Indian Court Orders Google To Remove Content

itwbennett writes "A Court in Delhi, India has ordered Google to remove content that 'is said to mock gods worshipped in India,' according to an IDG News Service report. Mufti Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi, a private citizen, 'had filed a civil suit against Google and other Internet companies including Facebook, objecting to certain content on their websites.' While Google agreed to remove the content, citing a 'long-standing policy of responding to court orders,' other Internet companies named in the suit are likely to appeal."

Comments

and facebook

[Dave Whiteside]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16903765 fake edit - I see you also mention that ... I'll get my coat

Reasonable decision

[PraFrentex]

It all depends on the extend of the mockery here.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

"No person, no idea, and no religion deserves to be illegal to insult." --RMS

Re:Reasonable decision

[ackthpt]

It all depends on the extend of the mockery here.

Let's call it "The Rise Of The State"

21st cenury marked by people rising up, overthrowing unjust tyranical regimes, meanwhile democracies pare away the rights of the people. Anyone see irony here?

Re:Reasonable decision

[Moryath]

Let's see.

So now we've had:
-India
-China
-Saudi Arabia
-Turkey
-France
-USA

Of course, that's just the "official state reactions" trying to force some sort of speech off the internet. Then there's MafiAA goon tactics, and of course the Mohammed Cartoons stuff which was "officially stateless" (though Iran, and a few of the other terrorist groups, had a bounty on the head of cartoonists for a while if I remember right).

The one I find most disheartening is the USA. Remember when they actually believed in their whole First Amendment thing? Yeah, that hasn't been the case since Nixon apparently.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I am a deeply religious person, and sometimes offended by the insults of unbelievers, but I will defend to the death their right to insult.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Etdashou]

No it's doesn't.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Isaac Remuant]

Is that you Voltaire?

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

India has No Jurisdiction in the USA
USA is a sovereign nation. So Google can Just Mock them for another reason,
  Personally , I'd deface their Cow-dung court order and send it back to them

Re:Reasonable decision

[JavaBear]

As an unbeliever I an deeply insulted by religion, and the irrational behaviour it seems to be leading to.
If we were to ban everything which is insulting to anyone, we'd have nothing left to look at.

Again, the quote is a good one, that while I may not agree with someone, I 'll defend their right to say it.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

You just censor for different things. You hate copyrighted stuff and god knows what else. According to Google, US had asked for 92 content removals requests which took out close to 800 items. India just had 400 items removed from 68 requests.

For a country with 'free speech' you sure dont sound free to me.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't the USA really counts. I see a big difference between actual speech and links to warez. Don't you?

Re:Reasonable decision

[oreaq]

As a pastafarian I am deeply offended that you mock The One And Only True Good by insinuating that there are other gods.

Re:Reasonable decision

[forkfail]

I'm offended that you're offended.

Re:Reasonable decision

[forkfail]

This.

The only sort of speech worth preserving is that which is unpleasant to some. That which all accept needs no preservation.

Re:Reasonable decision

[davydagger]

"No person, no idea, and no religion deserves to be illegal to insult." --RMS

this. Once we bow to this, then we open the door to other reliegous based censorship, which opens the door for religeons organizations and cults to supress critics.

Re:Reasonable decision

[trip23]

Is that you Voltaire?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.

The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you see their Tactics here ?
  Wow are they Gutless?
They wont block those services themselves. They can.,Instead they try to let us do it
  in hope some liberal kook Constitution shredding US Judges kisses their Butts

Re:Reasonable decision

[wed128]

A party should have a right to discuss such a law; it's that discussion that's being defended, not the law itself.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Moryath]

Let's see. USA has had:

- Government attacks on journalists.
- Government attacks on citizens who take video recordings of police in public, often because those citizens posted to sites like Youtube the evidence of police committing abuse and brutality.
- Government shutdowns of entire websites based not on convictions under the law, but of "indictments" based on one-sided presentation of carefully chosen and misrepresented lists of evidence, complete with fabricated and delusional accusations of "mass conspiracy" spun out of whole cloth with inserted accusations of "terrorism" and other things designed not to have any factual basis but merely to constitute an emotional appeal (read: "oh but think of the children", which always comes behind some censorship law or other).

Hell, you don't even have to be that recent. The "USA PATRIOT ACT" (what an Orwellian name!) has plenty to be worried about already. And then we have the DMCA and all the other chilling effects laws the USA has enacted...

Re:Reasonable decision

[Stargoat]

I'm offended that you're offended at my offense.

Re:Reasonable decision

[forkfail]

I consider it an offense to my offended offendedness that you're offended by my offensive offense.

We've now passed through the Plaid Event Horizon, and gone fully recursive.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Beardo the Bearded]

If you're not offended, you're not living in a free society.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Sporkinum]

Please do not offer my god a peanut.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Pot,
You're black too.
Sincerely,
Kettle

Re:Reasonable decision

[countertrolling]

Remember when they actually believed in their whole First Amendment thing? Yeah, that hasn't been the case since Nixon apparently.

That hasn't been the case since Adams. The 1st Amendment has always been toothless. But notice you don't necessarily need an Internet to make yourself heard. It certainly isn't helping much now.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Beelzebud]

Since Nixon? You obviously weren't around for the Cold War.

Re:Reasonable decision

[spire3661]

The 1st is toothless? Larry Flynt and the Westboro church would tend to disagree.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Grimbleton]

Max Hardcore would likely care to counter.

Re:Reasonable decision

[turkeyfeathers]

Your death, or theirs?

Re:Reasonable decision

[erroneus]

RMS has an ugly beard and bad breath... I suspect the two are related too.

Re:Reasonable decision

[martas]

Ah, so you only defend speech you agree with. Like most people, it seems.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Moryath]

Especially since in MH's case, the Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction shopping as a way to get convictions on someone, even if they'd already been tried and acquitted or the charges thrown out in other states.

Re:Reasonable decision

[gfreeman]

That which all accept needs no preservation.

There aint no such thang.

Re:Reasonable decision

[OdinOdin_]

ermm.. yes this is how the world works.

Stuff I don't agree with I can choose to ignore.

Then maybe in a future point in time what is being spoken actually affects me. Then I may choose to defend or attack it.

There is no point in expending unnecessary effort in defending or attacking a speech that does not affect anything. Call this the preservation of energy if you will.

Re:Reasonable decision

[martas]

You misunderstand. Defending speech != defending idea. Besides, how will you know if an idea will affect anything or not unless you allow it to be expressed in free speech?

Re:Reasonable decision

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That sounds great. And this is what happens in practice with ... shall we say ... "a certain faith", and a few various ideologies ...

an example of what india had to deal with in the past

The crux of the matter is simple : an enlightened civilization makes the statement referred to before, attributed to Voltaire (who also didn't mean it)

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

The rest of the story has been repeated countless times :
group X: "oh really ? Let's see what happens if we kill a few (dozen) people over this"
"enlightened" civilization: "please please PLEASE stop. We'll kill those people we'd "defend to the death"

Group X has historically been muslims, dictators and communists in regions where they have enough control to actually commit large-scale violence. The conclusion is of course, as simple as they come : against "modern free-thinking atheists" any amount of violence, if it's over the threshold of killing people, will make "free-thinkers" acquiesce to any demands. This has been used both by "protestors" (e.g. see the effect of the sept 11 attacks on the american press), and governments (e.g. the Iranian government control over newspapers is much more based on regular attacks against the worst offender than it is on constant inspection).

Needless to say, there is one way to stop this : if any ideology starts using violence, should result in slowly building attacks against any member of that ideology. That is the only recourse, except pie-in-the-sky 100% police effectiveness and worldwide freedom of speech laws.

Re:Reasonable decision

[owenjstock]

Yo dawg, I heard you like being offended so I put an offensive comment within an offensive comment so that you could be offended while being offended.

Re:Reasonable decision

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

But you people don't kill enough. Don't riot enough. The way to your kind of laws is to influence the state. The way to influence the state, well ... If you want concessions, from America, 9/11 should be your guide. Notice how the concessions after 9/11 increased, not decreased, violence against America. You want concessions from India ? Google "pakistan secession" (also notice what Indian concessions got for India. More violence, in fact, much much more violence).

So there's a second lesson : don't stop the violence just because you got what you want. You need to increase the pressure every time you get concessions and scream about racism everyone someone attempts to tie violence to your ideology.

And the main lesson : if you want to oppose these kinds of people, grand statements do not suffice. You want to defend to the death someone's right to say something ? Don't forget that you need to add that you are prepared to kill to defend someone's right to say something if it comes to it. Without that, it doesn't mean a thing.

Re:Reasonable decision

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Cute ... and what about the religions who kill in response to insults ?

Another flaw is limiting this to religions. Communists have killed in response to insults. Hell, they've killed in response to facts. Then again, muslims killed dozens in response to the claim they're intolerant ... you can hardly imagine more complete proof of the evident truth about islam ...

Re:Reasonable decision

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

And most of the other countries have suppressed evidence of genocide (Saudi Arabia, China, especially Turkey, India), suppress entire political ideologies (France, India) ... in addition to all of what you say happened in the USA.

And I do agree with the other criticism against you : most of what you complain about boils down to suppressing warez sites. Which just doesn't compare to the atrocities those other countries (excepting perhaps France) commit. Warez doesn't deserve defense.

Re:Reasonable decision

[trip23]

A party should have a right to discuss such a law; it's that discussion that's being defended, not the law itself.

I am aware of that, I just think that there are limits to what is tolerable to discuss in order to have a worthwhile discussion or discourse, based on historical experience and the western "unalienable rights". I won't defend somebody who says "kill $foo" and there will be a better world. So to avoid to "build world" again like after WWII, we shut down the threat to freedom. There's a reason for jails in FreeBSD and in society.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Hatta]

I am aware of that, I just think that there are limits to what is tolerable to discuss in order to have a worthwhile discussion or discourse, based on historical experience and the western "unalienable rights".

Historical experience tells us that any attempt to shut down discussion will be abused. If we allow the government to set limits, they will set the limits in a way that benefits the government, and not the people. Therefore, there must be no limits.

I won't defend somebody who says "kill $foo" and there will be a better world.

So all those who called for the death of Osama Bin Laden should have gone to jail for that?

So to avoid to "build world" again like after WWII, we shut down the threat to freedom.

If we ever have another world war, it will be because of too much censorship, not too little.

Re:Reasonable decision

[trip23]

You misunderstand. Defending speech != defending idea. Besides, how will you know if an idea will affect anything or not unless you allow it to be expressed in free speech?

We know how ideas were put to work in Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic's constitution guaranteed individual rights such as the freedom of speech and assembly to each citizen. After that catastrophe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been declared and countries like France or Germany set limits to free speech.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Chrontius]

Then they just stopped playing in the realm of legalities and insults, and started committing acts of war.

We have a different set of rules for that.

Re:Reasonable decision

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You mean nearly throwing out the first amendment trying to acquiesce to their demands ? Muslims kill 5000 innocent Americans, and the result is near-immunity from criticism, at least in the press. Constant accusations that the state is "mistreating" people caught attacking Americans in warzones (mistreating, of course, according to American law, not e.g. geneva conventions)

Why we don't directly attack the ideology and it's members is beyond me. Even a small increase in their numbers or their attacks will force everyone to do just that anyway ...

But we like to pretend everything is just peachy ...

Re:Reasonable decision

[Noren]

[angrily] Mr. Simpson, please pay for your purchases and get out and
[brightly] come again!

Re:Reasonable decision

[trip23]

Historical experience tells us that any attempt to shut down discussion will be abused. If we allow the government to set limits, they will set the limits in a way that benefits the government, and not the people. Therefore, there must be no limits.

I sympathise with your statement, but a government or a state has the duty to ensure the safety and freedom of all citizens and non-citizens who live in their area of control. Incitement to hatred or crime is such a danger and thus the government has to act and limit those actions of speech. There must be a debate over this limits.

So all those who called for the death of Osama Bin Laden should have gone to jail for that?

He should have stand trial, if possible. That was not the case. If somebody with executive power in the government issued a shoot-to-kill order, this person as well should have to face a trial. There was no declaration of war to Pakistan. If my neighbour tells me Bin Laden should be killed right away, I try to explain why this is not the best idea, but my neighbour should not go to jail because she has no power to issue those orders. If my neighbour repeatedly says "I am gonna kill this parasite at the other of the street" there should be consequences.

If we ever have another world war, it will be because of too much censorship, not too little.

Agreed. There's one raging, because a lot of the footsoldiers in Quaida/Taliban/etc are cut off from the wealth of information the world has to offer and a notion that god might be an idea invented by humans. The only answer I can think of is access to education and the basic concepts of human rights, as well as economic well being. In western countries the free flow of information kinda works.

Re:Reasonable decision

[martas]

I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Hatta]

I sympathise with your statement, but a government or a state has the duty to ensure the safety and freedom of all citizens and non-citizens who live in their area of control. Incitement to hatred or crime is such a danger and thus the government has to act and limit those actions of speech.

If you give the government the ability to define what sort of incitement to hatred is acceptable, they will accept hatred of the opposing political parties. This sort of interference in the democratic process is a much MUCH bigger danger than individuals.

Re:Reasonable decision

[scot4875]

It all depends on the extend of the mockery here.

Guess you must be on the side of the Muslims who got their panties in a bunch over that cartoon thing?

--Jeremy

Re:Reasonable decision

[Chrontius]

Actually, that's the doctrine on winning the Global War On Terror(TM) that's slowly moving up the food chain, if you follow political science journals.

Re:Reasonable decision

[GodInHell]

The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?

Yes, and oppose it equally -- through speech, not violence.

-GiH

Re:Reasonable decision

[trip23]

The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?

Yes, and oppose it equally -- through speech, not violence. -GiH

Thank you. This is why I am still on slashdot, people reading comments and actually commenting in a thoughtful way.

Re:Reasonable decision

[trip23]

Agreed regarding semi-totalitarian states like China or Iran. Nowadays the opposition in western and western-oriented countries usually doesn't get crushed about issues of free speech, the government is aware of the danger of such accusations. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is serving a 14 year prison sentence for fraud. He supported the opposition in Russia. A Ukrainian court sentenced Tymoshenko to seven years in prison after she was found guilty of abuse of office when brokering the 2009 gas deal with Russia. Martin Luther King, Jr was imprisoned because of a non-violent protest, disrupting traffic or so... Clinton's impeachment was based on lying... I am rambling and should get some work get done...

Re:Reasonable decision

[Hatta]

Agreed regarding semi-totalitarian states like China or Iran.

There, but for Voltaire, go we. Freedom is not an end state. You can't just go "ok, we're free now, we dont' need freedom of speech anymore". If you can't exercise your free speech rights during good times, how can you expect to keep them when times are bad?

Nowadays the opposition in western and western-oriented countries usually doesn't get crushed about issues of free speech

Did you miss the Occupy protests this fall? They were crushed by the police. Did you miss the Gasland director being arrested for recording an open, public, session of Congress? Did you miss the US dropping 27 positions on the Free Press Index?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence. We forgot this lesson in the US, and are in the process of losing our freedom. It will take another bloody revolution to get it back. Whatever country you're from, please stay vigilant.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really; his third point as I read it was tied to Wikileaks, not warez. Remember, they shut the original wikileaks domain down, not by convicting anyone, but through a combination of massive D-Dos attacks, pressuring payment processors to freeze their donations, and so on. At the same time as they were doing this, they were shovelling the vitriol into the presses courtesy of Fox News and the New York Times.

Remember too that wikileaks did actually reveal evidence of war crimes, although it was mixed in with a lot of chaff.

His first two points can't be interpreted as support for warez whatsoever.

Re:Reasonable decision

[ImprovOmega]

You need to increase the pressure every time you get concessions and scream about racism everyone someone attempts to tie violence to your ideology.

*cough* Palestine *cough*

Re:Reasonable decision

[Moryath]

Thanks for the defense - but I doubt any facts will budge his mind. The fact that someone marked him "insightful" just proves how annoyingly uninformed much of the Slashdot audience is.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to say that too, then I joined the army...had kids.... I am an Atheist and no longer will casually put my life in peril for a fool....they are too numerous.

Re:Reasonable decision

[NewYork]

"If my religion is true, it will stand up to all my questioning; there is no need to fear." --Madeleine L'Engle

Re:Reasonable decision

[Anonymous Coward]

I am offended that you're offended that I am offended...TAKE THAT off google. :-)
The entire freedom of speech is that, the freedom to say what we feel, report a perspective and communicate.
It is sad however that anything has to be removed / cannot have good without the bad etc.
Content removal evolving into a very hot topic of religious views, wow - powerful stuff - religion.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Falconhell]

Oh I see and chritians never kill anyone due to intolerance. Apart form the IRA, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition etc.
Fact is that extremists exist and act the same way in all religions. It says a lot about you that you single out muslims,
for criticism for smoething that is by no means unique to them. Its not even all that common if you look at the numbers.

Re:Reasonable decision

[Falconhell]

Immune form criticism maybe,(But not that I have noticed) but not immune from being killed by the hundered of thousand by revenge crazed americans (Iraq Afghanistan Palesitine etc). I am sick of americans bleating about 9/11 when they have killed many many more people before and since than were killed on 9/11. If you didnt go around interfering in other countries to gain financial advantage (Remember who trained and financed Bin Laden?)you might have a point.

