Slashdot Mirror
Google Blocks 'Innocence of Muslim' Video In Indonesia and India
hypnosec writes "Google has blocked the anti-Islamic video, which was posted on YouTube, in Indonesia as well as India. YouTube has already denied a complete removal of the clip 'Innocence of Muslims' that mocks Islam and Prophet Mohammed. The video has led to protests and violence across the Arab world. The foreign ministry spokesperson of Indonesia and India have confirmed that Google has blocked access to the video. Indonesia has also asked RIM to filter the video on its smartphones."
Apparently freedom of speech applies only when it's convenient. Sounds a lot like the model in China where only specific protests/violence are "allowed". Way to go Google for adopting the China model. Maybe they'll let you back in!
Google complies with the laws of the country it operates in. If they are required by law to remove something, they do it.
Are you suggesting that big companies in general should be exempt from the law and obey it only as they see fit?
This isn't about freedom of speech. People can still post videos on youtube like this without any concern for having it removed, and Google has been utterly unequivocal about that.
This is only about distribution. And in this case, for the most part, it is doing things in order to try to avoid distributing to a group of callous thugs with no sense of decency and every desire to exploit whatever religious or political motivation they can to grab at power.
I'm not sure whether their stance here is the correct one, but it is not the stance you seem to think it is.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Pass it around, Free Mohammad.
Are they going to block this image from the Onion, entitled "No One Murdered Because Of This Image"? After all everyone tells us that Muslims are no worse than people of other religions, so surely this insult to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism will have the members of respective religions storming embassies and murdering people all over the place?
If not some people might suspect that Islam really is a more violent and savage religion than the others
I believe there is a delicate balance between having and holding values and imposing them upon others. I don't deny that the violent reaction is itself an imposition of values; however, I posit that traditions of free speech can withstand the assault and our culture is unharmed by demonstration of respect. Where as, I am not confident that opposition cultures with outspoken and violent counter-mainstream elements -- unsteeped in and intollerant of traditions of free speech -- are capable of withstanding the intense pressures of cultural imperialism.
I think it is entirely appropriate, for regional stability, diplomatic relations, and national security to consider being judicious in how we share our culture, how we respect minority voices (while at the same time reserving the right to disagree), and how we permit individual members of our society to cause harm through negligent speech or action.
Within the boundaries of our civil society remedy can be sought for harms; however, when the reach of members of our society extend beyond our sphere of influence with ramifications and consequences (blowback) that cause harm or create disruption (directly or indirectly) for our society...it is the duty of governments -- as representatives of the people and charged with the safety and security of the people (and society) to take action.
In this case Google is taking action, but whether it is taking action of its own accord or at the insistance of governments...it is action all the same. I can understand how this would make the EFF and/or the ACLU twitchy... but when it comes to human life, there IS a price that is too high to pay for free speech relative to the time value received in return (or time cost extracted from humanity as a whole).
87% of Indians are not Muslims, and are not going to care one way or another about this movie. What was the need to block it here? Let them block it in dar ul Islam, which includes Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh & Fuckistan, but does NOT include India.
"Muslim world rising against America" is your shock doctrine for this election, please vote accordingly and against your own interests.
What's that? You want to allow completely free speech to those terrorist pedophile human-trafficking druglord hackers do you?
Sir, would you have a seat, we need to have a little chat.
Noone would be trying to watch this without the Streisand effect. I can't see how anyone could take such a terrible piece of filmmaking seriously. Hell, it doesn't even make fucking sense most of the time, it's just so disjointed and jarring. Blocking it worldwide would be doing humanity a favour.
> What happened to freedom of speech, Google?
Trumped by local laws. Local laws like the DMCA, copyright, etc. Theres no way for a company to fight laws.
> They are no longer the freedom loving and defending company
They cannot fight a state, they can only get out of that state.
> All went downhill after the failured product Google+.
No, all went down the crapper when single states introduced laws to censor the net. Theocracies introducing laws to censor blashpemy is no different than capitalist states having laws censoring filesharing.
Specific video have been region blocked for a long while. I can watch many video even from game because it is blocked in germany due to copyright reason. So if you block due to one law (copyright) you can block due to anotehr law (incitation at blasphemy or whatever the law is called there).
I am not saying it is good or bad or anything, it is jsut business as usual and local law compliance.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Frankly I'm not hugely bothered by it.
Nowhere is freedom of speech absolute, it's limited by the ability of the society to tolerate it. Even in the US advocating violence can get you in trouble along with forms of obscenity. Quite relevantly public nudity, which I'd qualify as a form of speech, will get you arrested in a lot of places, but if society was more comfortable with the idea than that restriction would be removed.
