choice" suddenly changed?

For me, "Nuclear war" described as "beautiful thing" in *any* context is absurd.

Re:primitive bunch of screwheads

[Cwix]

Incestuous relationships often produce deformed children. Thats why no one is coming out for it. Frankly I dont really care about it one way or another. If they really want to go at it.. well have fun.

Re:primitive bunch of screwheads

[arkane1234]

If you can call the prospect of millions of dead people a beautiful thing, then you are one seriously fucked up person.

When a group of people teeter on the edge of that abyss by their own hands for so long, you simply want to back away and cover your eyes... letting the inevitable occur.

It's simply Darwin's law. If that's fucked up, then I agree that I'm a fucked up person.

So what have we learned?

[Puls4r]

#1 Every network, and every webpage, from facebook to the smallest server and forum is owned by someone. #2 Because every medium of expression on the internet is owned by someone, there isn't one of them that is truly free. #3 Freedom of expression on the internet is a myth. If it offends someone, and that person can make a stink about it, your 'free speech' can and will be removed. You have no freedom of speech on the internet. Unless you're comment on government forums. Which are also moderated heavily.

Re:So what have we learned?

[cpghost]

Nothing prevents you from operating your own website, on your own network, where you're free to write what you want. Sure, if your opponents are as resourceful as governments or megacorps (think: IP cartells), you may still have a little problem...

Re:So what have we learned?

[TheRaven64]

#2 does not logically follow from #1. You only don't have free speech if the person who owns the medium of expression is not you. You think Rupert Murdoch has no freedom of expression on the Internet? If you decide that opting in to a service like FaceBook where someone else owns everything is worth the very small saving over running your own server, you don't get to complain when you find out that free as in beer isn't the same as free as in speech.

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH

[bersl2]

SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH

Still, I'm sure that successful troll was quite successful.

Re:Another point of view

[realityimpaired]

Pretty poorly, considering that you're still alive to post that....

The issue is that the radical Muslims are just that, radicals. just like the radical Christians, and the radical Jews, etc. hell, there's even been radical Buddhists doing this sort of thing in Sri Lanka. the problem is that we only hear about the radical nutjobs out there... but there's a billion Muslims on the planet. if they were *really* as bad as fox "news" would have you believe, we'd have turned this place into a self-illuminating glass-floored parking lot by now.

Or to turn the tables another way, imagine if the only Christians you ever heard about were people like David Koresh?

yeah lets point at them

[Anonymous Coward]

while Israel has just boarded a flotilla of ships killing 19 people in the process for importing wheelchairs, cement and wood

banning a webpage seems a rather trivial response in comparison

Re: yeah lets point at them

[Black Parrot]

while Israel has just boarded a flotilla of ships killing 19 people in the process for importing wheelchairs, cement and wood banning a webpage seems a rather trivial response in comparison

A lot of news gets ignored. A couple of weeks ago some guy firebombed a mosque in Florida while people were worshipping there. Not a peep on the news. A few days later two white supremacists shot a couple of cops who pulled them over for something, then got themselves shot in a firefight. Not a peep on the news.

Meanwhile, CNN is interviewing American Idol winners...

Re: yeah lets point at them

[TheRaven64]

Not sure why you think it got ignored - the incident was a the top of my RSS feeds this morning. It's been a slow news weekend, so there wasn't much else of interest.

Re:yeah lets point at them

[TheRaven64]

How about the fact that they wouldnt let isreal check to make sure they wernt bringing in weapons?

They were in international waters when boarded. No nation has the right to board ships in international waters unless the ship in question is registered in that country. Doing so is classed as piracy or privateering. Even boarding a ship registered in another country when it is your own waters can have repercussions, because ships count as sovereign territory of the country in which they were registered. From a legal standpoint, Israeli soldiers entered another country and fired upon civilians. Whether the civilians fired first is largely irrelevant - if Palestinian soldiers marched into Israel without invitation, you'd expect any armed Israeli civilians to open fire on them without waiting for them to shoot first.

Re:yeah lets point at them

[_Sprocket_]

while Israel has just boarded a flotilla of ships killing 19 people in the process for importing wheelchairs, cement and wood

banning a webpage seems a rather trivial response in comparison

"Hey guys - look over there!" Nice attempt to distract.

Re: yeah lets point at them

[Shihar]

Um, the top TWO of three spots on Google news is about the Israeli shooting. Is it even remotely possible to be more popular than that?

As to the news worthiness of the Facebook issue, it is news worthy. It is in fact far more important that a few people dying in the fill-in-the-blank scary thing of week (please tell me shark panic season is almost upon us...). There are almost 7 billion people in the world and hundreds of thousands die each day. Any death is a tragedy, but when we are stripped of our ability to communicate, especially in the political realm, a crime is committed against millions. The repercussion has the ability to make miserable or kill untold numbers. Free speech is the top defense against most forms of oppression and persecution. Hell, oppression and persecution is ALWAYS preceded by a reduction in the freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is the primary defense against injustice in this world. When it gets reduced, you should care. Hell, if nothing else, count in your head the number of times that a reduction in the freedom of expression was followed by something terrible. Okay, now count how many times an increase in the freedom of speech was followed by something terrible. It is pretty easy math.

Re:yeah lets point at them

[Daengbo]

"News for Nerds." How is boarding a ship nerdy?

Re:yeah lets point at them

[St.Creed]

Yeah, let's start to torpedo civilian ships in international waters... great idea for any nation willing to do business in the rest of the world.

It didn't work out all that well for Germany in WW1, when they did that to the Lusitania (with more right to it than Israel now has, actually, since it was likely carrying munitions).
And neither has it worked out so well for North-Korea who recently did that with a South-Korean naval vessel.

Re:yeah lets point at them

[MightyMartian]

Wait until they're in Israel's territorial waters, then sink 'em.

At any rate, my point still stands. These guys went their with the clear intent to invoke Israeli retaliation. At least the leaders did. There were, of course, the usual anti-Israel stooges from the West, or as they like to call themselves "activists", useful for delivering the terrible news that Israel kept its promise not to let them deliver anything to Gaza with as much hyperbole as they can muster.

Re:yeah lets point at them

[couchslug]

"They were in international waters when boarded. No nation has the right to board ships in international waters unless the ship in question is registered in that country."

The ships were on a declared mission to enter Israeli space. No one disputes that they were trolling for contact. They got what they asked for.

Israel cannot, ever, defend itself in a manner acceptable to its enemies, because they are its enemies. Laws therefore cease to matter. Power and force matter.

Re: yeah lets point at them

[jackbird]

Explain Turkey.

Re:yeah lets point at them

[TheRaven64]

The ships were on a declared mission to enter Israeli space

In which case, they should have waited until they were in Israeli waters before boarding them.

Israel cannot, ever, defend itself in a manner acceptable to its enemies

Obviously. In this case, it hasn't even defended itself in a manner acceptable to its friends. It's killed Turkish citizens in Turkish territory - not the best way of maintaining good relations with about the only muslim country that's an Israeli ally. Greece has cancelled joint manoeuvres with Israel too. They've lost at least two allies over this. If they keep it up, enemies will be all that they're left with.

Re:yeah lets point at them

[ImprovOmega]

And if the purpose of the ships is peaceful "humanitarian aid" then why are they armed?

Re:yeah lets point at them

[TheRaven64]

In case they are attacked by pirates? Either the independent variety, or ones sponsored by a state government.

Bans

[JavaBear]

Religious views offend me, lets petition Facebook to remove all pages with offensive content!
Why not? They removed pages that were supporting a political and religious viewpoint (free speech and cartoons) to cater for the views and feelings a single groups of people. What about my views, and those of everybody else?

New rule for Facebook, if they want to play that game, is that in order to be perceived as being fair, they must necessarily remove any content that is offensive to some group or people.

Re:Bans

[shabtai87]

But that means removing facebook almost completely.... but wait, that's a good thing, so yes, they should be fair!

Re:Bans

[sadler121]

A petition will not do a damn thing. You're going to have to threaten to kill people if your demands are not met.

Re:Bans

[Pteraspidomorphi]

The problem is that your country (assuming you are american, apologies if you aren't) is not willing to stand up for the beliefs it was founded on. Neither is mine, for that matter, but my country, being small and poor, has little influence on anyone at all. But if the United States blocked Facebook for going against freedom of speech, guess who they'd choose not to antagonize.

Re:Bans

[Attila Dimedici]

They aren't concerned with being perceived as fair, they are concerned with not being the target of violence.

Re:Bans

[Pteraspidomorphi]

For ease of understanding I used the same punishment in my example, even if it doesn't make sense, but there are a lot of things you could do about it, but won't, because you are in a free country. The thing about freedom is that people are free to pursue their own interests, leaving them vulnerable to pressure from large groups that threaten them.

Well then

[networkconsultant]

I'd like to think that the issue with Pakistan is education; sadly there's a massive lack of it as a result they all turn to the Quoran instead of the littany of avaailble good books; as a result women still get stoned and the taliban still own warizistan; the Euphrates vally is the cradle of civilization, Pakistan owes humanity the public and unbiased education it deserves; sadly as a Muslim state this will never happen and the rape and tourture of young women in the name of Allah will continue until such time as the UN get's it's head out of the sand. Pakistan is a rouge state and needs to be controlled if not by it's on elected officials than by a Christan pro-feminist dictator.

nothing of this sort will happen again?

[FooAtWFU]

Not even something like this? and that's just with a 10 second search.

Re:nothing of this sort will happen again?

[nacturation]

Not even something like this? and that's just with a 10 second search.

Did you use a proxy in Pakistan to find that?

Re:Another point of view

[magarity]

For a minute think that you totally, fully, blindly believe in Quran and that God/Allah is going to fry your ass if you do not follow his words
 
That's all very fine except no one can quote the passage dictating no pictures be made of Mr. Mohammad. The best they can do is make a tortured trail of logic between a prohibition against worshiping images leads to no pictures. If you think the people making cartoons on facebook and Dutch newspapers are in danger of worshiping them then you're sadly mistaken of the entire point of drawing them. Such intolerance is in need of correction, not ever more unilateral tolerance.

Re:Another point of view

[chill]

In the U.S. the laws of Man far outrank the laws of Religion. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

In simple terms, this means in the U.S. the Constitution outranks the Bible, Koran, Vedas, Egyptian Book of the Dead and any other religious law or rule. And, in the U.S., Freedom of Speech includes the right to offend and blasphemy. It may be rude, but it is there to prevent the slippery slope of censorship, lesse majesty and, essentially, newspeek. Being occasionally offended is a small price to pay to not having to worry about being thrown in jail for calling the President/King/Mullah an dick, and the government a corrupt bunch of money-grubbing assholes.

Re:Another point of view

[poptones]

We have every right to criticize anyone we want. It saddens me the only free venues of the internet are falling by the wayside to be replaced by corporate websites where shit like this runs rampant.

OH NO! Hey look everyone, it's MUHAMMED waving at us!

          0/
         /|
         / \

We're gonna get banned!

Now you know how to delete your Facebook profile

[jbssm]

For all of us that wanted to delete our FaceBook profile, but couldn't because FaceBook hides it and plays around with the options so that we cannot do it. Well, now you have the answer. Just put some pictures of Mohamed sodomizing some sheep or similar and voilá.

Perhaps thins is one of this new privacy options Zuckberg talks about. "It's now possible to delete your own personal page." (Big cheers from the public)."

Just the start

[Posting=!Working]

They removed a page created in the US because it offended some Muslims in Pakistan? The Taliban control a large portion of Pakistan. Can I get pages in Pakistan removed because they offend me? I'll bet that there's a lot that have things way more offensive than stick figures of Jesus. Like death threats and pro-female-slavery propaganda.

Pictures of women without veils offend some Muslims too. When are they going to ban those for being offensive?

Sensitivity anyone?

[NervousWreck]

Now facebook will delete every nasty post anyone has ever written about me (like the ones complaining that I don't have facebook), right? Right? ... Oh, I forgot. I am just one mostly peaceful and law-abiding citizen, not thousands of armed and murderous thugs so I don't rate much sensitivity.

Mod parent up!

[ProteusQ]

Every employee at FB ought to read that post.

Re:Another point of view

[dave420]

We're talking about a company, not the government. Companies want to make money. Being banned in several entire countries generally tends to hurt profits, and so they try to do what they can to alleviate such concerns. So the options are to either have a group that achieves nothing but telling people who don't know much about Islam what they already (incorrectly) think they know, and losing money in the process, or simply removing the group (pissing off the rednecks who use it), and keeping all the profit.

You can leave your preachy-ness at the door. Facebook is a company and can do what the fuck they want.

Re:Another point of view

[TheRaven64]

And if I find censorship offensive, then am I entitled to the same understanding, and to have everything that censors someone else's view removed? The problem with the grandparent's position is that it doesn't work both ways. You can't make both sides happy. Given the choice, I'd rather back the side that accepts the existence of the other side.

boycot facebook?

[X10]

Like an annual "boycot facebook day"?

Re:boycot facebook?

[arkane1234]

Isn't that a daily thing?

Re:Another point of view

[siride]

Facebook is a company, not the government. So whatever the constitution says about free speech is irrelevant.

Americans

[br00tus]

Americans arm and fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda to overthrow the secular Afghani government in the 1970s and 1980s. Then they invade Iraq, one of the few secular Arab countries left, whose constitution changes a country from what was nominally one following pan-Arab socialism (something it had been in the early days) to one that was officially Islamic. We keep hearing about how US intervention is against Islamic fundamentalists - yet to repeat, the US funded the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and the the Iraq invasion changed the Iraqi constitution to one stating the country was an Islamic one.

So the US is funding Israel, which just killed a number of people on a humanitarian flotilla delivering food to blockaded Gaza today, a flotilla on which there is a Jewish holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace Prize winner and various European MPs. The US grabs Iraqis off the street and puts them in Abu Ghraib, forces them to masturbate and films them doing so (besides the one tortured to death). The forced masturbation is allowed to be done, but not broadcast on US TV because our good Christian values does not allow us to see what we are doing over there or something.

So on top of all this bloodshed and mayhem the US causes in these countries, as their bodies pile up, Americans are now attacking their culture and religion. It is an attempt to dehumanize the people already being killed. If drones were not flying through Pakistan killing people, it would be one thing, but this Facebook thing is just another attack on all the blood and bodies Americans are stacking up in these countries. It has worked too - this sort of thing has stirred up fundamentalists in Pakistan, who just bombed some mosques of the moderate Ahmadis. So the usual US practice of getting rid of secular moderates and putting radical Islamists in charge is working.

Re:Americans

[evilviper]

Americans arm and fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda to overthrow the secular Afghani government in the 1970s and 1980s.

Except, of course, none of that is true.

The US armed and funded the Mujahideen in the war against the Soviet military... They won, and a large number of them subsequently left the country. Those that remained fought each other for control of the country, and the Taliban regime won. They allied themselves with the Al Quaeda, and no country in the world chose to do anything about it...

Re:Americans

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Americans are now attacking their culture and religion

Just to clarify, we Americans have a habit of attacking our own culture and religion too. What, have you not heard of South Park, Family Guy, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report? Frankly, we Americans attack culture and religion, and everything else, in a vocal, satirical manner because it is an integral part of our culture to question any and all source of authority, whether they be natural, supernatural, artificial, or of some other nature. So please don't go around victimizing those poor Pakistanis and Arabs as if they are on the receiving end of a biased stick.

Furthermore, who is to say that it was just us blasted Americans doing the cultural attack? Are you sure that all of the members of the Facebook group were American? Or is it possible that it isn't an American phenomenon, but a human phenomenon, to challenge other groups of people (tribes) and deride them in an attempt to gain dominance (alpha male complex)?

...but not broadcast on US TV because our good Christian values does not allow us to see what we are doing over there or something.

Or, right, because all American culture is based on Christian values. We never learned anything from the Native Americans that taught us how to survive on this continent, or form the scores of Asian immigrants that have migrated here over the past couple centuries, or from the atheists and pagans and wiccans and so on that have all integrated into our society. Yup, we are, by and large, just parrots for Christian values here in America. Nevermind the fact that some of our most popular TV shows depict Jesus Christ in some of the most absurd, ridiculous scenes ever. Nevermind the fact that many of our philosophers and scientists have openly denounced Christianity and declared it to be lacking. Nevermind the fact that, even to this day, we throw up a fuss as soon as a school board even discusses teaching anything related to Creationism. Yeah, we're just a society based on Christian values alright. Or, is it more likely, that there are various sets of values at work in American society that come into conflict with each other at every opportunity and that, in some mediums, Christian values prevail of non-Christian values and vise versa?

In summation, how's that anti-American bias working out for you?

Oh, and one more thing, regarding the various covert military and political practices in which our government has partaken, you would do well to remember that, often, the American society is not aware of such operations being conducted and, once we learn of said operations, we often protest vehemently. We aren't perfect. No American (save some extremely retarded fringe groups) would claim otherwise. However, we are doing the best we can to help manage a fucked up, chaotic, insane world. If you compare our track record to most of our predecessors, we really aren't that terrible. So please, quietly go fuck yourself, or at least do us the favor of establishing and implementing a better system before completely lambasting American society. Criticism that is not accompanied by appropriate reform suggestions is completely useless, asshole.

Re:Another point of view

[rtfa-troll]

In the U.S. the laws of Man far outrank the laws of Religion. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI states:

Except in this case we see that they don't. Facebook is trying to become the default method of communication for everybody and doing pretty well with many. If they allow this level of censorship that becomes very serious. Ideas, such as how to cure breast cancer, may not be allowed because some American fundamentalists don't like breasts.

We really really need to get a decent decentralised alternative to Facebook up as soon as possible and get people migrated away. If we don't there are going to be reall problems with practical freedom of speech in future.

continuation of that quote

[ILuvRamen]

I dunno what they were thinking but "Facebook assured the government 'nothing of this sort will happen in the future." actually ends in "which ensures that something of this sort WILL happen again!" Seriously, users getting pissed off at muslims (or at least some of them) and doing this sort of protest aren't going to sit down and take it when Facebook apologizes on their behalf and says it won't happen again. That seriously only encourages them to do it again and on a larger scale.

Memorial Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that this insult is published on Memorial Day of all days... Never Forget.... riiiiight... Facebook is downright un-American... Damn them all to hell

Re:Another point of view

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

We understand the other point of view. The point is in a free society, you do not have the right to not be offended.

so, the other point of view does not matter.

Every fairy tale god has taken its share of criticism, and ridicule throught out history, and in our so called free society, we are supposed to value the idea of freedom of expression.

Instead here we are selling out our constitution, our struggle from historical oppression of thought and ideas.... only to find ourselves giving all of it away to make Muslims happy? Fuck them and their selfishness. We make fun of Jesus Christ every fucking day here in America, in music, arts etc. We also praise him every day in music and arts... and the same for Muhammad. If they dont like it... They can stay out of our way of life. They can STOP watching and listening to our are. And they can stay the fuck off our websites.

Its all nice to "think of their side of things"... but their side of things beats women, forces them to wear burkas, and kills anyone who questions their god. WE already thought about their side of things... and it's fucking stupid.

Here we are giving in to it?

Fuck us. We're pathetic cowards.