The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[countertrolling]

A big hardy "FUCK YOU!"

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[vlm]

More seriously:

1) Your god is too weak/inferior/doesn't exist thus cannot punish me... you're not serious suggesting you are more powerful/all knowing that your own god and therefore usurping his power and position to judge, are you? This is the change of venue strategy.

2) The holy texts of religion X basically mock religion Y therefore lets ban religion X before wasting time on the inter-tubes. This is the distraction strategy.

3) Share the links. Mass civil disobedience strategy. Sooo.... lets go for it. Lemme guess, its something really creative like a link to the new testament at PG...

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Moryath]

Meanwhile, was it really over a decade ago that the cult of scientology was forcing comments off of slashdot?

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[JavaBear]

Agreed. besides why do the believers feel the need to handle insults for their deities?
I'd think that all powerful beings would be amply capable of smiting anyone they themselves deem to have insulted them, and find it quite revealing that so far none have done so.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh thats just humans thinking tribally, its the 'toadie' syndrome. If the boss doesnt like someone, he'll surely look favorably upon the one who breaks their legs. It isn't very surprising that it got extended to theism when people in power realized that its better for the boss/bosses to be intangible and merely be 'interpreting their will'.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

Because treating a culture different from yours with disdain has ALWAYS worked out so well in the past.

We've connected people who think differently on a global scale - how could there not be ideological/religious/etc struggle?

Just want to note: I don't approve of Google submitting to their authority so easily but I'm not sure what long-term fix there is. Not every country let's people have freedom of speech, especially in regards to insults. Right or wrong, that's how it is and while it's changing a bit, I don't see it going away any time soon. Google is an international corporation who has to play by a number of countries' rules.

I can't imagine too many on slashdot wanting it to go "oh, well, we're in the US so only US law matters."

I'd say maybe there should be an international court for this type of thing but I barely trust the UN with paper clips much less control of the internet. Besides, maybe there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to this. If the internet takes a hard-line "no censorship" it risks being taken down in countries that need it most altogether.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[superwiz]

And just as importantly, why does God <longpause></longpause> need a spaceship?

This has been an allusion to the worst Star Trek movie ever. If this was an allusion to a better Star Trek movie, you wouldn't have that look on your face right now.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Jaxoreth]

And just as importantly, why does God <longpause></longpause> need a spaceship?

This has been an allusion to the worst Star Trek movie ever.

Really? I thought it was a reference to the 'Marklar' episode of South Park.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

QUOTE:
The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

Do they really believe this crap? If so they should be mocked.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[houghi]

We were talking about religions, not about cults.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[houghi]

I'd think that all powerful beings would be amply capable of smiting anyone they themselves deem to have insulted them,

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
                                            Epicarus 47 A.D.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck scientology!
Now let's see if scientology assholes read comments at 0 or -1...

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[walterbyrd]

How is it any more ridiculous than other religion?

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[walterbyrd]

What is the difference between a religion, and a cult?

Back when Jesus, susposedly, walked the earth; he, and his disciples would probably fit every deffinition of a cult.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[AlamedaStone]

We were talking about religions, not about cults.

Potato, Catholicism.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[spyfrog]

The popularity.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[hillbluffer]

{sarcasm} Well of course we should obey their laws, after all the US is trying to get them to obey our "Intellectual Property" laws, aren't we? {/sarcasm}

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just curious if you're all retarded. The suit was filed by a Muslim, not a Hindu.

Regardless of the request, verdict, and Google's decision to comply, I'm honestly overwhelmed by all of your bile ignorance and arrogance.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is willing and able but allows us free will so that we may truly love?

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Chrontius]

Then He lacks imagination and subtlety.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Again]

Agreed. besides why do the believers feel the need to handle insults for their deities?
I'd think that all powerful beings would be amply capable of smiting anyone they themselves deem to have insulted them, and find it quite revealing that so far none have done so.

For the same reason that I feel compelled to correct people if they happen to insult / mock someone close to me (such as my mother). I think that it is a human affection thing. If my mother isn't around then there is no harm done right?

I am not saying that I agree that the law needs to get involved here. It is very mean and certainly without class to mock my mother but there shouldn't be a law against it. In my opinion this is the same for mocking someone's beliefs or core figures of said beliefs. However, not understanding how that can be offensive is willful ignorance.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[DM9290]

Then why call him God?

Because nobody knows how the tides work!

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[simtel]

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Though in truth he could just be apathetic.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[gmhowell]

Then why call him God?

Because nobody knows how magnets work!

FTFY.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

The psychopath has free will, but lacks the facilities to determine whether his actions are Just. Why is this so?

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[williamhb]

I'd think that all powerful beings would be amply capable of smiting anyone they themselves deem to have insulted them,

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

                                            Epicarus 47 A.D.

Which just goes to show that if you credit an ancient Greek you can get modded insightful for any old rubbish.

Epicurus died in 270BC, some 300 years before you've credited this quote, and this contortion of his words it seems has its source in Charles Bufe's 1992 rather less academic "The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations" (I wonder whether he had an agenda in writing that one!) Epicurus's argument, worded rather differently, was not against God, but against the Aristotelean view of God. Which is why the above contortion can be seen to rather juvenilely treat "evil" as a a substance ("whence cometh evil") rather than as a choice.

Or to put it more bluntly -- on which feature of the universe do you wish to blame stabbings, if not the choice of the stabber: that metal can be sharpened; that it can be moved; that you have control over how you move your arm and hand?

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd think that all powerful beings would be amply capable of smiting anyone they themselves deem to have insulted them,

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

                                            Epicarus 47 A.D.

Evil does not exist. Evil is an illusion. Whatever "evil" we see in the world can be justified for the sake of higher good.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[xenobyte]

Exactly.

When one person suffers from it, it's a delusion. When a group does it, it's a cult. When a lot do it, it's called religion.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

C: God is "out there". We are here. It befalls man to eradicate evil. Man gets the finger long before God does.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

C: He is able. He gave us hands and minds to do it. Has provided us the means. We falter in our responsibility.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

C: Obviously from man. God created man (not other "Gods", there is only one), and told him to obey his moral authority, who is in fact the measure of good, He being good (the only good). Man said "No".

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

C: Why attempt to remove God from his rightful place in our minds (inherent in this statement). Because men are a) delusional b) stupid or c) corrupt or d) all of the above. Delusional in that they ignore the obvious witness of God in nature. Stupid in that they think removing God from his rightful place will result in greater good (always results in catastrophe, look at the Communist regimes). Corrupt in that they would rather create a world where they replace God w/themselves or whatever they choose. The atheist vacillates between motives to attempt to argue that a world w/o God is better.

                                                                                        Epicarus 47 A.D.

C: Has been dead a long time.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps God gives the gift of freedom so we are a little like Him. Free to choose good. Free to choose evil. Maybe he doesnt want to be a puppet master but...oh... Something like a loving friend.

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people

[cybersurfer_411]

Right back at ya! It's people like you because of which there are wars waged on the basis of religion rather than injustice, forgetting the building blocks of being Human.

Indian Government

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard it said that the Indian Government mocks gods worshiped in India, therefor Google should delist all official Indian government sites.

When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[na1led]

So it's ok to say anything you want, but don't offend religion? What happend to freedom of speech? I think the world is better off without Religion if you ask me!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[nopainogain]

well freedom of religion is a benefit for Americans (and i'm certain some countries of which i am unfamiliar). google is an international company and thusly subject to the laws of each country in which it intends to conduct business activities.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[SJHillman]

This is India, not the US. Although I'm not familiar with the Indian government, I they don't follow the United State's First Amendment to the same degree we pretend to follow it her and in much of the West.

Although Religion may be outdated, we can thank it for many cultural and technological advances, even in modern fields such as genetics.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[nschubach]

It just makes me ask, as an atheist, can I file a suit that says all references to God mocks my opinion and have Google remove those links from every search?

(Disclaimer: Devils's Advocate [no pun intended] only. I have no problem what you do with your personal life... just keep it personal.)

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Reverand Dave]

We can also thank it for the inquisition and the dark ages. While we're at it, why don't we thank it for the Bush administration and it's stifling of scientific progress. To defend religion as a friend of and benefactor to scientific advances is akin to thanking colonial slavery for having a black president.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Attila Dimedici]

While we're at it, why don't we thank it for the Bush administration and it's stifling of scientific progress.

You mean, by becoming the first Administration to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[na1led]

Religion NEVER helped in the advancement of technology. Throughout history, Religion has prosecutted scientists, because their discoveries went against the Religious Doctrin! If the world Blindly followed Religious Code, we would be living in the Stone Ages still!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Reverand Dave]

I think you mean the first to completely cut all funding for embryonic stem cell research. There is a pretty broad consensus in the scientific community that these guys were not friend to advancement and if you could possibly prove otherwise I'd love to see some proof.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Baloroth]

And we can thank science for WMDs, eugenics, pollution of the environment, human experimentation, and a list of other things far too long to put here.

Or maybe we can just put the blame where it belongs, which is on the people who actually do these evils and use science or religion as cover

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion NEVER helped in the advancement of technology. Throughout history, Religion has prosecutted scientists, because their discoveries went against the Religious Doctrin! If the world Blindly followed Religious Code, we would be living in the Stone Ages still!

That's nothing but a faith-based statement.

Ironically.

It's wrong, too.

Worshiping at the altar of non-religion is still worshiping.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[RazzleFrog]

Not entirely true. A lot of early science and math came out of the Islamic world. Think of it the next time you do algebra (al jabr).

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Reverand Dave]

To be fair, I don't think that science really has an agenda to push other than the furthering of human understanding. WMD's and Eugenics were actually developed by science, for wars which are more often than not brought about by religious zealots.

No one's hands are clean, but it's not like these people would have come up with this stuff without the motivation of pleasing their deities.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

A world without "religion" maybe, but a world without a spiritual element, God if you like, would be a sad world indeed.

rgds

ps. The captcha offered me "effigy" how weird is that!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Attila Dimedici]

Before George W. Bush, the federal government provided zero funding for any embryonic stem cell research. Under George W. Bush, the federal government provided funding for some embryonic stem cell research. You may not like the restrictions he placed on such federal funding, but he was the first President to provide any such funding. This source clearly lays out the timeline in the seond to last paragraph.
One of the things you will find is that a large portion of the "scientific community" exists within colleges and universities, which view anyone who believes that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions as ignorant heathens.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Out of Islamic" or "out of Arabic"?

Did mullahs and muftis watch the stars, build mathematical systems, study human anatomy and so on, or did they support this research, or did they just not impede it?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[geminidomino]

Didn't algebra actually come out of pre-Islamic Persia?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[RazzleFrog]

Islamic and Arabic in that timeframe were used interchangeably. Mullahs and muftis might not have but hakims did. Under early Islam studying science was akin to studying Allah.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[aepurniet]

i forgot when the international bill of internet rights was passed. personally i think it would be nice for companies just to leave places like that. its impossible for a public company to do that is interested in protecting share holder value.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Tsingi]

... can I file a suit that says all references to God mocks my opinion and have Google remove those links from every search?

Yes

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[stdarg]

The word algebra may come from Arabic but the mathematics of algebra owe much more to the Greeks and Babylonians. In any case the foundations of algebra predate Islam by centuries. What you're doing is like reading a math book written in English and assuming that the English must have come up with everything in it.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[allcar]

Worshiping at the altar of non-religion is still worshiping.

That's a nice little sound-bite, but it really does not stand up to even trivial scrutiny. You cannot worship non-belief. There are simply too many things not to believe in.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[RazzleFrog]

I shouldn't have mentioned Algebra. My point is still valid, though. During the "dark ages" of Western Europe science was thriving under Islamic/Arabic influence. Contrary to suppressing scientific research it was encouraged as studying God.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[jdgeorge]

Actually, I think Google is only removing content from their site. If I understand correctly, they're not affecting anyone's search results in this case.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I make a joke about the Holocaust I might go to jail for that. If I say that Muhammad was a stupid paedophile the stupid Muslims will try to kill me. When it comes to religious matters, there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

I urge you to e-mail David Drummond (ddrummond@google.com) and tell him what a coward and an asshole he is for not fighting against this.

--
Jonathan

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

study human anatomy

Studying human anatomy (a.k.a. dissection) was strictly forbidden under medieval Islam. So, no, there was little chance of modern medicine as we know it to appear during the Islamic so-called "Golden Age".

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[MimeticLie]

One of the things you will find is that a large portion of the "scientific community" exists within colleges and universities, which view anyone who believes that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions as ignorant heathens.

Wouldn't they love Bush then? Passing a bill granting yourself retroactive immunity from prosecution is about as big of a responsibility dodge as I can conceive.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[na1led]

The world would still be FLAT if it was up to Religion, and they are still trying to keep us ignorant about Evolution!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[trip23]

Check your facts. Algebra started circa 1800 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_algebra While there was important contribution from the Islamic World, it has nothing to do with Islam. Math works perfectly well without Religion.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you "think it would be nice", do you even remotely believe it's an option for Google to abandon India because the court ordered them to remove 400 links? Walk away from the fourth largest economy in the world, behind the EU, USA, and China? That's not simply "protecting shareholder value", it's called "remaining in business".

There was no actual logic used in writing your post, was there?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[RazzleFrog]

You are mistaking Christianity for all world religions.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. This religion has done this, that religion has done that, and it's all evil. And so was anti-religion as we saw with the nazis. So if Religion is evil and anti religion is evil, then you are either evil or non-specifically, or undecidedly evil. You can cut your head off with a butter knife or get some other evil person to do it for you plz thanks!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[superwiz]

Yes, but Islamic world didn't discover it through the practice of religion. It developed algebra to assist in keeping trade records.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[superwiz]

This is absolutely false. Pythagorean Theorem is a good way to demonstrate this point. It was stated in terms of areas of squares on the sides of a right triangle. This is because they had no concept of a variable. If they had the concept of a variable, they would have talked about the product of a variable by itself. Instead they talked about areas as a mathematically undefinable concept -- something akin to space enclosed by a closed perimeter. Geometry (Euclidean) was developed in Greece, and had they had algebra, they would been able to develop De Cartes' "Cartesian" geometry.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[SJHillman]

Errr, what? The world was determined to be round centuries before the birth of Christ, and the polytheistic deities at the time had no issues with it. The whole Christopher Columbus "Earth is flat" myth was... a myth. The only mistake Columbus made was thinking the globe (a sphere) was smaller than it actually was.

While hardcore Creationists may deny evolution, most Christians, not to mention the thousands of other religions, are in favor of evolution.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if it weren't for the dark ages, we probably would have all of that 1000 years earlier.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, i would have thought the Lincoln administration would have supported it, but no. No funding.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[metacell]

You can worship the idea of not believing in any religion.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

To defend religion as a friend of and benefactor to scientific advances is akin to thanking colonial slavery for having a black president.

What a great quote.
MOD +1 AWESOME.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[dkleinsc]

Actually, even in the United States the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it's ok to request that all kids say "under God" in public schools, that practically everybody use coins and bills with "In God we Trust" on them, and that many sessions of Congress open with a prayer.

Of course, when Congress starts its session, I tend to go with the prayer, "Dear $DEITY, please do your best to convince Congress not to f**k things up too much more than they already have."

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[metacell]

During the medieval ages and later, the monasteries acted as research centres and repositories of knowledge. Mendel, the father of genetics, conducted his research from a monastery.

Contrary to popular belief, many priests and church officials during the late 19th century didn't have a strict interpretation of the Bible and accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the resistance against evolution grew strong among American churches, and they invented "creation science", aka "creationism". Creationism is about politics, not faith.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[metacell]

A world without "religion" maybe, but a world without a spiritual element, God if you like, would be a sad world indeed.

That will never happen. If people don't have religion, they find another way to be spiritual. Look at how Russians worshipped the corpse of Lenin.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Archangel Michael]

WW1 and WW2 were religious? Korea was Religious? Vietnam? Iraq 1 n 2? Afghanistan? Libya? Kosovo?

Oh, you mean wars from hundreds of years ago? like the Civil War? oh wait, not that war... you mean other wars like Napoleonic? wait, no not that one ... hmmm couldn't be Revolutionary wars and all the other wars of revolts ...

Wait? You're not one of those "I HATE RELIGION" trolls are you that turns a blind eye to every significant war of the last 200 years or so, just so you can bash religion for long past "wars".

I think Politics and Governments cause wars, so ... let us ban those!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[ohnocitizen]

That doesn't outweigh the Bush admin's decision to muzzle scientists on a range of issues when their views collided. That is about as anti-science as you can get.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Attila Dimedici]

I do not know if you understand how the U.S. government works, but Bush did not "pass a bill" doing anything. He may have signed such a bill, but only Congress can pass a bill and George W. Bush never served in Congress.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[spire3661]

This is always my biggest indictment of religion. It stopped human progress for 1000 years. Infuriating.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[na1led]

While hardcore Creationists may deny evolution, most Christians, not to mention the thousands of other religions, are in favor of evolution.

Oh yea, they sure are infavor of believing the world is Billions of years old instead of 6,000 years. Yea, they believe human's evolved from Ape like animals, when the Bible says God created man. Religion has never tried to understand the world they live in through scientific observation, they never questioned their beliefs. Religion has never contributing to understanding our world, because they already claim to know it all!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Archangel Michael]

Never is such a strong word, that it almost always is wrong when used in definitive statements. Your statement is provably false.