In these countries video they're not used to this level of freedom of speech and their society needs time to adapt. I like pushing the boundaries of free speech in these countries, but sometimes things go viral and push past their ability to deal with it. Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship (given that it's far beyond what they're allowed to do in their own society).
As to whether it's effective is another matter, censorship can easily be circumvented, but maybe it's enough of a hindrance to stop it from going viral.
I stole this Sig
So under freedom of speech, should they be allowed to publish neo-Nazi material too? Post up a video calling for the extermination of all the Jews and see how long it takes before it gets pulled.
This "Innocence of Muslims" video is exactly the same as the anti-Semetic propaganda produced by the Nazis 80-odd years ago.
Jews didn't control much of the world oil, making them filthy rich with little to do to keep their exploding population happy. (The arab "spring" was just a lot of young people with an education and no jobs getting fed up with doing nothing. Even in Libia which could afford to have an enormous essentially un-employed population)
Jews are one of smallest groups in the world, Muslims one of the biggest.
Jews don't hijack aircraft.
There is no mass immigration of jews into atheist countries from Jewish countries and then trying to turn their new homeland into a muslim state. Muslims are fleeing muslim controlled countries, then trying to convert their new country to be run the same way. See Sharia4Beglim and Sharia4Holland. England already has Sharia courts.
Need I go on? Stop comparing the conflict with Islam with nazi germany, the differences are gigantic and the parallells are at right angles to each other.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Don't understand. If anything your remark only supports the point that companies should comply with the law.
Let's just give people an option in their web browsers to filter content. Perhaps a similar option to "do not track" we can have a "stick head in the sand" option?
Perhaps better described as; "If I can't see you you can't see me too"
On a more serious google is a multinational business. As a business it must protect its revenue. A good business knows better than to anger it's customers. When you will anger them anyways, you choose the lesser of two evils. Perfectly understandable on their part.
Besides, the people that really want to see the video will find a way.
About the video...yes the video is intentionally provocative and at the same time it does not preach violence. It makes a mockery of a religion.
I'm not a scholar of Islam but I am told that a Muslim must always try to represent Islam in a positive manner. If anything such an approach would lead one to behave in a manner that was better.
Is this how those people hat are burning flags and embassies want to represent Islam? will this lead people to respect your beliefs?
Just because some people believe in some unicorns does not mean it's special. Does not mean it demands respect. Heck it can be a genuine fact based belief and still would be made fun of.
I believe that humor is the real offense to totalitarian regimes, the real danger to unilateral and undisputed rule.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
this is not about freedom of speech, this is about not angering the animal. say, even if u had the right to poke the monkey in the cage, would it be wise to do it?
freedom only works when the involved partys can reason, and have reasonable education. this is not true about large parts of the world.
the people in the middle east are not human beings, as it is today. their minds can not handle higher functions like duality, humor, poetry, analogy and such...
they are animals, posessed by an abstract entity, Muhammed. be polite and hard towards them, but do not provoke or insult them.
Firstly this is about Islam, not the Middle East. The funny thing is they want to be seen as sub-human. Their cry is "look what you made me do with your pictures/words. You should have known that Muslims are not capable of self control". And we are supposed to give them special status as an "exemption to free speech" because of this.
Plenty of GI's hate Muslims after personal experience with them.
However, it's unprofessional to voice it, and why voice it when you can act on it instead?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I really don't care... Really. This is just the latest excuse someone somewhere tossed out for the reason that muslims are killing people... again.
If it wasnt this video it would be some cartoon. Or maybe a book. Or a newspaper. Maybe just something someone somewhere did or said... or didnt say.
You can't deal with a religion that wants everyone else dead by saying ' i respect your right to religious differences' and pandering to them.
It's just not gonna work.
Someday the world is gonna have to deal with the muslims in a much stronger tone. A good chunk of them don't seem to be compatable with the rest of the people on the planet.
Doesn't look like that's gonna change anytime soon either. In fact it seems to keep getting worse.
The longer you wait to deal with the problem. The worse it will be to deal with too.
Perhaps...I won't bother to contest the definition of "plenty"; instead I would ask how many GIs are demanding that other Americans be sent off to risk life and limb to satisfy their lust for blood sacrifices in the name of religion while they stay safe at home?
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
These are just angry poor people who want someone to blame for the injustices and inequities in their lives, there is no coherent ideology, kinda like poking bees. They deserve our sympathy for the pathetic uneducated lives that they leave. Despite all this, how we treat them is a test (of sorts) for how far "we" have progressed from them.
I actually like what they are doing here.