Lame... but perfectly acceptable.

[divisionbyzero]

It's a private business. They need viewers. It's perfectly within their rights to censor and it makes good business sense (although I'm not sure how many ads are for Pakistani eyeballs). It just furthers their status as giant douche bags willing to sell out their user base at the drop of a hat...

Complaints

[mistralol]

I am sure we can all probably find something on facebook that each individual on the planet would find offensive. Why don't we all email them now and ask that they remove it?

Re:Complaints

[berbo]

I HATE PONYS!

Ban them from FB now, or you will feel the wrath of my ISP.

Re:I have deactivating my facebook account in resp

[rtfa-troll]

I have deactivating my facebook account in respons[e]

Try to do it together with a large group of friends. Try to find a decent alternative they can all move to together. If you don't do that then you may eventually find yourself moving back just because your friends are still in Facebook and you feel you need it.

I'm a Muslim...

[Iftekhar25]

And even if I am offended (which I reserve the right to be), I don't think any of this should be happening (i.e., censorship). There has been defamatory material on the prophet for centuries, and in fact were around even during his time. This is nothing new; anyone as prominent as him had to have grown pretty thick skin to get anything done.

His followers 14 centuries on, however, can't seem to follow in his footsteps even half as much as they claim they do.

Every time something like this comes up, I try to dig a hole and disappear best I can. Yet another dysfunctional government like Bangladesh or Pakistan come up with a way to do their magical rabble-rousing and distract from the real issues at hand: economic development, education, and healthcare. All of which they are failing *miserably* at.

This is all *political*. Almost all Muslims (both in the "West" and in the "East") have no beef with anyone or anything, and just want to go ahead living their lives. These idiots in government, who can't even ensure their citizens get basic utilities like garbage collection and electricity, are spending their energy on some drawings, which is perverse on multiple levels.

The minority here is basically speaking for the majority. And honestly... the majority (like me) are looking to dig their own holes as well. We don't want to stick our heads out because we don't want the confrontation. This isn't something we particularly care about. I honest to goodness don't want to argue about the merits and demerits of my faith with some of the slashdotters on here, who are convinced that Muslims "don't belong."

But someone's gotta say it. Most of us are not like this. Most of us just want to get on with our lives. Please don't let the vocal minority dominate the debate. This is political distraction tactics and has little or nothing to do with free speech, Facebook, or the prophet.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[vic.tz]

Not to volunteer you for anything, but your demographic (passive, reasonable Muslim) is exactly who we need to speak out against this nonsense. I believe what you're saying is true, but based on 95% of media coverage, it would be easy to mistake the minority for the majority.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[RyanFenton]

>> I honest to goodness don't want to argue about the merits and demerits of my faith with some
>> of the slashdotters on here, who are convinced that Muslims "don't belong."

Oh please - you belong as much as any of us non-rational beings. You very well may hold faith in the ultimate truth of the universe - just as the stories held by the raelians or even the ancient Greeks may truly be the true story of the universe... they're just not rational stories.

But it IS important as a story! We all tend to care about getting a bigger perspective - and about how to more reliably deduce truth from the countless imperfect stories around us.

In that regard, your story is important, from your personal insights into computers, to how Islam informs your understanding of ideals and choices. Without those views, we miss a piece of perspective, a part of our imperfect truth.

The more 'different' you are, the more you belong.

Ryan Fenton

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are part of the problem.. instead of sticking your head in the sand, why dont you help the majority become louder then the minority. You cant complain about everyone treating muslims unfairly, if the muslims dont do something to distance themselves from the extremists. Perhaps if large muslim religious groups came out and said.. "We dont agree with whats been posted on facebook, but its even more wrong to threaten people with death." or " We are offended by whats been posted, but the koran tells us to love everyone." We wouldnt hear so much of the "death to infidels" that the fundamentalists are sprouting. You and your majority of muslim freinds needs to work on your PR.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Monkeedude1212]

Likewise - some of us on here know that it's not a majority of Muslims who feel the way they are represented in the media. However, its gotten to such a point that the only ones talking at the ones who believe all Muslims are like that. As much as a minority speaks for your people, a minority speaks for ours. We sit on the sidelines and watch this go on as much as you do.

But don't ask us to stop the vocal minority from dominating the debate. We have our own issues to sort out, as similar as they are to yours. We have to stop our minority from making baseless assumptions as much as you have to stop your minority from doing the same. Both houses are out of order. Where in the east they might have a unity of state and church that helps get things done, they don't work on the important issues. In the west we have such seperation that the church has almost no power, it's all done by underhanded politics and rich corporations. In the same way eastern states can't speak out about their leader, we can't vote in the CEO of Google, one of the most influential companies when it comes to foreign policy.

Really, we're both landlocked in what seems like a no-win scenario. All we can do is lay the foundations for a better course when the opportunity presents itself. Educate other people about whats happening and try to inspire some empathy on the matter. Only as a homogenous group will passive people such as you or I get anything done.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Iftekhar25]

I agree with you on that but it's during these times that Muslims least want to be identified as such. Muslims watch the same news you do and we have a pretty good idea what's going through the average person's mind. And it's not your fault either, that's the admission: if I was not a Muslim I'd be pretty mad at Muslims too (in fact even as a Muslim I'm fairly annoyed).

And so the moderates are kind of, I feel from personal experience, in limbo. Now is the worst possible time I can imagine to have to admit being even remotely associated with people I deeply disagree with and, in fact, have very little in common with.

It's really a weird spot to be in. They're a half a world away, I disagree with them (and honestly kind of dislike them), but somehow I need to dissociate myself from them.

It's an unenviable position to be in for any reasonable person, Muslim or not. All reasonable dialogue is drowned out by shouts of exclusion from both sides. The best time to talk is usually after the full-throated yelling has ended, and is best demonstrated by actions rather than words.

These things really set back that long term, grassroots dialogue back. Depressing.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered what percentage of the local population is represented by those people shown on TV burning the Danish flag demanding death to those who drew the caricatures. Just like some people from the Middle East and Central Asia I talked with had the mistaken belief that everyone in Europe is christian - and that all christians agree to the message of those caricatures -, many intelligent westerners view muslims as an unreasonable fanatic mass. Dozens of cameramen circling around other dozens of idiots burning some effigies won't give us a real picture of those people.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[shutdown -p now]

The problem here is that politically, Islam doesn't look so good if we look at Islamic states. Most practice routine human rights violations to various degrees. There seem to be a precious few that are actually tolerable in that department, such as Turkey (they have their problems, but it's in nationalistic department rather than religious). But, for whatever reason, most states with a Muslim majority are repressive - which doesn't lend credibility to Islam as a sociopolitical ideology.

Islam purely as religion, I don't mind.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Khashishi]

It seems like the active, crazy Muslim population hates the passive, reasonable Muslims even more than they hate atheists. They'll totally murder you for being the wrong kind of Muslim.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Xarvh]

Probably you moderate Muslims should stop being so passive, stop hiding and reclaim your religion from the loonies that hijacked it.
Disappearing every time the crazies go insane is the last thing you should do.
Take the responsibility of your beliefs and confront the crazies, as a Muslim you are in a better position to do it than anyone else.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[5pp000]

Every time something like this comes up, I try to dig a hole and disappear best I can.

I think you underestimate how much good you could do by speaking out instead of digging a hole. If you and others like you raised a chorus of voices saying you oppose censorship, and especially violent censorship, it would go a long way.

I'm not asking much. All you need to do is ... exactly what you did here.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[nixbox]

I am a Muslim and completely agree with what you said. The irony is that the Prophet was maligned, harmed and thrown stones upon, his response was always peace but the Muslims who claim to be defending the Prophet actually abuse people on facebook pages and forums. The question I ask is this. Does any of this result in something constructive? I don't think so, I have seen more people uttering bad words, being violent (which by the way is un-islamic). So what is the point? If the Prophet was alive today, he would never even heed to these things. I do acknowledge that as a Muslim I get offended about such things, but there is a way to express one's views. Most of the Muslims today do not think about the outcome of what they are doing. I think that banning these websites actually spreads it out more, because people who had never even known about it would come to know of it. We as Muslims have let a bunch of people get hold of the leadership of our countries and they are doing nothing for us. They just gobble up more money and deprive people of their basic necessities. The biggest Jihad is to stand against these Muslim leaders and demand our rights. If we as a people unite, these leaders cannot do anything. We have inflicted the current situation upon ourselves, by letting them take hold of our freedom.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[couchslug]

To make it short, the faithful have won.

The lukewarm hobbyist/social Muslims don't have the physical courage of their own faith.

The Taliban and other Jihadists, for all their failings, believe in Allah to the extent that they master their fear of death. If you cannot trust your God to validate your faith despite all opposition, then you aren't serious and need a new hobby.

Don't feel bad. Most religion is a social club and Christian cave in too. Jews had their Kapos, etc.

"but somehow I need to dissociate myself from them."

I dissociate myself from Christianity by being an atheist. If they were going to kill me for it I'd leave, or kill them if opportune.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[mapkinase]

"And even if I am offended " No, you are not. Don't fool yourself, Munafik.

"Most of us are not like this. Most of us just want to get on with our lives. " Most of "you" are hypocrites. Don't fool yourself, Munafik.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Attila Dimedici]

Please don't let the vocal minority dominate the debate.

Then you (and other like-minded Muslims), need to confront that vocal minority and shut them up (or at least drown out their voices with your own). You need to let your elected representatives know that you oppose sharia being made the law of the land.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Attila Dimedici]

They're a half a world away,...

No, they aren't. Theo Van Gogh was killed in Denmark by someone who shares their view. The people who put up the website that led Comedy Central to censor South Park are in the US. So they aren't "half a world away", odds are pretty good that there are those who share their views attending the mosque that you attend.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[elucido]

It seems like the active, crazy Muslim population hates the passive, reasonable Muslims even more than they hate atheists. They'll totally murder you for being the wrong kind of Muslim.

The "passive" Muslims are truly on the front line in the battle for freedom. This is why I don't think it's accurate to call them passive since they inherit the majority of the risk.

Saying "They'll totally murder you" doesn't really mean much. You assume moderate Islam cannot help bring terrorists to justice? You think moderate Muslims cannot actively fight the insane Muslims? In the USA moderate Christians have been fighting and successfully have prevented terrorism from the insane Christians. In the USA moderate Muslims have successfully prevented terrorist attacks.

There are even Muslims in the armed forces.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[Ihmhi]

I agree with you on that but it's during these times that Muslims least want to be identified as such.

I'm an Atheist. I (and many others who follow the same non-belief) have, at times, never wanted to be identified as Atheists for fear of social inequity, violence, etc. In my circle of friends we generally don't do that anymore.

How far would non-white people have progressed in America if they kept quiet?

How far along would LGBT people be if they just kept quiet?

How far along will Atheists be if we just keep quiet?

If you remotely give a shit about your faith you should stand up for it. Yeah, you might get the shit kicked out of you. You might be called any number of derogatory terms. So what? Don't let a bunch of fucking nutjobs hijack something that is quite obviously very important to you.

When meeting up with any other religion, keep in mind that damn near every major religion in the world has had (or still has) its crazy-ass fundamentalists. I believe the key phrase (from the Christian Bible) here is "Judge not lest ye be judged". Goddamned maniacs killing abortion doctors or raping children does not mean Christianity is bad any more than Islamic fundamentalists choppin' off heads and blowing shit up means Islam is bad.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[couchslug]

"We have inflicted the current situation upon ourselves, by letting them take hold of our freedom."

They master their fear of death, and fight, often to the death. They aren't very nice people, but they still wage war against the best-equipped war machine on the planet! They have the courage of their superstition, because they are strong in their faith!

If your faith were genuine, you could be as brave. That leaves either cowardice (to judge by religious metrics) or hypocrisy as an excuse for failure.

Why aren't the (sneers) "supposedly" "moderate" Muslims taking their world back with the same level of commitment the "supposedly" "radical" Muslims used to take precedence and power?

I accuse you of all being essentially the same, the passive enablers and the fighters are one.

When you serve the "radicals", yet claim not to be of them, do you not sin before your God? Then be ready to explain to him why you fucked up.

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[th3rmite]

So exactly why do we not hear any condemnation from the moderate Muslim communities? If the majority do not support the "radical" muslims, then why are they silent?

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[NikolaiKutuzov]

Thats pretty much how I feel whenever I see one of my german compatriots around somewhere. As a German, I shouldbe grateful, Muslims successfully replaced "us" as the bogeyman in Hollywood :)

Re:I'm a Muslim...

[ConfusedVorlon]

Well said.

Thing is - like it or not, these loons do represent you.

You may not have voted for them, and you may not consent to being represented by them - but they get to shout 'we are Islam, we demand xxx'

Until another vocal group starts shouting 'no, we are Islam and we think you are loons' then the loud voice gets to represent you.

Obviously it is unfair to lay this on an individual - but where is the 'Islam for free speech' facebook group, or the Imam giving media interviews saying that he finds the page offensive - but that it should not be censored? Have you spoken to your Imam and asked him to speak up?

Better still, has the Council of Imams issued a statement that they find the page offensive, but that they believe in free speech? If not - have you started a petition of your congregation to demand that they do?

Isn't anyone going to check the facts?

[DWMorse]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Everyone-Draw-Mohammed-day-May-20/

Oh look. NOT deleted. Doesn't anyone do their freaking homework before going off the deep end? The Facebook group appears to have never been removed or deleted.

Re:Isn't anyone going to check the facts?

[codepunk]

Check your facts, delete your browser cache.

Re:Isn't anyone going to check the facts?

[PilogBue]

May fool! Haha!

Re:Isn't anyone going to check the facts?

[DWMorse]

Oops, I didn't get the whole link copied.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everyone-Draw-Mohammed-day-May-20/112498195453416?ref=search&sid=rZX7KTtpVe7NtecVn9xYWQ.1122781147..1

Now you can click the functional link and see the page (instead of going to Facebook and searching "Everyone Draw" and have it pop up as first result.)

I'd never been to the group page before today.

Re:Isn't anyone going to check the facts?

[metamatic]

I checked as soon as I saw the article. It looks as if Facebook have made the groups invisible to search, unless you're already a member or have "Like"d them.

Re:Another point of view

[KGBear]

I mean, hell, we can't police what we view ourselves so fuck it, lets have everyone self censor so I can live happily the way I want to.

You mean, kinda like the US is doing trying to change everybody's copyright laws so that the police of all countries will do the MPAA/RIAA's dirty work for them?

Re:Another point of view

[Low Ranked Craig]

In my opinion people have the right to believe whatever they want and practice whatever they want. People also have the right to ridicule and mock whomever they want. These rights are not absolute, however. Your right to worship may not impinge on my rights to free speech, or any other rights that an individual has in a free, civilized society. Go to you church/mosque/temple and pray - fine. Getting in my face about accepting Allah/Jesus, etc - you're approaching a line. Threatening others with violence or death because they do not believe in your religion and they mock it? - a line has been crossed and this behavior has no place in any society I want to live in.

Personally I think anyone who believes that some supernatural being that lives in the sky is responsible fo thing that happen is an utter idiot, but that's my opinion - I respect your right to practice your religion, but if you tell me I cannot do something because it is against your religion I'm going to do it, especially if there is an implied threat on your part.

The biggest problem is, how do you argue with someone who "knows" they are right based on blind faith? If a rational person believes them self to be right based on evidence, if you show evidence to the contrary, they will generally adjust their position or at least debate the merits of the argument you have presented. How do you debate the question of, for example, whether or not Muhammed was in fact a pedophile with a group of people that have blind faith in their prophet? You can't without risking that some radical faction will threaten to injure or kill you, and that is unacceptable. Where religious beliefe run afoul of established secular law, the law does, and should, trump the religious beliefs and there should be no exceptions. Unfortunately we see exceptions based on religious beliefs creeping into our laws, the recent healthcare law is the most recent example: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090806.html.

Short version: do whatever you want, but if in practicing your religion you step on my rights or somehow get you preferential treatment from the government, fuck off.

Because it lets me get back in touch

[NotSoHeavyD3]

With my high school classmates but unlike classmates doesn't charge to use it. Also since it's the most popular one of these sites people I fell out of touch with in high school are more likely to use it than anything else.

Re:Because it lets me get back in touch

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Yeah, I used to think that was a good thing about Facebook. Really though, it pretty much just puts me in contact with people I didn't want to see anymore in the first place. If I haven't seen you in 15+ years and didn't go out of my way to look you up, why do I care what your dog had for breakfast? Maybe I just hate people...

Re:Because it lets me get back in touch

[arkane1234]

That's the VERY equivalent of what the guy was saying...
"But.. but.. but.. I get ..."

The West wimps out again

[Vinegar Joe]

Color me surprised.

Re:Another point of view

[hey]

So maybe that's their stand... if you post something that offends a country (or big enough group can can block the site)... your content will be removed. :(

Sure, this will get me flamed, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

FaceBook is making the right call in getting rid of this community. (I say this from the perspective of someone who oversaw LiveJournal's abuse department for several years, btw.)

It's not something widely known, but LJ had to make similar, albeit less public, decisions as well. Around 2002, we had someone in the Australian government contact us about a journal which was written from the perspective of a member of the Indigenous Australian community, which was, quite frankly, racist and offensive... two things that pretty much made it an open-and-shut violation, by the wording of our TOS.

The tricky issue in this particular case is that we have content which is, frankly, in many cases little more than crude, offensive, racist stereotypes of Arabs / followers of Islam. But at the same time, there's the free speech aspect as well... the idea that Muhammad should be able to be mocked.

So what trumps what, really?

Would it be wrong to accept a "Poke fun at Judaism Day", if it included crude depictions with large, crooked noses, or of Jewish people as rats?

If you support "Draw Muhammad Day", then you should clearly be willing to support large, organized -- and oftentimes racist -- depictions of the sort... even if it means that the site might cause millions of users in Europe to be blocked from accessing the site, as their governments have strictly enforced policies regarding content that is considered Antisemitic. There's also the potential for costs / legal liabilities for the hosting site at well.

Hey... did I mention the hosting site? Why yes I did. What about *their* rights to operate their business in a manner that both protects both their users, their policies, and their pocketbook? To what extent are they responsible for protecting other people's free speech / letting people post anything they want?

Short answer: It's a judgment call. Really, it is.

One basic fact: Virtually every TOS out there has wording in it that is designed to let companies do whatever they feel is in the best interest of both their customers and of themselves.

Even in LJ's earliest days, there were several things that we were forced to take down from the site, not because it was that far out of the ordinary, but because the liability issues were pretty extreme, and we were literally running our business hand-to-mouth. We even had a few issues where we were in a kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, and where we consulted with people over at the EFF about our options, because we simply weren't in the position to fight those kind of battles.

I'm not saying that any site should capitulate on free speech. However, it is wise to at least consider whether this is a free speech battle worth fighting for.

In my opinion, no... it absolutely was not.

The facts:

1> The "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" FB page was actually rejected by the cartoonist who had the original idea for such a day.

2> The site was meant as a response to a "death threat" that apparently didn't exist, and was incredibly nebulous in the first place. (http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/04/south-park-controversy )

3> It was removed only after the country of Pakistan -- 166 million people! -- lost their FaceBook privs.