Isaac Newton was not persecuted by the "religion" of his era. And to say he wasn't religious is ... just stupidity on your part (the "NEVER" part). Most of what Newton did was in response to "religion", as it was a large part of the driving force in what he did.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

The Priest that formed the Big Bang Theory.

You are so very wrong. But facts won't change your mind. You aren't a scientist are you? Allowing facts to change their mind is in their job description.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

How hard is it to Google the Indian constitution?

Here we go - Indian constitution declares six rights as fundamental:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights_in_India
"Right to freedom which includes speech and expression, assembly, association or union, movement, residence, and right to practice any profession or occupation (some of these rights are subject to security of the State, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality), right to life and liberty, right to education, protection in respect to conviction in offences and protection against arrest and detention in certain cases."

The Preamble:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Constitution_of_India
"WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."

Right to free speech is enshrined in the Indian constitution. The test it must pass is does your free speech cause harm to other people? And, that depends on social conditions. In India, people riot when their gods are portrayed in a way the worshipers do not like. I am not an Indian government apologist, but what do you expect the government to do in such a situation? Say that right to free speech trumps security of life and property and stand aside? Rights and Justice do not hang in a principled vacuum, they are a function of the society's moral and civic values. In short - blame society's intolerance not the government or constitution.

Remember, in the US, the Democrats are still paying politically to this day in the South for the Civil Rights Act. Does this mean the US constitution does not grant enough civil protections to minorities?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

"One of the things you will find is that a large portion of the "scientific community" exists within colleges and universities, which view anyone who believes that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions as ignorant heathens."

Retard-like typing detected.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest (Big Bang) and Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822[1] – January 6, 1884) was an Austrian[2] scientist and Augustinian friar (heredity). Look them up and learn.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[toriver]

Is that from the "not collecting stamps is a hobby" school of illogic? Or the "not drinking alcohol is an addiction" one?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Tuan121]

Although Religion may be outdated, we can thank it for many cultural and technological advances

I will never thank "Religion".

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[shutdown -p now]

Afghanistan?

Not sure which one you're referring to, but yes, both were religious.

The Soviet-Afghan war was actually a civil war between socialist secularists and moderate-to-radical Islamists, with the first faction backed by USSR, and the second backed by Pakistan and USA. The primary reason for the war was that Islamists were offended at such horrible Soviet innovations as mixed-gender schools and universities.

The second war was against Taliban - 'nuff said.

Kosovo?

Definitely religious. Serbs are Orthodox Christian, Albanians are mostly Muslim. Kosovo itself is called "Kosovo and Metohija" in Serbian, and "Metohija" literally means "monastery lands" - because that was the historical seat of the Church in Serbia, and it's where most of its monasteries were. Then it also has Kosovo Polje, the place of the historical battle where (Christian) Serbian forces were defeated by the invading (Muslim) Ottoman army, after which Serbia was annexed into Ottoman Empire.

And yes, it also comes up in the fighting - Albanians burn down churches, and Serbs burned mosques.

Libya?

What, did you miss the jihad flag flying over Bengazi in the wake of rebel victory? Or that the country is transitioning to Sharia as its primary source of legislation?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[ColdWetDog]

This is always my biggest indictment of religion. It stopped human progress for 1000 years. Infuriating.

1. The "Dark Ages" were not entirely due to religious issues. There were secular issues such as pestilence and famine that played strongly into the dissolution of society in what is now mostly Europe.

2. Although the various plagues did affect areas outside Europe, the rest of humanity was puttering along quite nicely while the good Christians were stoning witches and wearing hair shirts.

3. And the rest of the planet likely wishes that it could stop (or at least slow down) what passes for human progress for another 1000 years.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[SJHillman]

Take it up with Gregor Mendel, an abbot who is also credited as the father of modern genetics; or Pope Sylvester II, who furthered the fields of astronomy and mathematics in his time; or Michael Stifel, a monk that did some important mathematical work; or Otto Brunfels, a theologist and one of the fathers of botany.

Let's not forget others who were not part of the church but were still religious, such as Copernicus, Napier, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Babbage and Pasteur.

And that's just covering folks from good ol' Christianity and is far from a definitive list, nevermind the other eighty million religions this world has seen.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[tragedy]

WW1 and WW2 were religious?

You may have missed the bit in WW2 where Jews and Gypsies were being rounded up and burned in big ovens and the fact that the Nazi leader followed a mix of Christianity and pan-german mysticism and came to power partly because a group of well connected secret society/cultist types thought he was their prophesized leader. Oh, you might have missed the symbol that Nazi Germany used for its flag.

You may have also missed the bit from WW1 where Archduke Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian Orthodox Christian and that one of their chief complaints against the Austro-Hungarian empire. Then there's the whole bit with the Ottoman Empire.

Religion was not the only factor in these wars, clearly, but neither did it play no role. As for Korea and Vietnam? Did you miss the bit where the US was getting so worked up about the "godless commies" that they changed their national motto to "in god we trust". Iraq 1 was heavily based in fallout from the religious war between Iraq and Iran. In Iraq 2, the born-again Christian of the United States, who claimed to have mystical powers and to receive direct instruction from his god, referred to the war as a crusade. It was also frequently justified on the basis of the Sept 11th terrorist attacks, which had a firm basis in religion, and, when people pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with those, the alternative reason given was that Saddam Hussein had brutally gassed Kurds to death in a religiously motivated civil war.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[CRCulver]

We can also thank it for the inquisition and the dark ages.

Historians no longer use the term Dark Ages and haven't for decades. Late antiquity and the early medieval era was more complicated than that.

Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire and certain post-Roman developments on Christianity was a hobbyhorse of Gibbon. Historians after him have revised their views, and most would make a case that the seeds of the fall of the Western Empire were sown already by economic and political crises in the third century, when Christianity was still a minor underground sect. Furthermore, the relationship between Christianity and state was strongest in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which didn't fall in the mid-first millennium and for another thousand years carried on the tradition of classical learning and high literacy.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[tragedy]

Oops, accidentally cut out the bit where I noted that one one of the chief complaints of the Serbians was being taxed to pay for non-orthodox churches.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[CRCulver]

This is always my biggest indictment of religion. It stopped human progress for 1000 years.

Blaming the fall of the Roman Empire and certain post-Roman developments on Christianity was a hobbyhorse of Gibbon. Historians after him have revised their views, and most would make a case that the seeds of the fall of the Western Empire were sown already by economic and political crises in the third century, when Christianity was still a minor underground sect.

Furthermore, the relationship between Christianity and state was strongest in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which didn't fall in the mid-first millennium and in fact lasted for another thousand years, carrying on the tradition of classical learning and high literacy.

I'd really encourage you to read a recently published history of the fall of the Roman Empire and the early medieval era. The general public tends to have a stereotype of this portion of history that was overturned long ago.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[na1led]

Not to mention than Iran wants to wipe Isreal off the map! There is more religious tension in the middle east than ever before. I'm sure the next Major war will be the direct result of Religion!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Grishnakh]

The Nazis were religious; as another poster said above, "the Nazi leader followed a mix of Christianity and pan-german mysticism and came to power partly because a group of well connected secret society/cultist types thought he was their prophesized leader. Oh, you might have missed the symbol that Nazi Germany used for its flag."

It's the Soviets you're thinking of, along with the Chinese Communists.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Islamic and Arabic in that timeframe were used interchangeably. Mullahs and muftis might not have but hakims did. Under early Islam studying science was akin to studying Allah.

With very few exceptions, the better line would be "studying *books* was akin to studying Allah. For a period of time, the wealthier Arabic civilizations styled themselves as the archivists of every civilization they put to the sword, such as those of India (source of "Arabic numerals") and the Eastern Mediterranean/Anatolia (Greek mathematics, philosophy and medicine). While much development of these ideas took place in the Arab world, they were the originators of very little - but since they were the keepers of and copiers of this knowledge, they gained a reputation as the source of it rather than the transmitters of it. Arab historians of the past few centuries have been more than happy to maintain this reputation, especially since most of them believe it.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[houghi]

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[na1led]

What does Religion have to do with any of this? These are just religious people learning some science, where did they put their study and scientific learning in religious books? Find something in the Koran or Bible that makes scientific truth? Remember, most people who study religion, do so through religious books, not from Wikipedia!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Grishnakh]

It's a bit like the Temperance Movement, where a bunch of people who hated alcohol decided to push laws that banned alcohol, and persecuted anyone who didn't like those laws and chose to ignore them. In that case, "not drinking alcohol" definitely became not an addiction per se, but definitely an activity.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Grishnakh]

Yep, it's too bad things took a giant turn for the worse after a few hundred years there, and studying science became unpopular.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Flaming Troll Shill]

To defend religion as a friend of and benefactor to scientific advances is akin to thanking colonial slavery for having a black president.

I can go along with that, without colonial slavery there would be far fewer blacks, lessening the odds of a black man ever being elected POTUS. Was that your point?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Grishnakh]

The Greeks even calculated the diameter of the Earth to a pretty impressive accuracy given the state of technology at the time.

However, the bit about "most Christians" being in favor of evolution isn't correct if you narrow down your scope to certain countries, namely the USA where a very large number of "Christians" firmly believe the earth is ~6000 years old. Of course, this isn't the case if you look at Christians worldwide, but the Christians in the USA are rather different from the ones in the rest of the world. Then again, the people of the USA are rather different from the ones in the rest of the world; the term "Ugly American" is popular for good reason.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Grishnakh]

Notice that none of those religious people you list are Americans. It's the Americans these days who are still pushing the young-Earth silliness.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Reverand Dave]

well done sir

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, science or at least scientists do push an agenda of more funding for e.g. NSF, NASA, NIH to support their research. Not saying that is necessarily bad or dishonest, but it should be acknowledged that they do have a bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to arguing the merits of research funding.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[SJHillman]

That may have something to do with the fact that the United States has only been around for a little more than a tenth of the time Christianity has been around. There's also been a divergence between religion and scientific advances in recent years because science is requiring more specialized tools. Nonetheless, challenge accepted.

- Jennifer Wiseman, Chief of the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics at NASA as well as the director of the American Association blah blah blah Science, Ethics and Religion (it's a really long name that I didn't feel like typing out in its entirety)
- Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor on evolution (!!!) and mathematics as well as a Roman Catholic. Gave a lecture a few years ago called "Evolution and Christianity"
- Francis Collins, director of the US National Institute of Health with some impressive former credentials, has also written on numerous religious topics
- Robert Bakker, a preacher and paleontologist from New Jersey

Just to name a few.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[SJHillman]

"Ugly American" is a funny term considering the diversity of ethnic backgrounds in the US... so the rest of the world is basically insulting themselves.

You sound like someone who has never spent much time talking to Americans. I've met very few that believe the Earth is any less than about 4 to 5 billion years old. (Source: I'm an American who has traveled the country and has met a lot of different people across the country).

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[couchslug]

Actual eugenics, as opposed to "pseudo-science in its name with ideological agendas", is not a bad idea at all.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[russotto]

Right to free speech is enshrined in the Indian constitution. The test it must pass is does your free speech cause harm to other people? And, that depends on social conditions. In India, people riot when their gods are portrayed in a way the worshipers do not like. I am not an Indian government apologist, but what do you expect the government to do in such a situation?

Shoot the rioters. If there's a "heckler's veto" there's no free speech; free speech cannot apply to only unobjectionable speech.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Grishnakh]

"Ugly American" is a funny term considering the diversity of ethnic backgrounds in the US.

No, it's a reflection that many American tourists are extremely badly behaved. Their ethnic background is irrelevant; they were raised in the USA, and learned their bad behavior there.

You sound like someone who has never spent much time talking to Americans.

That's funny, I'm a US citizen and have never lived anywhere else. I can find tons of creationists just by going into any nearby "Christian" church (i.e., the ones with "Christian" in their official name are the most likely to preach this). I also see how rude Americans are on a daily basis, and am amazed whenever I travel to Canada how much more polite people are in that country.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[superwiz]

Donald Knuth, a name that should be familiar on Slashdot, is another one.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Jason Levine]

Apparently, in India, you have the right to say whatever you want... so long as the government decides it was ok for you to say that.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Chrontius]

So what happens when Google can be bankrupted by fines by not blocking thing A by country 1, or by blocking A, country 2 starts with the crippling fines?

It's a hypothetical at the moment, and I'm sure it will be complicated in practice, but a situation like this is not out of the question.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Reverand Dave]

scientists != science. I know many religious people that are pretty awesome, but that doesn't excuse their religion.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[na1led]

Go in a catholic church and ask the preacher how old the earth is, or if he believes in evolution. If the Bible says God created the earth in six days, well I guess it must be true!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[stdarg]

The "concept of a variable" has been known since forever. In the earliest texts on mathematics, like the Babylonian sources we have, they talk about a "heap" meaning an unknown quantity which you have to solve for. Example from 2000 BC: http://www.math.uconn.edu/~leibowitz/math2720f08/RhindPapyrus.html

Consider the solution of Problem 24, which is to find heap if heap and its one-seventh added together become 19. Ahmes states a linearity or proportionality principle: "As many times as 8 must be multiplied to give 19, just as many times must 7 be multiplied to give the correct answer."

You're right that the Greeks are known more for geometry than algebra, but you are incorrect in that their type of geometry was so elevated that it is actually called algebraic geometry. They weren't just drawing shapes, they were solving abstract equations with geometric methods. The Pythagorean Theorem is a great example, actually. He didn't "prove" it with a table of examples, he proved it in generality.

What you probably meant was symbolic notation for variables, not just the "concept of a variable".. Well, hate to break it to you, but Diophantus, a Greek guy known as the father of algebra, is one of the earliest persons to extensively use symbols in mathematical statements.

Geometry (Euclidean) was developed in Greece, and had they had algebra, they would been able to develop De Cartes' "Cartesian" geometry.

That makes no sense. Someone could have invented it 1 year before Descartes, or 2 years, or any n years. But they didn't. It was such a leap of mathematical insight... man you probably have no idea. It's a new way of thinking about the world. One of the greatest mathematical advances of all time.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[MimeticLie]

When the president's party has a majority in congress and he uses his position to push for legislation, we say he "passed" it. No one disputes that the new health care law was Obama's bill; similarly, the retroactive immunity legislation came from the Bush administration. You can quibble with the semantics, not with the truth.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay. So will everybody be able to get your genetic engineering? Or just the super-rich (read: white men)? It -is- a bad idea to take economic disparity and class stratification and bake it into ability disparity.

Here's the thing: When slavery was abolished, it didn't result in black people becoming free. It resulted in the Jim Crow laws. They took explicit ownership and baked it into legally enforced class stratification. Then they used that to push the former slaves back onto the plantations, except now with even worse working conditions than before. By the time the civil rights movement came around, the legally enforced class stratification became economic class stratification. Jim Crow wasn't needed anymore because they already made black people too poor to survive.

Of course, it's hard to see that this is still the same strain of racism as explicit slavery. But it has the same pedigree. Now instead of saying that you hate black people, you can say that you hate welfare, and have the same effect without sounding nearly as much of a discredited racist.

So what happens when "actual eugenics" is viable? Well, you are creating a technology which will allow only those who pay for it to become literally better humans. So you will be baking economic disparity into the human condition. You will be validating the racist, ignorant fears of people who thought interracial marriage would weaken the human race. You will be creating a new generation of racism where an overclass of predominantly American, Chinese, European, and Japanese multi-billionaires create a new society of privileged gods to rule over the unwashed masses through actual superiority rather than just imagined superiority.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Burning1]

You cannot, because there is no law in the US that protects you from having your opinion mocked. However, appearently in india, there is a law against mocking one of the state sanctioned religions. Unfortunately, Athiesm is not state sanctioned in India, and you cannot sue on such grounds there. You might have better luck in a Communist country.

Google has a policy of obeying the local laws, so it probably took the results down for the india domains. The decision shouldn't affect us directly.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[billstewart]

Or go ask Brother Guy, who's the Pope's astronomer. He mainly does planetary research, and occasionally speaks at science fiction conventions.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW - when tearing down a strawman attack forwarded by someone, don't add one of your own at the end. It diminishes your original message.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[billstewart]

You have to be clear about the Supreme Court's rulings on saying "under God" - they say it can only be required if it's being done non-religiously (i.e. in pretty direct violation of the commandment about not taking God's name in vain), and kids are allowed to opt out (you can thank the Jehovah's Witnesses for that - they didn't want their kids forced to worship flags or the state.) And the money says "In God We Trust", because "Trust me, it's real silver, and we're keeping enough gold in Ft. Knox" would be about as believable as "We've got a bridge in Brooklyn we can sell you!"

The weird thing is that it's the religious people who think that both of these mockeries of religion are good things. (And these days, NYC might very well sell your corporation the naming rights to the Brooklyn Bridge.)

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[u38cg]

Hello. Could you please cite an alternate source for your claim which is not lifted from a religious tract? Also, I may be hazy in my recollection, but I have a distinct memory that the first embyonic stem cell line was produced in America in 1998.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[gd2shoe]

Worshiping at the altar of non-religion is still worshiping.

That's a nice little sound-bite, but it really does not stand up to even trivial scrutiny. You cannot worship non-belief. There are simply too many things not to believe in.

