Slashdot Mirror
UK Pressures the US To Takedown Extremist Videos
chrb writes "BBC News and the Telegraph are reporting that the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos, particularly on YouTube. The request follows the conviction of a 21-year-old woman who attempted to murder MP Stephen Timms after watching YouTube videos of radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube hosts more than 5,000 videos featuring al-Awlaki, but has begun to remove them following the British government's complaints. The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK. They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good. If they were hosted in the UK then we would take them down but this is a global problem. Many of these websites are hosted in America and we look forward to working even more closely with you to take down this hateful material.'"
So they're already stopping the 24x7 broadcast of extremist videos.
This will be a nonstarter. The US government isn't going to start attacking "hate websites" or otherwise poop on the first amendment. Companies like Youtube will certainly comply with the British government. Net result: such content won't be on the most popular avenues of the net, but it'll still be out there for those who are "interested" in such things. So you and I won't be able to browse to it on google video, but it'll be hosted on, I dunno, hatetube or something.
We are not the UK anymore.
that it's alright for elected officials to protect their positions from being challenged through democratic processes like anything on the internet/media to "protect the social good"?
maybe I'm just a little crazy, but that screams of a corrupt government to me.
If the enemy is willing to tell you their plans, pay attention.
We have freedom of speech. The UK is just going to have to deal with it.
Odd, I'm British and I haven't noticed any government cameras in my house. Or on the road outside it for that matter. Maybe they're just very well hidden.
How it works in the US is,
You find someone with deep pockets associated with the video and sue the hell out of them. Repeat until everyone takes down the video/article/link.
The government can't suppress speech but businesses do it all the time.
I'm sure it's legal free speech. And who ever uploaded it could probably be fined for something. And You Tube could definitely be sued for hosting it after it was a known danger (probably before). Might not win, but they would likely fold under mild pressure for something repugnant like this.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Can someone show me a specific example of where he incites violence in his videos?
William Firewallace, as played by Mel Gibson, shouting, "FIREWALL!"
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Unlike the Taliban (freedom is a sin as it's an act of hubris and afront to Allah's will), the British Gov doesn't hate freedom. They fear it!!! Their actions and the laws in place make that notion crystal clear.
Life is not for the lazy.
We are not keeping the "evil out", we are keeping the "stupid in" firewall.
YouTube will instantly pull the video and once it is reuploaded do it again.
Not one to cast stones, but I'd say the US gov fears freedom too.
Life is not for the lazy.
The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK.'
Those websites would categorically not be allowed in China, either. UK government, please don't look to China for legal inspiration.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
The First Amendment issues are obvious here, but I have to say, we relegare ourselves to a pack of dumb animals if we make the point that watching something or reading something or playing violent video games means we're going to freak out and imitate or otherwise follow the directions of anything contained within.
We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.
The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.
The United States needs to ignore the UK's demand, and the UK, if it insists, can certainly petition google to take action on this.
But unless we rely on the idea that free people in a free society can think critically, why not just invite the government into our lives completely? Why even have a free society, if we're really just animals, a few videos away from going on some kind of horrible killing spree? Why go through the pretense of insisting that human beings are capable, through independent thought and taking responsibility for their actions, of liberty?
The "categorically not allowed in the UK" bit could not, as an American, concern me less -- and should the United States attempt the same kind of argument with the UK in the future, the UK can and should ignore the United States's demands to infringe the right of people to say and read/watch what they like.
The alternative, where the government makes this decision that there's just stuff we can't watch, is scary.
US law is already subordinate to other foreign laws (ever see the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981?). So, why shouldn't the US just kowtow to the UK, or any other government?
What I want to know is: when is the Constitution brand toilet paper coming on the market?
Actually, it's the British who should dump a bunch of Youtube videos into the Thames. This time, they're the ones being forced to consume stuff they don't want by an overbearing empire. ^_^
If the UK doesn't want it, they can put up a firewall. Like China.
The UK, Australia. Lets call it the Commonwealth firewall:- Keeping the convicts in check since 1984.
Are you claiming somebody is forcing British citizens to watch videos of 'extremists'
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I don't know if I'm just not watching enough Fox, but I don't see many reports about domestic Islamic extremists in the US, yet I see stories about the KKK and neo-Nazis all the time. I wonder if the news networks don't report on these guys because they are afraid of them and not the white supremacists?
David Cameron (UK prime minister) has let all the rhetoric go to his head. He actually believes it when the US politicians pat him on the head and tell him that the UK and USA do indeed have a special relationship. Wake up, any balance of power between the USA and UK finished sometime before World War 2, over 70 years ago. The "special relationship" deal is that the USA expects the UK to give their requests special treatment (collude in "special renditions", help out on a war, that kind of thing), but don't expect anything in return beyond maybe the occasional tour of the White House and a signed photo from the president.
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.
But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.
And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing the crap out of their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.
Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.
Removing these videos is definitely a violation of the first amendment and the material would still be available to those seeking it. I do not support the terrorists in any way, but the US or UK government forcing YouTube to remove these videos is the wrong approach. The first amendment has to be a sacred right or we will lose it. It is a slippery slope from banning terrorist videos to banning anti-government videos and then any video the government find inconvenient. There are other ways to address terrorism and murders have happened for 100s of years, with or without these videos. Shame on the Brits for even suggesting it! Governments should not concern themselves with the contents of YouTube or any other site unless a chargeable crime has already been committed.
Urges you mean, article title is a troll
It's a widespread misbelief that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They don't. They hate us for *political* reasons. Using them against the Russians, invading their countries and so on.
the 1st amendment says we can't do that!
That may be so, but the British govt are less likely to hijack a plane and fly it into a landmark.
Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
I don't know where you got this idea, but you're dead wrong. The US has given the UK the single greatest gift we can bestow on a nation, simply because we like them so much. That's right, we've sent them real American football! And yet you say they don't get anything from our special relationship, open your eyes man.
Internet Watch Foundation?
You're an immobile computer, remember?
All governments have a love-hate relationship with freedom. Human livestock is more productive the more freedom you give it, but at the same time with more freedom comes more recognition that the farmers aren't necessary.
Ideally governments want to give their livestock just enough freedom to maximize profits and no more.
People all over the US & the UK criticized Muslims for wanting to silence van Gogh's anti-Islam propaganda film.
But when some Muslim cleric makes propaganda films (presumably about the UK government,) the UK government lashes out and wants the Muslim cleric(s) silenced.
And don't even say, "Well, the difference is that someone, motivated by the Youtube videos, attempted to commit murder." We've been bombing their countries for decades now and have murdered millions. That argument is a thousand times stronger for them against us than it is for us against them.
Don't get me wrong, Muslim cultures are not free of problems -- I am not trying to defend Muslim countries here, but rather point out that the same flaws we scold others for having, we have ourselves. The rhetoric of the US & the UK is completely hollow and hypocritical.
There's this little thing called treason and it is defined in the constitution as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Alwaki's videos most definitely fit this description and are thus treasonous speech. Treasonous speech is not protected by the constitution. I find it pathetic that any American would support treason against their own country. No wonder the terrorists think they can win.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
We're sorry. We are really trying to get them to stop, but they're just NOT LISTENING.
- U.K. Anonymous Coward
Hadrian's Firewall
Ideally governments want to give their livestock just enough freedom to maximize profits and no more.
Very true. A perfect example of that is China. The CCP knows that their members will become richer if people have more freedom needed to grow the GDP. But not so much freedom as to be a threat to CCP power.
It's looking like Raul Castro is starting to acknowledge giving Cuba more freedom in order to jump-start its failed economy. If that nation collapse, he'll be king of nothingness.
Life is not for the lazy.