4> The "freedoms" being fought for here included lots of stereotypical, racist cartoons... not to mention ones which were sometimes sexually graphic or offensive, on what is essentially an "all ages" site.

Really, the site opened the floodgates. Support it, and it gets kind of hard to argue against hosting many other types of content that would be viewed as universally objectionable and hateful.

Given all the decisions that sites have to make as far as how to handle certain types of content, I can only say that this particular incident absolutely pales in comparison to, say, hosting video of someone like Neda getting shot down in the streets of Iran, even though death videos clearly are graphic and disturbing.

Sometimes, you just hav

My problem with this...

[TrisexualPuppy]

It's an obvious slippery slope. Let's try a few scenarios, all tasteless in one way or another--

-Jews wanting to take down a "money grubbing Jews" page
-Christians wanting to take down a Woodland Critter Christmas South Park page
-Environmentalists wanting to take down an anti-Earth Day page
-Vegetarians wanting to take down a "For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three" page

Honestly, where does it stop? You can't start taking down one page for one party because that would be discriminatory to everyone else. Why shouldn't environmentalists get the same treatment as Muslims? What about the vegetarians? They have their reasons and causes, too.

My guess is that Facebook knew how much money they were losing from advertisers and that once again, they would rather take the "less free" way out once again to rake in as much cash as possible.

Thanks, Zuckerberg!

Re:My problem with this...

[Eponymous Coward]

they would rather take the "less free" way out once again to rake in as much cash as possible

What are you talking about? Facebook's goal is to make money for their investors. If they think taking the page down will be more profitable over some period of time, then of course that's what they will do.

Re:My problem with this...

[Issarlk]

Vegetarians and christians probably can't ban Facebook from a whole country. That's the difference between them and Pakistan.

Re:My problem with this...

[Daengbo]

Exactly. Who would have guessed that FB would choose money over free speech? Not me. I'm shocked. No, really. Quit laughing. ;)

Re:My problem with this...

[laughingcoyote]

What are you talking about? Facebook's goal is to make money for their investors. If they think taking the page down will be more profitable over some period of time, then of course that's what they will do.

The question is, "what period of time"? If some advertisers return tomorrow, sure, it could be short-term profitable. But what about when Facebook develops the reputation that it will take a page down the moment it offends someone? I don't honestly think that will enhance their profitability long term. Do you?

The problem with the "damn the torpedoes, only exists to make money for the investors" concept is that it is ultimately harmful even to the business and the investors. Ultimately, a bad reputation is corrosive to a business. It may take years for the damage to manifest (especially in arenas where there is a high degree of lock-in), but eventually, if everyone loves to hate you (even if they have to stay with you today), at some point, someone will come along with an alternative, and your customers will stampede out the door. You may also find yourself hit with regulations that are actually harsher than what you would've had to do on your own. Ultimately, it is society, through government, that grants the limited liability corporations enjoy, and society has every right to restrict or revoke such grants if an entity granted such is acting so as to damage the public for the enrichment of its shareholders. I wish we exercised that right more.

Doing the right thing and acting decently may cost a little more today, but it pays off in terms of long term sustainability of a company. Ultimately, "being evil" has a cost. Preserving your company's reputation long term is something you can do for your investors, and that's only done by setting clear principles and then steadfastly sticking to them. For a site like Facebook, one of those principles should clearly be "We will not interfere with what our users want to post, unless they are doing something illegal", and then pointing any critic of any page to an FAQ clearly stating that they do not write or approve the content of anyone's page, just as no one from Slashdot wrote or approved this comment. If you find it offensive, then, I offended you, not Slashdot.

Then again, that's why I would tend to say to avoid crap like Facebook, and if you want to put something up on the web, build it and do it. It's not that hard to build a basic website. If you want something done right (and to stick around even if someone doesn't like it), do it yourself.

Re:My problem with this...

[Ghost Hedgehog]

Christians can try to ban Facebook in the Vactican

Re:My problem with this...

[Eponymous Coward]

I agree with you. I think you are preaching to the choir here. I was just saying not to be surprised that this happens.

So, if Facebook leaves the page up, they offend a whole bunch of people and perhaps lose some revenue and it might even damage their short and long term growth potential in a part of the world where there is still a lot of growing left to do. Or, they take it down, and offend a different bunch of people, and perhaps damage their short and long term prospects in a different part of the world.

I think the reality is that Facebook knows that like AOL and MySpace before them, something shinier will come along and they will start to decay almost instantly. Their investors understand the fickleness of the mob as well, and I'm sure taking profits now rather than gambling on more later must make sense at some level to them. After all, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Re:My problem with this...

[boxwood]

If facebook operated the way you wanted it to, within a couple of months it would contain nothing but scat porn. The only users left would be the dozen or so weirdos that enjoy scat porn, while the rest of the users would be using some other social website.

If you want a website that normal people will want to use, you have to take a balanced approach. Allow people to do what they want as long as it won't offend too many other users of the site.

The Mohamed cartoons were very offensive to millions of facebook users. Facebook did the right thing here.

Re:My problem with this...

[dark grep]

Well, the reason no one bothers to take down those other pages, is not everyone in those groups has at least one AK47 each, a family rocket launcher, and a track record of making good on their terrorist death threats. If you have to draw the line, then a 10% or better chance of being killed if you don't comply is probably as good a threshold value as any to adopt.

Re:My problem with this...

[jandersen]

Honestly, where does it stop?

There is such a thing as being realistic, though. Is it realistic to demand that everybody in the world must be open-minded and tolerant? I don't think so - at least not at the moment. And does it really make sense to allow a minority of hate-mongerers to stir up trouble for the sake of a principle? There is nothing wrong with protecting the freedom of speech, but it is being abused by a very small minority to cause devastation, and I don't think that can be right either.

Perhaps we should look more closely to the "responsibility" part of freedom; how about this: you have freedom of speech, but every death you cause counts as homicide? A bit on the extreme side, perhaps?

Freedom has a cost associated with it - why should others be forced to pick up the bill for your freedom?

Re:My problem with this...

[AmiMoJo]

Most of these take-downs ultimately fail anyone because people just re-post the material. Remember when the BluRay master key was leaked and plastered all over Digg? No amount of deleting offending posts could stem the tide.

When you have millions of users and a staff of, what, a few hundred people max trying to censor this stuff... Well, King Canute had the right idea :-)

Partially voluntary take down?

[mccarrot2]

I was a member of the group, and I hadn't looked at it a week or so. Last I saw though, the admins were saying they were going to voluntarily take the site down because they had made their point and that it was too time consuming to keep up with cleaning up the posts/links/porn people were posting to the page. Some folks offered to take over admin so that the page wouldn't be destroyed. I never checked back to see what happened.

Personally, I'd like to see the apology to Pakistan from facebook, because it sounds a little too good to be true.

P.S. The first time the page was removed was May 20th, 2010. Here's the wall quotes from a group admin from May 22th, 2010:
"This page was removed two days ago, after one of our moderators had his email and skype hacked. His personal data was revealed. He then got scared and deleted the page, the blog and the emails. The rest of us, are now back without him after he backed out. This is another scare tactic from the Islamic extremists. We won't fall. Pictures you were unable to post on the 20th? Check the forums for interviews." "A great big thank you to the facebook-gang for restoring the page. A great big thank you to all freedom lovers out there. Now we have new persons to handle the media and we will soon release some info about the past few days. And to all of you: One can never beat freedom of speech, opinion and idividuality, because they are all basic human rights."

Persecution

[migla]

I won't disagree with freedom of speech being great and extremist religious nuts being the suxxors, but with banning of minarets and burkas nowadays and the lumping together of all muslims being common, to me it looks like the muslims are the Jews of the 21:st century.

So, while you are a great freedom fighter mocking crazy religious people with your drawings, keep in mind that you are kicking the underdog (even if it's a narrow-minded, backwards and crazy underdog). Also keep in mind that the crazies are not representative of the whole.

Re:Score

[icebraining]

Why the cheap shot against the "left"? You could say I'm a "leftie" (especially by US standards), and I'm pissed off by this.

The group is eliminated...

[metamatic]

...from search.

Yes, Facebook sure has done all they can to eliminate the group.

When I saw the news, I checked, and the group appeared to be gone. However, by finding a URL to access it, I was able to see it. So it looks as if what Facebook has done is ensure that the group doesn't appear in search results unless you're already a member or have "Like"d it.

Sneaky. I wonder if it will be enough to keep the followers of the invisible sky wizard in blissful ignorance?

Re:Another point of view

[vadim_t]

How do you debate the question of, for example, whether or not Muhammed was in fact a pedophile with a group of people that have blind faith in their prophet?

IMO (as an atheist), this particular subject is unimportant.

At the time he lived it was a normal behavior in his society. And bringing it up accounts to little more than an ad hominem attack. If that's enough to discredit him, then the same thing can be done for any other person from the past you agree with. At the very least, they're likely to have been sexist, racist, homophobes or child abusers (as in physical punishment) by modern standards.

I think a much better rebuttal would be made by attacking his actual teachings, and not a behavior that conformed to the society of the time.

This isn't about free speech at all.

[Mostly Harmless]

First and foremost, Facebook's T&Cs outranks free speech. It explicitly states:

• You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
• You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

Draw Muhammad Day isn't about us standing up against terrorists. It isn't even about standing up against Islamic fundamentalists. It's about blatant bigotry. I'd venture to say most (if not close to all) people who participated did so out of pure hatred and with complete ignorance. This certainly violates Facebook's terms.

Fighting hateful behavior with more hateful behavior is sophomoric. While I really wish I could be defending free speech here, there has to be a point where I draw the line. If Draw Muhammad Day was a peaceful, public demonstration where people where drawing the prophet hugging pandas and sniffing roses, this post would be quite different. Unfortunately, that's not the case. People where being intentionally hurtful on a publicly-accessible, corporate-owned website. Facebook did the right thing.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[hsthompson69]

First and foremost, Facebook's T&Cs outranks free speech. It explicitly states:
You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

Then they had better remove every muslim, christian and jewish page there, not to mention scads of other religions whose holy books are fully of bullying, intimidation, harrassment, hateful content, threatening content, pornographic content, nudity, graphic and gratuitous violence, and yeah, incites of violence. (And yes, there are bibilcal, toranic and quranic references for ALL of those, just dare me to find specifics :) )

Look, if Facebook wants to be the equivalent of Barney the Dinosaur insofar as not allowing content, fine...but falling back on their T&C only shows how arbitrary they're being. They've clearly decided that hateful, violence spewing muslims are okay, but anyone who might bully, intimidate, or be hateful of said violence spewing muslims is just fine.

Fail.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[hsthompson69]

It's about a tantrum after somebody asks you not to do something, so you go ahead and keep doing it, and make sure you're a big pest about it.

Sort of like how we ask people to stop blowing up buildings, killing civilians, denying women equal rights, and imposing sharia law everywhere they can, and they have a tantrum about it and try to be a big pest about it?

Something is wrong with your moral equivalence meter.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[pandrijeczko]

I don't agree with killing for any reason, let alone in the name of religion but:

1. How many civilian building and civilians have been killed by the armed forces of non-Moslem countries in the countless wars and battles of the 20th century?

2. How long have our civilised Western countries had equal employment for women, the right for women to vote, laws around female equality etc.?

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[corbettw]

It was harmless mocking. Yes, there were trolls who posted genocidal comments, but as far as I know the moderators of the group deleted those. Posting a picture on Mohammad's face on top of Heidi Montag's body isn't "hate speech", and it certainly isn't inciting anyone to riot.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[Mostly Harmless]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The vast majority of Muslims aren't the fundamentalist extremist terrorists you're describing. Is it really okay to insult an entire group of people for the sake of pissing-off a small portion of their population? Even if you think it is, are we really any better than they by using these tactics?

I'm going to say it again: this has nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression. This is people looking for an excuse to be bigoted while hiding under the guise of free speech.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[Dunbal]

Fighting hateful behavior with more hateful behavior is sophomoric.

      And to paraphrase Clausewitz, war is won by the most violent. While no one is shooting anyone over this (yet), acting mature will not work when dealing with loud-mouthed ideaologues who will take any opportunity to strip you of your rights (while at the same time granting themselves more political power). Stand up, or shut up.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[hsthompson69]

Is it really okay to insult an entire group of people for the sake of pissing-off a small portion of their population?

Is it really okay for a small portion of their population to kill civilians because they feel insulted?

This is people looking for an excuse to be bigoted while hiding under the guise of free speech.

No, this is a clear expression of bigotry and violence while hiding under the guise of "religious sensitivity". You cannot have freedom of speech or expression if simply being offended is grounds for limiting speech or expression.

The long and short of the matter is this -> people are being taught the lesson that a small group, threatening violence, can stifle free speech and criticism of their beliefs. This is a dangerous lesson for the world to learn, with consequences far beyond people being offended.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[hsthompson69]

1. How many civilian building and civilians have been killed by the armed forces of non-Moslem countries in the countless wars and battles of the 20th century?

I'll ask a better question -> how many civilian buildings and civilians have been killed by the armed forces of non-moslem countries because someone insulted someone? I'll be the first to critique any and all other religions who have warred upon others, from Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Zoarasterians, and even godless Communist atheists. But killing people because of a cartoon?

2. How long have our civilised Western countries had equal employment for women, the right for women to vote, laws around female equality etc.?

In the US, around the 1920s. I guess this begs the question though -> do those who profess sharia law assert that this is a desirable thing, or that it should be fought tooth and nail? And if they do believe in eventual equality between men and women, where is the plan for getting there?

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[Mostly Harmless]

Yes, I'm replying to myself rather than responding to every post.

I'm not trying to limit free speech. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with depictions of Muhammad. You have every right to your opinion. But what is lost in the message is that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not give you a blanket right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. But that's not even relevant. What is relevant is that this was a page on the Facebook site, a privately owned and operated company. Censoring their own website is not a violation of free speech. If you don't like the company's regulations, go somewhere else! I still may not agree with your form of protest, but I stand by your rights within what freedom of speech actually is (and not what one may think it is).

We invoke "freedom of speech" only when it suits us, often without knowing what it really means, and that's just wrong. I do believe that standing up for your rights - even when misguided - is better than inaction, because freedom of speech is important, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[makomk]

In the US, around the 1920s.

More like the 1970s, actually - Wikipedia is, as usual fairly informative. In particular, note this part: "The Economy Act, passed by Congress in 1932, prohibited more than one family member from working for the government. This caused many women to lose their office positions. Most school districts refused to hire married women and fired those who got married." This kind of refusal to employ married women was quite common in many countries.

Europe was similar: again, it took until the 1970s until women really started to receive equal education and employment.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[hsthompson69]

I was asserting the right of women to vote in the 1920s. During world war II, of course, women were dominant in all sorts of work forces across the country as the men went off to war, and when the war was over, there was another readjustment period as "traditional" life tried to reassert itself. When companies finally figured out they could reduce wages by increasing the workforce, the whole "equality in the workplace" stuff gained enough momentum to turn just about every american family into a two working parent household.

Of course, whether or not you want to use the yardstick of the 1920s or the 1970s, it's hardly a suitable defense for sharia law and the muslim oppression of women - if indeed it's just a matter of time before muslim women are emancipated from their oppressors, what's the timeline? 2020? 2070?

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[couchslug]

Exposing an enemy by exploiting their standard reaction to ridicule is not sophomoric, it's smart.

It most eloquently demonstrates Jihadist reaction and underscores the point that such reaction is ideologically mandatory.

Re:This isn't about free speech at all.

[beer_maker]

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer, sunshine!

The complaint is that people are DRAWING MUHAMMAD at all - they say it's idolatry to depict him. Showing him with a panda rather than involved in gay porn is still idolatry.

Thanks for playing, tho ...

Re:Score

[mrops]

Banning a site by Pakistan government != violence.

If there is one thing Corporate America loves more than freedom, its money. That is what all this has to do with.

Re:Another point of view

[Low Ranked Craig]

The actual point of debate isn't really important. The point is, how do you debate anything related to the religion in question with a "true believer"?

As a side note, I reject the "normal behavior in members society" argument. If it is a societal norm that grown adults consumate marriage with 9 year olds then that society has engrained abuse issues. Of course even today we see the systematic oppression of women in the devout Muslim countries so one should not necessarily be surprised. The question is, is the oppression of women in a society acceptable because it is "normal" for that society? At one time it was "normal" in our society to keep slaves from Africa. Even though I have a great deal of respect for what the men of that time were able to accomplish, I also do not understand how men of conscience were able to participate in that practice, and it does affect my view of them.

Re:Another point of view

[Daengbo]

There are quite a few people taking your position in this discussion so I think it's important to address it seriously, instead of slamming you with down-mods (as it appears is happening). I understand that you want to be broad-minded and fair, concerned for others' feelings. I think that's commendable, though in this case misguided.

Free speech is exactly my (or anyone's) right to say things that offend you (or anyone). Watch late-night TV in the U.S.. There are a large number of jokes made at the expense of religious and political figures: Jesus, the Pope, the President, etc. Few people get seriously upset at these jokes. The Internet is filled with hateful speech and shocking images, yet most people realize that these things are or were created by groups that don't share the same morals as those people.

Compare that to places where there is a serious limit on speech. I have lived or spent large amounts of time in Korea, China, Laos, and Thailand, all of which have serious limits to free speech. Try insulting the Thai King on a street corner and see where it gets you, legally. No one is going to lynch you: you'll just be arrested. (No, I'm not a Red Shirt -- Thaksin was at least as bad as the current gov't). I was pulled in to an interrogation room in China because the government didn't like who I had been talking to. Don't get me started on Korea and its ID laws designed to chill free speech.

Facebook is a private company. They can pull this page if they want to. I support their right to do so. It's a mistake, though, because it opens them to law suits for discrimination if they don't take a similar stand with other religious and pseudo-religious groups. It's silly to go down the road of removing anything that's offensive to anyone. Facebook could be left with no content at all.

The 'Left' gave women the vote.

[FatSean]

Stop trying to say Left-leaning people support this religious bullshit. I certainly don't.

Re:The 'Left' gave women the vote.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You could have fooled me.

Quite frankly, whatever the reason you support Iran's actions, you cannot seriously deny the left is providing material support to it's genocidal intentions. That's in addition to the open sabotage the left commits to the opposing camp.

Good, or even bad intentions don't matter. Results matter. The real world matters. Almost everyone in Israel thinks they will be fighting a war next year, and they think the consequences of losing that war will be another holocaust. I think they're right, and, quite frankly, it is in large part thanks to material support from lefties in America and Europe to people who've publicly sworn to no end to eradicate them.

As I said, intentions don't matter. The result matters. The fear of the people of Israel, which only a total moron would deny is justified, and the global war that is being created against them and their country by your party, that is real. That is reality. That is your fault.

And the consequences will be on your conscience.

