Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Refuses To Remove Anti-Islamic Film Clip

Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that Google officials have rejected the notion of removing a video that depicts the prophet as a fraud and philanderer and has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. Google says the video does not violate YouTube's policies, but they did restrict viewers in Egypt and Libya from loading it due to the special circumstances in the country. Google's response to the crisis highlighted the struggle faced by the company, and others like it, to balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events. 'This video – which is widely available on the Web – is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,' Google said in a statement. 'However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt, we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.' Underscoring Google's quandary, some digital free expression groups have criticized YouTube for censoring the video. Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says given Google' s strong track record of protecting free speech, she was surprised the company gave in to pressure to selectively block the video. 'It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint,' says Galperin. 'I'm not sure they did the right thing.'"

54 of 622 comments (clear)

  1. It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

    1. Re:It's already out there... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

      Doesn't matter anyway, most of these protesters are taking it word of mouth from word of mouth from word of mouth. Few have likely seen it. Few even stop to consider if it even has merit (being seen to think for yourself can be hazardous to your health in some circles.)

      It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical (to say nothing of the internet trolling) wringers. Perhaps there would be some good if it got some people to think, but see above. The people who tell these people to be angry like their control over them.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:It's already out there... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nor should they. There is freedom of speech in the US, and Google is a US based company. I have little sympathy for those "revolting" in other countries over stuff like this. Muslims who kill because their beliefs are mocked by others are horrible. Catholics who bomb abortion clinics and kill workers there are horrible. Germans who supported ethnic cleansing back in the day were/are horrible. In short, once you start to affect other people with violence, you turn horrible.

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    3. Re:It's already out there... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about the Ed Woodesque film anyway. These folks would just find other reasons . . . real or imagined . . . to storm anything with a whiff of America about it.

      "Hey, Abdul! America says, 'Tastes Great!' Islam says, 'Less Filling!' Let's riot!"

      These folks are in a permanent state of outrage against the US. They are just looking for any reason whatsoever to vent their unfounded anger.

      Sorry to break the news to you, America, but Islamic folks don't love you. Never have, never will.

      Maybe if someone made a Reality TV Show about it, ordinary folks would finally understand this.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How would this play in the media if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads into something horrible?"

      Honestly, nobody would give a shit about some video from Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. would arrest and prosecute the bible thumpers and skinheads. It's not that hard.

    5. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It IS pretty offensive.

      It's also pretty damn hilarious. These protesters must be simply being told what to do, because I can't see anyone taking this seriously if they had actually seen it. Sure, the movie completely trashes Mohammed, but in the most cartoonish way possible. I liked the part where he was like "Everyone but Muslims must die" and then there's an explosion as he puts his sword up. Sort of like he's an action hero.

      If they made the same sort of movie about Jesus, I probably wouldn't be able to stop laughing.

      This is like if they made a sequel to Borat, but where he was teleported back to 7th Century Arabia and founded a religion.

    6. Re:It's already out there... by bobbutts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fire in the crowded theater analogy doesn't work here. When someone is informed of a fire, they act out of self-preservation at the lowest level. People choosing to view this video and then reacting violently have not been fooled into desperately saving their own lives.

    7. Re:It's already out there... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical

      Except that Christianity doesn't expressly forbid depictions of jesus etc. Muslims don't have free speech, it's a foreign concept to them. It was, for a long time, a foreign concept to the christian world too after all, the Christian, Asian Orthodox and Catholic and protestant churches (see what I did there, I implied eastern orthodox as the real christians not anyone else, you didn't go burning an embassy down over it?) all disagree over who's interpretation is right. But that's kind of the point. By steel and gunpowder they got themselves to the point of simply disagreeing, and not making any more of a fuss over it. Part of that of course comes from the balance in power between the state and religion, and the eternal conflict between the Catholic church particularly as a state and as a religion.

      Just about everything one christian denomination stands for one of the others disagrees with, about the only thing they agree on are that a god exists and that jesus is his son, and none of them are too fond of people pointing that out as being obvious nonsense. But beyond that, they've long since fought their wars and revolutions, inquisitions and witch hunts over it and it's just not worth it. Free speech isn't some grand ideal about why it's great to hear everyone's opinion, it's a grand ideal because I know I don't have to listen to other people's opinions. The new islamic movements are going to find it very hard to get anything done if they want to waste a week every time someone of no importance says something they don't like, but that will take some growing pains because for years they've been like sheltered children by their authoritarian states, and they just discovered that the world has porn and gays and they don't like that. Eventually they'll figure out that there are a lot of people in the world who say a lot of offensive things, and most of the time no one cares, and making a fuss over it just gives attention to people who don't deserve it.