The last thing we want is governments deciding what is and isn't "contrary to public good" and therefore should be censored. Freedom of speech is far too valuable to allow any "extremist" to come along, say some nasty things, and have us lose our civil rights. Ahmadinejad exclaimed that they curtail access to porn because it harms society. Once government starts making these calls, these rights will never be granted again until we colonize mars and say "fuck you" to earth's governments.
American football doesn't exist in the UK, they tried and it flopped. Rugby players are fitter, have significantly better stamina, are steroid junkies from college, and don't need armor when bumping into each other, plus they can run for more than 3 seconds without needing a break and a change of players. Oh yeah, rubgy is played in many other countries at a high level, unlike grid-iron.
Well thank you sir for pointing that out. I'll have to remember to use [sarcasm] brackets when I type out obvious jokes from now on.
The Glen Beck show has been shown to incite mass murder plots. If Google is going to be "forced" to remove these videos, then they should have to remove all Glen Beck videos too.
Hadrian's Firewall? I guess Hadrian's wall is the British equivalent of The Great Wall of China.
The Great Firewall of London
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
FUCK YOU for telling us how to manage "free speech". It's why we are Americans and not British.
Actually, I thought that was because you were better than us Brits at getting out of paying taxes.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
This is the sort of thing that gets on my nerves. I am all for defending freedoms, but freedom must be exercised responsibly.
This is a case where a Member of Parliament -- roughly the counterpart of your Representatives in the US -- was attacked and nearly died, while performing his fundamental constitutional duty to meet a member of his constituency supposedly to hear her concerns. Your President walks around protected by the most high profile private army in the world because of that sort of threat, and the danger it poses to the effective functioning of government.
There is nothing responsible about such attacks, nor about advocating them. At some point, the MP's right to do his job safely outweighs someone else's right to freely advocate harming him, and if you get to the point where someone is getting stabbed then you have gone waaaaay over that line.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm
you live in the outer Hebrides?
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
You're an idiot. The US cannot agree to a UK request that categorically violates the US Constitution. Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.
It's like requesting that the US make Catholicism the official national religion. It's never going to happen, not for any religion (such a thing would violate the Constitution), and it is bizarre to even ask.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The United Kingdom of Firewalls
Odd, I'm British and I haven't noticed any government cameras in my house. Or on the road outside it for that matter. Maybe they're just very well hidden.
Well, if you live in Birmingham, that might well be true.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Frankly, the request from the British government, both to YouTube (and other companies) and to the US Government is all three: reasonable , legal, and likely to happen.
Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence. None of these characteristics provided any value to our societal discussion of ideas (which is what the 1st Amendment enshrines, but does not define). No one in either the US or the UK needs to see these for any reason other than military intelligence (which, we can get without allowing them to be made for public consumption).
Legal in that according to both UK and US law, these videos fit within the various exceptions to protected speech (that is, they fit into well-defined categories of speech NOT afforded protection). Thus, it's entirely likely that the UK request to the US government will see some sort of follow-through by the US Executive branch, as the content of the videos isn't reasonably up for discussion as to the legality thereof - it's not like they have to be parsed for obscene vs offensive categorization, and I don't see any court ruling in favor of these videos being protected speech (here in the US). It's actually a pretty cut-and-dried case of Incitement to Violence.
Likely as both the above cases point out, it's pretty much a no-brainer request to the US, as it doesn't run afoul of any of our laws, or even likely to produce a court case. In addition, for private providers, its very clear that they violate pretty much any T-O-S I've ever seen for posting public video or images.
Free Speech is great, but there are well-defined (for very good reasons) exceptions to protection, and this stuff very clearly fits inside those exceptions.
But, I do expect the various TLA agencies to continue to listen to al-Awalki - after all, he's giving them plenty of rope to hang himself by.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Correction. The British government are now like the terrorists.
Sorry guys, we tried to kick them out and we did get one scum party out of government. Unfortunately, the other colour had been away so long that everyone had forgotten that they're scum too.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Punish the people doing the stabbing. Stabbing has been illegal for a long time.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Why don't they just block the videos from ip addresses originating in the UK? Kind of like BBC does to us over here in the states?
Very nicely thank you, I enjoy my vastly lower probability of being shot to death.
Well, apparently, since the only way to end this extremist imperialist inquisition is to remove the videos from *the entire Internet*. Only then will the British people be free to not watch them.
...you are free to LIKE anyone you want, for any reason at all, or no reason at all. In a free society you are free to HATE anyone at all, for any reason at all, or no reason at all.
In a free society, hate is not a crime.
Pretty well - our death rate due to firearms (accidental or otherwise) is very low.
So much for "if guns were illegal, only criminals will have guns!"
I like guns as much as the next guy, but our lack of a second amendment equivalent really doesn't put us at as much of a disadvantage as people seem to think.
turn into pressures?
Oh I get it, just more hyperbole that's guaranteed to get the colonial rebels frothing at the mouth? ;)
None of which are in houses, which was the original comment. Almost all the cameras are in already very public places, such as town centres.
It is currently frowned upon to post items on Ebay for sale that are illegal to sell (or even display) in France and Germany. Specifically, Nazi memorabilia. Pretty much so that any such auction is immediately terminated by Ebay administrators. Why? Is the sale of such items illegal in the US?
The same thing is likely to happen with YouTube. Videos that purport to be "Islamic training" will simply disappear within a few minutes of being posted. No government involvement, nothing legal being done at all. The videos aren't illegal in the US but they aren't really a good idea.
What about freedom of speech? Well, as some folks have pointed out it is currently illegal to post videos of a 12 year old getting her introduction into sex. Not just against the YouTube terms of service but actively illegal. I believe it is legal to post instructions on making nitroglycerin but instructing people where to place quantities of it is illegal.
The folks behind these sorts of videos aren't just telling people how to make bombs but are also offering suggestions on what to do with them after they are made. And what to do should they get their hands on a gun, like Nidal Malik did. Mr. Malik followed instructions very well, wouldn't you say?
With this in mind, there may actually be some grounds for the US to say the content of these videos is illegal. Unfortunately, the posters of these videos aren't in the US so arresting them is going to be difficult. Probably a moot point anyway. YouTube is going just make them disappear.
Unfortunately, your approach allows some very nasty people to literally get away with murder. All they have to do is make sure someone else pulls the trigger and let them take the fall. I don't think such a simplistic approach is compatible with justice in any useful sense of the term.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If I took a video of me screaming "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater then put that video on youtube.com would it be taken down....?
Vinaka Jo
It's not as one sided as some in the US like to make out - we have had periods of mutual benefit. The fact that we have land here for US air force bases, for example. Or the trade of custom reactor designs for our subs in exchange for acoustic silencing tech that the US didn't have.
The UK may be a physically small country, but it holds a disproportionate amount of power in the EU for its population which makes it politically very potent.
Only the properly ignorant think this is about who has the biggest army or other nonsensical bravado.
And yes, during WW2 we were economically crippled and relied on convoys from the US. It may have had something to do with being bombed continually by an enemy force and surrounded by submarines. Prior to WW2, the UK was coming off the back of one of its biggest periods of trade and industry - we were the workshop of the world for a long time, despite our diminutive land area.
Perhaps. I think it has more to do with being on good terms with the US. The rise of Islamic extremists to their current fervour could also have had something to do with the Crusade GWB undertook (and dragged us along with) a few years ago.
If we distanced ourselves from the US, I think that might also help.
Before WWII? I think you've been reading the same history book as Dave Cameron (the one where the UK and USA are fighting together in 1940).
There's no question that the UK was a major power 60 years ago.
A better case could be made for ~1955, but even in 1966 Britain was able to argue that its global reach amounted to shouldering enough of an anti-communist burden to justify staying out of Vietnam.
The Falklands War is quite interesting here, not because it demonstrated some lingering imperial might, in fact the opposite - the UK depended heavily on the USA. Where it gets special is that this help was given (initially) without approval from the White House, solely by virtue of long-established intelligence and military links.