Website Hosted In Alabama More Like It

[benjin]

You start down an interesting thought about going to Alabama and shitting on a bible. You could absolutely do that! You might not like the response from a few of the yolkles but in a city like Birmingham you might get away with it as an art exhibition. The question is if you actively go to a site that is hosted in the United States of America are you right to demand that they follow a "law" in another country. Shouldn't your expectations be to accept the governing laws of the site host? I wouldn't be surprised to find something pro Iranian government hosted in Iran because the laws make it more likely. In the U.S.A. it's every mother fucker for them selves. Unless you have corporate sponsorship. Then it's a whole different set of "stay off my lawn" ideologies. If you want to see a comparable group of religious fundies that get their ideas ridiculed on a regular basis over here the just Google stuff about Scientology. They're a pretty violent group that gets ridiculed all the time.

So let's get one other thing out of the way while we're at it. As an a-theist, you should probably not be attaching PBUH to the end of some important philosophical guy who lived in the fourth century Ano Domini. Just because a bunch of people tell me I'm the Tooth Fairy does not mean I am. It's not like if I get enough votes on Reddit, Digg or Face Book, I'm going to sprout wings and fly around looking for children's teeth. In the same manner, just because some says a person is a prophet does not make them one. There's no such thing as God therefore there cannot be an emissary of God. Therefore drawing the guy is not going to make lightning strike you dead or disallow you into a fictional playground for the dead. If these people have a problem with Face Book then they should MAKE THEIR OWN or STFU and ignore the page about scribbling a guys face.

Re:Website Hosted In Alabama More Like It

[demonlapin]

Ano Domini

Heh.

As for the Alabamans, I imagine most would just say, "What a jackass."

Re:Another point of view

[Monkeedude1212]

Either you are alluding to the idea that companies are more powerful than the government (which is true in some cases, though I doubt facebook's) - or you are trying to say that somehow this US Based corporation doesn't have to obey US Laws.

Hey, I wonder if they managed to evade Taxation with that ruling.

Re:Another point of view

[oddTodd123]

There is a long history of similar behavior among Jews and Christians as well.

Re:Another point of view

[SupremoMan]

Wait a minute... is he wearing a Panda Suit?

Re:Another point of view

[Teancum]

From a Muslem viewpoint, there is no particular prohibition against picture of Mohammad..... they view all images of any kind or depictions of living things in general to be something avoided. If you look at a typical mosque or open a copy of the Qur'an, you will never see any sort of image of anything. Instead, calligraphy (the words themselves) are used as a form of art instead, and at best you will see some really amazing geometric symbols.

The concept of a prohibition against graven images comes straight out of all Abrahamic faiths, where in the Decalogue (aka the "original" 10 commandments carried down Mount Sinai) explicitly mentioned making "graven images". I'm not necessarily saying that the interpretation of a complete prohibition of all forms of images is necessarily a correct application of this commandment, but it is something that has been found in religious expressions for quite some time and isn't even necessarily restricted to just Muslims either. In early Christian cathedral construction, images of demons and gargoyles were made explicitly because those creatures were not living things, and therefore could be made legitimately without compromising this commandment. Depictions of Jesus were also similarly prohibited among the Christian faithful at various times in the past.

The intolerance here, however, is that the prohibition on the depiction of Muhammad is being made upon non-believers of the Islamic faith. It is one thing to be critical of a fellow believer and complaining that they are not "keeping the faith". It is something else entirely to complain that a non-believer is not complying with your faith and willing to take their life if they don't follow your belief.

Hmm. Says who?

[gbutler69]

You hear this, but, it has never been demonstrated to be true. Certain Muslims in certain countries seem to get shit, so to speak. However, you need to realize that for every Muslim that doesn't want the Western Oil companies there pumping the oil, there are probably three that do. So, who should we listent to? Make everyone happy? No, choose a fucking side and stop trying to please everyone. Fundamentalist Islam (in fact Fundamentalism of any religion) is completely incompatible with the progress of humanity and civilization. All those who can think rationally must oppose the anti-science, anti-modernist, anti-progress luddites at every turn. If that mean genocide upon them, then so be it!

Re:Hmm. Says who?

[couchslug]

"However, you need to realize that for every Muslim that doesn't want the Western Oil companies there pumping the oil, there are probably three that do."

Inaction is not enthusiastic support, and redirecting that sweet oil money (as the Saudis have done) to Jihad isn't exactly news.

Some Muslims have the balls to fight.
Some Muslims don't have the balls to fight, but do money and logistics.
Some just stand and cheer.
Some are our enemies because they promote Islam thus helping the whole Jihadist movement.

Because Islam is, itself, profoundly anti-freedom and demands theocratic slavery, there can be no "non-toxic Islam". Islam, like Juche in North Korea, or like Stalinism, cannot be benign without ceasing to be. That's not a decision followers can even make, because the part supports the whole.

Re:Hmm. Says who?

[Danse]

"However, you need to realize that for every Muslim that doesn't want the Western Oil companies there pumping the oil, there are probably three that do."

Inaction is not enthusiastic support, and redirecting that sweet oil money (as the Saudis have done) to Jihad isn't exactly news.

Some Muslims have the balls to fight. Some Muslims don't have the balls to fight, but do money and logistics. Some just stand and cheer. Some are our enemies because they promote Islam thus helping the whole Jihadist movement.

Because Islam is, itself, profoundly anti-freedom and demands theocratic slavery, there can be no "non-toxic Islam". Islam, like Juche in North Korea, or like Stalinism, cannot be benign without ceasing to be. That's not a decision followers can even make, because the part supports the whole.

Islam, like Christianity and other religions has various interpretations by different groups, including some that seem quite contradictory to their scripture. Not all Muslims believe that everyone should have to live as they do. What percentage these people are of the whole, I don't know, but they do make it just as impossible to paint all Muslims with the same brush as it is to do the same with all Christians. There are violent, theocratic Christian groups as well. Christianity may have swung towards a more tolerant path over time, and perhaps Islam will do the same in the future. Political, societal and economic conditions often play a large part in determining how religions will be interpreted and how those interpretations will guide the behavior of adherents.

Damn right!

[Max Threshold]

We're fighting a centuries-old war against censorship and intimidation by Christians. We have no problem opening up another front against Muslims.

Re:Damn right!

[lgw]

If you truly dislike fundamentalism of any stripe, it would be nice to see that claim backed by political actions. Batshit crazy Christian fundamentalism very rarely surfaces these days in terms of actual laws, but large sections of the world live under Islamic law that is unchanged since the middle ages.

Christian fundies are a bit backwards perhaps when it comes to women's rughts (if you see abortion that way), but Islamic fundies savagely punish rape victims for being sluts and this is law in many countries. Christian fundies are against gay marriage, but Islamic fundies punish homosexuality with death and this is law in many countries. Alcohol, pornography, I could go on.

Islamic fundies are vastly worse in each area that Christian fundies are annoying about, and are agressively moving to impose thier mindset worldwide. Holy War has been declared on Western liberal culture, but Western liberals seem too conflicted over "tolerance" to fight back. If you've ever said "be tolerant of everything but intolerance" you're being called out on that right now!

Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site? Why does the left go apeshit over any suggestion that any counter-terrorism activities ever focus primarily on muslims? The other side isn't at all conflicted over "tolerance", as the facebook debacle clearly shows.

Re:Damn right!

[arkane1234]

No, you have your priorities distorted.

This is about censorship and common sense, not about religion on the "defending" side.
The only religious part of this is a faith with their panties in a bundle.
It's equivalent to me making a website that ran a contest on who can make Jesus do the most disturbing sexual things in a picture. Sure, it'd be childish, though you know I'd get LOTS of participation simply for the sheer desire to show disdain by people. I'm sure I'd get scathing emails/snail mails from multiple Christian faith leaders with virtual "cease and desist" letters. However, offending someone (or a group of someones) merely ruins your social relationship with that/those individual(s).

Re:Damn right!

[Omestes]

...but large sections of the world live under Islamic law that is unchanged since the middle ages.

Actually the Muslims were the progressives in the middle ages. Certain Muslim countries have regressed to about where Christian Europe was during the middle ages, though.

Re:Damn right!

[baKanale]

The only difference between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims is opportunity. Christians only don't do those things because they don't have the power, while the Muslims in the Middle East do. I have no doubts that if Christian fundamentalists ran the west things would be very much the same as the Middle East, with the minor difference of s/Muhammad/Jesus.

That aside, I love how so many "multicultural" people get all up in arms over everything Christians do, but when Muslims or some other group of non-westerners does something they're so ready to excuse it with "tolerance" for their differences from us. Either you're tolerant of both or tolerant of neither; anything else is a massive contradiction.

Re:Damn right!

[Bobakitoo]

Actually the Muslims were the progressives in the middle ages.

Actually some Muslim lived in progressives culture, those culture where already very advenced before the comming of muslim. The muslim of that time use that peaceful and open minded peoples to spread. They then claimed Islam to be the source of that rich culture. But they end up destroying it with that "convert of die" doctrine.

The most recent exemples are the Iran islamic revolution of 1979, that turned a prosperous and free culture into a awkward medieval theocracy of islamfaggotry. And the Buddhas of Bamyan, beautiful Buddist art destroyed only because it was not made by muslim.

Islam and christianity cannot be compared. Chritianity is now a tamed and inoffensive beast. Islam is still very dangerous and will remain so until all what left of it is a few pedophiles imams that we get to jail time to time.

Once they get to build their mosque at ground zero, newyorkers should go protest in front and burn islamist contry's flags and shout death treat slogan. Give them a tast of their own doing...

Re:Damn right!

[Shirakawasuna]

Perhaps they're too preoccupied dealing with overreactions like this: "Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site?"

I mean really, who cares? I am simply not the kind of person to get pissed off by offensive private speech/ownership. You'd think 'the right' would also be in favor of that, but when it comes to Islam they have clearly positioned themselves in irrational prejudice. Now, despite my criticism of your statements, some of which are easily bash-able, I am vehemently opposed to Islam intellectually and to fundamentalist Islam (which is very popular) on a human level. It's used to back actions diametrically opposed to basic human rights and freedoms and it has a clear and straightforward substrate: the Quran. With the Quran, it's easy to find justifications for killing people for what we rightly consider minor crimes (or not crimes at all) or for the subjugation of women. Now, my part in my opposition to Islam is to criticize it publicly on an academic level and based on its opposition to human rights. I also participate in rational skeptic and humanist groups which oppose Islam on both fronts as well with political advocacy and by showing alternatives. What do you do?

In fact, your whole last paragraph unintentionally makes one good argument for why 'the left' (and the center...) tends to focus on being diverse. You seem to be condemning all Muslims and treating them as dangerous or offensive and 'the right' will play that card much as they've appealed to racists since the '60s. In response, acknowledging that there's plenty of 'good' Muslims is a good political play and is more accurate, while the whole ordeal is distracting from the real issue due to hyperbole. This happens to a much greater extent in Europe where it does an even greater disservice, as they have much more serious problems with Muslim immigrants who oppose the core of Western beliefs in those countries (freedom of speech, equal rights, etc). They have to deal with the actual xenophobes and racists who use Islam as a proxy for their intolerance, which pushes some people to think that attacking Islam is just veiled xenophobia. Both 'sides' are at fault for being irrational, but at least one's irrationality is the product of an aversion to prejudicial hatred.

And what does the facebook debacle have to do with "the other side"? If you're implying that any bending over backwards for Muslim intolerance is something only for 'the left', you're dead wrong. In fact, it often (as in this case) has a direct monetary incentive, something a non-lefty should sympathize with!

Re:Damn right!

[Anonymous Coward]

See I with you until this:
"Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site? Why does the left go apeshit over any suggestion that any counter-terrorism activities ever focus primarily on muslims? The other side isn't at all conflicted over "tolerance", as the facebook debacle clearly shows."

I'll tell you were the opposition is, nowhere, because its not a "celebratory Mosque." Its not an al'quiada front. Look, here's the website. I know it doesn't start with foxnews.com, but you'll have to deal. http://www.cordobainitiative.org/

Re:Damn right!

[cain]

You were doing fine up until this:

Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site?

celebratory? It is a mosque and a community center. Saying "celebratory" implies the people building the mosque are celebrating 9/11 and the death of over 3,000 Americans. This is untrue and needlessly inflammatory. It seriously weakens your otherwise solid post.

Re:Damn right!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Have you read the title ? The whole point was that muslims attack, and that you appease them.

And the real problem I have with that is simple : we all know ... it will only lead to more attacks.

Re:Damn right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Batshit crazy Christian fundamentalism very rarely surfaces these days in terms of actual laws

Christ. +5? I remember now why I rarely visit Slashdot. Haven't heard of "don't ask, don't tell", chuckles? The Moral Majority? How's that agnostic president working out for you? American politics are shockingly religious by European standards. Your adolescent use of the "not as bad as the worst" rationalization doesn't alter that, nor your ignorance in the assumption it's innate to Islam instead of an abuse of Islam. FFS, the Christian hate that pours from your 9/11 comment, and again ignorance about the outcry in support of the US from Islam countries when it happened, support you blew away along with countless innocent Muslims since, directly contradicts your argument. Dim fuckers like you scare the shit out of rational people.

Re:Damn right!

[elucido]

The only difference between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims is opportunity. Christians only don't do those things because they don't have the power, while the Muslims in the Middle East do. I have no doubts that if Christian fundamentalists ran the west things would be very much the same as the Middle East, with the minor difference of s/Muhammad/Jesus.

That aside, I love how so many "multicultural" people get all up in arms over everything Christians do, but when Muslims or some other group of non-westerners does something they're so ready to excuse it with "tolerance" for their differences from us. Either you're tolerant of both or tolerant of neither; anything else is a massive contradiction.

Those aren't multicultural people, they are irrational people. All religious fundamentalism is wrong because it promotes ignorance.

When you tell people to accept some rules from a book or Prophet written thousands of years ago without any room for interpretation, you end up having to give up the theory of Evolution, and many other scientific views. This leads to a backlash against science which is completely unacceptable.

Fundamentalism is a problem everywhere and we have to accept that most Muslims and most Christians are not fundamentalists. Most Muslims believe in science, and do not want Jihad, but when you attack their religion directly by going after their prophet even these Muslims can be drawn into a Jihad.

If you don't want a Jihad, stop treating it like a crusade. Pakistan's extremists who happen to be Muslims are the problem. ISLAM IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

Re:Damn right!

[Chardish]

Christian fundies are a bit backwards perhaps when it comes to women's rughts (if you see abortion that way)

And extremely progressive when it comes to unborn women's rights.

Re:Damn right!

[snowgirl]

Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site?

Because building a Mosque is a perfectly reasonable, and rational expression of one's faith.

Banning sites for drawings of Mohammad is not. That is irrational behavior.

Why does the left go apeshit over any suggestion that any counter-terrorism activities ever focus primarily on muslims?

Because we've been "hit" by just as many non-muslim terrorists as muslim terrorists.

Muslims are not the only terrorists, ALL irrational idiots that take terrorism into their fold of acceptable expression need to be dealt with, not just Muslims.

Hell, I could make a case for being against Christians because of the bat-shit irrational beliefs that they express...

So, if you want the right to express your bat-shit crazy superstitious bronze-age mythology, then don't complain about some other group expressing their bat-shit crazy superstitious bronze-age mythology.

Note: None of this tolerance for reasonable religious expression makes terrorism OK.

Re:Damn right!

[icebraining]

I'll be even more progressive: I'll fight for the sperm rights!

Re:Damn right!

[lonecrow]

So what really your saying is that although their goals are the same, the Islamic fundies have been much more successful at realizing it then Christian fundies.

Re:Damn right!

[lgw]

And BTW, calling it "celebratory" is, to say the least, a disingenuous attempt at stirring racial hatred. That's something I expect from right-wing radio entertainers, but no from a community that prides itself on it's capacity for reason. Nice.

The builders themselves describe the building as a mosque and place for celebration under Sharia law.

Re:Damn right!

[lgw]

Not all cultures should be tolerated, because not all can be. Some are so focused on crushing all who disagree that they cannot coexist with tolerance. You seems to have an attitude of "we accept you, but you'll have to change a little". That simply does not work when a group has deeply-held beliefs.

Re:Damn right!

[lgw]

It's a mosque and place of celebration built on the site of the attack. There's no shortage of places to build in NYC, but this site was chosen as a place of celebration. You can make all the excuses you'd like, but the motive seems clear enough.

Re:Damn right!

[Shirakawasuna]

No, my attitude is that everyone should be held to basic standards, including human rights. If you want to have crazy personal beliefs that don't significantly impact others, go right ahead. If, like fundamentalist Islam, they entail violations of human rights, you should be opposed legally and punished internationally. If you're 'in between' and forward the violation of human rights with your speech (but not in actions), you should be loudly criticized.

That is *not* a justification for knee-jerk violence and vague prejudice, however.

Re:Damn right!

[jwhitener]

But it isn't the religion. The strictness/backwardness of those countries is just being expressed in terms of religion.

It is primarily an education, economic, and historical suppression/isolation issue.

If you look at a modern Islamic state, that is relatively well off, and has worked to retain relations with other western states, you see a much more modern/lenient version of Islam being practice. Turkey for example.

Poverty, low education, continual isolation, etc.. creates a vicious feedback loop that keeps populations clinging to the baser ideas of humanity.

If the west really wanted to modernize and change the more barbaric Islamic states, they would repair relations, help build up infrastructure and get their economies going, and then 'westernize' those countries via the dependence on 'free trade'.

It takes time, but it works. Look at China now compared to before it form relationships and trade agreements with the west.

And I just heard this morning that China has officially disallowed statements obtained via torture from being used as evidence in court. Baby steps, but they are getting there.

Re:Damn right!

[lgw]

Yes, sure, but there is also a war of cultures going on, one that we need to fight to win. That includes preventing the other side from building symbols of victory (whether or not intended as such), because there is a battle of symbols.

Re:Damn right!

[cain]

No, it does not. The motive is only clear in your fevered little imagination. Little being the operative work there.

Re:Damn right!

[cain]

Yes, but not celebrating 9/11 and the death of 3,000+ people as the OP implied you twit.

Re:Damn right!

[Shirakawasuna]

Umm, no. A mosque is pretty trivial, it in no way compares to large-scale human rights violations and is a drop in the bucket in terms of social weight. Incidentally, preventing people from privately building structures for practicing their religion directly violates basic principles of individual ownership and liberty. You seem too eager to sell the principles we should be defending just to trivially smack something Islamic.

Re:Damn right!

[Chardish]

A human cell is not a complete human organism. A fertilized embryo is.

Hadith

[Max Threshold]

That's because it's not in the Koran. It's in the Hadith. Islam would actually be pretty tolerable if they followed the Koran and only the Koran, just like Christianity would be pretty tolerable if not for all the crap the Popes have added over the years.

Re:Hadith

[Dionysus]

Deuteronomy 17:12 "Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

2 Chronicles: They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Jeremiah 48:10: "Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood."

Leviticus 20:9: "All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense."

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

Leviticus 20:10: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Re:Hadith

[mog007]

I disagree. The Koran, and the Bible, make it very easy to kill somebody for a "crime" that any enlightened person living in the 21st century wouldn't view as punishable, let alone worthy of murder.

Re:Another point of view

[Teancum]

The question here is then if Facebook has become a "common carrier" and as such must take all forms of speech (including offensive kinds of speech) or if they are exercising editorial control over their content. Once you accept that you are engaging in editorial control, you need to make editorial decisions about all content.... something I think Facebook would have some trouble with.