Refusing to take it down entirely is good. Blocking it in countries where the authorities want it blocked is also good. Refusing to do that would be a typical USA "we know better than you" move, and that is a big piece of the reason why the US is hated in so many places around the world.
If people within the country don't like what their government is doing, it is their job to solve that problem. If they need help, they can ask for it. Don't force "help" on people who may or may not want it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This still not blocked in Pakistan. Google should block it in all the Islamic countries.. India is not Islamic country however after Indonesia it has the 2nd largest Muslim population.
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
"Google complies with the laws of the country it operates in."
If people are not able to use the comment section under the video, they have to go to the street to vent their anger.
it's a tough call
1. there are laws in china that are odious and disgusting in terms of privacy invasion and censorship. such that an american company operating there, by submitting to that law, breaks it's fidelity with the principles of its home country in ways that stink. but google has, in fact, stood up to china in some ways, such as with censorship, and lost market share in china due to that and pissed off the chinese government. go google!
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/01/1450204/google-highlights-censored-search-terms-in-china
other western companies, for example, will do business with oppressive regimes in ways that support those oppressive regimes in evil and odious ways:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/31/1434229/finspy-commercial-spyware-abused-by-governments
what a company like this deserves is to be shut down, kicked out, and have their business actively destroyed in righteous indignation of operating from the west while grossly violating important beliefs of the west and in support of evil regimes
2. however, there are also local laws that, while you can find more abstract objections with them, it makes prudent sense to just comply with the local laws to continue doing business there, and also be in a position to effect long term liberty improving change in that country by remaining a force there
such as, for example, with this stupid video: while speech should be free all over the world, it isn't in some places. and going crazy and not cooperating, for example, with germany for not allowing nazi imagery or indonesia for not allowing mohammad imagery, doesn't convince anyone of anything and you just piss off that country and lose market share
so it's better to just comply with local law on this issue. but on other issues, it's better to stick up your middle finger at oppressive governments. each case is different
shrewd governance, of countries or companies, is a matter of finesse
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship
I disagree with the above statement. This is a way to grant power to extremist groups. If societies are 'unprepared' for free speech, as you say, they should have laws about the matter. And in fact they do - there are laws against (religious) slander, even laws protecting a specific religion such as Islam.
I don't think that Google should break the laws in such country in order to make a point - that should be done by activists from inside if they think the law was unjust. So Google should remove the video from the countries where the law requires it. However, it should not cater to extremist groups giving them the power to change things through violence.
That would only bring more violence.
why do so many of its adherents riot and call for executions every time someone does/says something vaguely (or not vaguely) insulting?
Define "so many". There are 1,600 million Muslims, most of whom are not extremists.
Indosiar (one of the largest TV networks in Indonesia) is running a vicious anti-Hindu series "Sembilan Wali". The Balinese are upset but they aren't beheading anyone.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I imagine that if someone in the US military went around talking about how much they need to purge the world of the evils of Islam, their superiors would make sure they are kept far, far away from the front lines. Right now, it's important the US military mainstains a squeaky-clean image. People in uniform declaring they are waging holy war are just providing material for enemy propaganda.
Yes, that's a valid point. But the decision that a company makes should be whether or not to withdraw from the country or whether or not to pressure the government for a change but not whether or not to break the law. That should be used only in extreme cases (aka Oskar Schindler) but not in issues such as removing a video from your server.
He doesn't "beg for forgiveness at all".
He makes it clear that he (and the Norwegian authorities) "utterly reject" the video, and he calls for a calm response.
It all seems perfectly appropriate to me.
So under freedom of speech, should they be allowed to publish neo-Nazi material too? Post up a video calling for the extermination of all the Jews and see how long it takes before it gets pulled.
Have you seen what is regularly produced about Jews in the Islamic world?
Also, false equivalence. A video calling for the extermination of all the Jews would be subject to the same universal set of rules as this one - i.e. that calling for people to be murdered is 'informally illegal' (would get your video pulled or not shown most places) but mocking people is not.
This applies quite universally. Your video would be pulled if it seriously called for the extermination of all Nepalese, or gingers, or Buddhists, or farmers, or people in skirts, and it would not be pulled if it parodied and presented in a ridiculous way the leaders of Nepalese, or gingers, or Buddhists, or farmers, or people in skirts.
It is surprising to me that so many people apparently find this concept difficult to comprehend.
This "Innocence of Muslims" video is exactly the same as the anti-Semetic propaganda produced by the Nazis 80-odd years ago.
Is there any parody or ridicule that is not exactly the same as the anti-Semitic propaganda produced by the Nazis?
This morning, Sept 17, 2012, I've been watching and listenting to reports of riots and civil unrest all over the World - from mostly international sources.