      Granted, it may well be that we need to extend the principles of Augsburg (1555) and Westphalia (1648), importantly 'Cuius regio, eius religio' through the UN. Your state can set its own damn rules about religion but keep your nose out of anyone elses so to speak. That would require leaders in muslim states to go along with it, and they're not there yet, or at least, not all of them, but they're getting there.

    8. Re:It's already out there... by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if i yell fire in a crowded theatre, people may trample and kill others motivated out of self-preservation. so me, the one shouted fire, i'm the one culpable

      if i call mohammed a nasty word, and people start rioting and killing, they are motivated by religious extremism. do you believe a religious zealot who will kill because of his religion is a defensible position, like self-preservation? hell no! so where does the buck stop? with the religious zealot

      if i insult your mother and you kill someone, who is culpable for the dead person? you? or me because i insulted my mother? do you see how crazy this gets?

      at some point you have to learn to put proper blame where it is properly due

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:It's already out there... by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cuius regio, eius religio worked for another time. Censorship used to actually work. Now, it really doesn't, even where they try to implement it. That means that you can't keep the other countries' infectious ideas from getting in your own nice dictatorship and you can't keep your extremists from getting their hands on this stuff and inciting people over it either.

      Other than that, I have to agree that certain liberties are earned by a lot of effort, frequently with blood involved. These people don't understand that the US Government does not go around telling people what they are allowed to say. That's something they are not used to in their own countries, so they believe that since the US Government allows it to exist, it is because the US Government supports it 100%.

      They have a lot to learn about freedom of expression now that they have the chance at it. Some will hate the idea even when they see it in action and long for the days of a strongman to keep people in their places.

    10. Re:It's already out there... by aevan · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, Muslims are getting those people killed..they are the ones doing it. This isn't violence in response to violence, this is mobs motivated by their religious handlers. Hellfires, is even quotes out there that summed basically to 'I have not seen the video, but I was told it was against the Prophet and so the Americans must be punished.' Riots based on hearsay.

      If the next bad thing declared was 'eating pork insults Mohammad and so kill all the pork eaters'... will you advise the banning of commercials for hotdogs? Leave accountability where it belongs: the ones being violent are at fault, regardless their ethnicity/religion/choice of food.

      Personally I find the video more insulting in it's poor quality in both writing, acting and humour and technical work- a high school AV club could have done better.

    11. Re:It's already out there... by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wasting my mod points, but it's not about Jesus. It's about the very people who show up late, learn about the miracle (or offensive video or whatever) by word of mouth and then follow the wrong guy. The "real" Jesus is even in the movie, giving the sermon on the mount, and in the beginning.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    12. Re:It's already out there... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

      Wikipedia pointed out a subtlety about that scene

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#Religious_satire_and_blasphemy_accusations

      The Pythons unanimously deny that they were ever out to destroy people's faith. On the DVD audio commentary, they contend that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern organised religion, but that it does not blasphemously lampoon the God that Christians and Jews worship. When Jesus does appear in the film (on the Mount, speaking the Beatitudes), he is played straight (by actor Kenneth Colley) and portrayed with respect. The music and lighting make it clear that there is a genuine aura around him. The comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statements of peace, love and tolerance ("I think he said, 'blessed are the cheese makers'"). Importantly, he is distinct from the character of Brian, which is also evident in the scene where an annoying and ungrateful ex-leper pesters Brian for money, while moaning that since Jesus cured him, he has lost his source of income in the begging trade (referring to Jesus as a "bloody do-gooder").

      So in Life of Brian the comedy comes from idiots not understanding the message of peace and tolerance.

      Then again of course, Jesus discouraged stoning - "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Unlike Mohammed

      http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/082.sbt.html#008.082.809

      Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

      A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

      "I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess". How chilling is that?

      And it's clear that if Muhammad hadn't have been there the couple would have got a token punishment of face blackening, not be killed horribly.