Facebook then becomes liable for everything which is posted on its site and written about on their site. That is a situation which most sane people would not want to be in and that having the status of common carrier is preferable. That requires permitting speech that can from time to time be offensive.

The only thing that was a problem with the depiction of Mohammed is the topic and subject, not the method or manner in which somebody is depcited.

Goodbye Facebook

[mosb1000]

If this is true, I will have to delete my Facebook account :(

Re:Goodbye Facebook

[interkin3tic]

Today IS quit facebook day. More about their privacy stuff, but this fits too.

It's kind of like they're goading me on. "Oh, you're thinking about quitting? Yeah right. I'm still gonna basically keep treating you like crap, selling all private information about you that comes my way to anyone. But you can't break up with me. Look, I'm going to sell out to fucking Pakistan, but all your friends are here, what are you going to do? That's right, nothing. Bitch."

you have a lot of work to do

[circletimessquare]

i agree 100% with you that economic development, education, and healthcare are far more important than rabble rousing

however, what i see that you don't is that if those issues are ever going to be addressed, it will be done by YOU

you are the majority? then you solve your problems in muslim communities. do you want to know why the muslim world has the problems you dislike? i'll tell you why:

"Almost all Muslims (both in the "West" and in the "East") have no beef with anyone or anything, and just want to go ahead living their lives."

no, you can't go on living your life. you are part of the problem BECAUSE YOU DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS IN YOUR COMMUNITY

you don't have the right to just go on living your life. you have the RESPONSIBILITY to clean up your community. if that doesn't cdome first, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE UNMOLESTED. not by the west, but by the lunatics in your own community. clean them up!

if the demagogues are in charge, it is because the majority, you, let them be

you are to blame. because you don't understand this IS your problem

as the obvious reciprocal corollary, as an american i loathe gw bush and the tea party morons with every fibre of my being for being the ignorant propagandized sheep they are. and i will do my best to make sure these crackpots and assholes do not get power in my country again

now i am asking you to say the same about your lunatics

and if we fail, god save us. if we are the moderate middle in this world, it is our responsibility to keep the keys of power out of the hands of the stupid and the evil, in BOTH our communities. and if we don't, god save us all, because it is nothing but suffering for all of us

Re:Another point of view

[HellFeuer]

There *are* passages indicating that no pictures be made of Mohammed. There are also some saying that no pictures be made of *any* man or animal. Which is why mosques, when they have paintings, have only abstract paintings. There is even one which says something like "painters of pictures belong in hell" (not exact quote).

However, these passages are in the hadith, not the Quran. The Hadith are suplementary traditions, and as such are followed to varying degrees by different sects.

In any case, all this is irrelevant. It does not matter whether these beliefs are written anywhere. The fact is, a lot of Muslims hold these beliefs. It doesn't matter if they are written down, because it's not like they suddenly make sense if they are written down. Also, not all religions have a completely literal tradition. In Hinduism, for example, although there are a lot of `holy' books, most Hindus have never read them (even those who describe themselves as religious). The religion has, in practice, an almost entirely *oral* tradition. I hope you would agree that the beliefs of a religion with an oral tradition should not be treated any differently than that of one with a written tradition (and the same should apply for anything in between, such as the hadith).

What is written and what is not, is not important. We need only decide what freedoms one should be willing to sacrifice in order to comply with someone else's belief.

My opinion is, *none*. A religious person should not expect me to comply with beliefs I do not hold.

Re:Another point of view

[demiurg]

Don't you think there is a reason to the fact that you here much more about radical muslims than radical christians ?

Re:Score

[Lyrael]

I'm fairly certain 'lefties' are the ones who advocate free speech. I'm not 100% on American politics, but here at least it's the 'lefties' supporting civil liberties.

It's the 'think of the children!' people you want to be attacking here. The ones that want to destroy freedoms for the sake of not offending anybody. I think you'll find they're right-wing. ;)

Re:Another point of view

[chill]

Correct. I was addressing why the U.S. gov't doesn't have laws against this, and why Facebook permitted it in the first place. Also, this addresses why the U.S. is never behind those proposed "do not offend or blaspheme" UN resolutions.

I was unclear about the relationship of Facebook and the law.

so your a 3 year old ..er..a muslim

[gearloos]

So, your a muslim. Fine... I am NOT. Get the f$^k out of my business and let me do what ever the f@#k I want. I'll post pictures of him sitting on a 2 foot long cucumber if I want to. Live with it. Oh, you can't? well grow the f&#k up. These asshats are exactly like a bunch of 5 year olds. "Don't do this or we keel you!"..well, me and my M16 are right here Mohamed. come on by and see me. I'll show you what that beard is really for. Terror don't work on me. I've seen war.

Re:so your a 3 year old ..er..a muslim

[antdude]

Your != You're. :P

Re:so your a 3 year old ..er..a muslim

[NotBornYesterday]

Or you could draw a picture of Mohammed screwing a 9 year old girl, which would at least be historically accurate. Of course, you'd probably also be violating the "enlightened" and "progressive" anti-free speech rules of various western countries regarding cartoon kiddie porn ...

Ban this, you spineless mother-fucker.

[mosb1000]

What? Free speech sometimes means offending people! You don't support all free speech, you don't support free speech at all! What's next? Should Slashdot automatically delete this post for calling you out as the freedom-hating douche-bag you are?

Do you think I'm being deliberately offensive? The words you have said here are much more offensive than mine. But I haven't been dishonest by covering up my harsh words with flowery language. You don't want to protect people from offense, you want to prevent people from openly expressing their honest opinions in favor of your sanitized version of communication.

Re:Ban this, you spineless mother-fucker.

[pandrijeczko]

If you truly believe this is about free speech, then instead of throwing out a few swear words from behind the semi-anonymity of your Slashdot ID, why don't you go round to your nearest mosque and hand out the cartoons there? Get yourself a backbone, stop being a coward about it and go demonstrate your convictions!

Re:Ban this, you spineless mother-fucker.

[Mostly Harmless]

What "honest opinions" do I want to prevent people from expressing? Do you really think most people were participating to express their opinions about Muhammad and Islam? People were being bigots, and that's Just Not Right. Facebook has no obligation to protect free speech. Even if they did, the idea of free speech isn't to protect people who want to be deliberate assholes. You have the right to bear arms, but you can't shoot someone simply because you don't like them. Why the double standard?

Re:Ban this, you spineless mother-fucker.

[Dunbal]

People were being bigots, and that's Just Not Right.

      And you are the biggest bigot of all, Mr. Holier than Thou. Because you talk about bigotry instead of standing up for the principles of free Western civilization, while that framework is being eroded from under your very feet. If you are white, I am sure there are parts of town you refuse to go to, bigot or not. And the same applies if you belong to another ethnic group. The hatred is out there, and the guy that stabs or shoots or bombs you isn't going to care if you are or aren't a bigot. He will kill you for what you stand for to him, not for who you are.

      So if you want to go ahead and ignore everything that's happening around you, watching government after government cave in because of the threat of violence from radical muslims, go ahead. That's what living in a free society means. However do not get in the way of us "bigots" as we struggle to keep you free by forcing the governments to finally choose to abide by our long standing principles, or declare themselves puppets of the new caliphate.

      However the radical muslims would do well to remember that most of us come from Viking stock...

Re:Ban this, you spineless mother-fucker.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

What "honest opinions" do I want to prevent people from expressing?

Well, this whole thing pretty much started as a means of supporting South Park's right to make fun of whomever they want. So the "honest opinion" you're preventing is support for freedom of speech. Given the fact that SP's freedom of speech was curtailed by preventing them from depicting Mohammed, it's reasonable to express support for them by doing the very thing they were prevented from doing.

And the other honest opinion I have on the issue is that even passive, tolerant geeks can become raging assholes towards your religion if your religion starts stepping on toes. I choose to express this belief by becoming a raging asshole when a religion starts stepping on toes.

Re:Ban this, you spineless mother-fucker.

[initialE]

I have to say, I rather agree with GP. You will notice that the episode on South Park featuring Muhammed had nothing that could be considered offensive to him personally, and I think that it was deliberately so. You don't make your protests by being vulgar or offensive, you do it quietly, but firmly.

Re:Another point of view

[vadim_t]

The actual point of debate isn't really important. The point is, how do you debate anything related to the religion in question with a "true believer"?

In my opinion, you don't. Not in the usual sense of it.

A true believer is unlikely to change their opinion regardless of how convincing your argument is. There's too much at stake, and too much stacked up against you. I think the best outcome you can achieve is to plant seeds of doubt, that combined with various problems, inconsistencies, etc might at some later point cause a change in opinion.

The question is, is the oppression of women in a society acceptable because it is "normal" for that society? At one time it was "normal" in our society to keep slaves from Africa. Even though I have a great deal of respect for what the men of that time were able to accomplish, I also do not understand how men of conscience were able to participate in that practice, and it does affect my view of them.

I'm not saying that such things are good and just, but just that it's unreasonable to hold people from centuries past to a modern moral standard. Certainly back then there would have been people who wondered whether such things were really just, but you can't expect that every person who had anything worthy to contribute would also be hundreds of years morally ahead of their contemporaries, and no person can fight to right everything that is wrong in their eyes.

I'm sure that in 200 years from now, we'll also look morally depraved for one reason or another.

Re:Another point of view

[professionalfurryele]

You moral relativism is fine and I agree with it, judge people by the standards of the day and the society they grew up in. Could you now get every single believer who lectures me about how I'm evil and relativist to shut up? Either we judge people by the standards of the day, moral relativism is fine and the Quran (or Bible, or anything else) is interpreted in that manner, or it isn't and pedophilia is a-okay.

Re:Another point of view

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Either you are alluding to the idea that companies are more powerful than the government (which is true in some cases, though I doubt facebook's) - or you are trying to say that somehow this US Based corporation doesn't have to obey US Laws.

Hey, I wonder if they managed to evade Taxation with that ruling.

Umm... "Free Speech" is not a law governing the citizens of the United States, or any other entity within. It applies only to the government itself.

"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."

Re:Another point of view

[The Yuckinator]

So which was it? Funny, or disgusting? Do you get to have it both ways?

Sounds pretty hilarious to me, so I went and looked it up LOL yeah that is pretty funny.

And yes, I firmly believe that if it's OK for you to make fun of JC then it's absolutely OK for you to make fun of other religions. Why wouldn't you think so? Fair is fair after all. Heck, "Thou shalt have no other god before me" is broken all the time by the various worshippers of Mary in the Christian world, and nobody out there is throwing firebombs or beheading anyone for it.

Re:'nothing of this sort will happen in the future

[v1]

So they're guaranteeing none of their users will ever do a certain something ever again? Are these people interested in buying a bridge?

Re:Another point of view

[Mathness]

Wasn't it a Danish newspaper?

And speaking of danish and breakfast, some like Musli. All ah can say is that I enjoy My ham and cheese sandwiches immensely.

Re:Christianity is known for it's murderous past.

[Curunir_wolf]

Once Rome went Christian, boom...crime to even be another religion. Then you've got the crusades and the dark ages. Thanks Christianity!

You're talking about the Dark Ages, though. It's the 21st century. But I guess some people are so enamored with ignorance and feudalism they prefer it to progress.

Re:I have deactivating my facebook account in resp

[arkane1234]

If you don't do that then you may eventually find yourself moving back just because your friends are still in Facebook and you feel you need it.

That's on the assumption that you are somehow attached to using a specific website to keep in contact with people.
What ever happened to text, email, myspace, phone, or even the more insidious IM land.. Yahoo/AIM/MSN/ICQ/Jabber/etc...

Facebook's a blip in the radar, and can/will disappear someday.

Re:Christianity is known for it's murderous past.

[PRMan]

Yeah, we haven't had a Christian president since Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. There are no Christians in Congress either.

the problem is he will

[circletimessquare]

for example, there's Westboro Baptist Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

they're extremely courageous about their completely ignorant ideas. so conviction in your intolerance doesn't decide the issue as you assert it does. because the grossly ignorant are actually in fact often extremely courageous about their bigotry

no, what decides the issue is westboro baptist church is tolerated, even thought they are obviously ignorant low iq assholes. you really have to tolerate the muhammad cartoons, even though some are obviously bigotted, because not tolerating them is a form of weakness, not of strength

if the muslim world is intolerant of criticism, no matter crude and stupid, the muslim world suffers. a culture and society that allows the free expression of all ideas, no matter how repugnant, is a healthy society. but the stifling of bad ideas, under any pretense, results in the stifling of good ideas, under false pretense. a society that does not abide by the free exchange of ideas is a society that stagnates in terms of progress, because all forms of progress are at one time or another extremely controversial

in the usa for example, at one time suggesting that blacks or women should vote would be something that some might say should be banned. NOT banning these controversial (at the time) ideas allows those ideas to flourish, and take root, because they are obviously the correct ideas, no matter how controversial in their times. that's how progress occurs

but if you live in a society where controversial ideas are not tolerated, the society stagnates, and fails to progress to a more liberal and open and rich society. there are forces in the usa in fact right now working very hard to stifle free speech. they must always be fought, these forces, forever. but if the muslim world does not have the stomach to fight censorship, then the muslim world will stagnate and never improve

that's the real stakes here. and the west should adhere to its ideals of open exchange, regardless of how crude. why should the west empower the forces in the muslim world that dominate through censorship of free thought?

Re:the problem is he will

[pandrijeczko]

The Westboro Baptist Church was really not a very good example to give - I saw the interview on British TV with Shirley Phelps-Roper and her mad daughters. Believe me, it was the funniest thing I watched in ages...

Whack-a-mole

[rbanffy]

For all I car, Facebook folks can play whack-a-mole as much as they want.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=123387014356443

Re:Score

[Wrath0fb0b]

Why the cheap shot against the "left"? You could say I'm a "leftie" (especially by US standards), and I'm pissed off by this.

Because there has been an internal division among the left (of which I consider myself a proud member) about the limits of free speech. Some openly deride the value of free speech in favor of hate speech laws, campus/employer speech codes[3][5], laws prohibiting "defaming or insulting religion"[6]. Outside the US, there appears to be no limit to prosecutions for even trivial insults against Christianity[1] or Islam[2]. In a most bizarre ruling from Canada, apparently you can be sued for libel for calling someone an 'enemy of free speech' in response the plaintiff's initiation of various cases before the CHRC that were, in fact, attacks on speech[4].

Slashdot has a particular brand of leftism that is largely against these attacks on free speech but it would be silly to think that this represents a worldwide view. There are significant attacks on free speech from the left (and, as always, from the right as well on different issues) and it would behoove us to pay attention and confront our fellow lefties that are clamoring for European-style (or even Canadian-style) regulations of 'hate speech' and the like.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/atheist-given-asbo-for-leaflets-mocking-jesus-1952985.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders
[3] http://volokh.com/tag/rodriguez-v-maricopa/
[4] http://www.nelligan.ca/e/PDF/Warman_Court_Decision.pdf
[5] http://www.tuftsdaily.com/2.5511/csl-hearing-turns-spotlight-on-controversial-source-pieces-1.590986
[6] http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/combating_defamation_of_religions/

Re:Christianity is known for it's murderous past.

[shutdown -p now]

Having a Christian as an elected representative is not the same as having a theocracy. When US (or any other Western country) gets a law which says that it is illegal to renounce Christian faith, then we can talk.

Oh dear

[Dunbal]

Time for "Everybody except Pakistan and Bangladesh Draw Mohammed Day"...

Re:Another point of view

[SanityInAnarchy]

Asking for some respect doesn't make you radical.

Saying "Respect us or we'll kill you!" makes you radical. And the "moderate" Muslims so rarely have anything to say about it. Moderate Christians aren't quite as bad.

what i don't understand is

[circletimessquare]

why do the moderate muslims not see that all eyes are on them?

if the crazies in the muslim world are to be counteracted, its not going to be by the us military, that's completely ineffective, as this is a war of ideas. the only tool against islamic wackjobs is... moderate muslims

what i think is that the inaction of moderate muslims is the problem here

take back your own countries, moderate muslims, because, honestly, no one else can. the usa doesn't have a right to trample over your countries, and even when the usa does trample over your countries, they don't change a single thing

and the lunatic fringe of muslims don't have a right to rule your countries via intimidation and fear. so stand up, and rule, or be forever trampled between the american military or suicide bombing wackjobs. the only thing that will stop the american military and suicide bombing wackjobs is YOU, the moderate muslim. no one else can make the change, no one else is able to

its up to you moderate muslims, it really is, its completely up to you, and no one else. and i didn't say it was easy: look what is happening to moderate muslims in iran for defying the theocratic regime. but inaction is even WORSE, because via inaction by moderate muslims, nothing will ever change for the muslim world

step up to the plate, stand and deliver, please

moderate muslims honestly don't have a right to stay on the sidelines if they really care about their own muslim communities. because only they can rescue their communities from the seething homegrown madmen and the intrusive foreign militaries

only you, moderate muslim, only you

you hold the key to what the future will be, no one else

Re:what i don't understand is

[PCM2]

A "moderate muslim" living in Fremont, California is hardly going to make a difference in the policies of the nation of Iran. A "moderate Muslim" living in Kuala Lumpur is hardly going to have any impact on what the warlords of Afghanistan choose to preach. You're talking as if every Muslim is supposed to be his brother's keeper just because he self-identifies as a Muslim. That's like grabbing an Asian guy in the street and demanding to know why he isn't doing more to change the policies of the People's Republic of China. Basically, you're a racist.

Re:what i don't understand is

[rudy_wayne]

why do the moderate muslims not see that all eyes are on them? if the crazies in the muslim world are to be counteracted, its not going to be by the us military, that's completely ineffective, as this is a war of ideas. the only tool against islamic wackjobs is... moderate muslims

What is a "moderate Muslim"? Is that like a moderate Communist? Many many years ago I was talking to a person who was telling me how wonderful communism was. I said to him "Look at China and the Soviet Union. How can you say communism is good?"

His reply was "Oh no ... that's not true communism".

Well, true communism or not, that's how it is practiced in every communist country in the world. And the same is true of Islam. There is no country where Islam is the dominant religion and where there is freedom of speech codified in law and where you can criticize Islam or Mohammed without suffering serious consequences ... possibly death.

You can try to claim that the problem is just a few "crazies" but that's false. The "crazies" are Islam.

Re:Another point of view

[SanityInAnarchy]

The issue is that the radical Muslims are just that, radicals. just like the radical Christians, and the radical Jews, etc.

The issue is that moderate Muslims so rarely have anything bad to say about this, and what's more, "moderate" Muslims often do agree with two core principles: Sharia law is actually a good thing, and Islam (and Sharia) should take over the world.

In other words, the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim is that the radicals go blow themselves up, and the moderates secretly cheer them on. At best, the moderates would say they disagree with their methods, but agree with their goals.

Re:Another point of view

[nurb432]

Pictures of people offend me. Please remove them.

Re:Another point of view

[PRMan]

if you tell me I cannot do something because it is against your religion I'm going to do it, especially if there is an implied threat on your part

OK, I challenge you to pray this prayer:

"God, if you are real, make it so that I can no longer deny you."

This is a true test of your atheism...