What you object to is dogmatically sticking to ones beliefs, to the insensitivity of others (or worse, persecution). That rationale is very easy for atheists to fall for. It can be said that they stick to it religiously. They zealously promote non-religion with the misguided sense that they are helping others. It is highly hypocritical. Because they dogmatically stick to the false premise that all religion must persecute others, they become the persecutors.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

These are some pretty strained connections. Mostly you're just saying, "See! Some people who profess religion have fought, therefore religion causes war."

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[StormReaver]

You have that backwards. Bush was the first administration to withhold federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, with the reason being, my god tells me to.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Attila Dimedici]

Hello. Could you please cite an alternate source for your claim which is not lifted from a religious tract? Also, I may be hazy in my recollection, but I have a distinct memory that the first embyonic stem cell line was produced in America in 1998.

And lo and behold that is what the source I linked to said. Of course, they were produced without federal funds. I found that source by doing a google search (it was the first result that laid out the time line of government funding of stem cell research), please feel free to do your own google or bing search and present the results here.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Attila Dimedici]

No, I do not have it backwards. There was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research before George W. Bush. Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998 when Bill Clinton was President. At that time there was a long standing federal ban on funding of research using human embryos. Bill Clinton considered overturning this ban and decided against doing so when controversy arose.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[scot4875]

Your post is, truly, one of the best pieces of spin I've ever read.

Do you actually believe that garbage? You realize that the only reason we finally started funding it is because while we were doing so much religiously-influenced foot-dragging, the rest of the world was busy kicking our asses and generating such an overwhelming amount of positive results that we couldn't possibly sit on the sidelines anymore?

I find it hilarious that you're crediting W for this when he famously used a photo-op with 'snowflake babies' to show his stance against stem cell research.

--Jeremy

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[HungWeiLo]

It doesn't sound like it was forbidden back then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Human_Anatomy_and_Physiology

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[ImprovOmega]

The Soviet-Afghan war was actually a civil war between socialist secularists and moderate-to-radical Islamists, with the first faction backed by USSR, and the second backed by Pakistan and USA.

No. The Soviet-Afghan war was actually a U.S.-Soviet proxy war. The Soviets were trying to extend their influence and power into Afghanistan and the U.S. was trying to stop that from happening. The reasoning is incidental, it was going to happen one way or another regardless.

The second war was against Taliban - 'nuff said.

Except that Afghanistan wasn't itself directly responsible for 9/11 - they were responsible for not handing over Bin Laden when we asked them for which they got roflfacestomped by a group of countries that didn't want to be on the U.S.'s bad side. That war was triggered by a religious zealot, but it was fought because the U.S. had some righteous anger to burn and the Taliban made the dire mistake of painting a target on themselves.

Kosovo?

Definitely religious. Serbs are Orthodox Christian, Albanians are mostly Muslim. Kosovo itself is called "Kosovo and Metohija" in Serbian, and "Metohija" literally means "monastery lands" - because that was the historical seat of the Church in Serbia, and it's where most of its monasteries were. Then it also has Kosovo Polje, the place of the historical battle where (Christian) Serbian forces were defeated by the invading (Muslim) Ottoman army, after which Serbia was annexed into Ottoman Empire.

The Balkans have been in a constant state of flux since at least the 16th century. You can blame the fact that it's a good overland route between the east and the west as to why it's been conquered and overrun so many times over the years. The consequence of which is there's numerous cultures over there that have centuries-long blood feuds that need very little motivation for fighting. It's not essentially religious in nature, the culture is vastly more influential.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[ImprovOmega]

As for Korea and Vietnam? Did you miss the bit where the US was getting so worked up about the "godless commies" that they changed their national motto to "in god we trust".

As far as that goes, the U.S. made it long-term strategy to hedge in and put a stop to Russian hegemony. At the time the USSR was the one entity with a viable shot at challenging U.S. power and world-wide interests. Korea and Vietnam (and later Afghanistan in the 1980's) were essentially power plays aimed at stopping the expansion of Russia. Sure, some rhetoric will invoke religion and such, but it's aimed at whipping up the masses to support the strategy, not the reason for the strategy in the first place.

Throughout history, religion has much more been an enabler of national strategy than a cause of it. See also: nationalism, patriotism, propaganda, and fear-mongering.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

if they want to continue to provide services to the country of India, they would have to make sure their company is compliant with it's laws while doing business there. I agree that given the nature of DNS this would be an implementation nightmare but hey, China has no problem convincing it's subjects that "Tianemen square" is just a tourist destination where nothing ever happened. Google tows that line too.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[superwiz]

Unknown is not as rich a concept as a variable. Oh, and you should research Greeks more. You are giving them credit for works based on their works, which is to say for knowledge they didn't have.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[kaatochacha]

I noticed you enjoy the use of exclamation points. Please stop. !

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[shutdown -p now]

No. The Soviet-Afghan war was actually a U.S.-Soviet proxy war. The Soviets were trying to extend their influence and power into Afghanistan and the U.S. was trying to stop that from happening. The reasoning is incidental, it was going to happen one way or another regardless.

It's true that it was going to happen regardless, but it doesn't change the fact that motivation for actual people fighting on the ground - at least for the mujahideen - was mostly religious. So I don't see why it shouldn't qualify as a religious war. We're not talking about might-have-beens here...

Except that Afghanistan wasn't itself directly responsible for 9/11 - they were responsible for not handing over Bin Laden when we asked them for which they got roflfacestomped by a group of countries that didn't want to be on the U.S.'s bad side. That war was triggered by a religious zealot, but it was fought because the U.S. had some righteous anger to burn and the Taliban made the dire mistake of painting a target on themselves.

Again, regardless of the reasons of the war, it is clear that one side of it was motivated almost entirely by their religious beliefs. They would have handed Bin Laden over otherwise.

The consequence of which is there's numerous cultures over there that have centuries-long blood feuds that need very little motivation for fighting. It's not essentially religious in nature, the culture is vastly more influential.

Sure, which is why Serbs and Croats have been massacring each other just as merrily as they were both massacring Bosniaks and Albanians. However, religion on Balkans is a very strong part of what makes up "culture" - heck, it was historically what made Bosniaks different from Serbs and Croats, and similarly Serbs and Croats were historically separated by religion (Orthodox vs Catholic) more than anything else. So pretty much all Balkan wars since 1990 onward (except for the Slovenian independence war), had a very strong religious component to them - using religion as a primary way to identify members of opposing factions, destroying their religious buildings, etc.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[simoncpu was here]

I think Politics and Governments cause wars, so ... let us ban those!

I know this was supposedly a sarcastic comment, but abolishing (or at least minimizing) the government is a very good idea.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[kaatochacha]

The pastor of my school, a catholic school, would regularly expound on evolution and why it didn't need to clash with the bible, enjoyed comparing biblical passages to factual data and how they overlapped, he never taught "earth created in 6 days". We learned evolution, and used to have good debate on why people felt the need for such a divide.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time "x" is found...an infidel dies.

OOoooooooooh....

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Pstrobus]

In God we trust was first added to US currency during the American Civil War, it was adopted as the official motto in 1956. The Korean War ran 1950-1953 (although a peace treaty has not been signed to date). Given this, the idea that the Korean War was motivated by religion is absurd.

Now, if you want to make the case that the American Civil War was between the defenders of the True Faith and those Godless Rebels, I'd love to watch the flame war.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, that is why there are so many promising developments since people started doing research on embryonic stem cells...wait, no there aren't. All of the successful treatments developed so far have been with non-embryonic stem cells.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[tragedy]

Which ones are strained connections? The Nazi flag was a religious symbol and their crazy racial superiority ideology was heavily tied into religion/mysticism/mythology. WW1 was based on _everything_ that the nations of the time had against each other and religious differences were a big chunk of that. It did not entirely consist of British, French and German troops conducting trench warfare in France over possession of the Rhineland no matter what old war movies focus on. And seriously, claiming that religion played no part in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a ridiculous joke.

I never claimed that religion was the only cause of all, or any of these wars, but it did play a part. The post I was replying to was implying that religion played no role at all in a list of wars, half of which were obviously religiously motivated and the other half had some pretty deep religious roots if you dug under the surface a little.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[tragedy]

As a primary cause, or merely a yoke for the masses, religion certainly played a role in those wars. The post I was replying to was seriously suggesting that the war in Afghanistan had no religious motivation. How do you not reply to something like that?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[tragedy]

It was on some currency during the Civil war, not all of it. It was adopted as the official motto in the 50's and the pledge of allegiance was modified to include "under god", etc. as part of the reaction of the US to the spread of communism, of which the Korean war was a part. Religion had its part in those wars. It wasn't the primary cause, but to say it had no role would be incorrect. Not to mention that the Korean war was direct fallout from World War 2 which really did have a lot of religious causes.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly believe neither of the Iraqi wars would have occurred without religion?
Call me cynical, but I believe it had more to do with oil.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[xenobyte]

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

HA! - Good one!

Gotta remember that!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can thank it for holding back science for a few hundred years OR HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN THE DARK AGES ?!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[SJHillman]

To the contrary, I'm reminded of the Dark Ages every time someone TYPES LIKE THIS.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[tragedy]

Wars certainly can occur without religion. I never claimed that they couldn't. I was simply refuting a poster who was claiming that those wars, as they happened, did not involve religion. They most certainly did. Without the religious hooks, it would have been much harder for the US to justify its involvement in these wars to its people. You can't just imagine a world where everything is the same, but there's no religion, because things wouldn't be the same without religion. It's one of the factors that sets all the pieces in place before the war begins.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[NewYork]

QURAN abuses Jews (20 times) and Christians (14 times).

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Falconhell]

Ah Mike how can someone who seems smart write such dumb stuff. Heard of the IRA? The crusades? The invasion and occupation of Palestine, the India Pakistan conflict, still one can only expect industrial stength cognitive dissonance from religious types I suppose

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Falconhell]

Why do people cotinually quote the well acknowledged mistranslation about wiping Israel off the map.
It simply is not what was said, and this is well known. The tension in the middle east is directly caused by Israel, who already have nuclear weapons and are the driving force, along with the US actions behind Irans need for them for self defense. Frankly I would trust Iran far more than either the US or Israel They havent started a war in hundreds of years. The US cant stay out of a war for 5 bloody minutes.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[Pstrobus]

Your definition of cause seems very broad. The Korean war can just as easily be explained as another iteration of the Sino-Japanese wars which had been fought over Korea 1894-95, 1937-45 combined with the revolutionary zeal shown by communist revolution (see also Soviet-Polish war 1920). Or as a hegemonic war by China. That the Chinese were "godless" and the UN "godly" was a rhetorical distinction made after the beginning of the war and not a cause.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights?

[tragedy]

When it comes to the "causes" of war, the definition needs to be broad. They're almost always so hard to pin down to just one thing. The definition of religion itself is so fuzzy to begin with. I've seen some pretty fierce philosophical debates over whether Maoism is a religion with no fundamental agreement reached. Korea was certainly one of the stronger examples from the original poster of wars that didn't have much of a religious component. Some of the other examples were absolutely ridiculous, such as the war in Afghanistan, against the Taliban, a theocratic revolutionary group grown out of religious schools. Half of the examples the poster gave were completely ridiculous, but all of them included at least some factor based in religion. I mean, after all, if you're going to say that the history of the Korean war is based on the Sino-Japanese wars, you can't ignore Japan's history with Korea. One of the traditional cultural divides between Japan and Korea was over the prevalence of Confucianism in Korea. Now, Confucianism is more philosophy and mysticism than pure religion, but it's still indicative of a clear religious divide between the Japanese and Korean people which was one of the direct causes of their traditional conflicts.

cuz yknow

[Anonymous Coward]

if we don't they will get moderately irate and insist we leave their convenience store immediately...

if they were carnivores they might be fearsome.

The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[thej1nx]

Feel free to be politically correct and mod me down.

But elections being this close, and due to the victory being uncertain because of corruption scandals, the ruling congress party in India is out to appease the muslims who vote en-masse.

And muslims have long since been against freedom of speech and expression of non-muslims. If Google complies, it gives them a tool to get those mohammed cartoons removed from internet permanently. "Gods worshiped in India" indeed. Save for some lunatic fringe groups, hindus in general, tend to usually ignore such stuff. Or at least, barring some peaceful protest, they are at least not out to kill the heretics.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[couchslug]

Just another example of proof that the only function of Islam is to restrict freedom of those not Muslim.

Islam is so toxic that, like Communism, anyone advocating it deserves to be liquidated. The social restrictions imposed by Islam are unfit for modern man, so the only "good" Muslim is a dead one.

Too bad the Hindu didn't boot them ALL to Pakistan during the Partition or just slay them in place.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

And muslims have long since been against freedom of speech and expression of non-muslims.

You'll get modded down, but there is no concept of this, it's true.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[SJHillman]

Much of that might be true, except removing cartoons from the Internet permanently. Contrary to popular belief, Google is neither the Internet nor do they control a significant portion of the Internet. It may become more difficult to find, but content on the Internet is damned near immortal.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know the definition of Communism.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Christians have an equally long tradition of opposing freedom of speech when it's not in their taste. And of cause in much of Europe it is still illegal to publicly criticize the Jewish faith.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Drew_9999]

Overreact much?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an Indian (live in the US now) and am a Hindu (by birth - I really don't care much for any religion personally) and I find your description to be biased and false. Just as Hindus in general, are laid back about most things, so too are the Muslims. I had the good fortune of studying in a Jesuit run school in a relatively poor, muslim neighborhood in Mumbai, and I had several close friends across many religions. Hindus are just as "against freedom of speech and expression" as are the Muslims. You are just deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

You need no more proof than to look at cases such as the artist M.F.Husain, who was pretty much exiled from the country by Hindu fundamentalists who were outraged that he depicted some Hindu deities in the nude.

"Or at least, barring some peaceful protest, they are at least not out to kill the heretics" - Yeah, sure, tell that to all the victims of the Gujarat riots at the hands of crazed Hindu fundamentalists (with complicity from the pro-Hindu state government).

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I've seen this a lot out of the Fox News crowd. I don't like X, and I don't like Y, therefore X == Y. Observe: I don't like me some Communism, I don't like Muslims, therefore Muslims are as bad as Commies. Pull yourself out of the Cold War. The only reason Capitalism has won out is that human greed is much easier to predict than human compassion.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslims are laid back? Really?!!! Tell it to the numerous muslim terrorist groups out to burn the world.

Name even one Hindu terrorist group operating outside India.

How many of the 911 terrorists were Hindus? Do let us know moron! Do let us know if M.F. Hussain got assassinated. And then check up on how many film makes and authors got assassinated for insulting Islam. Better still google up Salman Rushdie. If you wish to defend your muslim religion, at least stop pretending and claiming to be a Hindu.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Mashiki]

But is he wrong? In europe we have people being tried for blasphemy against islam. In malaysia we have people being murdered for blasphemy against islam. In the middle east well, that's pretty common, so we'll let that slide or should we? In parts of africa where islam is coming to the front the same thing is happening. So, is he really wrong?

Or is he pointing out that burying your heads in the sand and being politically correct is signing your own death sentence in terms of free speech. Well actually it might just be signing your own death. I mean, just think of those cartoons...

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't for a second dobut that the pro-hindu government was involved. AND

http://kiranasis.blogspot.in/2011_09_01_archive.html

Section 2: Let's learn about the Congress party's M. Kalota:
Mehmud H Kalota, Salim A G Sheikh, Abdul R A M Ghantia, Farroukh Bhana and Haji Bilal, were the five Congress members/supporters at Godhra. Read More via a Rajeev Srinivasan writeup in Rediff portal: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/25rajeev.htm
Read more on Kalota's link to Congress party in particular, from Rediff's 2002 writeup by Onkar Singh: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/12train3.htm
Mohammad Hussain Kalota, acquitted for 'lack of evidence' was an independent president of Godhra corporation. But worked for Congress minority cell for six years, so the political leaning & support was hard to hide.
The same Kalota had given an ad in a Gujarati paper on May 10, 2001, thanking Congress for getting him elected per another old news item.
Kalota was a district convener of minority cell of Congress. Salim Sheikh (absconding) was the youth Congress VP and Haji Bilal (Convict) was associated too.
Tablighi Jamaat, whose links Godhra Congress minority cell leader Kalota had, also had former Pakistan president Rafiq Tarar as its member. Being just a member is not the concern, but read on.
Kalota, who ran Congress minority cell at Godhra for 6 years, had past links to Tablighi Jamaat. Tablighi founded Harkat, a Jammu & Kashmir terror org (which claimed responsibility via an email for 2011 September 7th Delhi blasts too). So here we have the grand old party of India, whose main guy in Godhra town is linked to one of the worst human rights violating terror organization in Kashmir that is fighting India itself! So now we have Godhra conspiracy, linked to Tablighi, which in turn an incubator of outright terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.. . Read an elaborate writeup from 2002 by journalist Praveen Swami, exposing all the above mentioned details here: http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl1906/19060120.htm
The main accused in the Godhra genocide, Mohammed Hussain Kalota, has been a "Congressman and a protege of a sitting Congress legislator". Read more about that here in Indian Express: http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=8349

Since you live in the States, you'll understand that both the Democrats and Repubs are complicit in portraying terror to spread anti civil liberties laws. Thats the goal of plutocratic governments if you haven't caught up to the 21 century.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Mashiki]

And of cause in much of Europe it is still illegal to publicly criticize the Jewish faith.