      In fact if you don't think either Jesus or Muhammad were divine these sorts of differences in their morality make it pretty clear that Jesus as a historical figure is owed a more respectful portrayal than Muhammad. Muhammad not only had sex slaves, he actually enslaved them himself after killing their husbands.

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

      Rayhana was originally a member of the Banu Nadir tribe who married a man from the Banu Qurayza. After the Banu Qurayza were defeated by the armies of Muhammad in the Siege of the Banu Qurayza neighborhood, Rayhana was among those enslaved, while the men were executed for treason.

      According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took her as a maiden slave and offered her the status of becoming his wife if she accepted Islam, but she refused. According to his account, even though Rayhana is said to have later converted to Islam, she died as a slave.[1] According to Marco SchÃller, Rayhana either became the Prophet's concubine or, was married to him and later divorced

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  2. Copyright by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only the religious zealots realized all they had to do was lodge a false DMCA claim through a bot...

  3. Great Response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Restrict the video only in places where they can't handle the freedom of speech without maniacal violence. Google got it right for the first time in a while.

    1. Re:Great Response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons. It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

      The actual trailer is just stupid. Better is Sam Harris Fundamentals of Islam (9 min):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE

      or the full version (82 mins):
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa

  4. Good. They're keeping it up. by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is showing some spine. Good.

    I've seen the movie. It's not very well produced, but it's better than 80% of the non-pirated stuff on YouTube.

    1. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I haven't seen it, and, frankly, I don't even care what's in it. But if it provokes this kind of reaction from religious fanatics, it's done right.

  5. Good by jcaldwel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good for Google... This should not be taken down any more than a video calling Jesus or Flying Spaghetti Monster a fraud should

  6. "ethical concerns" by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either you have free speech or you do not. "Ethical concerns" is a thinly veiled word for "censor that which offends us".

    The Onion has this pegged...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:"ethical concerns" by heypete · · Score: 4, Informative

      Marking that NSFW would have been nice. Normally the Onion is pretty clean and work-safe. That image was not.

  7. Let it be seen.. by bhlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ya can't prevent Muslims from going apeshit over having their delicate sensibilities offended...

    Here is a video of an Egyptian Muslim leader tearing up and burning a Bible... No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...

    FYI, the Innocence of Muslims movie is also available on LiveLeak and other sites.

  8. Re:So your telling me... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, people died because of religious fanaticism. The video was just a largely inconsequential trigger for the current round of violence. But even if said video wasn't there, they'd find another reason.

  9. Re:Good by jcaldwel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google didn't kill anyone - hang the blame where it is deserved -- the religious idealists that actually committed the acts.

  10. Icing on the cake by br00tus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Despite Qadaffi's efforts to appease the West in recent years, as soon as he became vulnerable, the US urged NATO to help overthrow the Libyan government. Air strikes, drone strikes, CIA officers on the ground coordinating attacks - the largest military power in the world overthrew the government of this small country - a government which has been making concession after concession to the West in recent years. Apparently not enough. Can anyone imagine the US ambassador in Libya getting blown up if the US hadn't bombed the Libyan government out of existence, working to put its own regime in? You play with fire you get burned.

    Imperialism, foreign intervention, torturing Muslims in Abu Ghraib - forcing them to masturbate to the videotaped laughs of sadistic American soldiers, drone attacks, puppet governments, financing the Zionist siege of Gaza - this is what the US is doing to Muslims. Then Korans are burned, put in toilets, mocking videos are made just to rub it in. Then Americans get all indignant that their mockeries of an almost-conquered people are not taken in a light-hearted fashion.

    The real question is why is the US over there, why were they bombing Libya and arming the people who overthrew their government. If I was a Libyan patriot, and I knew US insults to Islam would help rally Libyans in an anti-imperial campaign, of course I'd use that. Libyans are responding to everything the US has done to it. The Marines hymn "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" refers to US interference in Tripoli going back to the beginning of the 19th century. None of this can be discussed of course, so it all becomes about religion, when really it has little to do with religion. Middle class Muslim Turks are nor burning down embassies. Americans are more gullible and steeped in imperial propaganda then any Muslim is in guile to religious ideas - not that Americans should talk, as the country is crawling with fundamentalist Christianity more than any other industrialized nation.

    1. Re:Icing on the cake by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Informative

      shores of Tripoli refers to US *interference*? Are you fucking kidding? What sort of revisionist islamo-centric history pipe are you smoking?