Re:Another point of view

[gibbsjoh]

That's terrible, but I would say hardly indicative of Arabs/Muslims in general (I'm assuming this was in the Middle East?). I grew up in that part of the world, and have been at the receiving end of anti-Western anger (ironic as I'm not a Westerner), but at the same time, you've got to be blind if you can't see where it comes from. That in no way justifies pushing your kid off of a jungle jim, of course, but as you probably are aware Westerners are seen as extensions of their government and foreign policy - and let's face it, America, Britain and France haven't always been very nice in that patch of the world.

Just sayin'.

JG

Re:Another point of view

[PRMan]

Ah, but how many 53-year-olds married 6-year-olds and took them away from playing with dolls (their words, not mine) before the onset of mensturation to consummate their marriages, even in that day? Probably only the leader, because he could get away with it...

Re:Another point of view

[Low Ranked Craig]

Unfortunately, even though I could recite the words, if there is a god he would know that I don't believe what I'm saying and nothing would happen. I can't force myself to believe in the magic man in the sky in order to sincerely pray.

Re:Another point of view

[NNKK]

The issue is that moderate Muslims so rarely have anything bad to say about this

Please link to your detailed study which carefully examined the proportion of Muslims who speak out against their extremist brothers.

Then please link to the equally-detailed study on the proportion of Christians who speak out against their extremist brothers.

Until you've done that, you're just making assumptions based on your personal impressions. And as everyone around here should know, such impressions rarely have basis in fact.

Nope.

[Dr. Manhattan]

...most (if not close to all) people who participated did so out of pure hatred and with complete ignorance...

Well, I didn't participate for those reasons. I did it because death threats offend me.

Re:Score

[couchslug]

"Why the cheap shot against the "left"? You could say I'm a "leftie" (especially by US standards), and I'm pissed off by this."

Because (many) Leftists who begat and maintain the ideology of Political Correctness.

This made for a slick weapon ("everything is everything, so be nice to me, all beliefs are "valid", whatever that means") when Leftists were on the offensive, but it got jacked by everyone else who could play that card and sound convincing.

I personally miss the Old School Leftists who openly hated religion, and shot the religious when they had the power to do so. What we forget post-Cold War is that the social failings which gave energy to the Left included religion, and that attacks on religion in the West helped make religionists tame enough that todays generation think they were always like that!

Marxism is IMO as noxious as religionists said it was, but religion is as noxious as Marxists said it is.

Re:Another point of view

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The issue is that moderate Muslims so rarely have anything bad to say about this, and what's more, "moderate" Muslims often do agree with two core principles: Sharia law is actually a good thing, and Islam (and Sharia) should take over the world.

If you watch only Fox news, or don't really watch international news, you could certainly get that impression. Remember the big blowup over cartoons of Mohammed a few years back? I remember the footage of muslim clerics placing themselves bodily between the embassy and a crowd of angry citizens with rocks, preaching to them to stop and interposing their own bodies to stop rocks from hitting a building.

To put this in perspective, imagine a muslim huge army had just come into Mexico and overthrown their corrupt leaders. They set up a government beholden to them, gave over huge amounts of the land and businesses to mostly muslim foreign investors and had just build a number of very large, permanent military bases there. Imagine you live in Texas and it is filled with christian refugees from the war torn area telling you about their friends and family killed in bombings or shot for no reason. Many people, including some in the invading army refer to this as a crusade against the evil christians and many in the middle east are calling for further action to stop the dangerous radical christians. Under very real threat of invasion from the south, tensions are high and realistically, the US army is simply too small to stop an invasion if it happens. Now further imagine someone publishes a blasphemous anti-christian video, say of jesus partaking in a rape or killing of muslim children that implies all christians are a violent threat, just the excuse used to invade Mexico. So a mob of angry Texans goes to the Iranian embassy in Houston and is throwing rocks and protesting the video and the invasion. Now picture local christian priests showing up to stop the protests and put their lives at risk by confronting an angry mob. Would it happen? I'd like to think so, but I'm by no means certain it would.

Radicals are radicals and your assumption that most muslims want to impose their religion on others is simply that, your assumption. There are quite a few moderate and progressive muslims. There are also a lot of radical christians in the US these days. Heck, you can't even publish nudity or sex on regular TV because of their religiously based censorship. It's not like christians have the high ground of tolerance and freedom of expression to pontificate from.

Re:Another point of view

[couchslug]

"if they were *really* as bad as fox "news" would have you believe, we'd have turned this place into a self-illuminating glass-floored parking lot by now."

False asserted conclusion. "Bad" /= "energetic" or "capable". A vast base of approving enablers doesn't (immediately) translate into action, especially when most of them are poor and extremely backward.

Re:Score

[Attila Dimedici]

I don't know about where you live, but in the US it is the left that wants to make it a crime to offend someone. In the US the left advocates free speech, but then when they are in positions of authority they limit freedom of speech to those they agree with.

Good financial decision

[zebpack]

2.5 million Pakistani facebook users = 0.5% of total users . Facebook cant let 0.5% users go away cuz it will make a bad quarterly statement

Re:Another point of view

[mapkinase]

"only to find ourselves giving all of it away to make Muslims happy"

There reason for Westerners treating Muslims more cautiously is that because Muslims, in contrast to Christians and other religious groups take our religion seriously and follow the religion closely (I am talking of course about the size of the hardcore compared to the size of Christian hardcore).

That's the real reasons Islam is treated seriously, not some PC crap or "specialness" of Islam in the eyes of the Westerners.

And every dead Theo van Gogh has much more effect on the Western world than 1000 of Streisand effects.

In shaa'a Allah, I will live and see the day international news media will parade a dead bloody corpse of Lars Vilks.

Re:Another point of view

[Cwix]

but as you probably are aware Westerners are seen as extensions of their government and foreign policy

Muslims are seen as extensions of their fundamentalist governments, and the support they give for jihad. Surely you can see why Muslims have a bad name in the west.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Another point of view

[Cwix]

Thats funny when I was in basic training I had to go into a small room, with loads of cs gas (tear gas), and no gas mask. I dont recall anyone dying. Room was maybe 12 foot by 15, with at least three canisters of tear gas. The training is mandatory for everyone. (Teaches you to trust your gas mask) Hell you can even get used to the stuff, I remember watching one of the drill sgts. eating an apple in the room, while us newbs were puking. Wheres your sources, cause i call fucking bullshit.

I think it was a wise decision.

[elucido]

way to cave face book. please move your hq to islamabad.

If Facebook would cave if cartoon images of child pornography were posted, they should cave in this instance. Or they should never cave in any instance. But to only cave to the US government on taboo images is to send precisely the wrong message to the Muslim world. We have to respect all taboos or none for the behavior to be rational and logical. You cannot continue the policy of American exceptionalism where we hold everyone else to impossibly high moral standards unless we are willing to follow the same standards we want to set.

It's something we should probably have greater debate over but I don't think it's in this instance for facebook not to cave. The point is for people in Pakistan to like using facebook, not to use facebook as a weapon against Islam.

Facebook isn't the forum for this.

[elucido]

Exactly.

We just became a little more Islamic fundamentalist by giving into their way of life, rather than standing up for freedom.

Facebook, you suck.

I'm so tired of people bending over for Muslims and their way of life. Muslims will NEVER give us an inch, so we we give up our freedom? What a shit deal.

Facebook isn't known for being freedom promoting to begin with. It reduces privacy, it's ALWAYS been like this. If you want to fight the terrorists then target the terrorists directly, no more of this inane and in my opinion useless ridicule on facebook. That does not really attack the problem directly. I suppose it could serve useful if its put up just to measure the reaction but the problem is not Islam, or Muslims. People who blame the religion are part of the problem.

The problem is extremism. To believe that we should attack Islam is a flawed strategy. Attack extremism. There are better ways than this facebook protest even if you have the right intentions.

When has there ever been a good fundamentalism?

[elucido]

No, not me; because fundamentalism == "a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles", and depending on what the principles are, I might either applaud or abhor any given kind of fundamentalism.

For example, I don't like the principle that you shouldn't have any principles (or that actually adhering to them is a bit too much) -> therefore I don't like anti-fundamentalist fundamentalists =P

Fundamentalism is ALWAYS stupid. There is never one set of principles which apply to all situations regardless of calculation, logic, or reason. Fundamentalism of the religious kind is generally a source of problems for humanity.

The ability to weigh the pros and cons of each individual action is what determines rightness and wrongness.

Re:When has there ever been a good fundamentalism?

[Johann Lau]

"The ability to weigh the pros and cons of each individual action is what determines rightness and wrongness."

and also not the worst principle... now believe in adhering to it, adhere to it, and ta-daa! you're now a fundamentalist, too :P

Re:When has there ever been a good fundamentalism?

[mrmeval]

And that is the worst sort of fundamentalism, fungible fundamentalism, it's not a fixed system but must be rigidly obeyed.

It breeds the worst sort of psychotics. It tends to define cults of personality or any interpreted text the layperson does not have access to.

Re:When has there ever been a good fundamentalism?

[Johann Lau]

I'm not sure I follow, since

"[The ability to weigh the pros and cons of each individual action] breeds the worst sort of psychotics"

doesn't make any shred of sense.

Re:When has there ever been a good fundamentalism?

[mrmeval]

You added text that does not exist in what I wrote.

If there is a one person or a few people who dispense wisdom then it's fungible. Any new proclamation must be rigidly obeyed. It tends to make the followers very strange to outsiders.

Re:When has there ever been a good fundamentalism?

[cduffy]

You added text that does not exist in what I wrote.

Text, however, which corresponded directly with what a 3rd-party reader would or could clearly read as the viewpoint of the parent post, ie. "that".

If you were actually responding to a strawman, rather than the post to which you hit "Reply" in the context in which it was written... pot, meet kettle.

Why does the death penalty exist in the USA?

[elucido]

The fact that the death penalty still exists ought to prove your argument wrong.

Those are certain Muslims.

[elucido]

Not every Muslim, not most Muslims, but certain Muslims. And when we decide to do an action it should be focused on those certain Muslims.

I think the situation with Facebook making fun of Muhammad affects virtually all Muslims rather than just the certain Muslims it is intended to affect. This could have unintended consequences.

Re:Those are certain Muslims.

[Omestes]

In a sense, you own your lunatic fringe. The odd sect of radical Muslims who are doing truly nasty things, and/or trying to force the tenets of their religion on the rest of us are a part of the larger sect of Muslims. Normal Muslims know that these lunatics reflect badly on them as a whole.

I think it is okay that making silly drawings might affect some normal Muslims (though I'm guessing most of them are smart enough to engage in self-censorship, and simply avoid viewing images that might offend their religious sensibilities). They should be a bit uncomfortable.

That said, the real problem isn't whether or whether not people should choose to engage in activities that might be offensive to certain groups of people, it is whether or whether not people should be barred from doing such. the former is a matter of personal taste and choice, the latter is coercive.

I thought the whole Facebook gesture to be rather silly, and tasteless (though in an amusing way), but otherwise completely forgettable. After Pakistan decided to block the page, as covered here, I decided to actually participate by submitting a quickie MSPaint doodle (Muhammad Potato Head). Why did I do this? Because I view it very important to ridicule people who take things to seriously, or try to control the actions of others.

The whole exercise is basically nothing more than a giant political cartoon. It exists to highlight absurdity. If it makes someone uncomfortable, it is because there is an element of truth.

If I make fun of certain sects of Christian nut-jobs, it isn't a big issue. But somehow making fun certain sects of Muslim lunatics is now. This is dangerous. Extremists should be wholly mocked, we only risk slipping into their world when we stop and consider their wishes, or are moved by their threats. We give them credibility, and we give them encouragement.

Re:Score

[oddfox]

Yeah, because nobody on the Right in America wants to "make it a crime to offend someone." Two words -- Piss Christ. There are plenty of other examples, but neither side has a monopoly on trying to shut the other up over offending feelings.

In case someone wants to try to argue about the NEA funding for Piss Christ (as if that should make a lick of difference) how about trying to institute a national language and require fluency in it for residency? How about the religious fundies the Right picks up in droves to boost poll numbers who would absolutely love the same limits to free speech in the same vein as say, the Taliban. But no, it's the Left and the evil Political Correctness machine that's determined to put a gag on free speech. It couldn't possibly be caused by a problem that both sides have, which are wingnuts and extremists.

What if its cartoon child porn?

[elucido]

Go for it. I'm not going to call for your death, or demand pictures of it be taken down off the internet. That's the whole point of free speech. One must tolerate the offensive along with what they view as benign.

Would you still be logically and rationally consistent with your stance?

Re:Another point of view

[elucido]

We understand the other point of view. The point is in a free society, you do not have the right to not be offended.

so, the other point of view does not matter.

Every fairy tale god has taken its share of criticism, and ridicule throught out history, and in our so called free society, we are supposed to value the idea of freedom of expression.

Instead here we are selling out our constitution, our struggle from historical oppression of thought and ideas.... only to find ourselves giving all of it away to make Muslims happy? Fuck them and their selfishness. We make fun of Jesus Christ every fucking day here in America, in music, arts etc. We also praise him every day in music and arts... and the same for Muhammad. If they dont like it... They can stay out of our way of life. They can STOP watching and listening to our are. And they can stay the fuck off our websites.

Its all nice to "think of their side of things"... but their side of things beats women, forces them to wear burkas, and kills anyone who questions their god. WE already thought about their side of things... and it's fucking stupid.

Here we are giving in to it?

Fuck us. We're pathetic cowards.

Is that a fact? You say in free society we do not have the right to be offended but that does not seem to be true in practice in any society. In every society there are taboos. In the west our taboos are based around sex. In the Muslim societies it's based around images of the prophet.

Bullsh*t.

[elucido]

"only to find ourselves giving all of it away to make Muslims happy"

There reason for Westerners treating Muslims more cautiously is that because Muslims, in contrast to Christians and other religious groups take our religion seriously and follow the religion closely (I am talking of course about the size of the hardcore compared to the size of Christian hardcore).

That's the real reasons Islam is treated seriously, not some PC crap or "specialness" of Islam in the eyes of the Westerners.

And every dead Theo van Gogh has much more effect on the Western world than 1000 of Streisand effects.

In shaa'a Allah, I will live and see the day international news media will parade a dead bloody corpse of Lars Vilks.

Christians have killed more people and more groups in the name of religion than anybody else. To say that Christians don't take religion seriously is to ignore all the wars, all the domestic terrorism, all that?

Stop attacking Islam the religion and attack the extremists who hijacked it. To attack the entire religion is to attack the individuals within it who are freedom fighters.

Re:Bullsh*t.

[mapkinase]

Are you saying you know Islam more than I do?

Seriously, the arrogance of atheists teaching Muslims about their religion.

Don't attack the Prophet or Islam.

[elucido]

Attack the followers who interpret it in the wrong fashion. Attack the individuals who don't believe in freedom.

To attack an entire religion is as ignorant as what the Nazi's did. I cannot believe you don't see this.

Re:Don't attack the Prophet or Islam.

[vadim_t]

Why? Can't a religion be wrong?

Are you going to for instance hold that opinion for members of a religion that involves human sacrifice?

Re:Another point of view

[elucido]

The actual point of debate isn't really important. The point is, how do you debate anything related to the religion in question with a "true believer"?

As a side note, I reject the "normal behavior in members society" argument. If it is a societal norm that grown adults consumate marriage with 9 year olds then that society has engrained abuse issues. Of course even today we see the systematic oppression of women in the devout Muslim countries so one should not necessarily be surprised. The question is, is the oppression of women in a society acceptable because it is "normal" for that society? At one time it was "normal" in our society to keep slaves from Africa. Even though I have a great deal of respect for what the men of that time were able to accomplish, I also do not understand how men of conscience were able to participate in that practice, and it does affect my view of them.

If it were normal behavior then at that point in time it wasn't considered wrong. You might consider it wrong later on with your advanced knowledge and ethics, but to judge a person based on what was considered right at the time is a bit unfair. Should we judge great founding fathers who owned slaves in this way? Should we judge members of royalty who married their brothers and cousins?

There were legit reasons why people lived in this way. They did not have the benefit of technology, the internet, and for the most part people didn't live as long as they do now. The point is you cannot win this battle by low blow attacks. If you attack Islam when there are a billion Muslims on the planet it's just stupid.

Not so much moral relativism but

[elucido]

You moral relativism is fine and I agree with it, judge people by the standards of the day and the society they grew up in. Could you now get every single believer who lectures me about how I'm evil and relativist to shut up? Either we judge people by the standards of the day, moral relativism is fine and the Quran (or Bible, or anything else) is interpreted in that manner, or it isn't and pedophilia is a-okay.

We have to promote a scientific morality. Christian morality is no better than Muslim morality because neither are based around science and reason and this is why in many instances you have irrational extremists.

Atheists dont have the answer either because a lot of atheists don't promote any form of ethics whatsoever and appear to be amoral, which is part of the reason why atheism never catches on to the mainstream. The people need a morality because the majority of people just aren't smart enough to determine right and wrong on their own.

How do you determine a right and wrong action? Using a decision tree, using a pro vs con list, using a type of math that most people have no knowledge up. People want a convenient list, a code to live by and when it's not given to them by God they go crazy. They'll die to protect this code just as many Americans would die protecting the Constitution.

I don't think we can attack their entire code and expect it to work anymore than it would work if some foreign country like China started attacking the US Constitution and our laws and codes. What we might consider to be something trivial might be life and death for Muslims. This is why it's better not to directly attack their code, and focus on attacking the fundamentalists, unless this attack on their code actually accomplishes a military or political objective.

What does this attack accomplish? Since nobody yet has given me any indication of what it accomplishes other than to make Christians feel better, I've concluded that it's stupid.

Re:Not so much moral relativism but

[vadim_t]

Atheists dont have the answer either because a lot of atheists don't promote any form of ethics whatsoever and appear to be amoral, which is part of the reason why atheism never catches on to the mainstream.

Atheism has no dogma that explains any such thing. As a result we're free to have mutually incompatible morality system. But that's nothing new, after all most religions are incompatible on some level with each other, or even within their own branches.

I base my morality on the lack of harm to other people. Self-harm, while not really a good thing is acceptable so long nobody else is harmed as well. That means that I for instance disagree with the existence of all victimless crimes, even if I personally find the behavior disgusting, as I think that tastefulness and morality are separate things.

How do you determine a right and wrong action? Using a decision tree, using a pro vs con list, using a type of math that most people have no knowledge up. People want a convenient list, a code to live by and when it's not given to them by God they go crazy. They'll die to protect this code just as many Americans would die protecting the Constitution.

I do not think I like this idea. You'll have the same old holy wars, for the same old stupid reasons. Hundreds of years from now nobody will remember the reasons and context for the old prohibitions. They'll become sacred and not open to discussion, even after the purpose for which they were made is no longer needed. For instance, is incest still wrong if improved science can guarantee that the child won't have any problems because of it?

I think that such things discourage thinking too much, and we don't need any more of that. A proper scientific morality IMO would start with a good education made to get people to use their brains properly. If most of the population was able to think logically, a few extremists wouldn't be such a big problem.

Re:Not so much moral relativism but

[elucido]

Atheists dont have the answer either because a lot of atheists don't promote any form of ethics whatsoever and appear to be amoral, which is part of the reason why atheism never catches on to the mainstream.