Might have something to do with the fact that much of europe stood by a couple of generations ago, and murder ~9 million jews while refusing to give any of them refuge. And in other parts of europe, they gleefully profited from it.

Nah. What am I thinking. Obviously the blood of millions and idly standing by doing nothing doesn't mean anything.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Forcing women that are not allowed to choose their religion be veiled against their own will is not freedom of speech (it is violation of human rights), and demanding genocide of Jews is not criticism of Jewish faith (it's incitement against a group, with a goal of achieving a crime of gravest kind), thank you very much.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Tsingi]

... the only "good" Muslim is a dead one.

Let me get this straight, you are advocating killing all the Muslims as a solution to, what exactly?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. Let's see...how many nations outside of India have a Hindu majority and have a history of being oppressed due to foreign policy decisions made by the Western world?

I was talking about Muslims IN INDIA. Tell me how many Hindus have Indian muslims assassinated in India? There are bad apples in all camps, Hindu and Muslim. It is your bigotry that prevents you from seeing that. The Muslims in India are not blameless for some of the issues we have had in the country, but nor are the Hindus. If you truly believe that, then re-visit the Babri Masjid demolitions and explain to me how that was entirely the Muslim communities fault.

PS - I assure you, I am very much a Hindu. I find it amusing that you are so threatened by my comment that you decided to label me a Muslim. How's that black and white world view working out for you?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[NeutronCowboy]

Bullshit. It is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. It is perfectly legal to criticize the jewish faith. Two very different things.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Tsingi]

Christians have an equally long tradition of opposing freedom of speech when it's not in their taste. And of cause in much of Europe it is still illegal to publicly criticize the Jewish faith.

Yes, saying that the holocaust didn't happen is a criminal offense. Meanwhile Israel has been exterminating Palestinians since 1948, and denying it.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Tsingi]

Muslims are laid back? Really?!!! Tell it to the numerous muslim terrorist groups out to burn the world.

So because there are some Muslim terrorists, all Muslims are terrorists? That means that all Christians are terrorists too.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps I can try and nit-pick with your statements, instead of that guy.

Babri masjid was a mosque made by apparently demolishing the holiest of hindu temples dedicated to their primary god, wasn't it?

And how were the talibans, saudis and pakistanis being oppressed by the USA? These were the nationalities of people involved in 911. Pakistan is supposed to be an ally of USA, right? I don't find your theory of oppressed saudis and pakis very credible, I am afraid.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[K. S. Kyosuke]

There is very little difference between communists and Muslims, as far as the methods are concerned. Once the communists won democratic elections in my country in 1948, they quickly went on to push through a law (a whole new "constitution", actually) that said that no other party would ever be allowed to lead the nation again. Guess what Muslims have always done wherever they gained the upper hand...

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this is very nice.

However, it doesn't makes the fact go away that the guy out to destroy the rights to freedom and speech happens to be a Muslim, not a Hindu.

Not sure what this has to do with Hindu versus Muslims, to begin with.

See the subject of your own post please.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The only sane reaction to someone who wants to kill you, is to kill them. Islam is toxic in its present state. Until saner heads take the reins, and this hypothetical peaceful majority comes out of the closet and silences its more vocal members from trying to return the rest of the world to the stone age, we have to do it for them. They have their own corner of the earth to fuck up. I don't want them fucking up my corner too.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[1s44c]

Islam is so toxic that, like Communism, anyone advocating it deserves to be liquidated.

I don't think you know anything about Islam, Communism, or history.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[superwiz]

Save for some lunatic fringe groups, hindus in general,

Umm, that's a view very favorable to hindus and very bias. The only reason Islam hasn't spread through violence in India is that hindus are equally prone to violence to preserve status quo religious affiliation. When you hear of religious riots in India, the muslims' death toll is often in hundreds.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[1s44c]

Bullshit. It is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. It is perfectly legal to criticize the jewish faith. Two very different things.

I never saw the Holocaust, and I'm guessing you didn't either. I have no reason to believe it didn't happen, but if someone thinks they have evidence that it didn't happen why should it be illegal for him to speak his mind?

It might be considered odd to contradict public opinion by suggesting that any given event did or did not happen. That should not make it illegal. After all history is often written by highly biased people.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[superwiz]

Oh, don't sell Europe short. It's been casual participant in slaughtering of innocent Jews since before Christ. But to your larger point, the way to tell truly offensive from that which simply pinches some egos is that truly offensive ignores history of mass murder. This is why it's in poor taste to mock Holocaust, lynchings, Armenian genocide, etc.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[superwiz]

Israel has been exterminating Palestinians since 1948

Why, then, are there more Arab citizens of Israel today then the entire Arab population of Palestine in 1948?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[superwiz]

It's not a matter of absolutes. It's a matter of proportions. Christians are treated with mild suspicion in the US because the pro-life movement, supported largely by Christian dogma, has at times proven to be violent. But the practice of Islam has proven to be violent on much more occasions. So it elicits more suspicion. You can try arguing that the amount of suspicion is overblown, but you can't make the argument that it has no justifiable root causes.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[icebraining]

Some white guys here killed people, therefore all white guys are murderers, right?

Not all communists are despotic, nor are all Muslims extremists. Stereotyping is a great way of giving those extremists more power.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Aardpig]

Isn't that a reflection on your countrymen, rather than on Communism?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[NeutronCowboy]

Which is my opinion exactly as well. However, for a variety of political reasons (and a different view of public speech than the US), denying the Holocaust is a crime in quite a few European countries.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[nedlohs]

How is one related to the other in the slightest?

Europe decided that restricting speech was worth reducing the risk of Orwellian history rewriting and a repeat performance. You can argue that's a bad choice and freedom of speech is more important, but that was the choice made in Europe (well some parts of). Israel isn't part of Europe in the first place.

Or are you trying to say Europe shouldn't feel bad since Israel is nasty anyway and it would have been better if the German's had finished the job?

Of course ignoring that, the German's were actually being successful at their genocide attempt. Whereas, Israel is clearly completely inept given the growth in the Palestenian population (compared with the sharp decline in the Jewish population in the holocaust years).

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[shutdown -p now]

There is a heck of a difference between not being tolerant of Islamic extremism, and calling for outright mass murder of Muslims

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[shutdown -p now]

That's a common trait of all authoritarian regimes. Islam is by far not the only source of those. For that matter, there have been plenty capitalist dictatorships with similar restrictions.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[toriver]

Couple of generations? Try "for centuries". For instance, then Catholic Spain expelled the jews in 1492, they found refuge in the (Muslim) Ottoman empire. Ironically enough. The word "ghetto" is derived from the Italian name for the derelict location that jews were forcibly relocated to. And don't pretend jews were well-treated in the United States either.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Isn't that a reflection on your countrymen, rather than on Communism?

Well, they were not the only ones who fell prey to the fallacies of communism (look at half of Europe and Asia), and quite a lot of them simply lacked the foresight to see what would actually come if they voted 'yes'. I doubt these traits are exclusive to my countrymen. Too many social experiments have shown that people often lack the ability to resist being turned into animals by undesirable circumstances rather than resisting them.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[KingSkippus]

Yes, he's wrong, and so are you. Here in the U.S., we have devout "Christians" killing doctors who perform abortions. We also have Muslims who are awesome progressive people. Stereotyping an entire religion based on the actions of extremists, especially extremist governments, is just plain stupid. Atrocities have been committed in the name of pretty much all gods. Yes, in the name of atheism.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Not all communists are despotic, nor are all Muslims extremists. Stereotyping is a great way of giving those extremists more power.

Thanks to the beauty of in-group thinking, even a small percantage of Muslims being extremists actually hurts you, since the rest is not going to stand up for someone outside the group. Granted, on paper they'll say that they don't condone violence, but a majority of them will stop at that.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. It is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. It is perfectly legal to criticize the jewish faith. Two very different things.

Perhaps. But, is that really all that much better?

I think people should be able to argue about history all they want. If they want to claim that all of World War II didn't happen, that is fine with me. We can reach a compromise. How about a law stating that denying the holocaust can only be allowed while wearing a tinfoil hat?

   

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am an Indian (live in the US now) and am a Hindu and have studied in various Jesuit Schools in Mumbai. Unlike you, however, I do not feel the need to apologize for Muslim actions.
  Given that you grew up in Muslim neighborhoods, it is impossible that you would not have realized that from the name itself, Mufti Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi , that this lawsuit has been been brought about by a Muslim. (Mufti is the title of Islamic)
  And the statement "Hindus are just as "against freedom of speech and expression" as are the Muslims" is an outright lie. Salman Rushdie Children of Midnight is at least as insulting to Hindu gods, if not more than the Satanic Verses that he wrote later -- guess which one brought about the death threats.
  Freedom of speech never existed in modern India, but the grandparent is right. Pandering to Muslim fundamentalists for their votes is one of the the primary drivers of the downward spiral of freedom of speech in India (the other is the government trying to spread propaganda.This is not just because they are typically backed by threat of violence, but also because there is no major push back against it by the Majority Muslim. Bans due to Hindu pressures on the other hand usually lead to the Barbara Streisand effect while Muslim bans are effective.
  Heck, even MF Hussain, in all his paintings of Muslim figures and leaders never dared to portray them in the nude in the same manner that he portrayed Hindu gods.
  As for Gujarat, yeesh, don't you folks get bored of dragging it out, every time? Or even of lying that all the victims died because of Hindus?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Tsingi]

I'm saying that I shouldn't go to jail for expressing an opinion.

It's always good when genocide does not succeed. The Germans have stopped, that's good. Now if the Israeli's would stop, that would be good as well.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[lgw]

Not all communists are despotic

Sure, except for every communist government ever. Communism was alays a lie told by dictators to seize power. It matters what people do with ideas. The objection to "communism" was never (much) about the writings of Marx, but about the brutal totalitarian regimes imposed by every communist government.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[stdarg]

In the US, what harm would it be if someone opposed the Holocaust? Speech is no problem if it causes no real harm.

Did you know that the US had (and continues to have) a number of laws specifically to combat the KKK? The President even suspended habeas corpus to help break the power of the KKK.

Every culture makes limits to free speech as needed when it's creating a significant enough problem.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[icebraining]

Cyprus is governed by a communist party since 2008. I haven't heard of the elimination of democracy and imposition of dictatorship, have you?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[K. S. Kyosuke]

They only have a third of all the votes...

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Mashiki]

Am I wrong? The current trend of terrorist attacks and in-general barbarism in most 'rising tide' islamic countries would seem to disagree with everything you've written. I'd argue that extremism is on the march, and going backwards towards the time where "atrocities" are accepted. Now you argue in the US, though I'm old enough to remember that. Those bombings were far and few between. In the last 10 years we've had roughly 18,000 terrorist attacks by muslims.

That says either there's something fundamentally broken, or extremism is a fundamental core. Or that because islam has never had a reformation, it's simply being true to itself. I'll let you argue which point you want to argue.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Mashiki]

Europe does indeed have a long history. But I generally don't like to dump a long period of history of things like that on a group of current people unless they willingly call it upon themselves.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Mashiki]

One could argue the counter-point that muslims don't seem do much to dissuade their imams from calling for the death of non-belivers, and all that on a regular basis. Especially for the mass murder of christians, jews.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[nedlohs]

Sure, that's your view. Some european countries took a different view.

It just doesn't seem to have anything to do with any actions by Israel.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel has been exterminating Palestinians since 1948

Why, then, are there more Arab citizens of Israel today then the entire Arab population of Palestine in 1948?

Because mud people of all types breed like flies.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[shutdown -p now]

I'm pretty sure that any imam calling for death of the non-believers in e.g. Turkey is going to end up in the court in no time at all. It's all about implementation details.

For another example, in Russia, the traditional Muslim communities are very vocally opposed to extremist Salafi preachers. But one could argue that it's partly because they are a historic minority in the country, so if relationship between them and everyone else sours down, they'll get the short end of the stick. But then Muslims are a minority in India as well, so cultural difference still probably has something to do with it.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

You are insinuating that muslim (and their countries) are the only ones with blasphemy laws, this makes you a certified troll.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite appearances to the contrary, Islam has no monopoly on religiously motivated violence. Check out this particular victim.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Tsingi]

Sure, that's your view. Some european countries took a different view.

It just doesn't seem to have anything to do with any actions by Israel.

I was attempting to illustrate the irony.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

...as a solution to not being blown up to bits ourselves by "kill the non-believers" suicide-bombers/plane-hijackers?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[xenobyte]

Islam is so toxic that, like Communism, anyone advocating it deserves to be liquidated.

I don't think you know anything about Islam, Communism, or history.

Why am I equally convinced that you don't either?

Any ideology (religious or political) that wants to strip people of human rights and/or property is inherently evil and should be fought with any means necessary. Both Islam and Communism fits this bill, both in theory and practice.

Want examples?

- Draconian punishments for blasphemy, dissidence, apostasy etc.
- "Nationalization" and similar.
- Discrimination based on gender, sexuality, ethnic background etc.
- Not one of 'us' => status as subhuman with less or no rights.

Just look around in any country or region where either are dominant and you'll see what I mean.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I'm pretty sure that any imam calling for death of the non-believers in e.g. Turkey is going to end up in the court in no time at all. It's all about implementation details.

Sigh ...You have never heard of Salman Rushdi, have you?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah... so Hindus in muslim-dominated Pakistan enjoy job reservations and have political parties out to appease them?

Thank you for enlightening me! ... oh wait!

You will find that while Hindus tend to mostly adapt to the culture they live in, muslims tend to multiple/aggregate and then fight first to get special concessions to have their own set of laws/rules etc. and then to change the host culture eventually.

While they tend to heavily discriminate against the non-muslims in the places where they are the majority, and try to force/encourage them to convert, if not outright wipe them/drive them out.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[1s44c]

Your examples suck.

Draconian punishments are common to most systems including democracy.

Islam doesn't discriminate based on ethnic background, nor does communism.

Communism has no discrimination based on gender. Communism doesn't care about your sexuality.

All systems treat 'Not one of us' as a subhuman with less or no rights. If not why does the US government maintain one set of rights for citizens and a lot less for non-citizens. Not that I'm saying the US is alone in doing this, it's clearly not.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[shutdown -p now]

I have heard about Salman Rushdie and "Satanic Verses". From Wikipedia:

"The only nation with a predominantly Muslim population where the novel remains legal is Turkey."

For that matter, when fundies in Turkey murder people over translating it, they were sentenced to life imprisonment. As it should be.

So, your point was?..

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[superwiz]

Ah... so Hindus in muslim-dominated Pakistan enjoy job reservations and have political parties out to appease them?

Not sure why this is relevant. I wasn't making any statements about Islam. I was making a statement about Hinduism. The original statement to which I replied tried to paint Hinduism as much more pacifist than it really is in practice. I am not saying that Islam is better or worse in comparison. But I am saying and, I stand by that statement, that Hindus preserve status quo through a threat of explosive violence. I am not saying it's uncalled for. I am just saying that it is what it is.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[superwiz]

If Palestinian Arabs are "mud people" as you put it, then why didn't they populate that region over the centuries that they lived there? Any chance that it is because there were no resources to sustain a larger population? Any chance that because of Israel more resources for sustaining life are now available to Arabs who live in Israel? And if so, then how does that amount to Israel "exterminating Palestinians"? Wouldn't part of exterminating, at least, require to not increase the amount of life-sustaining resources?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim

[Rexdude]

Yeah, sure, tell that to all the victims of the Gujarat riots at the hands of crazed Hindu fundamentalists (with complicity from the pro-Hindu state government).

As another Indian, have you so conveniently forgotten what provoked the riots in the first place? A train filled with Hindus was set on fire by a Muslim mob, and the rioting across the state was in response to that.
Amazing how many people forget, or choose to forget, the basic cause of the entire riot,and are quick to pin the blame on the state government. No one asks who stood to gain from the inevitable riots that the act would provoke.

If only all superstitionists had but one throat...

[couchslug]

...and my hands were on it.

Google is subject to ...

[PPH]

... the long arm of Indian law. All six of them.

Re:Google is subject to ...

[Tweezak]

counting down until /. is ordered to remove the above comment...5...4...3...2...

Re:Google is subject to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the party involved in this lawsuit is Muslim. But don't let the facts stop your bigotry.

Re:Google is subject to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey.....stop that....didn't you read the headline atleast? besides, it is eight arms, not six. you just insulted thailand religion. beware the wrath of the king!

Re:Google is subject to ...

[localman57]

When have facts ever stopped bigotry? Just asking...

Re:Google is subject to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah it's a trunk...

Re:Google is subject to ...

[superwiz]

Every time bigotry was stopped?

Re:Google is subject to ...

[NewWorldDan]

Me can mock Muslims also. The Hindu joke just worked better. Also, Hindus are better able to take a joke without resorting to violence.

Re:Google is subject to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so you're a bigot as long as you think the target of your bigotry won't strike back? Even more of a fucking turd.

We are not all members of your religion.

[orphiuchus]

If I am not a member of your religion then I don't want your stupid religious crap affecting me. In any way.

This can be applied to any religious group complaining about content offensive to their religion(I think we know the usual culprit here).

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[MozeeToby]

I say we start a new religion, and have as our holy symbol a rectangle with three horizontal stripes; orange, white, and green. And we find any other use of similar symbols, especially with other iconography added in, to be deeply insulting to our beliefs. Then move to India... umm... step 4... Profit!