If he singled out Stephen Timms and said that he needed a good stabbing in a manner that clearly showed that these threats were meant to be taken as literal orders, then you've got a point, if he had fairly vague anti-western messages that were interpreted as 'stab Stephen Timms' by a nutjob. If we hold people accountable for what crazy people do with your message, then we'll jail all kinds of people who 'inspired' crimes. Also, the getting away with murder requires convincing people to actually commit murder, which isn't particularly easy to do.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
What a stupid statement. They hate us because we station troops on their holy land. They hate us because we interfere with their government. They hate us because we fight made up wars that kill thousands of civilians.
You were probably joking, but I know some people actually still think they hate us because we are free. And it is just so simplistic and dumb. I'd probably not be irritated if you were modded funny instead of Interesting.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Have you never moved away from your hometown? You have such a narrow world view it is staggering. We indeed have a special relationship with the UK. They are in the same boat as we are fighting against Islamic radicals. They are one of our closest allies. We may not comply with what they request but that would be due to the inability to enact something like that because of our Constitution. We certainly are close partners though and have a lot of cooperation. We are in this with them together.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
In what respect?
Other than "not being able to own a handgun", how am I at a disadvantage? My life expectancy is higher, I am considerably less likely to be killed by a firearm, either maliciously or accidentally, and my countrymen never had the "right" to own firearms before me - they just did.
You can still own and use shotguns and other rifles for sporting purposes, but no handguns. The right wasn't taken away (there never was one), it was decided by rule of law to make them illegal.
It's still legal for me to kill a Scotsman with a bow and arrow. How's that loss of the right to kill people working out for you over there?
Actually in British law if you procure the services of someone to carry out a murder you are also guilty of murder.
for some reason the phrase "who will rid me of this meddlesome priest" comes to mind.
More on topic, why should an MP not face the same dangers that they have created for the general population?
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
(a) This is not a black-and-white issue, but the idea that people are completely immune to any external influence and therefore those who attempt to cause results indirectly should not be held at all responsible is crazy to me. Just ask advertisers.
(b) This very nearly was a murder. The MP concerned was seriously injured.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I used to live down the street from one of al-Awlaki's mosques. It still seems surreal that a high-profile terrorist was living and working within a few miles of my house.
No we just reject the idea of entirely free speach, as most of the western world does. When they start prosecuting people for what they think, then I get worried. But I'm fine with regulating what people say.
It's a widespread misbelief that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They don't. They hate us for *political* reasons. Using them against the Russians, invading their countries and so on.
Western women have the freedom to drive cars, associate with non-family males, leave their hair uncovered, and have control over who they have sex with. Islamic fundamentalists hate that.
Western people have the freedom to commit adultery, choose their own religious belief system, leave the Islamic faith, and a multitude of other freedoms. Islamic fundamentalists hate that.
You know I used to subscribe to the idea that 9/11 was self-inflicted and a result of US foreign policy. I cringed when I heard GW Bush claim that "they hate us for our freedoms" and dismissed it as another soundbite written by Rove. But the more I learn about Islam and the violent reactions that emanate from it at the slightest provocation (the equivalent of many of which would not bat a Christian/Jewish/atheist eyelid) the more I become convinced that there is something inherently sick about its fundamentalist extremes and there comes a point when we have to stop making excuses for them. None of the 9/11 hijackers were poor or oppressed by Western interests. They were educated middle class people who had been brainwashed by their religion into thinking that if they obeyed one of the numerous verses of the Koran that calls for the death of infidels (yes, there are many) then they would be granted eternal life in a harem full of virgins!
Enough of this excuse-making for suicide murderers. They are brainwashed, psychotic barbarians who are driven by a religious ideology, they are convinced that they have the almighty on their side, and we have entered a time when they are dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons. They are the biggest threat to civilization. Ever. Period.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Well, no actually. You're assuming that British people study the US constitution - they don't. Secondly, it is up to the American people to determine how to interpret the US constitution. There is nothing idiotic about that.
If a friend and ally makes a request, you can certainly consider it (before you say no). Constitution or not, quite possibly the specific videos in question might infringe some law or regulation, so there could be reasons to take down these videos if you look hard enough.
Just because there's a combined form doesn't mean it's always correct.
Takedown is a noun: The wrestler scored two points for the takedown.
Take down is a verb phrase: Take down that video please!
See also: login, singin, setup, everyday, etc.
Confidential to Facebook: "Logout" isn't even a word at all.
More on topic, why should an MP not face the same dangers that they have created for the general population?
I don't follow. The MP was attacked during a constituency surgery, supposedly while there to meet constituents to hear their concerns. In what was is the danger of being attacked in that context as a result of an action he took in his official capacity something that would also apply to the general population?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'd say the more preferable position is to err on the side of being permissive. We can always make more people, but lost freedom is very hard to get back, and generally involves a lot of killing people.
as for the second part, I meant that convincing people to murder is difficult, not that committing murder is difficult. Watch:
You should totally kill Obama with the lead pipe, in the library.
I just told you that you should commit murder, and I gave you very specific instructions. However, I doubt you would act upon these instruction even if put 'serious' html tags around them to show you how serious I was.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
We've got anti-hate laws here too (hatred described - IIRC - as any speech promoting violence against someone... a bit of a simplified explanation but it'll do)
We haven't got a strong history of anyone paying attention to requests. There are rather a lot of people who flock to hate sites and use the information to 'excuse' their own violence though. (with violent voices agreeing with a speaker, violence is more likely. "righteous" violence can be triggered by hate speech)
I'm with removal of public promotion of violence. Why do people take the right to speak as meaning the right to bully others?
Am I misreading something? The article says that YouTube has policies to take various videos down, and says that "the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos", but it doesn't actually say that anything has been successfully taken down due to pressure from or legal actions by the US government.
No, really, it's all politics, not religion.
I approve of removing that trash from YouTube.
I don't find them to be terribly different from any other religious fundamentalist, they're hardly the only ones to use suicide tactics either. They're all pretty scary and it's not like Islam is some special case.
The most interesting part, IMO, is that the RAF wanted to use the base at Ascension Island (a British territory) for refuelling of long distance missions prior to the main fleet arrival. Apparently the Americans who had been using the base for a nominal $1 a year fee said no, we couldn't use it.
I think the relationship between Britain and the US was immediately redefined at that point. Note the wikipedia article "Only after Mrs Thatcher intervened with Ronald Reagan did the Americans reluctantly concede."
Why? I don't see the need. I would rather they say it out in the open than behind closed doors.
Frankly, I think this whole issue shows a shameful lack of imagination. Have these people considered that, maybe they should, just this once, stoop to the terrorists level... and put out response videos.
Seriously. We decry terrorists because they use violence as a political tool, however, we are willing to use the threat of legal violence to stop their message from being broadcast. Are words not an improvement over bombs? Why not answer them directly? Video for video. Let the debate be had, and let people decide who they will listen to.
Or...are we to believe that this isn't a debate that we can win? Is the argument for peace and progress really so weak? Are we too proud to admit that we have ever used violence for reasons that were less than honorable?
Or are the politicians, and their employees, too good to debate in the open in the same forum as common people?
The message will be out there, whether you ban it or not. I don't think sticking your head in the sand or shooting the messengers is helpful here.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It's a widespread misbelief that the terrorists hate us for political reasons. They don't. They hate us for *religious* reasons. The latter explains why Islamic fighters are operating in dozens of different countries, against dozens of different opponents; the former does not.
As far as I can tell Handguns are legal too as long as you can give a valid reason for owning one (Such as Sports or Work)
Youtube can do that, but if you pay attention, they are pressuring the US government to do this as well.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you could say the same thing about a lot of Christian fundamentalists (and more in certain times in the past).
The key phrase there is "in the past". Judaism is the oldest of the desert religions, Christianity is a bit younger. They both went through their adolescent hissy fits and used brute force to spread themselves in their day, but eventually they settled down and became pretty docile.