Atheism has no dogma that explains any such thing. As a result we're free to have mutually incompatible morality system. But that's nothing new, after all most religions are incompatible on some level with each other, or even within their own branches.

I base my morality on the lack of harm to other people. Self-harm, while not really a good thing is acceptable so long nobody else is harmed as well. That means that I for instance disagree with the existence of all victimless crimes, even if I personally find the behavior disgusting, as I think that tastefulness and morality are separate things.

How do you determine a right and wrong action? Using a decision tree, using a pro vs con list, using a type of math that most people have no knowledge up. People want a convenient list, a code to live by and when it's not given to them by God they go crazy. They'll die to protect this code just as many Americans would die protecting the Constitution.

I do not think I like this idea. You'll have the same old holy wars, for the same old stupid reasons. Hundreds of years from now nobody will remember the reasons and context for the old prohibitions. They'll become sacred and not open to discussion, even after the purpose for which they were made is no longer needed. For instance, is incest still wrong if improved science can guarantee that the child won't have any problems because of it?

I think that such things discourage thinking too much, and we don't need any more of that. A proper scientific morality IMO would start with a good education made to get people to use their brains properly. If most of the population was able to think logically, a few extremists wouldn't be such a big problem.

Whatever science says is right, whatever science says is wrong is wrong. It's objective. A scientific morality is impossible because the majority of Christians and Muslims don't want to accept natural law. Christians want to promote the a lot of ideas which don't make any sense as do Muslims. Our laws are still based around Christian morality, not utilitarian ethics.

The harm principle by Jeremy Bentham is an example of a basis for building a rational morality. I'd say consequentialism and rule utilitarianism are
the ethics I follow and that I'm amoral. I do not have a morality beyond doing what I think is in my best interest at the time.

Most people don't think, they feel. They do what feels right. They learn what feels right through religion. So religion is important.

Re:Not so much moral relativism but

[professionalfurryele]

Science cant deal with morals. Science is about positive (descriptive) statements not normative (prescriptive) statements.

I don't have a moral system (I'm a moral nihilist) but my effective 'moral code' is basically secular humanism. A basic tenet of this is that you should constantly test morals to see which are better. What exactly is the basis for a scientific morality? How do you use a method for falsifying descriptive statements to demonstrate the truth of normative ones?

As for atheism being 'not main stream', it is far larger than most people realize. And it is a philosophical position about the existence of god. Of course it provides no moral framework. You may as well complain that New Criticism provides no explanation of atomic theory. Most atheists I know who have thought about morality subscribe to some brand of secular humanism. Is that what you are taking about?

I'm not especially interested in converting believers. I just want them to recognize me a decent human being with the same concerns as them. I'd also like them to recognize that I have exactly the same 'moral sense' as they do.

Re:Not so much moral relativism but

[elucido]

Science cant deal with morals. Science is about positive (descriptive) statements not normative (prescriptive) statements.

I don't have a moral system (I'm a moral nihilist) but my effective 'moral code' is basically secular humanism. A basic tenet of this is that you should constantly test morals to see which are better. What exactly is the basis for a scientific morality? How do you use a method for falsifying descriptive statements to demonstrate the truth of normative ones?

As for atheism being 'not main stream', it is far larger than most people realize. And it is a philosophical position about the existence of god. Of course it provides no moral framework. You may as well complain that New Criticism provides no explanation of atomic theory. Most atheists I know who have thought about morality subscribe to some brand of secular humanism. Is that what you are taking about?

I'm not especially interested in converting believers. I just want them to recognize me a decent human being with the same concerns as them. I'd also like them to recognize that I have exactly the same 'moral sense' as they do.

Rule utilitarianism is an example of scientific ethics. Consequentialism is scientific and based on statistic measurements, probability. So there is a best option and game theory has proven that there is an objective way to measure the rightness or wrongness of a set of options.

Morality would be the (rules) in rule utilitarianism. The rules should not be set in stone, but basic rules like don't torture, don't harm women, children and innocent people, these rules are true 99% of the time and the exceptions are so rare that most of us will never face them.

Re:Not so much moral relativism but

[professionalfurryele]

Rule utilitarianism requires a utility function. There is no way to show that the utility function is the 'best' one. For example a rule utilitarianist who believes the function we should maximize is human genetic superiority (above all other concerns) would be a very nasty piece of work.

I do think that ethics that are tested constantly (and the bad ones rejected) are superior to those that don't, but ultimately the current major problem is when ethics are based on something other than empathy (or perhaps the prevention of harm).

Should all speech be free?

[elucido]

Or should only the speech the western society doesn't have a problem with be free?

I don't think Pakistan or any Muslim nation wants the west to determine what goes on in the minds of Pakistan. I do believe that the internet can open minds and hearts in Pakistan and should be used, but I believe Islam should be used as a tool to free Pakistan rather than to destroy Islam.

Re:Should all speech be free?

[MightyMartian]

I honestly could care less. If Pakistanis want to have the world spoonfed to them by their government, then be my guest. If Islamic civilization is so close to the precipice that a bunch of assholes on a Facebook page mocking Mohammed could push it over the edge then I think there are bigger problems than simple reforms.

There's a simple way for Pakistanis to free themselves. Go out, get a pipe wrench, and then beat every hate-mongering mullah, self-righteous Taliban goon, and whoever else thinks they're voice of God sent down to enforce some bizarre Medieval socio-theological system over the head until the neurons that are firing up all that hate and self-importance are little more than splattered goo on the pavement.

Instead of whining like a bunch of pathetic spoiled children because a bunch of Western countries don't abide by their taboos, or whining about a bunch of Palestinians that they wouldn't help across the street on any other given day of the week, or about India being a stronger and more resilient country than they are, or whatever it is that Pakistanis whine and snivel about while corrupt politicians, whacked-out nationalists and religious fanatics are the true source of their misery. Anything to keep the populace pissing on the wrong targets, eh?

Re:Score

[Attila Dimedici]

I was unaware of anyone who wanted there to be a law against the Piss Christ. I know that a lot of people protested that their tax dollars were used to fund "art" that they considered offensive. I'm not sure how instituting an official national language (even if fluency in it is required for residency) is an attempt to make it a crime to offend someone.
Can you give me an example where religious fundies(non-Muslim) attempted to limit free speech in the same vein as the Taliban? You do understand that the left in the US has actually instituted limits on speech in areas where they have institutional control.

What does insulting Islam accomplish?

[elucido]

If a newspaper in Denmark, a prominently non-muslim country, can't do the same without being subjected with worldwide cannon fire from muslim authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), what are the chances that a website in a muslim country would fare any better?

Is the war on Islam? Are we having a crusade? If it's not a crusade against Islam then what does the USA, Denmark or any country gain by attacking Islam?

I'm all for attacking the terrorists who are considered to be enemies of the USA, of Denmark and of the western world in general. But to attack Islam isn't going to accomplish anything materially that I can see.

What do we gain militarily, politically, diplomatically? Until somebody can outline exactly what we gain by doing it there is no justification or scientific evidence to prove it's a rational strategy.

Re:What does insulting Islam accomplish?

[Jawnn]

If I draw a picture of Mohamed blowing a 12-year-old, then I am arguably "insulting" Islam. An "attack" it most certainly is not.

If I draw any picture of The Prophet, just to make the point that I do not share the belief that a picture, any picture, is somehow sinful, how is it that I "insult" Islam? To me, a picture of Mohamed is nothing special. I can draw him if I want and anyone who wants me not to can piss up a rope.

I'll say it again, I am not bound by your religious strictures. You chose to be, and that's fine, but stop busting my balls about it already. That is not "attacking" Islam. It is attacking the unreasonable expectation that others live according to your religious rules.

What does this accomplish? Answer these questions.

[elucido]

What do we gain 1. militarily, 2. politically, 3. diplomatically? Until somebody can outline exactly what we gain by drawing pictures of Muhammad there is no justification or scientific evidence to prove it's a rational tactic.

I don't see anything being gained by this. It pisses off the Muslim world, it has unintended consequences, if it's a type of psychological warfare it could actually have counter productive effects.

Are you people really thinking about what the consequences of this may be outside of "We are better, our culture is better, our God is bigger" type talk?

Pakistan is exploiting tensions.

[elucido]

The tensions that these kinds of drawings create will be exploited by Pakistan. They only did the ban as a way to bring attention to the drawings which most Muslims probably didn't even know existed until this became big news. Pakistan's extremists in government know that they can use Islam as a weapon against the west. I think the west is using the wrong tactic by attacking Islam. By attacking the entire religion they only strengthen the weapon welded by Pakistan.

The best possible solution in my opinion is if the USA and other countries embrace a form of Islam which promotes freedom of speech and human rights. I don't think this particular issue is the way to build the kind of support which needs to be built.

I agree but it takes more than speaking out.

[elucido]

Not to volunteer you for anything, but your demographic (passive, reasonable Muslim) is exactly who we need to speak out against this nonsense. I believe what you're saying is true, but based on 95% of media coverage, it would be easy to mistake the minority for the majority.

Yes it's important that freedom loving Muslims speak out. I don't think it's right to call them "passive" because we don't want them to be "passive." How are they going to be a freedom fighter if they don't take risks?

What we should be doing is building bigger, stronger, more integrated networks with Muslims. How many Muslim friends do you have? It's only when we integrate Muslims into society on some level that we can have these Muslims speak out.

I'm from the USA, most of the Muslims I know are not fundamentalists. In fact I've never met a fundamentalist Muslim in my life. I've met more fundamentalist Christians in this country. The situation in Europe is very different because Muslims are not being integrated. This is only solved by the slow process of integration, inter-marrying, which can take decades.

It requires an open minded approach because you cannot come with arrogance that you are better than them because this automatically creates a distance between you and them. You have to find what you have in common with the Muslim world and bridge the gap using the internet. There are reasonable people and some of these reasonable people are Muslim. Speak with reason to these people, build rapport, and they will see that human rights is beneficial to the entire world and all humans including Muslim humans.

And then it's a matter of dealing with the groups and individuals who don't believe in human rights. There are a lot of these individuals and they aren't all Muslim. We have to see it as the human rights defenders against the human rights abusers. Not see it as Islam vs the west.

This is why

[elucido]

It's not a good idea to blame Islam, or blame Muslims as a group, and call Islam a primitive religion. Some of the posts on this blog have been just plain stupid and wrong.

There is nothing to be gained by name calling and ridicule in my opinion.

It's a matter of trust and respect.

[elucido]

The USA and the western nations have to trust moderate Muslims.

When I see posts on blogs saying Islam is inferior to Christianity, and that all the problems and terrorism in the world is coming from Islam, this shows me that a lot of people in western society hate Islam and don't seem to be focused on the prime objectives.

And its true that the moderate Muslims hold the key. This is why the west should promote moderate Islam on facebook. Drawing cartoons of the prophet is attacking Islam as a whole and serves no purpose and in my opinion its not promoting moderate Islam. It does not help integrate Islam into western culture.

Re:Another point of view

[SanityInAnarchy]

I find it funny that people keep saying this:

If you watch only Fox news, or don't really watch international news,

I don't watch Fox "news", but you're right, I don't really watch the international news, either.

...Now further imagine someone publishes a blasphemous anti-christian video, say of jesus partaking in a rape or killing of muslim children that implies all christians are a violent threat, just the excuse used to invade Mexico.

Ok, I'm imagining...

So a mob of angry Texans...

Could happen. It's Texas.

Now picture local christian priests showing up to stop the protests and put their lives at risk by confronting an angry mob. Would it happen? I'd like to think so, but I'm by no means certain it would.

Priests? I'd think pastors, but I see your point. Of course, something similar happened in China recently...

Radicals are radicals and your assumption that most muslims want to impose their religion on others is simply that, your assumption.

Based on personal experience, speaking with intelligent Muslims who see that as the end goal. They don't want to impose their religion in that they don't want to violently overthrow anyone, but they do want to (eventually, through a peaceful, political process) institute Sharia law.

I was surprised. It's not as though I had some preconception here -- in fact, I went into the conversation expecting them to tell me that Sharia was not what Islam is about at all, just as Christian apologists will tell me that the Law of Moses isn't meant to be followed anymore. These were thoroughly Western, highly intelligent people. And they tried to justify Sharia's prescription of the death penalty for apostates.

There are quite a few moderate and progressive muslims.

I've seen very few, and those I've gotten into religious discussions with, again, have shown me what "moderate" means, as I said above.

Now, I don't mean to say that there were none at all -- This guy had an appropriate response, I thought.

There are also a lot of radical christians in the US these days.

No disagreement there.

Heck, you can't even publish nudity or sex on regular TV because of their religiously based censorship.

Define "regular" TV -- the Playboy Channel exists, among others. There's nothing stopping you from creating your own broadcast network, particularly one over the Internet, and distributing whatever you wish.

I'd also question whether it's entirely religiously based. Much of it is, but it sees to be more about the "think of the children" mantra, something which has the feel of a religion, but isn't particularly Christian.

It's not like christians have the high ground of tolerance and freedom of expression to pontificate from.

Good thing I'm not Christian, then, as if the "high ground" matters (ad-hominem, appeal to authority...)

You don't know that.

[elucido]

While it's not going to change the policies over night, moderate Islam will over a period of decades become a major influence in many Muslim nations until eventually it's the dominant form.

Iran is not Pakistan. Iran is difficult to deal with for many reasons and it has nothing to do with religion.

That is BS.

[elucido]

Anyone who is risking their lives to defend freedom has courage and conviction. You assume that moderate Muslims cannot join the military and fight against the terrorists? Or that their lives aren't at risk for speaking out?

Moderate Muslims need support.

[elucido]

How many of you are willing to provide it? The extremist insane Muslims are receiving training and financial support from Pakistan. Unless Moderate Muslims receive the same kind of support what can you expect?

Re:Score

[oddfox]

I was unaware of anyone who wanted there to be a law against the Piss Christ. I know that a lot of people protested that their tax dollars were used to fund "art" that they considered offensive. I'm not sure how instituting an official national language (even if fluency in it is required for residency) is an attempt to make it a crime to offend someone.

Do you really expect the media outlets to go out of their way to find the people who would support such a ban? I don't have an article to link to where someone flat-out states that art or depictions like Piss Christ should be banned, but you are fooling yourself if you honestly don't think that there were fundies who wanted it banned.

As for the official national language, how does it not come down to the supporters being offended that any other language is considered equal to English in the USA? Supporters are offended that some people place more cultural value on where they are from (Russia, Ukraine, Middle East, Mexico, Spain, I could go on and on) and they would rather force these people to assimilate by legislating that English is the language one must speak in this country.

Can you give me an example where religious fundies(non-Muslim) attempted to limit free speech in the same vein as the Taliban? You do understand that the left in the US has actually instituted limits on speech in areas where they have institutional control.

I just gave multiple examples that you attempted to deflect as irrelevant because you were unable to discern the connections. Let's see then, if you want a solid concrete example of religious fundies attempting to impose their will how about looking at the groups that support the murdering of abortion doctors? I believe it was Richard Dawkins who interviewed a friend of the murderer of Dr. Tiller, and that man is certainly not alone in thinking that Biblical law is above the government. There are plenty of people who feel this way, and just because they aren't plastered over the media day in and day out doesn't mean they don't exist and feel the way they do.

Furthermore, I am well aware of the disgusting practice of creating 'free speech zones' and I am also well aware that they are utilized by both the Left and Right in this country, while you are content to act like only the Left does it. Disingenuous much? Both sides are dirty in this regard, stop pretending the Left is the only side with idiots who support 'free speech zones'.

Are you willing to support moderate Islam?

[elucido]

Unless you are willing to financially and materially support this behavior you should not call for it. It's not going to be free to train the moderate Muslims to do what you expect them to be able to do. It's not going to be easy for them to do it without support going up against highly trained terrorist cells.

Think about what you are asking them to do. And then plan how you would help them do it.

Re:Are you willing to support moderate Islam?

[couchslug]

They either have the same courage of their faith as those they oppose, or they are cowards not worth helping.

It is perfectly fair to judge people by the standards of their own professed faith. The Taliban and the 9/11 bombers may be the only Muslims with courage, however misused.

Same shit different excuse

[rainmouse]

I have trouble grasping the hatred I see here for differing cultures. Too much of it smacks of hypocrisy. Were OK with our western governments carpet bombing poor nations infrastructure into the stoneage so we can seize their valuable natural resources but heaven forbid a foreign agency censors their search engines. We whine and cry when the businesses that invite us to use their online services free of charge, get uncomfortable when we trumpet our right of freedom to offend, er of speech.

The UK went to war in Iraq and contributed towards the estimated total 665 thousand deaths since the 2003 conflict began, based largely upon a war dossier that has been proven to be a complete fabrication. In America they still don't know who murdered their president 47 years ago and despite the fact an alleged 80% of Americans seem to think the official line was bullshit, there doesn't seem to have been any reliable inquests.

Sure the majority of us in the west don't throwing around death threats because someone drew cartoons but we are still very happy to murder someone because of their sexuality, dress sense or because of what football team they support.

I know its a difficult concept to grasp, but how about we shovel the shit out of our own gardens before we roll the bulldozers over other peoples.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

Re:Score

[Attila Dimedici]

Supporters of a national language generally do so because of the expense of having ballots printed in multiple languages (A county near where I live was required by the courts to publish their ballots in something like 80 languages, most of which had at most one speaker in the county in question), there are also other issues similar to this that are connected to the effort to establish English as the national language of the US. While it is possible that many of the people who support making English the official language of the US do so because they are offended by other languages being considered equal to English, they find it necessary to come up with another reason to justify the course of action they wish taken, even when speaking to those who are part of or sympathetic to their movement.
You give examples that you assert are examples of the right wanting to make it illegal to offend them, but you fail to demonstrate that is the actual motivation of those pushing for the position you are using as your example. If you wish I will give examples of those on the left taking positions calling for making offending them illegal.

Re:Another point of view

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Radicals are radicals and your assumption that most muslims want to impose their religion on others is simply that, your assumption.

Based on personal experience, speaking with intelligent Muslims who see that as the end goal.

Which is hardly a scientific way to form an opinion. From my personal discussions with christians and muslims, I see little difference. Many of both would like their religious beliefs to be enacted as law. The more educated among them tend to prefer a separation of church and state that allows more personal leeway in religious interpretation without government interference.

I was surprised. It's not as though I had some preconception here...

But you are inferring a general trend from a small set of experiences with a few individuals.

There are quite a few moderate and progressive muslims.

I've seen very few, and those I've gotten into religious discussions with, again, have shown me what "moderate" means, as I said above.

Moderate means you place your own life at risk to defend the freedom of other's who don't share your religion, ala the clerics I mention. Moderate means you value individual freedom to decide. It's the same as with Christians. I could say moderate christians or moderate atheists have beliefs that are anti-freedom, but I'm not willing to make that assertion any more than I do with muslims, because I don't see it or have evidence to support it.

Define "regular" TV...

Primetime broadcast TV, you know where it is illegal via FCC sanction.

There's nothing stopping you from creating your own broadcast network...

The FCC stops me from broadcasting it over the air.