      You fucking idiot. America attacked the Barbary pirates for the same goddamned reason we launched into the War of 1812. American vessels at sea were being captured, American sailors were being captured, and shit was not right. They were treated no better nor worse than any other aggressor. Any treaty made with them was less a treaty and more -- actually, not just more, it was ENTIRELY nothing but a protection racket.

      You've got your shit ALL wrong, son. It was the Barbary states who were interfering with the *United States*, as well as much of Europe, because the Barbary states were strong and their victims were too weak or preoccupied to do anything about it except hand them money. Well, except for the US, who decided to say Fuck That And Fuck You.

      Yeah. WE were victimized, BY the North Africans. Not the other way around.

      You can argue the tables have turned, but don't fucking misrepresent history. There's not even any question or different take on this particular point of historical significance, there's only what happened.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  11. Why are "these people" not responsible? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?

    Sorry, but forget the "cause" because this is merely an insult at best. Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult. If you can't contain yourself after being angered in this way, you should be destroyed in the most literal sense of the word.

  12. Re:Good by toriver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?

    (Child brides were rather common in the Christian Middle ages as well; the concepts of pedophilia and age of consent are relatively modern and secular, largely based on women's rights campaigners. In many religions children - in particular girls - are almost treated as property. Remember the Old Testament: "But all the children among the women that have not known lying with a man, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:18)

  13. Unfortunately... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, the religious zealots are not the problem here. Religious zealots are a minority, both of the rioters and in general. The religious zealots certainly would be content to see the videos removed, and much as I would criticize them for that sort of censorship, at least nobody would be killed.

    The rioters were angry before the video was posted. The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior; it could just as easily have been a book, idiotic comments by some preacher, a bomb dropped by the air force hitting a day school, etc. I doubt that most of the rioters had even heard of the video prior to hearing of riots elsewhere, and I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The religious zealots certainly would be content to see the videos removed

      No they wouldn't. The video was just a vessel to guide their anger. And only one in a long succession at that. If the video had never been made they would have found some other reason to be offended.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Unfortunately... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the religious zealots are not the problem here. Religious zealots are a minority, both of the rioters and in general.

      If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

      The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior

      Anyone who uses offense to their religion as an excuse to commit violence is a religious zealot.

      I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.

      That's even worse. If "hey, I heard some guy in another country made a video that insults our prophet" is enough to get you to storm the embassy and murder people, that's not just religious zealotry that's extreme religious zealotry.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Unfortunately... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

      Hm...what might people in those countries be angry about...

      • Wars in their countries.
      • Wars next to their countries.
      • Foreign governments exploiting their countries.
      • The lack of democracy.
      • The lack of democracy following a hard-fought revolution.
      • The lack of democracy following a revolution against a government installed by foreign countries that wanted to exploit them.
      • The general realities of living in those countries.

      Really, do you need this list made for you? Do you think the rioters were sitting on their lounge chairs beneath some palm trees in their own personal gardens, and then suddenly saw this video and went nuts?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Unfortunately... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Further, in what other culture can an insult to a long dead religious figure trigger riots and murder?

      Criticize a dead Pope? Get in line.
      Criticize Buda? You get tolerant smiles.
      Criticize a Rabbi, living or dead? Yiddish curses.
      Criticize L Ron Hubbard? hmmmm, lemmie think about that one.

      But muhammad? people have to die for that, any people, just kill someone.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Unfortunately... by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

        Hm...what might people in those countries be angry about...
        Wars in their countries.
      Wars next to their countries.
      Foreign governments exploiting their countries.
      The lack of democracy.
      The lack of democracy following a hard-fought revolution.
      The lack of democracy following a revolution against a government installed by foreign countries that wanted to exploit them.
      The general realities of living in those countries.

        Really, do you need this list made for you? Do you think the rioters were sitting on their lounge chairs beneath some palm trees in their own personal gardens, and then suddenly saw this video and went nuts?

      Riots are infectious. You can easily generate a whole mob to riot with some encouragement. After all, last year we had a huge riot in Vancouver, Canada over a hockey game. Or so they claim.

      None of the list are true (when you have bunch of kids wearing $300+ clothes...) - it was just a riot fueled by alcohol and a bunch of drunken idiots who felt like having a good time destroying stuff. It was, as they say, remarkably easy. And once it started, others poured in to join in the fun.