Islam, on the other hand, is the youngest of the three and it's still in the middle of its troubled adolescent years. It still has an inferiority complex and gets very emotional when it's insulted, usually reacting violently. (Danish newspaper cartoons, anyone?)
The danger is that Islam is going through these growing pains in an age when one no longer needs the resources of an army or a king to cause large scale loss of life. This is particularly alarming in the nuclear age.
Also, just like a lot of the "Bible quotes" by some Christian fundamentalists,
isn't this one of the many things argued to be a mis-translation?
Could be. Either way it's irrelevant. People read what they want to into scripture. People who are brought up to hate the west (a hatred which seems to be a core subject along with reading, writing and arithmetic in some parts of the world) are going to seize on that and use it as justification for their Jihadist stance no matter how inaccurate the scholarship is.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
well we're having fun and just passing the time here on slashdot, I didn't mean the date to mean literally 1939. Though you might argue the industrial capacity of the USA outstripped the UK sometime in the 30s or 40s. Mind you if you are looking for dates when political power swung globally from the UK to the USA you might also argue that 1956 was a brutally clear point in time. The British and French won militarily in Suez but had to get out as soon as they had done this because the USA told them to... could be argued this was the end of empire for the UK.
Dear UK,
We've considered it and the answer is "no".
Thanks,
The USA.
Seriously, if one person in sixty million is moved to violent action by a video, is the problem the video, or that one person?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
You asked what the disadvantage was of not having a 2nd amendment equivalent. The disadvantage is plain -- your Government took away your right to keep and bear arms. Saying that you can own shotguns and rifles rather misses the point. Besides which, my understanding is that you have to give up other rights in order to be able to own those shotguns and rifles. It's not a "right" if you have to submit to police inspections of your home in order to exercise it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How about self-defense?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's a private company. They can serve what they want. They can stop serving it at any time they want.
This is a totally black and white issue. The US is not subject to censorship by any foreign nation. Period. The reasons don't matter.
That may not be how things are resolved, but the principle is clear.
news flash people:
Google isn't congress. (yet)
The 1st amendment doesn't apply. Google can censor whatever it wants on its properties.
Actually the bill of rights passed by the British Parliament in 1689 did include the right of non-Catholics to be armed for self defence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
At a certain point a monopolies 'rights' become limited/modified as it interferes with the common good of society.
I personally would think that Google may fall under that premise now. Once you become the sole practical source, you don't get to choose what you do with it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Self-Defense is explicitly noted as not being a valid reason.
So wait till the movie has started and use your free speech to create a panic.
So that makes you feel good then...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
While we will allow al-awlaki to say what he wants, we also have targeted him for assassination.
There is subjectivity, there are gray areas. That is life. You cannot have perfectly objective, hard and fast rules for everything. It just doesn't work out. Whining about it does no good and just shows an ignorance of the law. It is built with flexibility, interpretation in to it on purpose in many areas.
Well, no actually. You're assuming that British people study the US constitution - they don't.
I also don't assume American people study the British laws -- but I expect our diplomats and heads of state to know at least the tiniest iota of the country's laws that we're trying to deal with before making rather ridiculous requests.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Actually that isn't really true after demographic normalization. That's a euphemistic way of saying the less politically correct 'stick to the mostly-white cities and you'll be fine'. (I'll probably get modded down, but anyone interested can easily do an analysis of demographic breakdown vs per-capita homicide rates, the data is all there and easy to obtain. Mostly white cities in the US are as safe as Europe.)
You believe in free will?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
They never took away the right to bear arms - we never had that right to begin with. The laws of the UK have been in flux for almost a thousand years, but we didn't have a right to bear arms that was subsequently taken away.
And regarding submitting to police inspections - owning a gun is not the same as buying a pack of gum. There are checks and laws and requirements for owning one. Not much of a "right" with a mandatory 5 day waiting period eh? You can go for the strawman argument, but it really serves no purpose.
Glenn Greenwald explains it better than I can, so I'll just quote him:
"It's truly astounding to watch us -- for a full decade -- send fighter jets and drones and bombs and invading forces and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world, or, as we were doing long before 9/11, to overthrow their governments, prop up their dictators, occupy what they perceive as holy land with our foreign troops, and arm Israel to the teeth, and then act surprised and confused when some of them want to attack us. In general, the U.S. only attacks countries with no capabilities to attack us back in the "homeland" -- at least not with conventional forces. As a result, we have come to believe that any forms of violence we perpetrate on them over there is justifiable and natural, but the Laws of Humanity are instantly breached in the most egregious ways whenever they bring violence back to the U.S., aimed at Americans. It's just impossible to listen to discussions grounded in this warped mentality without being astounded at how irrational it is. What do Americans think is going to happen if we continue to engage in this conduct, in this always-widening "war"?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/07/terrorism
They hate us because we occupy their lands, kill their families, torture them, lock them up with no chance of ever getting out, and prop up other regimes that do the same. "Our freedoms" are far, far down on the list.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Also:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/12/terrorism
"In 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commissioned a task force to study what causes Terrorism, and it concluded that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies": specifically, "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" through our "one sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan" (the full report is here). Now, a new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiates what is (a) already bleedingly obvious and (b) known to the U.S. Government for many years: namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings is not Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather. . . . foreign military occupations."
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
This is a totally black and white issue. The US is not subject to censorship by any foreign nation. Period. The reasons don't matter.
In which case, the US is harbouring those who wish to kill our political leaders, which is clearly an act of war. Maybe we should start dropping nuclear bombs on you? Oh, no, wait, black and white arguments are usually stupidly extreme and not how civilised nations deal with real problems if they actually want to solve them.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You believe in free will?
As in some idealised ability to reason and make decisions completely independent of past or present surroundings?
No, not for an instant.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'd say the more preferable position is to err on the side of being permissive.
On that we agree entirely: we should always give the benefit of the doubt to freedom, and restrict freedoms by law only with a clear reason for doing so. (See my sig...) I just think that if we're actually at the point where a serving representative can almost be killed while doing their duty, by someone who has clearly lost the plot after being bombarded by hateful propaganda, we're rather past the "benefit of the doubt" stage.
There is a liberal tendency around these parts to pretend that external influences do not affect individual actions. You can see it very clearly in other contexts too. For example, watch what happens on Slashdot if anyone gets within a mile of suggesting a connection between spending all day playing realistic, violent video games and becoming more aggressive in real life.
While it might make people feel warm and fuzzy to believe that there is no connection between harmful behaviour and external influences relating to it, and that the bad behaviour is all entirely down to individual free will, that is so obviously untrue in the face of real world experience that beyond a certain point it just sounds like trying to justify the unjustifiable because they don't like the conclusion they will be forced to draw otherwise. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if you don't believe external influence affects people's judgement, just ask the advertising industry.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Can't go any farther then...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
None of the freedoms you mention are prohibited in the Koran. It's the culture of a few of the crazier arab countries, but not all. There -are- muslims who don't practice those hateful acts. When you want to fight something the first step is know your enemy. It makes it much easier to win. Our first step should be supporting the moderate muslims so they can deal with the radicals.
The US -has- ignored the constitution in recent memory, and got away with it. So clearly they can again. The US gov only listens to money, not the UK. Catholic isn't likely to become a state religion, it's not Protestant. However the Republicans would certainly vote for a state religion if they had the chance. If they can openly support creationist nonsense (intelligent design) and prayers in school then i'd not put official state religion past them.
That's a real one-sided (interesting) POV, but it's extremely narrow in scope and doesn't even come close to explaining the centuries of feuds between Western and Islamic culture. Allow me to direct your attention to a better explanation below. And it's a moderate one at that.
http://www.fbn.bc.ca/muslwest.html
As for the extremists, freedom is an act of sin. Freedom is the embodiment of self determination and thus hubris in the eyes of Allah. But again, the link I've provided provides a moderate explanation for the entire Islamic culture going way back when.