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[nopainogain]

orange white and green? will our holiest holiday be March 17th? because if this is what i think it is, i'm on board with a pint of Guinness!

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just religion. How many people here in the U.S. want removed from public discourse?

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[blackest_k]

he said horizontal stripes and ones you are thinking of are vertical

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[vlm]

I say we start a new religion, and have as our holy symbol a rectangle with three horizontal stripes; orange, white, and green.

I'm thinking more like a green square with a white diagonal slash from lower left to upper right and a white dot at the lower right corner.
Often seen flying in close formation with the skull and crossbones flag. Holy prophets are RMS, Linus and maybe the goatse guy.
Extremely heavily overstaffed with male vestal virgins. Holy sites beyond the obvious are the googleplex, apple hq, 4chan, kuro5hin, and mom's basement.
Every religion has weird restrictions and sins, our will be microsoft, all other religions, all 1% political parties (all of them?), showering or other forms of bathing, and the all forms of computerized electronic gaming are sinful and untouchable except boring FPS remakes/sequels.
Rather than a hierarchical power structure, lower UIDs are higher up in the organization (kneel before my five digits, lowly 1163751)

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[ElBeano]

Enough Guinness and who cares? One probably won't be able to tell the difference.

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am not a member of your religion then I don't want your stupid religious crap affecting me. In any way.

This too is very similar to how the rest of the world views the United States and their opinionated reasoning that their domestic laws apply to all inhabitants of this planet. Yet the Merkins continue to attempt to exhort undue pressure upon people who are neither citizens nor residents of the country.

An American company getting a rough deal in a foreign court? Boo-hoo, my heart bleeds for you.

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[Ixitar]

And the invokation of the holy sacrament is "Bibo ergo sum"

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you've fallen over, it's all the same.

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[plover]

Enough Guinness and you're horizontal on the floor, where the orientation of the stripes is no longer among your concerns.

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[Anomalyst]

And the invokation of the holy sacrament is "Bibo ergo sum"

I'm a hobbit and therefor exist?

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then maybe as a matter of courtesy, not legal obligation, you shouldn't go out of your way to offend the religion that you are not part of.

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[houghi]

It can be said that the majority is NOT a member of your religion.
Some numbers: http://godisimaginary.com/i28.htm

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[Ixitar]

Bibo, not Bilbo

I drink, therefore I am!

Re:We are not all members of your religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Round off the corners of those rectangles and I'm in!

Quite right too

[Rogerborg]

All gods are deserving of equal protection under the law, no matter how utterly ludicrous any sane, rational mind would find the completely risible concept of worshipping magical monkeys and frilly-skirted four-armed elephant things.

Re:Quite right too

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention rubbing cow piss on your neck and forehead like fucking cologne. C'mon why is anyone taking these people seriously.

Re:Quite right too

[MimeticLie]

Wrong religion. Not all Indians are Hindu. The guy's name is Mufti Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi.

I realize that the desire for censorship crops up in pretty much all religions, but let's lay the blame where it's warranted in this case.

Streisand Effect

[feedayeen]

If the crusade against depictions of Muhammad is any indication, expect a round of comics around the Hindu gods to come out at any moment.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

According to wikipedia, more than one in eight Indians are muslim. The original article doesn't mention what specific content spurred this court order, but it could easily be the Muhammad cartoons that have already been going around for awhile.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Nrrqshrr]

Keyword: "Mufti".
A Mufti is some kind of "Islam-Expert" who understands Islam so well he has the right to create "Fatwas". A Fatwa is something like a law or a guidance resulting from interpretations of the holy book.
For example, X drew Muhammad, and the holy book says somewhere that you must not draw Muhammad, a Mufti will issue a Fatwa saying that anyone who kills X will go straight to heaven.
Thankfully these Fatwas only happen in retarded countries with a majority of zealous idiots. But every muslim country has a Mufti who works with the government (Generally he's the Minister of Religious stuff), and most of their job resolves around announcing the dates of muslim events (Since they use the Lunar calendar and shit).

But yeah, that's basically it.

Re:Streisand Effect

[feedayeen]

So basically Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi won a promotion from random zealot in India to random zealot in India who gets a paycheck for saying things like this. Not much change there but I do stand corrected on which religion he's representing.

Re:Streisand Effect

[thej1nx]

Bingo!

Yup, it has more or less nothing to do with the Hindus, and everything to do with the easily-offended Muslims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16903765

"Mr Sibal was angered by morphed photos of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi, as well as pigs running through Islam's holy city of Mecca"

They are just trying to avoid specifically referring to the Mohammed cartoons, to not kick up a shit-storm. But yeah, this is coming from the Muslims.

Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[NixieBunny]

Gods are rather powerful and knowing. Can't they just deal with this stuff without involving Google?

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[cvtan]

So Gods need protection from Google. This is priceless!

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[ackthpt]

So Gods need protection from Google. This is priceless!

This isn't a protection of God, it's a protection of those men who claim to speak for God. Beware of anyone who claims to speak for God who believes you need to be killed for heresy, blasphemy or simply being in their way of obtaining power. All these crappy extremists, of all strips, are driven by leaders who want power - only when it is too late do the people who served them find they are the first to be oppressed.

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[Nrrqshrr]

Who do you think is financing the SOPA campaign?

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he`s too busy doing other things and this is obviously a challenge for Mufti Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi, the Chosen One.

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[snowgirl]

Gods are rather powerful and knowing. Can't they just deal with this stuff without involving Google?

"Um... excuse me. What does God need with a starship?"

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these crappy extremists, of all strips

And what, exactly is crappy about extreme stripping?

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the Gods are just giant pussies. No, I don't mean they're weak. They are literally just giant, thinking vaginas.

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly this is a menial task which he has delegated out to his puppets.

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[frank_adrian314159]

What does God need with a starship?

Damn you! That's the first time I've thought of that movie in years. Now it will take another five to get that gawdawful piece of crap out of my head. It's like the goatse of movies.

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves?

[snowgirl]

Damn you! That's the first time I've thought of that movie in years. Now it will take another five to get that gawdawful piece of crap out of my head. It's like the goatse of movies.

Huh, I never thought it was that bad... rather it was more like Rebecca Black's Friday... you know, deep down you want to like it because it has catchy elements, but it falls into that uncanny valley, where you can't particularly explain what is wrong with it. Like it's trying way too hard to be good.

Rather, I didn't think it was BAD, it just wasn't good enough to be GOOD. Which oddly makes it even worse than bad, because it's just "hoohum", or "boring".

"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess...

[Fortunato_NC]

Now that it's been firmly established that Google will remove content that courts in whatever $COUNTRY deem blasphemous, I suppose it's only a matter of time before places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Texas start to get in on the action and start censoring content they find offensive, like journal articles on evolutionary biology or pictures of women driving. Way to put (outdated) ideas over people's fundamental rights, Google.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess...

[jonnythan]

Google has to comply with the laws of the countries in which it operates. Texas is prevented by the bill of rights from passing laws that limit freedom of religion and religious commentary, so Texas could not legally issue a court order demanding that Google remove such content.

Saudi Arabia and India apparently can, though. Google's choice is to either comply with the laws of those nations or simply cease operations in those nations. Considering that no nation on earth has truly unlimited freedom of speech, let alone the US, it makes sense to make occasional court-ordered concessions by removing data accessible in those countries.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot. They can either comply with these rulings or be held criminally liable. That means that their employees will be arrested and held prisoner.

Why do people not understand that companies are subject to the laws of the nations they're operating in?

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess...

[Unending]

Also note that when Google complies with these court orders they do so only within the jurisdiction of the court order, so in this case anyone within India will not receive these search results, but will instead see a message that some results have been removed due to court order.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess...

[lee1]

But when they enthusiastically appease other, extra-legal demands for censorship they sometimes censor results worldwide, including those served to the US. Did you know that when you search on Google or YouTube that the results returned by Google are partly determined by the preferences of various Islamic pressure groups and foreign governments, including Pakistan?

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

what part of a country doing business in a country has to respect the laws of the country do you not understand?

maybe you'd like people to come into your little world and fix all the wrong as they see it?

of course not, you're american. you just want to fuck with other peoples lives, while hiding behind your fake freedoms.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's choice is to either comply with the laws of those nations or simply cease operations in those nations.

This is exactly what is necessary. Google should make an announcement that it will cease operations in India due to X, and then let public outrage eliminate X.

Even if it doesn't work, marketing can still back it off with a simple "We're complying with X, but only for the sake of you loyal users." Then you put a banner ad on top of the home page (when accessed from an Indian IP address) with a link to information about why X is bad.

There's more than one way to skin a cow.

Important Distinction

[canajin56]

While they have agreed to take down the content in a civil suit, they still face criminal prosecution. In India you are criminally responsible for third party posts to your website, so Google India employees are still facing criminal charges. And agreeing to take it down has destroyed the Google employees' defense that they could not have preemptively taken it down because it is out of their control.

Re:Important Distinction

[bananaquackmoo]

"And agreeing to take it down has destroyed the Google employees' defense that they could not have preemptively taken it down because it is out of their control." ... umm... I think you don't understand the word preemptive.

how can a unicorn be invisible AND pink?!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your all stupid, and should to what I say.

Re:how can a unicorn be invisible AND pink?!!!!!

[billstewart]

They're the same color as trolls.

The alternative argument

[Myopic]

If the court believes it must remove comments which 'mock gods worshiped in India,' then wouldn't they also have to remove comments which 'mock gods NOT worshiped in India'?

If it is offensive to you, for me to say that your gods are silly myths; why shan't it be offensive to me, for you to say that they are real? I mean, let's be honest, at least I'm right.

Re:The alternative argument

[RazzleFrog]

I am not sure that there are many gods not worshiped in India. Besides having a large Hindu population, there is also still many Muslims, Buddhists (started in India and Buddha is considered even by Hindus as an incarnation of Vishnu), Christians (Christ also is considered an incarnation of Vishnu by some), and Sikhs.

Re:The alternative argument

[Myopic]

What I mean is, for every God worshiped, that God is also not worshiped. I thought that was clear, so I apologize for the confusion.

Re:The alternative argument

[Tsingi]

at least I'm right.

Not in India you aren't. The Indian courts aren't concerned with gods not worshiped in India. And the courts in India aren't concerned with what offends you.

Re:The alternative argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Only to the degree that Christ is viewed as an incarnation of Vishnu will Christianity receive its protection in India. When it becomes clear to the authorities that Christianity is nothing less and other than Judaic monotheism and thus alien to the belief continuum within India will it receive its "just condemnation". Go ask this fellow.

Outrageous

[gmuslera]

Will them ban Discworld novels in all the country?

Re:If only all superstitionists had but one throat

[Nrrqshrr]

We need a "Artistic" rating.

Woo! Hey India!!!

[heptapod]

Krishna sucks cock and Ganesh's asshole smells like day-old curry!

Try getting all Ghandi on my candy-ass, you cock smoking teabaggers!

One shouldn't mock the religious or retarded but..

[gestalt_n_pepper]

It is legal to do so. Otherwise, both the entertainment and news industry as we know them would be gone.

Flying Spaghetti Monster images blasphemous

[gestalt_n_pepper]

His noodly appendages are clearly drawn incorrectly as a way to mock his starchiness. I demand that /. remove them immediately.

Will you know your site is banned?

[TheTruthIs]

I wonder if Google will tell webmasters that their website has been blocked in one or more country and why.

Re:Will you know your site is banned?

[RazzleFrog]

Wouldn't Google be the webmaster?

Thank You India

[assertation]

I just posted a rant on my FB page about how juvenile American culture is that so many people are upset over a musician doing a "naughty gesture" during the Superbowl half time show and how the news media is STILL talking about a woman's nipple being seen during the same show 8 years prior.

This article about India makes me feel better about the US. Ours isn't the only culture that needs to grow up.

 

Re:Thank You India

[GLMDesigns]

While I have no problem with nudity - there is a time and place for sexual expression. Is it a good thing to deliberately offend people just for a little publicity? That's what Janet Jackson did. Why are you defending her? Just as it is wrong for "moral" people to prevent the "immoral" from watching lewd acts so it's wrong to inject sexuality or violence in a presumably "neutral" environment. You're missing the point. She purposefully exposed herself for publicity. It's the lame way she pretended it was a wardrobe malfunction. Wasn't she sued by the manufacturer for implying that they sold faulty merchandise? What's there to defend?

Re:Thank You India

[Anonymous Coward]

(just as a note, I'm not the Parent)

I would just like to quote George Carlin:

"The FCC, an appointed body, not elected, answerable only to the president, decided on its own that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. Why did they decide that? Because they got a letter from a minister in Mississippi!"

I love that album, btw. I think it was his "New Jersey" one. But anyway, that's what there is to defend. We in America have the freedom of speech. Now obviously there are limits imposed by laws (no yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, because of the threat of physical harm) but those laws have gotten to the point of silliness when an appointed body (see above quotes) can play moral police. The slippery slope began then. NBC is having to defend itself this year, because some rapper on stage threw up the middle finger (OH DEAR GOD THE HORROR!), where does it end? Eventually there will be nothing shown on TV for fear of offending someone, somewhere. The quote above from George Carlin goes on to say that there are "...two knobs on the radio, one changes the channel, and the other turns it off!"

I, myself, am a big proponent of the "two knob" system of censorship. If I'm watching TV and there's something on that is offending me, I pick up the remote (don't even have to move off the couch for that one) and press a button, and suddenly the offensive content is replaced by something better, either another TV show, or a book in my hand. The Government shouldn't have to spend money policing TV Stations for "offensive gestures", or the occasional nipple, when they could be spending that money on public transportation, improving street/highway quality, improving the military, improving public health, or anything else that should be higher priority than "OMG SOME1 SHOWED SOME FLESH!1!!1!" or "Naughty people said a bad word."

Re:Thank You India

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think an environment without room for sexual expression is neutral? It's highly biased.

I don't know if Janet Jackson showing her nipple was intentional or not, but I do know that anyone who thinks this is shocking or sexual need to take a good look at themselves. If a nipple is only seen as sexual then breast feeding must be child abuse.

Re:Thank You India

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I just posted a rant on my FB page about how juvenile American culture is

hahahahhahahahahahaha

oh hi, irony.

Re:Thank You India

[GLMDesigns]

I have a hard time arguing this point as I agree with you. However, when dealing with a mass market you need to deal with mass tastes. If anyone complained about the sexuality in Spartacus or True Blood or in music videos (Destination Calabria)I would say "don't watch it." But there are people (for the most part our religious neighbors) who object to such sexuality, and when we are sharing a common space, we should respect their sensibilities and not rub their faces in something they object to and then gleefully mock them for being rubes.

The SuperBowl is about football. Some sexuality is expected (see the cheerleaders) but there is a limit to the acceptable suggestfulness. My problem with Janet Jackson is not seeing her nipples for 1/2 a second but that she purposefully offended people to get some publicity. If she wanted to do a video where she got butt-naked I would defend her right to do so, and watch it as well. :-)

Let me ask you a question: if a spongebob episode had a hard-core porn clip in the middle of the show, would you side with the outraged parents or the guy who altered the viewing? Granted this is an extreme example but the analogy holds.

Re:Thank You India

[Anonymous Coward]

To answer the extreme example question it would depend:

In the hypothetical world in which this happens:

a> Is Spongebob still a cartoon, and therefore subject to recording before being played? I will assume so.
b> you mention someone altered the viewing, so this is not the original cartoon, but rather someone who took a cartoon and edited it?

This leads to several scenarios:

Both A&B are true -- The Cartoon was not played in it's original format, therefore the TV-7 Y rating on it (or whatever Spongebob gets) is not correct, but it would have been had someone not edited the video post production. The person who edited the video should be sued by the studio after the outrage, and probably fired.

A is true, B is False --This could play out two ways, is there a children's rating before the show, such as TV-7Y? If so, false advertisement, siding with the parents. If the rating on the other hand is TV-MA, siding with the studios, parents shouldn't plop their children in front of a TV and assume it will babysit the kids for them.

A is False, B is False -- If A is false (aka it's a live show, such as the Super Bowl) then the Television studio has no control over the content. I see this as similar to the warning that Blizzard and other MMO companies attach to online games -- The T rating of the game does not apply to online actions, buyer be warned. The FCC hasn't shut down Blizzard for barrens chat, nor should they be able to. If Blizzard wants to police barren's chat more power to them. For the NFL/NBC superbowl, Janet Jackson will probably never be coming back, and if the FCC didn't make such a stink about it, she wouldn't have gotten the publicity she so desired.

A is False, B is true -- if someone essentially hacked a television broadcast to interject porn into it, bring the full force of the law down on him/her for interference with a broadcast, and for potentially exposing children to adult material. Once again, not the broadcast company's fault, nor the NFLs.

Basically, Janet Jackson should have been sued by NBC for ruining their programming and breaking the contract of keeping the super bowl family friendly, same with the rapper in this year's superbowl. The FCC should not be involved because they should not have the ability to declare that TV and Radio are not protected by the First Amendment. This is also why I support their ability to force net neutrality on carriers in the US, where they are given a monopoly as a city's ISP as an extension of the First Amendment. If anything, that should be their goal, to make sure that the First Amendment is not hampered.