      All you need is someone to go apeshit and others will follow. Hell, who knows why the riot started - perhaps afterwards someone claimed they rioted because of the video - finding the reason after the fact to justify what they did.

    6. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You spelled Buddha wrong.

      Die.

    7. Re:Unfortunately... by jwhitener · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure sure you saw the most recent coverage about this, but things are a bit more complicated than one movie = lots of violent riots.

      For instance, the Libyan assault on the US consulate wasn't protestors (in fact recent reporting says that there were not protestors), but rather a well organized militia associated with al-qaeda. The arrived in jeeps that had black al-qaeda flags. And this is 24 hours after a 9/11 al-qaeda memorial type video was released about the US killing al-qaeda's second in command. His nickname was "The Libyan".

      As for the rest of the rioters, we could start with Egypt. According to Richard Engle's latest interview on the Maddow show, the protestors are motivated by religion, yes, but mostly by conspiracy theories. And keep in mind, the ones protesting are a tiny sliver of the population. Those conspiracy theories, like the US secretly funded the creation of this movie, that our troops in Afghanistan are ordered to burn Koran's, that free masons are involved to destroy Islam, etc.. have been subtly and at times not so subtly used by various dictators over the years to create suspicion of the west and unify people under that dictator. And at the same time shifting focus from real problems at home to focusing their attention on 'the real enemy' (the west).

      Like is often the case, religion makes a nice simple excuse to act out over a what is mainly a general frustration/fear/anger about the circumstances you find yourself in. Poor economy, no job opportunities, repressive society, and you've been told all your life that their is some big conspiracy that is keeping you down...

      It sure doesn't help to tamp down the conspiracy theories when we are still in a "no ends in sight" war on terror that is conducting secret operations all over the place.

  14. Re:Good by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the world was populated through incest, polygamy is a-ok, slavery is dandy, and killing non-believers is supported. At least, that's what I get from a few passages in the Bible. What's your point again? That the Koran, like the Bible, is an origin myth massaged to also be a political and social guide to the world? Or that by pointing to the right verse, I can support whatever I want?

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  15. Terrible precedent by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What happens when someone says, "That video might cause people to revolt against their government!" -- does Google take that down too?

    Either we have free speech, or we do not have free speech. If Google is going to be the service provider for an important communications medium, they need to respect free speech. The video did not say, "Go out and riot." People who were already angry saw the video and exploded.

    The Chinese government claims their censorship is to keep the peace as well. How ironic for Google to follow that same logic, after all they went through with China...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  16. Terrible Response by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets say you are some person in that country trying to make up your mind about how bad the video really is. Your religious neighbor says it is the worst form of blasphemy ever.

    Pre Google Ban, you could have watched it and said "well this sucks and is stupid, why should I care about this?"

    Now they have no choice but to believe the neighbor, perhaps go out and protest as a result.

    Blocking the truth from view never makes things better, especially in a situation where so many seek to inflate the importance of a single video.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  17. May be an internal matter within Islam by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One school of thought on this is that the violence is an attempt by one of the more militant branches of Islam to get attention.

    The real cause of riots in Egypt is a steadily declining standard of living since Egypt hit peak oil in 1996. Oil production has declined 45% since 1996.

  18. sam Harris doesn't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love Harris and Dawkins. But they don't get it. They think that religious belief can be disputed on a rational level.

    It cannot.

    Religion appeals to our emotional primitive brain. That is why you have people who can build atom bombs and understand the physics of it still believe in the Biblical god. They have the intellectual ability - more than I - to dispute on rational and logical grounds why the Biblical God is as likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and yet they do.

    And it's just not the Biblical God. Humans are predsposed to have magical thoughts. Whether it's making a deal with the Universe, Karma, or anything else for a better life or what have you. It's our brain that want's to see patterns where none exist it's our brains unable to accept that this is all there is. There must be something more to life than eating, fucking and shitting. Hence, for modern people the stubborn belief in God and other superstitions.

  19. There is more to this than the video by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult

    Funny how American Muslims, even orthodox Muslims, are not rioting, even now that they know about the video and presumably have had the chance to watch it.