Life is not for the lazy.
And he is right! There is a special relationship between the USA and the UK. It's the same relationship as that between master and dog...
actually there's not much difference between the two. The founders of this country openly expressed the need for revolutions and envisioned it happening again in this country. Without the ability to freely get on our soap boxes and talk shit on others (politicians or citizens) we wouldn't have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Of course if you're conspiring a plan to kill anyone, that's illegal and punishable but the government can't restrict your access to do that.
How about instead of banning the content someone posts, you arrest them? Oh what they did isn't an arrestable offense but you don't want people to hear what they're saying? well you can't do that. (i have no idea what they're saying or who they are in the video so i'm not sure how much it relates).
Chisel off the names of unfashionable Pharaohs.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Well, there you go. You have no right to defend yourself in the United Kingdom. In fact I believe they sent some poor sod up the river a few years ago for having the nerve to shoot the kids that were breaking into his house. Even the most liberal/left-wing American states still give you the right to defend your home with deadly force. Hell, even Canada still lets you do that.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
we didn't as much drag you along with us as you weren't paying attention while riding our coat tails only to finally take a look around and realize you were in the middle of a war (or two).
Had you of had enough control of your own government at the time perhaps you could have stopped ours from declaring a war on deserts.
I'm basically trying to say you're just as much to blame as we are except that at least you guys aren't isolated by a couple of oceans from the rest of the world and should have realized shit was about to get bad (probably worse for you than us due to those oceans) while we were off living in our own little fantasy world. Only 22% of americans even have passports so that means most americans have never been anywhere other than the US and possibly canada or mexico so we have no idea what goes on in the rest of the world or how different it actually is. It's your job to let us know when we try doing something over there that is out of the norm because we have no fucking idea.
Atheists don't kill in the name of... well, nothing. There has never been a war to un-convert people.
Give it time. Atheism has only gained a large number of adherents within the past few decades. It took christianity ~1,300 years to get as far as the crusades and atheism has already made a start down that road.
How directly the one being influenced was directed is very important. Many serial killers and nutjobs have been inspired to successfully commit murder by lots of things that had nothing to do with murder, and it's clearly inappropriate to ban those books or punish those authors. Short of payment, blackmail, etc. the burden of proof for influencing a crime should be very high.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
But some how the Muslims think that Islam will be exempt from that prohibition regarding respecting or establishing an official religion in the United States and that Sharia must be respected in place of the Constitution...
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
FUCK YOU for telling us how to manage "free speech". It's why we are Americans and not British.
My apologies, of course the UK government clearly forgot that the correct American approach to "free speech" is only to try to take down videos released via Wikileaks and not You Tube. How silly of them not to realize the important difference.
They may be some American preachers might call death and and destruction on there foes, but Christianity, not to mention Jesus, was pretty big on turning the other cheek. Both Judism and Islam have 'eye for an eye' policies and Christianity doesn't.
It's a funny thing, both are true.
I spent a little time over in Afghanistan on one of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (the people responsible for trying to put that country back together, which I can rant about for pages, but I'll focus on this subject right now) - I had the chance to talk with a large number of people.
By and large, the people doing the actual fighting are motivated by either religious reasons (everything you've described so far), or personal reasons (had a family member\friend die due to the Americans, lost their livelihood, etc). By focusing on all the devilish practices Americans are said to have, it's easily possible to motivate a large number of Afghanis to keep the insurgency going, keep hate directed at the west, etc.
The actual leaders are often the ones with political motivation. American foreign policy has made Islamic political leaders very wary of the west, and very willing to fight against us. On the ground in Afghanistan it's for local power or just a desire to have us gone. At the international level, it's an ongoing cultural and political war where they've got a long memory of getting burned by western powers when diplomacy was tried, so they're still a bit bitter.
Basically, the religion is a very effective tool to motivate the masses, just like it's always been.
Someone here once said that verse in the Koran has a printing error and should read a "harem full of Virginians" If that was made more easily known might that not ease the terrorist attacks???
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
The headline says extremist, the sub heading says al qaeda. Does this apply to all extremists? There are a lot of US extremists both in the christian and political spheres. Somehow I don't get the feeling youtube is going to be asked to take down any of those. No one on slashdot needs examples right? I am willing to participate in a genuine debate about hatespeech legislation and how it should apply to the internet, but if this is more of the blatant racism against muslims that pervades the western media at the moment then I have only one response: NO.
There, thats fixed it for you. (There is no limit to the stupidity and bungling ineptitude of British Governments).
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Well, I'm not entirley sure about the exact accuracy of the email you quoted but I do know that Thomas Jefferson created the Marine Forces under the department of the Navy, increased the size of the navy and made it a permanent standing navy as one of the first things he did in office. This was in response to the ottoman empire attacking ships (private, commercial, passenger, fishing and everything else) off the Atlantic coast of the US.
I also know that Thomas Jefferson attempted to deal with this when he was an ambassador to France and the delegation from the ottoman empire responded that Allah gave them the right to pirate and pillage ships in the Atlantic. And of course most of Europe dealt with it by paying royalties for the privilege of not being attacked by the ottoman empire (Muslims).
But even back then, it's true that it wasn't a wide spread thing that everyone was involved with. Kuwait was part of the Ottoman empire and they gave us Safe Harbor to allow our ships to resupply and coordinate attacks in Tripoli. Of course Kuwait has long been an ally of the US since before we were even a country. A major trade route was established from China to the Atlantic that went through Kuwait and it favored ships transporting to what became the US since the early 1700's We have remained friendly with the even as air travel replaced the need for trade routes across land. And contrary to popular belief, this is why Kuwait specifically asked the US for help when Iraq invaded and why the US jumped at the chance to render them assistance. Most people who blame it on oil have absolutely no clue about our existing relationship with Kuwait or that it started long before we needed any oil.
I don't think that means what you think it means. Certain people can hate others for various reasons and not act in a violent way to express that hate. What's interesting is that you list out occupation of Afghanistan which didn't even occur until after 9/11 and Afghanistan refused to expel Al Qeada or hand over Bin Laden.
So perhaps in the report, hate is used more like the term strongly dislike and not so much as in hate enough to kill myself while trying to kill innocent civilians.
But on another note, Bin Laden did claim responsibility for 9/11 and said it was in response to our support of Israel. I've even heard people claim we should give up supporting Israel and let the Muslims run them out of the middle east altogether or completely destroy them as some have expressed desire to do. I find that scenario more frightening then anything else.
As a result of the British military being active in Afghanistan, there are attacks on The British general public e,g The tube train bombings. Doesn't it make more sense to actually target the people who sent the British Military to Afghanistan, rather than innocent civilians?
It's politicians that make the decisions that get people killed and maimed but don't really put themselves in danger. Politicians are reckless with peoples lives, while making sure they are living comfortably and safe.
Maybe being a bit less safe might make them think a little more.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Look around a tad bit more.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/
HOwever, you would need to fit some criteria before they are in your home specifically.
Speaking of which, actually the supreme court does not according to the constitution have the power to pass on the constitutionality of laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. Nowhere is that authority granted by the constitution. The John Marshall led court (long may his and its name live in infamy) simply usurped that power in Marbury vs Madison. Congress did not slap it down at the time, and ever since then we have been saddled with this odious de facto operation by the court.
The Soviet Union had a very nice and noble constitution, too, but it was given the finger by a series of de facto dictators. The US has allowed the supreme court to be its dictator, but it need not continue to do so. As Josef Stalin said, how many divisions has the Pope? Well, in the US, enforcement power lies with the executive branch. The supreme court may arrogate power to itself and proclaim certain things which are themselves unconstitutional, but if the president commands the executive branch not to enforce these findings, the supreme court may fulminate and wriggle impotently on its back like an overturned turtle, with the same lack of effect.