Re:Thank You India

[GLMDesigns]

Nice post. Regarding the last paragraph I couldn't have said it better myself. I fear we still have a long way to go to before we can declaw the FCC. There are too many on both the left and right who like government oversite on content. Thankfully there are now "non-public" airwaves where content producers can create and show what they want but I think the laws preventing certain types of advertising applies there as well.

Hate to ask, but what was the content?

[medv4380]

Before I get offended that Google would do such a thing or that India would think that it has jurisdiction. I would like to know what the objectionable material was exactly. If it was something like someone comparing the religious leaders of India to pedophile catholic priests I would understand, but if it was just "your God sucks" then Google should have stood its ground. So does anyone have a link or something that actually describes the offence because the article did not.

Swedish Court Orders Google To Remove Content

[Anonymous Coward]

"A Court in Stockholm, Sweden has ordered Google to remove content that 'is said to mock religious truths worshipped in Sweden,' according to an IDG News Service report. Jan Civilperson, a private citizen, 'had filed a civil suit against Google and other Internet companies including Facebook, objecting to certain content on their websites.' While Google agreed to remove the content, citing a 'long-standing policy of responding to court orders,' other Internet companies named in the suit are likely to appeal."

Yessss!!! Long live the official religion of Kopimism! Finally we can get rid of that blasphemous crap put online by the RIAA/MPAA and other Copyright Devils!

Note: link to kopimistsamfundet seems to be dead; therefore:
        Copying of information is ethically right.
        Dissemination of information is ethically right.
        Copymixing is a sacred kind of copying, moreso than the perfect, digital copying, because it expands and enhances the existing wealth of information
        Copying or remixing information communicated by another person is seen as an act of respect and a strong expression of acceptance and Kopimistic faith.
        The Internet is holy.
        Code is law.

Re:One shouldn't mock the religious or retarded bu

[Ja'Achan]

Stop making it sound like a good thing...

Heretical!

[drwho]

I am sure I am not the only person who wishes that we had a search engine for all of the things banned by other search engines. I am glad to see that heretical.com is still up, in spite of all of the attempts to have it shut.

Re:Heretical!

[RazzleFrog]

I didn't get the impression that goggle was banning any sites. They are just talking about taking down content on their sites. I can't imagine why heretical would be taken down except for its awful design. Is it hosted in India?

Removed from where?

[Adrian Lopez]

Has the content only been removed from all of Google's websites, or just Google India?

It's scary to think of what the Interenet would look like if each and every website had to follow the laws of each and every country. I know the fact that Google has facilities in India puts significant pressure on them to comply, but the thought of being bound by the numerous idiotic laws around the world is extremely worrisome.

Google is apparently adopting a strategy of censoring content on a per-country basis. That's their privilege, but I hope it doesn't become the norm.

brown penis better than yellow penis

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened with google?
When the chicoms told it to roll over it threw some sulky fit and pulled out.
But now it's quite willingly to assume the position and bend over to the Indians?

its not 'state' stupid.

[unity100]

is google obeying any orders from any north korean goverment agency or court ? no. or abu dhabi ? or, yemen ?

google and others are obeying the 'state' only in countries they are making money.

in short, its basic capitalism. and its symptom is lack of spine and principles - do no evil, until your market share is in danger.

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google obeys court orders in all countries where it has a presence, it does not selectively choose. There is no Google North Korea, and their site is banned there, along with, you know, the Internet, so Google has no reason or obligation to answer to the North Korean government. Abu Dhabi is a city, not a country, but assuming you were attempting to refer to the United Arab Emirates, yes, there is a Google UAE, and Google would respond to any court order from the UAE. Note that the UAE is a fairly progressive country, and not the backwater Islamic police state that only exists in your mind. And finally, there is no Google presence in Yemen, so Google would likely ignore any court orders from there. Now that I've properly answered your questions, feel free to return to spouting "Google is teh evilz" type nonsense.

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

They would, probably.

I mean, they complied to requests from Cook Islands, Solomon Islands and Sri Lanka, what makes you think other nations would be different?

Stop trying to ascribe personal qualities to corporations, FFS. There's no compassion, pride, ideals and so on, there's just profits and public relations.

"Lack of spine", "principles" and "do no evil" don't even come into this, you want to do business in a country, you abide the law of that country.

FB and Google already complied to the court order, others named will probably follow right after getting some press where they'll tell how they really don't want to do that (because they didn't pay their developers to implement region-based content filtering yet)

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[metacell]

Abu Dhabi is a city, not a country, but assuming you were attempting to refer to the United Arab Emirates, yes, there is a Google UAE, and Google would respond to any court order from the UAE.

But it is a state. The United Arab Emirates, as its name suggests, is a federation of seven states.

Note that the UAE is a fairly progressive country, and not the backwater Islamic police state that only exists in your mind.

Only relatively speaking. Only 10% to 15% of the population of UAE are citizens; all the others have diminished legal rights. Labourers are brought to the UAE on slave contracts, often defrauded and treated as indentured servants. Racial discrimination is legal and open. The conservative government tries to combat prostitution, but it's still very widespread and organised, importing "labourers" from Ethiopia and Eastern Europe by the thousands.

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[erroneus]

Do you think Google would have a presense in a country where they couldn't make money?

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[peragrin]

The UAE is a progressive Islamic country. Getting drunk in public is illegal. Getting arrested for it is a nasty crime.

Women wearing certian skirts is also forbidden. At least they dont have to cover their heads and can go to school after 9 years old.

If thats what you mean by progressive at least. All that said their are christians that wantto treat women the same way.

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation needed]

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the UAE is a fairly progressive country, and not the backwater Islamic police state that only exists in your mind.

Where women are forced to wear the burka? Where non-royalty are second class citizen? Where foreigner have no right? (inb4 only citizen have right. They should have basic human right and have the right to safe working condition and decent wages. Slavery is unacceptable.) Is that what you call 'fairly progressive' or you speak of an other UAE?

Just because rich occidental tourists are allowed to blow some money in luxurious dessert mirage doesn't mean they are not the retard islamist monarchy everybody know they are.

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[metacell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uae

Re:its not 'state' stupid.

[metacell]

And for the human rights issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

Re:If only all superstitionists had but one throat

[Anonymous Coward]

I think "Poetic" might be the better tag here. An image of Shiva clutching all eight of Superstitions throats, that would be Artist. Mocking, and eventually Filtered and Blocked, but Artistic.

toxic ?

[unity100]

you probably meant capitalism aka unrestricted feudalism. or, you dont know the definition of communism.

Re:toxic ?

[ScentCone]

capitalism aka unrestricted feudalism

Why do you make such deliberately nonsensical comparisons? "Unrestricted feudalism" means the opposite of capitalism. Capitalists negotiate and agree on transactions. Feudal lords impose them through violence. Feudal societies have market-like activity, but it is structured around the capricious dictates of people who attain and maintain power through murder. There are no checks and balances beyond the influence of yet another party's violence, or the ability to evade it.

Most people are lazy, and don't want to have to compete. But they resent people who do (or act that way, to mask their laziness), and thus must define someone else's willingness to work hard as somehow being a sure sign of their own victimhood. That twisted bit of whinyness, which stretches wide across the entitlement-minded, Nanny-State-Wanting crowd that makes up much of the professional protest culture now casts market economics as feudalism because even those buffoons are starting to realize how ridiculous they sound calling everyone they don't like a "fascist."

"OMG U R TEH FEUDAL!" is the new "OMG FASCISTS!". Among twelve year olds.

Fuck RMS.

[G3ckoG33k]

How come I agree with that fuckup RMS, everytime! He is an asshole for thinking like me. I came up with those idas too, albeit later, yet independently. Fuck that, RMS. ;)

Re:Fuck RMS.

[Talderas]

So if he's an asshole that has every idea and thought you do would you also be an asshole?

Re:Fuck RMS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too similar for our own good.

Crying to your mom

[Murdoch5]

This is the same idea as crying to your mom at the age of 5 when someone's mean to you or when someone says a bad word. Just because some people offend WAY to easily shouldn't be Google's, Facebook's or anyone's issue. If your sensitive to religion that's fine, I'm not about to try and call anyone out for there person belief but realize that people have the right to mock or joke about any religion, if you can't handle that then it's not there problem, it's yours.

moron

[unity100]

Tell it to the numerous muslim terrorist groups out to burn the world.

all of them are either remnants of the era in which u.s. funded and armed islamist to 'counter' soviet influence, or groups propped up by usa and israel later, in order to replace the threat they lost with the warsaw pact with something else to be able to justify military spending, freedom-restriction and invasions.

if you check them out, you will find out that almost all of the leaders of those organizations have been educated neatly in either britain or usa. and their relatives have ties with cia or mossad.

Re:moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... he was talking about the usually laid-back Hindus as compared to the fanatical suicide-bombers Muslims.

Nearly all the hijackers/conspirators of 911 tragedy were muslims. None were hindus.

There are no Hindu terrorist groups operating in any western or Islamic country.

You really need to learn to comprehend what you read, in a better way.

Re:moron

[metacell]

And he responded to a post which simply stated that Muslims generally were as laid-back as hindus. No mention of suicide bombers there.

Re:moron

[toriver]

Are you talking abut the Hindus that massacred 2000+ Muslims based on rumors that a train fire was caused by them? I guess massacres are not terrorism...

What do we do with Catholics, though? IRA and ETA prove they are also terrorists...

Re:moron

[thodelu]

Rumors?!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning Don't equate organized riots to terrorism.

Re:moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice conspiracy theory. Note that AQ is funded mostly by what Americans would call mob-style tactics and most of hte active members are under 25, and that AIAI and Al Shabab are funded and armed by Iran. Very few voluntary participants in either of those organizations are older than 15; they ahve a short lifespan.

Re:moron

[Anonymous Coward]

If you check them out, almost all of the leader of those organizations, along with their members happen to be muslims btw. Nice white-washing attempt.

Re:moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that for all his hindu claims, GP is far more likely to be a muslim apologist. US funds has been used by Pakistan to carry out terrorist attacks against India for decades. You do not, however see Indian hindus swearing deadly vengeance against the US. So any claim of muslims being as laid-back as hindus is laughable.

Hell their holy book Koran, demands of them to kill all non-believers and to wage holy war against the non-believers. You think that is "laid-back"?

Re:moron

[metacell]

Maybe the people who are inspired by that message in the Quran and become Jihadists are so few, most Hindus never meet one (even if those few Jihadists have a large impact on the world).

There aren't any Gods in India

[Anonymous Coward]

They all live in heaven. So therefore, since no Gods live in India, the set of Gods being mocked and in India is the null set.

Ergo no crime.

Horribly presumptuous tags.

[LikwidCirkel]

This story is tagged with both "islam" and "muslims", yet the actual linked article mentions nothing about either. As India is a predominantly Hindu country, I seriously doubt it's only Muslims behind this. It also says "Gods", not "God", which to me implies Hinduism, not Islam.

Re:Horribly presumptuous tags.

[RazzleFrog]

The guy who started this is Muslim. First clue would have been that his name is Mufti.

Re:Horribly presumptuous tags.

[MurukeshM]

Mufti is a title. Like cardinal, bishop, etc, though nowhere near as high. The guy's name is Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi, probably.

"OH NOES!!!"

[hack slash]

"Something in another country I can access in the comfort of my own home offends me!"

Don't fucking access it then.

Singh and Gandhi in compromising positions

[medv4380]

I get to answer my own question. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/google-facebook-remove-content-as-india-threatens-lawsuits-for-offending-religious-sentiments/2012/02/06/gIQAJjUntQ_story.html

Singh and Gandhi in compromising positions and pigs running through Mecca, Islam’s holiest city

The first part make the lawsuit make a little sense and make it so that the Slashdot Title is incorrect. In the US it could be considered parody, but parody usually comes close to libel and slander. Gandhi and Singh are also not Gods but religious figures. I'm a bit surprised they took a stance on the Pigs running though Mecca, but it's probably politically motivated to appease some Islamic views so that maybe possibly they might find some common ground (wishful thinking but that's what it sounds like).

Re:Singh and Gandhi in compromising positions

[Anonymous Coward]

Singh is the Prime minister of India, and Sonia Gandhi is the leader of ruling party. These are political figures/people. Not religious figures.

This is mostly about allowing Muslims to censor blasphemous references from internet(i.e. Mohammed cartoons)

Separation of church and state

[msobkow]

While Google has no choice but to respond to court orders if they are to serve Indian customers and users, I think this is in extremely bad form for India to not keep the church and state separate.

People will make fun of your religious beliefs. They will mock you, laugh at you, and point fingers. No matter what faith you follow.

Walking around with a chip on your shoulder about it or threatening jihads, filing lawsuits, etc. is freaking BULLSHIT.

Or doesn't India's constitution and rights in law grant freedom of speech? Canada's is more restrictive than the US, because we explicitly do not grant such freedom to spread "hate speech" and libel, but other than that, I would have expected India to have similar legislation as a Commonwealth nation.

Then again, maybe India is just suffering from a tad bit 'o political corruption about the whole issue, with a whining little pisspot to stir things up by filing the suit over him feeling "offended". Wah. Go cry in your lassi, buddy.

Re:Separation of church and state

[shutdown -p now]

Canada's is more restrictive than the US, because we explicitly do not grant such freedom to spread "hate speech" and libel, but other than that, I would have expected India to have similar legislation as a Commonwealth nation.

Why do you think being a Commonwealth nation has much to do with it? All it means is that country was a part of the British Empire at some point in the past, and British Empire was very explicitly a Christian state - heck, Queen is still Defender of the Faith in UK, and it still has blasphemy laws on the books. And it sure did have them back in 1947, which is what India inherited for its own legal system. For that matter, India still has law that criminalizes homosexuality - also inherited from the British.

If the society is conservative, people will keep voting for politicians who will keep such laws. And India is definitely quite conservative compared to most Western countries.

Re:Separation of church and state

[msobkow]

The vast majority of law in Commonwealth nations is inherited from their UK ancestry and has far more in common with member nations than it does with US law. The details vary, of course -- Commonwealth does not mean "standardized law." But given the number of Commonwealth nations that espouse Freedom of Speech and Separation of Church and State, I'm surprised India doesn't seem to be one of them. Very surprised, actually.

Re:Separation of church and state

[shutdown -p now]

The vast majority of law in Commonwealth nations is inherited from their UK ancestry and has far more in common with member nations than it does with US law. The details vary, of course -- Commonwealth does not mean "standardized law." But given the number of Commonwealth nations that espouse Freedom of Speech and Separation of Church and State, I'm surprised India doesn't seem to be one of them. Very surprised, actually.

But that was my point exactly - "UK ancestry" does not imply strong freedom of speech or religion, quite the opposite in fact. As noted earlier, UK still has blasphemy laws on the books, it just doesn't really enforce them. That most western Commonwealth countries today have those freedoms is more due to them being western, not due to them being Commonwealth.

Objections was from a Muslim. Google is appealing.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The plaintiffs:

Google has agreed before a court in Delhi to remove religious and other content considered objectionable, though some other Internet firms are likely to appeal the court's decision, plaintiff Mufti Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi said on Monday.

The appeal:

The government allowed the court to prosecute the Internet companies under various Indian laws in the criminal case, but Google has meanwhile appealed the decision before the Delhi High Court.

Basic background: India is the country with the second largest Muslim population in the world, number of Indian Muslims dwarfs Pakistan, Arabia, Egypt, Bangladesh. Just recently Indonesia overtook it. Muslims form a sizeable vote bank, some 15% of the electorate and almost all the politicians kow-tow the lines drawn by them. There is widespread belief that the Muslims are punching way above their weight politically. But even when there is provocation like Muslim painters paint Hindu goddesses in the nude or something, the Hindu reaction is usually divided. The secularists are mostly in control of the hard liners on the Hindu side. Once in a while you hear Hindu hardliners banning Valentines Day or protesting some movie or a book.

Having said that, for country with that large a Muslim population, very few of the Indian Muslims are involved in terrorism, or support terrorism. Despite periodical outrageous attacks by Pakistani Muslims terrorist outfits inside India, there is no widespread retaliation against the local Muslims. Indian Muslims join the police and military in large numbers.

Why is *GOOGLE* responsible?

[walterbyrd]

Did google create the content? Google is just a search engine. Why not blame the person that created the content?

Re:Why is *GOOGLE* responsible?

[jader3rd]

Because without Google people are at a loss on how to find the content.

Re:Why is *GOOGLE* responsible?

[walterbyrd]

Yahoo, Bing, Ask, etc?

Re:Why is *GOOGLE* responsible?

[jader3rd]

Yahoo, Bing, Ask, etc?

I know that, you know that, but the politicians don't know that. If the majority of searches all go through the same source, censoring that source results in censoring the majority. Censoring/controling all possible sources has a point of diminishing returns and with how big Google is, that's the only one they apparently feel is worth it.

If someone is searching for this supposed offensive content, they'll find it. I think this has more to do with stopping people from finding it when they aren't looking for it, or don't really want to find it.

Re:Why is *GOOGLE* responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo and MS are listed among defendants too.

How about a law against false information

[jprupp]

If nobody is up to the challenge of removing laws against criticizing, mocking or insulting, then I'd propose we replace these laws for a single law against the dissemination of false information. So, nothing that isn't proven true can be taught as such, and can only be accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer of conjecture or fiction. I guess all religions will be crushed pretty quickly then, for the betterment of everyone.