    Angry people do not need much to set them off, and the rioters have been angry for a long time. They live in awful places, they have seen multiple wars (no, not "seen" as in "live from a foreign country," but actually seen tanks rolling down their streets and bombs dropping from planes), and most have not lived under any sort of democratic system. The video was just a spark, and it just happened to be right next to a crate full of dynamite.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  20. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Abreu · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics, the nature of jewish control over the US economy and political space and the belief held by jews that it is jewish destiny to dominate the world.....

    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but yes, there's tons of antisemitic videos on YouTube.

    Most of them are malicious flamebait, just like your comment and the "innocence of muslims" video.

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  21. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics

    Since there aren't any of those movies or books in the world I guess we'll never know.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  22. upside-down by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, insulting violent religious fanatics and inciting riots is fine, but having a 50 year-old record playing in the background of a video of your dog running around the backyard is completely outside the bounds of acceptable human behavior.

    And using the words "super" and "bowl" together will earn you permanent banishment.

    Fucking world...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  23. But just let .... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... Lindsay Lohan's publicist issue a takedown notice for using her image without permission and watch YouTube jump.

    Just have the Muslims copyright Mohammad's image. Problem solved.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:But just let .... by cpghost · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That's the point here. To the US (Google/Youtube), Copyright is holy and untouchable. To the Muslims, it's the same for their prophet. And since Youtube/Google is a US company, they have to abide by the taboos of US society to the letter, and happily shun the taboos of other societies.

      Well, I'm half joking here, and I'm half sarcastic. But let's face it: there's a blatant double standard going on here. On one hand, lives are being threatened and people have been killed, and this silly video causing this stays on... because it doesn't violate some copyright. On the other hand, a couple of fat cats from the MAFIAA lose a couple of dollars and Youtube jumps proactively to their rescue with massive take downs or country-wide censorships (think GEMA). It's as if peoples' lives, US Citizens' lives, are less important than the bottom line of the copyright holders. THIS is disgusting, IMHO. Just as disgusting as those Muslim riots. Both sides are deeply entrenched in their ideologies, and are totally lacking reason and responsibility.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  24. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree if you talk at all the people believing in the same God. You know, Christians, Jews and Muslims.

    Yes, cause they are all the same. I remember fondly when Viacom and Fox were razed to the ground and the CEO's raped, killed and dragged through the streets by Catholics because of the way that Jesus was portrayed on SouthPark and Family Guy. And the nasty stuff that Jews did to Sarah Silverman and Seth MacFarlane before cutting off their heads for not just leaving Judaism, but ridiculing Jews and God.

    Good thing that hating people for their religion is considered bigotry... well, except it is.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  25. Re:So your telling me... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, people died because of religious fanaticism coupled with decades of American Imperialism.

    FTFY; let's call a duck a duck, shall we?

    Since we're quaking about the middle east, let's not leave the British & French out. Their decisions about how to divide the Ottoman empire has not helped. Nor the decision to create Israel.

  26. Movies don't start fires. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How would this play in the media if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads into something horrible?

    The blame would be placed solely on the shoulders of the "bible thumpers or skinheads." It wouldn't be inappropriately misdirected at a movie trailer.

  27. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course religion fucking bad. read the bible to see how killing, maiming and stoning to death is recommended to please the god. The peaceful religionists are not following their religion.
    For the last time, Atheism in NOT a religion, there is no deity involved

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  28. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Just let them kill each other"

    I have more humane proposal.

    We give out tons of aid money: (all amounts USD$ for 2010)
    Afghanistan = $11,446,800,000
    Pakistan = $2,853,500,000
    Iraq = $2,087,900,000
    Egypt = $1,698,900,000
    Sudan = $975,900,000
    Gaza = $693,100,000

    Why don't we just say:
    Every time you kill an American, we take $80 million of your aid money, and give it to Israel.
    Every time you attack an embassy: $200 million
    Every time you issue a fatwa (on some cartoonist or author, or filmmaker, etc.): $10 million ...and so on.

    Any time the violence stops, that aid level is restored the next year.

    If you just cut off all their aid, they have no incentive to do anything.
    This way, they have incremental rewards to act civilized.

  29. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Stormthirst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We've "adapted" the religion to fit the times.

    Oh, so that's why homosexuals can get married in any state in the US?
    Or that abortion clinics are allowed to conduct their perfectly legal business without harassment.

    Whilst religions have adapted in other western countries, the US is alone in it's Christian fundamentalism.