And here is the mental breakdown of the differences between the US and UK.
You see, you most certain did have the right in the first place. The government doesn't give you rights, it takes them away. The US constitution doesn't give anyone rights in the US, it specifically prohibits the US government from taking the right away. It specifically states that you already have the right to keep an bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
But I can see your argument. That is if you think the government gives you the rights it deems important (hopefully you and the government see eye to eye on a lot of things). You would be absolutely correct in that you never had the right in the first place. However, on this side of the pond, we enjoy having the right independent of government, and the limitations on government being able to remove it.
The British government knows whereof it speaks when it comes to inciting cold blooded murder - indeed I remember a certain T. Blair comparing anyone who didn't agree with his murder plans in Iraq to those who wanted to appease Hitler.
it was definitely a turning point - if you scratch the surface of the austerity measures, in particular the defence cuts - (Nimrod, Aircraft carriers, JSF, the dead-duck Chinooks, the stalling of Trident replacement) a lot of the sub-contractors are from the US defence industry. This is probably why Hilary Clinton had a major strop with the UK Government the day after the measures were announced and then tried to drum up support in the UK press.
Instead, the UK government has signed a major allegiance with France (now that's a stick in the eye for the US) and so our new aircraft carriers will be configured for French jets and also the UK will have brigade level integration with France.
As bad as it sounds, most people survive knife stabbings here in the UK.
I always remember something my elderly father said about knive-crime:
"We didn't have knife crime in my days. We had coshes and knuckle-dusters."
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
You are several times more likely to be stabbed though. That seems enjoyable.
Also, if you government goes Nazi you won't be able to effectively fight back with your tea tray.
"why are other people making this decision for me?
Because you chose to live in a country / political state with laws that affect these issues, that have been decided by the population.
You have two main options: combine with your fellow citizens to change the laws, or move to a place where these laws do not apply. Simple.
Quite a lot of people fall into a third category of moaning about laws they like but neither actually doing anything about getting those laws changed or moving out to another country / location, though.
Well, the terrorists themselves are crazy religious fucks. No doubts about that. But they're only useful idiots. Their leaders on the other hand are politically motivated. Just read any of the statements of Bin Laden, for example. There's a lot of religious gibberish in there, too. But the main message should be clear to everyone. Just read it and you will understand terrorism a lot better.
Nope - handguns are not legal at all. That's why our Olympic team have to train outside the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4162498.stm
Nice quote. Thankfully someone seems to understand why all this shit is happening, it's a shame those in power don't listen.
US Senators made a lot of idiotic requests to the Scottish and UK governments while investigating possible links between the release of Al Megrahi and BP. In doing so they exposed their ignorance of the Scottish legal system and constitutional reality in the UK. Idiotic requests between nations aren't new, and they aren't one-way.
I'm also reminded of Chinese protestations to the Norwegian government over the award of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. The idea that the Norwegian government didn't have control over the Nobel committee was entirely alien to the Chinese.
Glen Greenwald is apparently an idiot. He conveniently forgets that we've gone to war on behalf of Muslims, and that Muslim factions are engaged in war around the globe against various other nations. If you find his explanation satisfying, you seriously don't understand the situation.
That would be "had the nerve to shoot the person who was fleeing his property, in the back"
That isnt reasonable self defnce. Also 19yr olds arent normally called "kids"
Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.
This is politics. If you don't make the request, it's your fault for not making it. If you do make the request even in the full knowledge that it cannot be complied with it's the other guy's fault for refusing.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I enjoy my vastly lower probability of being shot to death.
Yet, that probability still exists.
Just tell them to PISS OFF!
In india it is ok for a man to set his wife on fire if she thinks she was cheating on him without any proof without so much as a slap on the hand, and they want to blame everyone's hatred on something else other then their own actions. Few like Americans, but Americans understand this, because they are different then the rest of the world, and own up to it, if the Brits did something that someone else deems wrong in their eyes, dont try to force YouTube to limit someone else's point of view because it does not fit with yours.....where is your chant against Ozzy, because his music cites people to suicide, where is you chant against India for setting women on fire (which in my point of view is NEVER ok to do), let's take care of these problems first, as it has been there much longer then your prime minister's fear for himslef was.
Some good points, but there are some important points left out:
1) we often "occupy" their lands at their requests. The legitimate Saudi government wants the US there, very much - it was the nut-job Osama who was all in a wad about the US occupying the holy land. Osama does not represent the Saudi government, Osama was exiled from Saudi. Afghanistan also wanted the US when the US was helping them fight the USSR. Kuwait also wanted the US to defend against the Iraq. I think, at one time, Iraq wanted US help to defend itself against Iran.
2) the US would not have to help Israel, if the Muslims would leave Israel alone.
3) Maybe you are forgetting about numerous unjustified attacks against the US, and US allies?
4) If the crazies would leave the US alone, I am sure that the US would be happy to leave the crazies alone.
IMO: it might be better if the US just left the mid-east alone. Let the crazies go back to killing each other, if that's what they want to do. Let the Muslims take Israel, Israel is more trouble than it's worth.
Eat a dick, cuntbag.
I might steal that for my sig, it has a certain...je ne sais quoi
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We used gorillas in the Revolution? Awesome! I bet those Redcoats were just terrified of being attacked by giant apes.
We fought a gorilla type of warfare, shooting from the trees
Chucking bananas, you mean?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That may be so, but the British govt are less likely to hijack a plane and fly it into a landmark.
Yeah, they are more likely instead to drive a tank into a stadium and open fire on the public.
Or massacre a gathering of men, women and children. (Jallianwala Bagh, Qissa Khwani, etc...)
and when their own troops refuse to fire on unarmed women and children, the troops get arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. (Royal Garhwal Rifles)
The british government has a long history of incredible brutality, and history is remembered for a long time, when your people are the ones under the lash of the whip. Most british people today would either not be aware of their countries brutality, and would not believe it if told. Or would try to say it was all so long ago, so forget it.
It's looking like Raul Castro is starting to acknowledge giving Cuba more freedom in order to jump-start its failed economy. If that nation collapse, he'll be king of nothingness.
I hope the richest and most powerful country in the world is proud of itself for finally gaining the upper hand over an impoverished island. Bravo!
With any luck, you'll have the fucking gangsters back in control of the place before long and it's back to the Fifties.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So there's a good chance there was some other legitimate reason to want him removed from the planet.
The problem with obscenity prosecutions, from the defendants view, isn't that they're trying to prove they didn't commit the particular crime at issue. The defense, rather, has to prove that no crime existed. At all. That's a much tougher bar to get over.
When you're charged with obscenity, the prosecution tells the court "Defendant sold obscene item X. Selling obscene things is illegal. Find him guilty."
The defense counters with "Yes, we sold item X. But item X is not obscene. Thus, no crime ever took place. Find him not guilty."
IOW, the big question before the court isn't whether the defendant is guilty of a crime but whether a crime even took place. Once item X is found obscene, conviction becomes a fait accompli.
So pornographers simply don't know and can't reasonably be expected to know at the time of production if their latest video masterpiece is going to be prosecuted or not. It used to be that you could make a fair guess, depending on whether or not certain acts were included in the film. Chldren having sex, fisting, graphic bestiality, and penetrative sex during bondage were pretty much a sure bet to get you prosecuted. Nowadays, though, fisting is pretty much mainstream and easily available. Penetrative sex during bondage is a bit further behind, being a tad more rare. Bestiality is in the same boat. All are easily available in markets outside the U.S. and online. Kid stuff, on the other hand, has gone in the other direction. Merely shoot a 12-year-old in a bikini and market the photos for purposes of sexual stimulation and you get slapped down by the authorities.