I'd also question whether it's entirely religiously based. Much of it is, but it sees to be more about the "think of the children" mantra, something which has the feel of a religion, but isn't particularly Christian.

I'd say it is absolutely based in christianity. There's no scientific evidence to support the belief that nakedness harms children. It's just an idea leftover from christian mythology.

It's not like christians have the high ground of tolerance and freedom of expression to pontificate from.

Good thing I'm not Christian, then, as if the "high ground" matters (ad-hominem, appeal to authority...)

This is neither of the logical fallacies you mention. It's contrasting the different religions as demonstrative of the lack of difference and the fallacy of singling out muslims in this or claiming that "moderate" muslims are any less moderate than "moderate" christians.

Re:Another point of view

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Muslims are far more afraid of sexuality than westerners. They cant even look at a women without spazzing out. They kill homosexuals.

We are more evolved culturally than them. Its just a fact.

I never said we were perfect though. Far from it. We are ass backwards as they are... but we're a little less ass backwards :) Hell a lot less.

Evolution is a slow process. I never said we were perfect. I just think we're better.

Re:Another point of view

[snowgirl]

I was going to comment that there aren't really any irrationally radical Jews out there causing trouble in the world...

But then I realized that Israel has been doing some pretty antagonistic stuff... pretty much just to be antagonistic.

Re:Another point of view

[snowgirl]

I have to say that I like your opinion as stated here.

I think Facebook should have just kept it up and been all, "Hey... the internet is fully of fuckwad assholes... we can only be sorry so much."

And let the block stand. If a whole country chooses to ignore you, then meh... you can't put safety-padding on the internet.

Re:I have deactivating my facebook account in resp

[snowgirl]

I have deactivating my facebook account in respons[e]

Try to do it together with a large group of friends. Try to find a decent alternative they can all move to together. If you don't do that then you may eventually find yourself moving back just because your friends are still in Facebook and you feel you need it.

I actually started a Facebook group to organize with my friends to get off of Facebook in protest.

We have 500,000 members already!

Re:Another point of view

[SanityInAnarchy]

Many of both would like their religious beliefs to be enacted as law.

Maybe I'm just not looking, but how many Christians would like to see those laws include a death penalty for rejecting your religion?

But you are inferring a general trend from a small set of experiences with a few individuals.

Something I often see reinforced, but maybe I'm not being fair.

There's nothing stopping you from creating your own broadcast network...

The FCC stops me from broadcasting it over the air.

That's true, and it's something I disagree with. It's also something rapidly becoming less relevant.

I'd say it is absolutely based in christianity. There's no scientific evidence...

No scientific evidence doesn't automatically imply Christianity, or any overtly religious motive. In particular:

It's just an idea leftover from christian mythology.

Show me where this exists in actual scripture?

No, I see this as being leftover from the Puritans, who added their own interpretation on top of their religion, and also from the Victorians, who had a large number of weird ideas about politeness and high society which simply aren't reflected in any religion I can think of.

Re:Score

[oddfox]

We shouldn't need to give examples of wingnuts claiming we need censorship for particular things, it should be common knowledge that wingnuts on both sides are fond of calling for censorship of opposing viewpoints. The Left does this, the Right does this, everyones shit stinks figuratively speaking. Censoring books in libraries that deal with homosexuality to any degree (except in a negative light) is something that the Right is guilty of. Being the first to implement what has become known as 'free speech zones' is something the Left (if you really want to insist that the Left is represented by the DNC, which I will accept for the purposes of this discussion but don't necessarily agree with) is guilty of. Insisting that one religion be propped up at the expense of another on public grounds (The courthouse 10 commandments case, Alabama I believe) is something the Right is guilty of.

I am not saying the Left doesn't mess up, and I'm not saying the Right are the ones always messing up. I am just pointing out what should be obvious to everyone but partisans, that neither side can claim to be on a pedestal of anti-censorship and pro-free-thought. If you want to start slamming the Left for censoring opposing viewpoints, you are being disingenuous if you refuse to acknowledge that the Right is guilty as well, just for different reasons. Certainly we can agree on the point that both sides of the political spectrum are populated largely by average Joe Sixpacks who make mistakes in judgement on a wide variety of issues, including what should and shouldn't be censored or banned?

P.S. -- I really don't agree at all with the logic that it costs so much more to have ballots printed in multiple languages when we are and should be moving to make it as electronic as possible, while at the same time ensuring as well as we can the integrity of elections. I will however grant you that some people legitimately feel that this is a good reason to mandate a national language, even if I think it's a futile solution in search of a problem. (How much does it really cost anyways to provide these few printings in different languages, seeing as how it would be rather daft to print equal amounts of each language knowing that demand is not equal? A drop of water in a well I am sure)

Two Faced

[darkonc]

On one hand, Facebook has been famous for banning pictures of breast feeding as 'offensive' (while having no problems with burlesque dancers in pasties).
On the other hand, they stood behind the 'Draw Mohammed Day' page as "a free speech issue" despite the fact that the page was designed to be incredibly offensive to one of the world's majour religions

I was actually thinking of starting a "Jesus and Mary Making Out" image contest, to see how Facebook would react to that. My guess is that they would have banned my page as offensive, even while they were defending the Mohammed day contest as free speech -- despite the fact that the Jesus with Mary images (I'm talking about Mary Magdalene here, not his mother) would be much less offensive to Christians than the Mohammed images are to Muslims.

(( One interesting thing about images of Mohammed in Islam is that the rule against having pictures of Mohammed was to prevent the man from being revered -- as opposed to the teachings he wrote in the Koran. Unfortunately, the rule against pictures has now, itself, become a way of revering him. .. ah, silly humans. ))

All religions are wrong.

[elucido]

And many wrong religions contain some of the right solutions.

But in the end science should trump religion. The response I'm seeing on this blog is not based on science. If it were based on consequentialism and utilitarianism then the mission objectives should be stated and the role of drawing annoying cartoons and ridicule should be known. When the role or purpose of an act cannot be quantified and is not known, there is no way to understand how the act furthers the mission objectives.

If we want to promote freedom I don't see how drawing a cartoon which annoys the majority of the Muslim world is the way to do it. A comedy routine would probably be a better way to do it where you directly ridicule the terrorists and suicide bomber through comic books and standup, but attacking the religion just doesn't seem tactically right.

Islam is in my opinion a more advanced religion than Christianity in that it's a lot more scientific and accepts more of the laws of nature. I do not think everything about Islam is bad and I don't think Islam should be treated as inferior to Christianity. I think fundamentalism is wrong and must be confronted by the scientifically inclined religious community.

I will go on record and admit that I believe in Allah, in God, in a creative force of the universe. But I know that the laws of nature govern reality, and that only science can determine the rightness or wrongness of an action just as only a ruler can measure. We have to measure the tactical rightness of the Muhammad cartoons, as I believe that these sorts of cartoons are tactically wrong because it provokes lunatics to act.

If the goal is to diminish Nazism for example we wouldn't adopt the tactic of making fun of Hitler on websites would we? I mean thats going to just cause the website owners to receive death threats.

Re:Score

[icebraining]

I'm European, you insensitive clod. More specifically, Portuguese.

And our cartoonists publish cartoons like this and this in respectable, high profile newspapers.

Why assume they don't?

[elucido]

You can't win a war on protest alone. It's you calling them cowards so like I said would you be willing to pay the higher taxes for the witness protection program, or to hire more anti terrorism cops, or to let them serve in the military?

I don't know why you instinctively assume they are cowards.

Freedom of speech NOT

[FragHARD]

So now the people of the U.S. listen to mohamed for their marching orders.

If you disagree with this move....

[trawg]

....remember first that Facebook is a company, beholden to its shareholders.

If you think that this was a douche move and want to send a message that this sort of thing shouldn't be done, then the best way to do it is to send a message in terms they'll understand - stop using your Facebook account.

I suspect most people wouldn't bother because the usefulness of Facebook as a tool to them certainly outweighs the occasional douche thing they do - shit, if they are prepared to sell your privacy to the highest bidder and people still don't bat an eye, I can't see why they'd care about this.

Re:I have deactivating my facebook account in resp

[initialE]

IMO deleting your facebook account causes no administrative pain to facebook. Here's what you can do - for every photo of a face that is already in your account, tag it "Mohammed". Now facebook is forced to hunt you down and delete you. And you can bet they will do a better job of removing your particulars than you can.

And

[mahadiga]

Quran condemns & criticizes Jews (20 times) and Christians (14 times).
http://al-quran.info/

Doesn't it mean Jews & Christians have right to ban Quran?

Want a wager?

[GoochOwnsYou]

A spokesman for Pakistan's office of information technology said Facebook assured the government 'nothing of this sort will happen in the future

I wouldnt count on that buddy. People dont like being censored, trust me there will be reprisals of this.

wow

[cavebison]

Whole lot of heated discussion.

Personal opinion, but I think the reason people are getting upset about all this is the awareness that the popularised Islamic reaction to this is to *be violent*. That worries the rest of us to the extent we are kicking back.

If all that "Jihad" talk in the past, the death threats etc. weren't evident, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. I don't think people would be *bothered* roasting Mohammed, we have better things to do. No matter what your culture, you'll tend to make fun of / criticise things you think are stupid or outrageous.

We make fun of everyone. Jews, Christians, Scientologists.. the latter get a special dose of ridicule because we hear about broken families, brainwashing, etc. (I guess by that standard it's definitely a religion).

So I say to Muslims everywhere, if you *want respect* then look to your own house. Same goes for the Catholic Church, as is very obvious now (as if it ever wasn't). Respect is *earned*, it can't be assumed and certainly not demanded. I think that's basic human nature, don't you?

Re:Another point of view

[tbannist]

Many of both would like their religious beliefs to be enacted as law.

Maybe I'm just not looking, but how many Christians would like to see those laws include a death penalty for rejecting your religion?

You have to build up to that. First you have establish a theocracy, then you establish laws to favor the state religion, then when pragmatism has forced most of the moderates, then you start demonizing anyone who's not part of the state religion, then you slip in the laws where it's treasonous to not worship the state religion.

You can't go directly from secular state to murdering anyone who doesn't share your religion without getting yourself killed. It's like the frog in the boiling water, you have ease the majority of the country into their new unreasoning hatred.

I hear Fox News is working on the problem already.

we can begin defunding the radical wahhabis

[circletimessquare]

by stop buying oil from the middle east

electric cars, nuclear power: the most effective way to promote peace in the middle east

i am an american

[circletimessquare]

i am responsible for the policies of my country

meanwhile, a pakistani is responsible for his country, and a turk for there's

moron: what exactly is racist about what i said?

My take on Islam

[BigBadBus]

...is here

FB in the Vatican

[jDeepbeep]

It seems unlikely

Corporate morale

[skeffstone]

I believe freedom of speech is good morale, even by objective scientific terms, because it reflects that each person on this planet are perfectly equal. If brought up with an ideal set of equal oppurtunities to food, education and the expression of their utility; be it building a park, harvesting oil, producing art, solving conflicts etc, any "clean slate" baby taken from any mother on this planet would have no less place in society than the next k+1 member. It is utopia, but an approachable one. Some nations are closer to it than others. Some nations "do it wrong" by muddling the right of the individual with mechanisms that allow the individual right to not create conditions conducive to the right of the individual, even while accepting to live in the same society. Maybe the world should have one anarchist geographical area, ratified by all the nations of the world, as Anarchia, where everyone not happy with having leaders, can go and live their lives in total freedom. We like to think that facebook is the real world. But it's not. It's a company that shares what we publish with the people we choose. It's not a society where you need proper morale or ethics to create a place where the individual has the right to say or become what it wants. They make money through advertisement. They have no morale to look after except the profit of their investors. They are protecting their employees by making sure they make money, even in Pakistan. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a closed circuit. You don't need facebook to protect the right of the individual in the real world. Yet. Maybe some time in the future nations will recognize facebook or something similar as a public space which everyone has the right to have access to, and therefore must include freedom of speech. But it definitely doesn't have to be that way now. We're living in a really cool time where The Network is something we will depend on much more when the capacity of transport diminishes while oil and gas reserves deplete. Maybe our world will slow down its pace soon, we've had a really good half a century at rapid speeds, but it's probably not sustainable. Thank god we developed The Network. It's the single most important invention to the coming centuries.

picture of mohammed

[jDeepbeep]

I will do it.

@:-)

*looks over shoulder nervously*

Human rights

[elucido]

Rule utilitarianism requires a utility function. There is no way to show that the utility function is the 'best' one. For example a rule utilitarianist who believes the function we should maximize is human genetic superiority (above all other concerns) would be a very nasty piece of work.

I do think that ethics that are tested constantly (and the bad ones rejected) are superior to those that don't, but ultimately the current major problem is when ethics are based on something other than empathy (or perhaps the prevention of harm).

I will admit there is no best of all time utility function in rule utilitarianism. But the best utility function which the greatest number of people and nations agree upon is the promotion and creation of human rights. So we can say that ending slavery, torture and genocide are utility functions/rules.

Ethics need not be based on any emotion. Empathy is an emotion. Reduction is harm is not the same thing as empathy. Many slave owners had empathy but did not see owning slaves as fundamentally wrong. Empathy is not always expressed in the right way, and because its an emotion it can be manipulated by dictators and individuals who have the reasoning ability to understand that its just an emotion.

I think right and wrong depends entirely on the situation the individual finds themselves in. The goal of an individual is to get out of the situation intact. To survive the game an individual has to figure out what the best options are at any given moment.

The reason to have rules as a utilitarian is because, at least for me, I understand that I'm not always going to be able to have the ability to see the best option from my individual position on the chess board. I'm not going to always know if a specific action will have unintended consequences, and by following rules which have worked in the past it also allows me to make quick yet accurate decisions. It's the same reason we have functions and formulas when doing math.

Torture is wrong 99% of the time. Slavery is wrong 99% of the time. So it's easy to say as a rule these activities are wrong. Why are they wrong? Because there aren't really any pros that justify torture but there are many cons. There aren't many pros that justify slavery but there are many harms. These harms to many individuals and many families results in an increased level of risk for the individual who commits these acts.

So on a consequential basis alone these activities are wrong.On the other hand consequentialism leads to conclusions about right and wrong activity that a lot of empaths disagree with because sometimes the correct conclusion or solution is counter-intuitive to emotional instinct. So it's not wise to put faith in emotion, but to keep faith in reason when dealing with mission critical situations.

It's about their emotions not yours.

[elucido]

If I draw a picture of Mohamed blowing a 12-year-old, then I am arguably "insulting" Islam. An "attack" it most certainly is not.

If I draw any picture of The Prophet, just to make the point that I do not share the belief that a picture, any picture, is somehow sinful, how is it that I "insult" Islam? To me, a picture of Mohamed is nothing special. I can draw him if I want and anyone who wants me not to can piss up a rope.

I'll say it again, I am not bound by your religious strictures. You chose to be, and that's fine, but stop busting my balls about it already. That is not "attacking" Islam. It is attacking the unreasonable expectation that others live according to your religious rules.

To you it's no big deal. To you it's nothing. To them it's a huge deal and they are emotionally affected by it. It doesn't even matter why, the fact is it triggers something in their brain that causes them to behave in ways which are unpredictable at best and violent at worst.

This is no different than if someone decided to post cartoons of child pornography all over Facebook to see how Americans would react. It wouldn't be difficult to predict that Americans would not only ask for those pictures to be taken down but they'd want the artists head, meaning they'd want the artist to get 10 years in prison for production and distribution of lewd child porn cartoons.

So tell me why is it okay to poke fun at the taboos of Muslims but it's not okay to poke fun at the taboos of Americans? If it's wrong to draw cartoon child porn, it must be equally wrong to draw a cartoon of Muhammad for the same rational and technical reasons. These sorts of drawings upset millions of people and cause millions of people to go on witch hunts and this neurological reaction in their brains has nothing to do with the religion they follow and has more to do with how their brains are physically.

Their brains cause them to react violently to the exposure to certain images. There is probably a neurological basis behind this reaction. Religion might have some influence but it doesn't explain the violent and irrational reaction people have to taboo subjects and images.

Re:Another point of view

[berbo]

But if you follow that slippery slope, you'll end up with NOTHING on FB. And isn't that something we can all agree on?

Re:Christianity is known for it's murderous past.

[shutdown -p now]

And what practical implications does it have?

Re:Score

[Heather D]

This is true, and it is, in fact, a significant part of what drove people away from the left in the 70's and 80's. Tolerance is fine and good but tolerating people who view tolerance as weakness to be exploited in any and all ways available is unwise.

Re:Score

[Heather D]

They come from both sides, in my experience. They just tend to focus on different targets in the early stages. True leftists do in fact defend civil liberties as do true conservatives, unfortunately it's quite likely they both may be a minority in their own movements.

Re:Another point of view

[SanityInAnarchy]

Maybe I'm just not looking, but how many Christians would like to see those laws include a death penalty for rejecting your religion?

You have to build up to that.

I'm well aware. As are the upper-middle-class American Muslims I've spoken to who would ilke to see Sharia happen here. They acknowledge that it's their goal, and they also acknowledge that it'll take awhile to build up to that.

I hear Fox News is working on the problem already.

So maybe the difference is that the Muslims are honest about it... Still, I wonder how many of them consciously realize that they're moving in that direction. How many people today, even at Fox, would go out killing gays just because it's legal?

I know I've seen a clip with a Fox anchor in a shouting match with someone from the Westboro Baptist Church. Apparently, Fox doesn't think gays should marry, but they draw the line at saying God hates them.

Re:Another point of view

[tbannist]

I hear Fox News is working on the problem already.

Still, I wonder how many of them consciously realize that they're moving in that direction. How many people today, even at Fox, would go out killing gays just because it's legal?

I seriously doubt most of the people at Fox News even understand that's the direction they're headed in. As far as I understand, Fox News is nothing more than crass commercial opportunism. I doubt Murdoch supports the views of Fox News very much, except so far as they rake in money for him.

The problem there is that telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear can easily be a recipe for disaster. Fox News' primary goal is to simply to draw attention and their secondary goal is to make people angry so that they can hold on to that attention. That's a powder keg situation and we're already seeing some early results of that dangerous and volatile mixture.

So, while I seriously doubt most of the people at Fox News want to see anyone dead, I also think they perfectly willing to generate the circumstances where people will die. When it happens, they will be genuinely horrified by it and will blame it on derangement or mental illness, all the while remaining completely oblivious to the role that they play in both instigating and encouraging it.

In the end, Fox News is in the business of generating rage, and where there's rage, violence is sure to follow.

It depends no context.

[elucido]

It's not that it's bad to have a chain of command. It's bad to have a chain of command that doesn't make decisions based on reason.

Fundamentalism artificially chokes out reasoning because usually they follow one book, or one set of rules which cannot be altered for any reason in any situation. The costs and benefits must always be weighed.

why not draw a beheaded US Army/Reporter/911 perso

[shenglongx]

why not draw a beheaded US Army/Reporter/911 person day group ??? im sorry i must have confused freedom of speech as an excuse to be a hating bigot with a twist of double standards?

Hi,

[Bayut]

Well, That was a good and timely decision by Pakistani Govt. and that is the only step taken by Govt. which I completely agree with. Heads to Pakistan and down with Facebook.