Re:How about a law against false information

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue fundies jumping up and down shouting "Ha-ha! You can't prove the evolution, where's the disclaimer?" Long and windy court drama ensues.

Re:How about a law against false information

[mehrotra.akash]

Showing bacteria and virii evolving to resist certain drugs is proof of evolution

Re:How about a law against false information

[RobertLTux]

No showing the bacteria evolving to climb out of the petri dish and holding a GUN to the researchers head shows evolution.

if its still bacteria then it has not evolved (certain traits have shifted but its still bacteria)

Re:How about a law against false information

[ColdWetDog]

Showing bacteria and virii evolving to resist certain drugs is proof of evolution

Nope. God did that.

You lose.

Re:How about a law against false information

[tragedy]

Now, I will agree that bacteria becoming resistant to drugs does not necessarily demonstrate evolution through new traits derived from genetic mutation. On the other hand, your statement "if its still bacteria then it has not evolved (certain traits have shifted but its still bacteria)" is absolutely ridiculous. At one point, there were only prokaryotic bacteria, and they developed cellular nuclei, membrane-covered organelles and mitosis to become eukaryotes. The process took a long time and surely did involve traits evolving in isolation and shifting, but the resulting eukaryotes, while still bacteria, were also clearly evolved.

Re:How about a law against false information

[vlm]

Showing bacteria and virii evolving to resist certain drugs is proof of evolution

Nope. God did that.

You lose.

Confusion of cause and effect. Statement 1 is an effect, saying nothing about cause (who created the universe such that evolution is the best known theory to predict what happens inside it?). Statement 2 is a cause stating almost nothing about the effect. (God did something. Well supposedly he can do anything, so what does doing something prove about a being that can do anything? Not a heck of a lot, other than he/she/it did it)

Re:How about a law against false information

[rtb61]

Of course if it is my religion to criticise, mock and insult other religions, well, who will deny me my freedom of religion. My right to non-violently express my religious beliefs, after all many of today's existing religions have a very sordid history of 'Violently' oppressing other peoples religions and in their religious texts demonify believers and the beings they believe in.

So you logically can not attack my religion to defend your religion without attacking your own religion.

So will google remove all religous texts that attack other religions in any way, shape or form, to be form or has google abandoned freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech by deciding which religions are valid and which are not.

The Gods...

[Maudib]

The gods worshipped in India (and everywhere else) can go fuck themselves.

Re:The Gods...

[PReDiToR]

Says (s)he, named after the religious prophet of a whole planet accidentally set up by some story telling old witches in case they ever needed a place to rest without the natives shooting them ...

But that's religion all over for you, rank hypocrisy.

Take this as a joke.

Re:The Gods...

[lgw]

You do know the Mahdi is an actual religious figure, right? And about the self-proclaimed Mahdi who led a bunch of guys in the desert to overthrow Imperial rule? Did you think Herbert actually came up with those ideas?

Re:The Gods...

[PReDiToR]

I didn't know that because I don't have much respect for organised religions. But I do appreciate you for pointing it out, as that TOW page is an interesting read.
Thank you.

Re:The Gods...

[lgw]

as that TOW page

Someone spends way to much time on TV Tropes. :)

Weak gods

[Anonymous Coward]

The gods bothered by mere human ridicule must be awfully weak. Usually they spite people with lightning bolts and similar such things to solve these kinds of problems.

Gandhi never claimed to speak for God

[medv4380]

This isn't a protection of God, it's a protection of those men who claim to speak for God.

Gandhi never claimed to speak for God. He didn't elevate himself to Mahatma ether. Those where things that others attributed to him just as you are attributing that he and others like him would commit murder for this offense.

If I were to draw a picture of Drew Barrymore prostituting herself out on the Vegas Strip I could easily find myself slapped with a lawsuit as well. Free speech doesn't mean freedom to commit libel and slander.

Re:Gandhi never claimed to speak for God

[rssrss]

"If I were to draw a picture of Drew Barrymore prostituting herself out on the Vegas Strip"

Do you mean that she doesn't?

Re:Gandhi never claimed to speak for God

[PReDiToR]

I believe you can draw a picture of Drew Barrymore hooking on LVB with impunity. Furthermore I believe you can sell it for money if people will buy it, or you could even have Seth McFarlane include it in his TV programmes, and he could ask her to voice it herself no matter how offended (or not) she would be.
However, if you were to claim that it depicted reality you may be faced with the wrath of both her fans and a lawyer.

Speaking of lawyers (shark bastards), IANAL.

Re:Gandhi never claimed to speak for God

[Ragun]

You can draw Drew Barrymore doing anything you want, so long as you aren't trying to tell people its true.

Re:Gandhi never claimed to speak for God

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about India, but you can draw a picture of Drew Barrymore doing anything you want and you'll never get a suit slapped against you because libel and slander both require that your are actively purporting lies as truth. Satirical drawing are quite safe.
Further, you'd have a good case for an anti-SLAPP suit too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice.

Re:Gandhi never claimed to speak for God

[Anonymous Coward]

but Drew Barrymore would have to sue you. Let the gods come forward and sue for themselves.

The same old

[Laxitive]

Look, guys. You know how politicians in your countries try to use religious wedge issues, appeal to "cultural values", and leverage that in politics to push through the censorship regimes they want?

Yeah. That doesn't just happen in your country.

Well, speaking as an insensitive American...

[forkfail]

... let 'em do it. It'll help stifle the free and Western thought processes that are necessary to build the architect level portion of a technological middle class and will help keep my high end development job from getting outsourced.

Now off to spam stackoverflow with comments about the steamy affair between Kali, Vishnu and Krishna from a McDonnalds without washing my hands...

7000 Muslim terrorist attacks in ten years?

[walterbyrd]

That is what I have heard. Does that sound about right to you?

Worth noting, these attacks are usually part of an organized movement, not just random crimminal behavior.

Freedom of Web vs. Court ordered Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with them complying this sets a very bad precedent IMHO. Too much Political Correctness. What happened to free speech. If it is not hateful and 'merely' 'offensive'. Then tell them no, we believe in freedom of the web.

Removing Content is an attack on MY God

[kawabago]

Put the content back or MY beliefs will be utterly and forever damaged!

Religion

[ThatsNotPudding]

ruins everything.

India? Why am I not surprised

[andy1307]

These are the people who banned Satanic Verses before any other country in the Islamic world. The country Salman Rushdie couldn't visit because it would upset the muslims.

which sites did Google India remove?

[bityz]

Please Mod this up so that the question can get some international exposure. Perhaps we can get a list of links to the sites in question?

Fuck the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an indian citizen and i believe that terrorists or even local bad people never made as much damage as judges did in india. Not only that they doesnt have any strict protocol(f->uck the indian penal code and constitution driven by faith on religions) but also they take decisions like supreme religious leaders when it comes to peoples freedom. whenever a lower court(state high courts) does a *mistake* supreme court just criticize in strict language -> but no punishment unlike how they treat normal civilians. I have a personal experience on a very stupid judgement in a lower civil court.

and

[unity100]

what does 'having presence' mean ?

Re:and

[Aryden]

It means that they actively do business in that country and maintain offices, datacenters et al.

Re:and

[Chrontius]

It means they have employees in the country that can be arrested or otherwise abused if Google doesn't comply. They're very diplomatic about it, but all of this content blocking is really done under duress.

Re:and

[MurukeshM]

IANAL, I think it means having either a) a subsidiary registered in the country as a commercial entity or b) physical assets in the country (I think this needs (a)), or both.

Re:and

[lonecrow]

I suspect it works like this.

I live in Canada and if I type in google.com I am auto-redirected to google.CA. If my government handed down a court order forbidding the term "Enbridge northern gateway pipeline sux" then Google would remove it from google.CA.

Now if users in Canada found a way to go to google.COM they would be able to find out all about the pipeline.

Re:and

[Tubal-Cain]

It means they set up a branch office there.

lord ganesh stomps on google

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats next youtube complying with Syrian government requests to remove videos of their citizens being killed by their own military? Whats the difference? Leave it to the governments to try and control information on behalf of their citizens don't do it for them.

Having a presence at all in backwards countries including the US is the root problem.

Re:lord ganesh stomps on google

[Thud457]

Whats next youtube complying with Syrian government requests to remove videos of their citizens being killed by their own military? Whats the difference? Leave it to the governments to try and control information on behalf of their citizens don't do it for them.

Having a presence at all in backwards countries including the US is the root problem.

Yeah, Google should incorporate in the Cayman Islands. Or Liberia. Or maybe just move to cyberspace.

Re:lord ganesh stomps on google

[Thud457]

great, I gnarfed up my snarky link, here, try this one :
Google's Cayman Island tax dodge, because corporations are people, too. People with extra-special privileges.

Gods; good for nothing but ridicule.

[JavaBear]

Gods
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Gods
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Gods are something that I despise
For they mean destruction of innocent lives
For they mean tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their Gods go out to fight to take their lives

Gods
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
Gods
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing

Gods
They're nothing but a heartbreaker
Gods
Friends only to the undertaker
Gods are the enemy of all mankind
The thought of Gods blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Induction destruction
Who wants to die

Gods
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
Gods
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing

Gods have shattered many young men's dreams
Made them disabled bitter and mean
Life is too precious to be fighting Gods each day
Gods can't give life they can only take it away

Gods
They're nothing but a heartbreaker
Gods
Friends only to the undertaker
Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But what?, there's gotta be a better way
That's better than
Gods

Gods
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
Gods
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing

Isn't removal for copyright violation different?

[walterbyrd]

Protecting intellectual property vs censoring free expression of religion ideas, seems to a different sort of thing to me.

Salman Rushdie

[Tokolosh]

"Freedom of speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Facebook closing accounts because mocking 'god'?

[cribera]

Personal friend of mine, had its Facebook account closed by a lot of religious zealots accusing the account of mocking their religious views. I've personally saw the posts, some jokes, and other times strong arguments against religions and god's idea. So, how come Facebook is letting a bunch of zealots have the power to close an account by simple accusation without given the right to argue back? If I am right, I invite ANYONE to mock about my ideas, I would fight back with ARGUMENTS, because I feel I'm right. It would denote myself being mentally challenged if I ask to have the other party shut up, instead of being able to defend my ideas myself.

But google is US company

[walterbyrd]

And google is not hosting the content.

Why should a US company have to fight, for India, against a third party?

Why doesn't India take down the content themselves, or file a lawsuit against who created the content.

Indian economy is slowing

[TheSync]

India's latest GDP growth figure slipped to 6.9% and industrial production numbers showed a decline of 5.1% compared with the previous period.

How far can this go?

[Anonymous Coward]

In certain religions, Hinduism included, anything can be revered as an object of worship from trees down to rocks. So if you offend the type of tree or the
specific rock that is the object of my worship can I have you censored?

What if I worship Rajinikanth or Sachin Tendulkar (famous movie star and cricketer) as my personal god and you say something against them, can I have you censored? Allowing censoring is a slippery slope.

Whatever

[AmberBlackCat]

Say something anti-Linux, anti-Android, pro-Christian, or whatever else goes against Slashdot groupthink and you will get modded into non-existance by the very same people who are arguing against censorship right now.

Re:Whatever

[Skapare]

Modding doesn't prevent people who want to see it from seeing it. Hey, there's an idea. Just give the court judges some free mod points so they can mod down all those nasty comments about someone's favorite god.

Re:Isn't removal for copyright violation different

[Anonymous Coward]

"Protecting intellectual property" seems to encircle almost everything people with money don't like.

Used a photo to criticize shitty photoshop job? DMCA'd.

Posted a video endorsing filesharing site? We'll take it down for copyright infringement (and not even lawfully at that)

And so on, and so on.

"We're only chasing pedophiles, terrorists and counterfeiters", sure.

How is this different from America?

[peterindistantland]

...where hate speech is illegal? Mocking Hindu gods is their version of "hate speech".

All your gods

[presidenteloco]

are equally ridiculous.

I don't discriminate.

Sorry slashdot. I guess you and me are going to be on a list somewhere.

The Ugly American

[billstewart]

In the original book, and the Marlon Brando movie, the ugly American was a good guy, helping the farmers in the fictitious southeast Asian country he was working in improve life in their villages. It was the military and government folks back at the embassy who were getting us into the Vietnam war.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in Texas

[billstewart]

Texas could easily issue a court order demanding that Google do that - all the plaintiff would have to do is assert that Islam is their intellectual property, and it should be no problem fitting in with the traditional court behaviour down there. A patent would be more likely to succeed, but those have to be registered, and expire after 20 years, but he could argue that those cartoons of The Prophet are derivative works and he'd be riding the Disney-powered gravy train of perpetual copyright protection.

How do I get mine?

[anwyn]

What is this offensive content and how do I get my copy? What good is slashdot if it won't implement the Streisand effect?

Re:How do I get mine?

[Skapare]

The content was not really offensive. They just pretended that it was. But they are removing it from online so you will not be able to see the content and realize the lies perpetrated upon you.

This is why we need to keep all removed content online, so people can see what they would be missing if the liars are allowed to prevail. If the content is actually removed, then we know it's all just a coverup.

Religion or politics?

[gd2shoe]

Please remember that it wasn't so much religion as it was political/economic control through abusing religion.

Contrariwise, if you're not careful, you'll throw the baby out with the bathwater. We're entering an amoral atheistic society. You'll keep the worst parts of religious history (under the guise of political parties) and throw out the best parts (work ethic, taking responsibility, golden rule, family values, etc).

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in Texas

[idontgno]

all the plaintiff would have to do is assert that Islam is their intellectual property, and it should be no problem

This approach has had significant success for other religious organizations, so I could see this working.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in Texas

[gmhowell]

The problem is the issue of who holds the rights to Islam has been tied up in a sort of probate for years. Just ask the Sunnis and the Shiites.

Re:Quite not so right too

[Anonymous Coward]

All gods are deserving of equal protection under the law, no matter how utterly ludicrous any sane, rational mind would find the completely risible concept of worshipping magical monkeys and frilly-skirted four-armed elephant things.

no gods are deserving of ANY protection under the law. if the gods can't take it, then too God damn bad. Sionce when does a "god" need protection ?

Re:Objections was from a Muslim. Google is appeali

[Anonymous Coward]

India is the country with the second largest Muslim population in the world, number of Indian Muslims dwarfs Pakistan

Err, let's not get carried away. There are more Muslims in Pakistan then there are in India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

Time for new search engine

[Anonymous Coward]

I am getting sick of all this whole google is the 'internet' talk. Google does not host anything but just trall through the net- anyone can do it - might take some time but still, it's got nothing to do with what it finds.

Google needs to just grow some balls and say sorry, what people search for is their own business, we just point to the site. So what.

I think it's time all the nerds here just make a google clone and end all this nonesence.

And just a point, all those religious people should be praying to their 'god/myth' and doing other things than use technology that does not involve them WHAT SO EVER.

Anyway, rant over, new search engine time!

Meh

[fireylord]

I say nonsense tbh, because if you're worshipping that idea, then it's a religion _TO_YOU_ so you are then worshipping in a religious sense!

Re:Meh

[metacell]

Ah, but you forget that people CAN hold contradictory ideas :)

reading comprehension failure!

[fireylord]

The anonymous coward who cant be bothered to check the contents the post of the poster that he's flaming! This is Slashdot! :D (hint, where does it say that the poster is a muslim?)

idiot.

[unity100]

im calling you idiot. because, you either have to be an ignorant fuck, or an idiot to come up and attempt to contest history.

u.s. funded 100s of islamist groups in middle east and afghanistan over 2 decades. al qaeda is one of them. everything ranging from their core leaders' training to their means of funding themselves were set up by u.s.

u.s. does not need to give them money. probably they havent been giving them money since close to a decade. instead they set up them with many means to fund themselves, one of which being drug trade.

Re:Objections was from a Muslim. Google is appeali

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Assuming the data there is accurate and up to date, the numbers are very close, 10.9% of total for India vs 11% for Pakistan. It is possible recently Pakistan overtook India, or may they have been trading places back and forth in the past. Still it is a fact that India has the second or the third largest population of Muslims in the world.

Keeping ignorant people ignorant 24 hrs a day ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I remember to include a sarcastic snide comment about their god(s) in all my professional publications they will never read any of my scientific papers again ... helps keep them out of the loop, and out of the future ...

Time for my one of my favorite movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Agora.....
watch it and sigh for how the world could have been

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/

Google needs to grow a pair. Caving is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google ought to decline to remove anything. Their canned response should be "Look, if you don't like what you see, don't look for it. If that makes our tool less useful to you, that's a personal issue. Deal with it. If you still can't handle it, well, maybe you should try blocking us in your country. I'm sure that will go down well with your people. Especially when you start losing jobs. Have a nice day. Sincerely, Google (being less evil than you).".

Google India, Inc.

[andersh]

I'm sorry, as far as I can tell you are not being sarcastic. If you honestly believe what you wrote then I have news for you.

Every time Google, Microsoft or some other American corporation is involved in so-called "foreign" courts American citizens are up in arms [on the Internet].

Do you really not understand that companies that have offices and offer services in said "foreign" country are subject to that country's laws and courts? The company is not "American", the legal entity involved is Google India, Inc, an Indian corporation.

Or are you simply in denial and wish it to be otherwise? It's quite simple, really, if you want to play, you have to play by the local rules.