So obscenity is a very different animal from most types of crime. It involves speech issues, community standards, and basic disagreements over even the existence of criminality. It can be very difficult to parse out.
I said all that to say this: People who illustrate their non-nuanced stance on the value of free speech with examples of obscentiy are treading on thin ice. Obscenity is just...well...different enough that it's often apropos of nothing and not a useful example to illustrate anything.
Doesn't it make more sense to actually target the people who sent the British Military to Afghanistan, rather than innocent civilians?
So your question is, if I wanted to try to kill someone because I was angry about a political decision, would it be more ethical to stab an MP than a member of the general public?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
It's politicians that make the decisions that get people killed and maimed but don't really put themselves in danger. Politicians are reckless with peoples lives, while making sure they are living comfortably and safe.
Perhaps. However, given the amount of dubious reporting and the kind of "intelligence" that we now know was being circulated even at Parliament level at the time, I'm not convinced any MPs not in Blair's inner circle really had a chance to make a properly informed decision. I'm hesitant to blame any MP who voted for the war if they were being misled about the facts. In short, I don't think it's fair to assign collective responsibility if it wasn't really a collective decision at all. If anyone is going to be held accountable for the war, it should be those who were really behind the decision to enter it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Once again we agree on the principle, but once again I suspect we really could support your "very high" burden of proof in this case. If the media reporting is at all accurate, it seems we're not talking about someone stabbing someone else because they once saw a reference to how bad the other person was in a movie. Rather, we seem to be talking about someone who has been actively advocating doing bad things for a long time, and a perpetrator who had spent a lot of time watching videos of that particular advocate and who pointed straight at him when asked why she did it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is a totally black and white issue.
Just for a second I hoped you were being sarcastic.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'd take being stabbed over being shot any day of the week. There is a reason that UK murder rates are much lower than in the US, and it's not because we're nicer, more peaceful people.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Mostly white cities in the US are as safe as Europe.
Probably not for the blecks, though, eh?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well, there you go. You have no right to defend yourself in the United Kingdom. In fact I believe they sent some poor sod up the river a few years ago for having the nerve to shoot the kids that were breaking into his house. Even the most liberal/left-wing American states still give you the right to defend your home with deadly force. Hell, even Canada still lets you do that.
Don't talk bollocks, you have a perfectly clear right to self defence in the UK, you can even kill someone if your life is in imminent danger and it's not pre-meditated (i.e. you didn't go tooled up to a fight)
What you don't have is a right to ambush an unarmed burglar and shoot him as he's running out your front door, as I believe is the custom in the US.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So why didn't the freedom loving people of American rise up in armed rebellion against George W Bush then?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
On both sides of the pond, there is an unspoken social contract in place, if at any time it gets too unbalanced in someone's favour, a correction is made. You just have a different view of the process.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Exactly what does that mean anyway?
Troll or not, I must respond...
I must admit, I am completely stymied by anyone who is willing to dispose of rights, liberties, and/or freedoms without so much as an afterthought. Even if you do not own guns, do you want some politician telling you, that you are not trustworthy enough to have that right? Or the right to say whatever you want? Or to adopt whatever religion you want? The Brits are so proud of their gun control and has that eliminated violence? No, those who commit violence use knives instead.
I actually feel sorry for you. You are cut from the same cloth as those who would jail people for preaching the wrong religion. Or jailing those for "insulting the monarchy." You are so fixated of telling others what they should and should not do, you are willing to give up your own freedoms. On the other hand, I believe you should be permitted by default to do and say what you want as long as it does not harm anyone else.
And it is the harm that should be regulated, not the tools used to do it.
"there always is some idiot who takes
any freedom to the offensive level."
'Offensive' is subjective. Normal things do not need to be protected, 'offensive' things, however, do.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The US is not subject to censorship by any foreign nation.
So it's just as well this is not what is being attempted.
The British Government is making a polite request to a supposed friendly nation; the US govt. will likely say 'sorry, we don't like this stuff either but we believe it is constituionaly protected'. Or if it did take any action, it would be of its own free will, not that of the 'foreign nation', i.e. the US would be its *own* censor.
Attempting to 'censor' the US would involve such things as courts, sanctions, military action, jamming/blocking etc., or at least threatening some such things.
The problem is that we Brits understand neither sarcasm nor irony, unlike you smooth-tongued Yanks with your Farcebooks and baseball hoops.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
+1
Your right to be able to defend your very own life and limb is a 'natural right'; you have it automatically by virtue of existing as a human on Earth. Governments can do one of two things only: Either immorally infringe this right, or rightfully allow you to exercise it.
http://bostonreview.net/BR24.2/waldron.html
"Inalienable is not just a pretty word, inserted by Thomas Jefferson into the Declaration of Independence for rhetorical effect. It means rights that may not be given away by those who have them, and therefore that no system of absolute power may ever be defended on the ground that reasonable people would have found it prudent, in certain circumstances, to alienate these rights. Meares and Kahan say that "we ordinarily think of rights as belonging to individuals," with the implication that of course they can be sold or bargained away like any other form of property. In fact, there was a century or two of controversy in early modern rights theory about that very point. Some sixteenth century theorists defended slavery, for example, on what we would recognize as Hobbesian grounds: it would be rational for a person or a whole people to sell themselves into subjection in order to better preserve their life and security. Insistence on the inalienability of rights was a way of opposing such contracts, and it was this opposing conception-the idea of rights held in trust and the right-bearer as steward rather than owner of his rights-that triumphed in works of John Locke and the formulations of Jefferson"
This distinction is also why I love the US, because only one country in the world seems to 'get it' and has codified this distinction into the most core documents forming the foundation of its legal system, and even after 230+ years, no other country has 'gotten' this and emulated it, in spite of its success on so many levels, even if the implementation is imperfect.
There's no question that the UK was a major power 60 years ago.
No, Britain after the endof the Second World War had neither the stomach nor capacity for continuing as a major imperial power. We extricated ourselves from our various overseas entanglements as quickly as we could, out of a combination of post-War weariness and genuine belief in self-determination for Africa and the rest.
By the time of the Suez Crisis in 1956 it was pretty obvious that Britain (and France) were not in the same league as the US or USSR.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Wow, this has gone even further than I thought... the UK doesn't seek to quash independent thought, it simply believes that independent thought does not even exist!
Twinstiq, game news
..if we don't like what is being said, its your right to say it
Apparently not in our case though:
..shut your face
You'd make a good diplomat if that's how you'd respond to a polite (even if possibly misguided) request (not demand) from a friendly nation.
n/t
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Over 80% of all people being shot from a handgun survive as well. Guns are not some kind of magic weapon where you point it at people, pull the trigger, and they drop dead. It's still the same old concept of a sharp pointy thing tearing up flesh. Since, in the history of human evolution, there was no shortage of sharp pointy things determined to do just that (known as claws, fangs etc), the human body is quite resilient towards such attacks.
In fact, since bullet is smaller than a knife, you're generally more likely to die from a knife stab - first, because the larger impactor is more likely to touch a vital organ, and second, because a larger wound causes stronger bleeding, and bleeding is the most frequent cause of death for both knife and bullet wounds.
Now larger-caliber rifles (those typically used for hunting medium-sized game and above) are quite a bit more effective. And shotguns are devastating at the right range (which, with slugs, can be quite far out in fact). But, ironically, it's precisely the kinds of weapons that are not normally banned or strongly regulated even in countries preaching gun control.
Don't talk bollocks, you have a perfectly clear right to self defence in the UK
If you are forbidden from owning the effective means of defending yourself, then, for all practical purposes, you don't have a right. It's like cutting one's tongue out, then saying that they still have the right to free speech.
What you don't have is a right to ambush an unarmed burglar and shoot him as he's running out your front door, as I believe is the custom in the US.
You know, for all the accusations of Americans being ignorant, you've just demonstrated that Europeans are not any better. No, it's not the custom in the US.
