Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
way to cave face book. please move your hq to islamabad.
I'm turning my face into a caricature of the Prophet.
which is totally what she said
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.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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!
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
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.
When in hell, pray for rain
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.
SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH
Still, I'm sure that successful troll was quite successful.
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?
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.
Not even something like this? and that's just with a 10 second search.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
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.
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.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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!
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)."
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.
I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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).
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Facebook is a company, not the government. So whatever the constitution says about free speech is irrelevant.
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.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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.
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?
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.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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.
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.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
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.
Trolling is a art,
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.
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!
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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."
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.
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.
Dilbert RSS feed
...from search.
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?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -Douglas Adams, THHGTTG
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.
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.
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.
Put identity in the browser.
Stop trying to say Left-leaning people support this religious bullshit. I certainly don't.
Blar.
There is a long history of similar behavior among Jews and Christians as well.
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!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
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.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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."
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
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.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
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/
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.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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...
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...
You were doing fine up until this:
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.
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?"
... that's not true communism".
... possibly death.
His reply was "Oh no
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
You can try to claim that the problem is just a few "crazies" but that's false. The "crazies" are Islam.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
This sentence no verb.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.