That would be "had the nerve to shoot the person who was fleeing his property, in the back"
Tough shit, they were in his house and he was alone with nobody else to protect him. Who the hell are you to Judge him for defending himself?
In the United States he would have gotten a pat on the back and a "job well done" from the responding police officers, even in our most liberal of jurisdictions.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
as I believe is the custom in the US.
You believe wrong. In the State of New York (generally regarded as one of the more left-wing states in our union) I have the right to use deadly force against you if you decide to commit burglary or arson against my home. Other American jurisdictions go even further than this.
What you don't have is a right to ambush an unarmed burglar
You can't "ambush" a burglar until they decide to break into your home and whether or not they are armed is immaterial. In fact, whether or not somebody is "armed" has zero bearing on determining if a shoot was justifiable or not. The standard is whether or not they had the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to cause you grievous bodily injury. An 80 year old man is not expected nor required to enter into fisticuffs with an 18 year old man just because the 18 year old is unarmed. If he fears for his life then he can use deadly force.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Uhuh, right. Because only the Good' ol US of A can make or break a small island nation.
Seriously, they have Europe and an entire South American contenent to do business with. Even with them acting as the middle-men to sell goods and services from America to Cuba, it still wouldn't be enough to crush Cuba.
No, the blame is squarely on that fucked up communist regime that asserts power and control over the local population.
Just wait till Venezuela falls. I'm sure ass-wipes such as yourself will blame the US on that. People like you are so delusional and transparent, it's sad!
Life is not for the lazy.
Oh I fully agree, I was just being obstinately facetious in reply to the original troll comment.
You forget that your country has the benefit of being "new to the game" as it were - by being so young. The laws of the UK have been evolving for more than a thousand years in one form or another (with our major keystone event that is loosely equivalent to the US Constitution being the Magna Carta, signed in 1215). By the founding of the US, the founding fathers could almost start from scratch and lay things out the way they wanted.
The modified Magna Carta, which was signed in about 1300 is still on the statute books here in the UK - at least in England and Wales.
We "get it", but we also have a thousand year old legal system that is still a work in progress.
they would be granted eternal life in a harem full of virgins
They're going to be really surprised when they find that the harem full of virgins is a bunch of bearded slashdot athiests!
Free Martian Whores!
Humans have a notorious history of injustice to their fellow man, regardless of the flag they worship. Any number of colonial powers committed any number of atrocities against the 'savages'. Native cultures like the Maoris used to slaughter other tribes and drink the blood of their enemies. The Romans would kill 1 in 10 of any unit that needed discipline. The same was used in 1918 by the Finns. The Imperial Japanese are reported to have committed many unspeakable acts during the years of WW2 and yet that part of their history is not taught to their children these days.
In the 21st century, I feel it is unlikely that we'll see major western governments engaging in systematic abuse of human rights such as we saw in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Improved communications have seen the world get smaller, women have the vote and previously oppressed minorities are now legally (and for the most part, socially) equal. The attitudes that led to that kind of behaviour are no longer the ones that lead our governments.
As to accountability for previous actions, there has to be a statute of limitations. I would not like to be held accountable for the illegal actions of my brother, let alone those of my father or grandfather.
As to remembering the brutality of their government, again, how far do we push that? Constant reminders to the German people that they were responsible for WW1 was (I believe) the driving force behind WW2. If we keep reminding German kids that WW2 and WW1 was their country's fault, should we also remind them that it was the Saxons and Angles that invaded Britain? Should we be reminding Italian children that the Romans raped and pillaged most of Europe and the mid-east?
I don't have clear answers for these. I wouldn't care to be the one to draw a line and say this is where the responsibility starts/ends. But I also feel that some things should be left to rest.
Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
In the 21st century, I feel it is unlikely that we'll see major western governments engaging in systematic abuse of human rights such as we saw in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Are you SERIOUS? Abu-Gharib? Extraordinary rendition? Enhanced interrogation?
Those who refuse to remember history are condemned to repeat it.
I used to think that too. That Islam hasn't been around long enough to 'mature'.
After a while though, I decided that was most likely incorrect in explaining the higher percent of extremists in Islam over other religions. Unless you believe in some notion of a collective consciousness, religions do not 'grow up'.
The followers of the bible, even after the new testament was released, were still very violent, and had a long sordid past of invasions, inquisitions, etc.. The basic structure of the church hasn't changed much since then. The bible hasn't changed since then.
What I think has changed, is the wealth and stability of the Christian nations, and purely political changes that have largely separated church and state, and more recent (last 100 years) of those more stable, powerful, Christian nations, meddling with Muslim States.
Poor countries tend to have populations with views that are considered more extreme and/or rigid. This is true of any religion. I haven't done much research, but I'm guessing that there is a greater percent of poor Muslims than there are poor Christians.
The other factor is political systems that evolved, not as a result in changes in religion, but because of economics, politics, and historical reasons that shaped many of the western countries. There are a ton of factors that lead to the (mostly) separate church and state in most Christian states, but none of those factors came from the church. By removing the military force, ability to tax, and all the other powerful things that government's do from the Religions reach, the power of religion in society greatly decreased. Prior to that, in order for Christian leaders to justify a war in the name of God, they pretty much had to argue from an extreme interpretation of the bible. Once the power of the Church to wage war (among other things) went away, extremist interpretations served less and less purpose over time.
And lastly, the discovery and increased use of oil. It should be pretty obvious that western meddling in Middle Eastern states, overthrowing governments, installing dictatorships, forcing oil to be bought and sold only in US dollars, creating the state of Israel by force and threat of force, etc... All these relatively recent events brew extremism. Doubly so when all of those things were done by Christian nations.
Actually I was going to add "except the USA" to that post but I thought that would've been considered inflammatory. I guess I should've left it in.
Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
You Brits have a very strange sort of logic.
We will have to alert the troops to carry video cameras with them so that they can deflect the bullets of common criminals and various other low lifes.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Seriously, is it a wiki? How else to explain this bit of SCOTUS trivia:
Recent broadcast indecency cases involving the brief display of Janet Jackson’s breast at the Super Bowl and the use of the F-word by Sonny Bono and Nicole Richie at the Billboard Music awards ...
Sonny Bono? Really?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography
They are in the same boat as we are fighting against Islamic radicals.
Stairs are more deadly than Islamic radicals. They kill over 1000 Americans a year.
How have Islamic radicals influenced your life? And I mean the radicals themselves, not the overzealous response to them. Get a sense of perspective on things - we're supposed to be intelligent here.
I personally know people who have died from cancer. I personally know people whose lives have been destroyed by drugs and (separately) by drug enforcement. I personally know people who have died in car accidents. I'm sure it's the same for many others.
Islamic radicals? Yeah I see something on the international news every couple of years.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Because the majority supported him.
Hell I didn't but I would trade in Obama for Bush in a heartbeat.
>I've even heard people claim we should give up supporting Israel and let the Muslims run them out of the middle east altogether or completely destroy them as some have expressed desire to do.
Do you really think there is any chance that would happen? They have their own extremely well trained military and even quite a few nukes. With or without US support, who in the middle east is it that you think could destroy Israel?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I didn't mean to imply I thought Israel would parish, I meant it was a frightening scenario to abandon a democracy in an area that has little of them and the people face religious persecution among many other things most would consider a fundamental human right on a regular basis.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Israel is a bastion of sainthood that can do no wrong, But I do think that they are better then many of the surrounding countries.
1) They were no longer in his house. So "tough shit" doesnt really apply, does it?
2) Because "we" already have, and found him guilty of using UNREASONABLE force.
Do you understand the difference between shooting someone wwho is an immediate, palpable threat to you (which they werent) and shooting someone who is running directly away from you? If you dont then you are a sociopath.
I really doubt that he would have recieved a "pat on teh back" for shooting people runnning away from you.