While the American news sources are focused almost exclusively on the Middle East, their are riots in China, Japan, S. Africa, Western Europe, etc ....
NONE of them are about Islam. They are all about economics.
Deep down it's the same with the MIddle Eastern riots. This piss-ant video was just a the spark or an excuse for the riots.
ANYONE who thinks these riots are really about Islam being "insulted" is horribly provincial and uninformed.
An example of something similar in the States would be the Occupy Wall Street protests. It's really not about Wall Street "greed". It's about young people pissed off about the percveived lack of economic opportunities and jobs that are available to them - exactly the same reason all those young people in the Middle East are rioting. Give'em jobs and they'll be back in their homes.
We have BILLIONS of people trying to get a slice of the ecnomic pie and the pie isn't growing fast enough for us all to have increasing standards of living. Hence, the haves are getting more and the have nots are being left in the dust.
But go ahead, blame the video and Islam because that's what the media is telling you.
And go ahead be a smug that you have a nice life because you were smart enough to get a degree in the right field in the right country and live in the right are.
If this keeps up, YOU will be affected - if not already.
I think he's mistaken freedom of speech as being honored worldwide. Blame public schools.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I suspect this is more a humanitarian issue to lessen bloodshed amongst the ignorant, than a political issue. Blame newsclowns for coloring it any other way.Election year.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
There is nothing that indicates this was a purposely manufactured or media overblown event.
*cough* *cough*. Yeah, right.
Right, because the violence started right after Google blocked the video?
Is there any parody or ridicule that is not exactly the same as the anti-Semitic propaganda produced by the Nazis?
You make quite a good point there; it's ridiculous to the point of parody. The trouble is, it was created as hate speech by an anti-islamic group which kind of knocks the parody idea on the head. These are the same people who support the idea of having the Israelis herd even more Palestinians into ghettoes and exterminating them; something you'd think the Israelis would have more sense than to do.
Agreed, this is monday morning and I just watched the video here in the u.s.
I've seen video slamming the tenets of just about any major religion and several obscure ones.
No reason Islam can't suck it up just like everyone else.
How many movies cover the Inquisition? The Crusades? Bad Buddhist Kung Fu? Make Hindi Gods into animated villains? Show faithful anywhere to be subversive and evil in the name of good?
Suck it up and quit acting like children and the world will stop treating you like children. Keep it up and get spanked.
Hey, that's not a threat, that's nearly a physical law of the universe.
No one asks you to go along with the flow of the world, but if you stand against it, you stand against the world. You stand the chance of an ant to a steamroller, a drop of water in a volcano, an undercover cop at a rap show.
This is all so unecessary for everyone. A peaceful solution for all can be found at http://www.subgenius.com/ .
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Google definitely acts like they are above the law. See the multiple occasions they've been under investigations and in court in various countries and EU as a whole. You can start from the Wi-Fi snooping.
And the EU whipped Google's ass until it bled.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
I certainly wouldn't disagree with you - in fact, I'd say that your comment is so very "common sense" that I am unable to see the actions of that filmmaker or those who distribute that film as being anything other than a conscious attempt to betray our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines as well as all overseas American civilians.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
shhh...
microsoft microsoft microsoft
hush now
apple apple apple
there now, calm down
microsoft apple microsoft apple microsoft apple...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Citizens do not declare war. States do.
Are you suggesting that, if a bunch of Americans vandalized a foreign embassy on US soil, that shold technically count as a declaration of war on that country by the United States of America?
Score: i, Imaginary
All I've seen is a max a 14 minute trailer. Is this supposed to be the whole movie? 5 million dollars to create a terrible trailer? The movie probably doesn't even exist.
So? "Hate Speech" is dangerously close to labeling speech for purposes of stifling that speech (or outright suppressing it). The movie, though crude and silly, is not advocating anything. (It never says "Kill all the Muslims!" or "I command all followers of FSM to rise up and eliminate the Muslim scourge"), so in effect, it's not anything like what we'd call "hate speech" in the United States. (Which I detest as a human being, but as an advocate of personal liberty do not feel should be repressed or restricted.)
:) )
"Hate Speech" is a convenient way to censor. If I say the Holocaust was a big fat lie perpetrated by the Jewish elite to deflect from all their theft of Nazi gold, I can be labeled as a "hate speech" promoter, or at the very least, a nutjob. Those things in and of themselves aren't grounds to censor my speech. (Keep your knickers calm, I don't believe the Jews were stealing Nazi gold... it's just an outrageous illustration.
The amount that the US government is backpedaling over this video is pathetic, and it's not even clear if the video sparked the protests in the first place (just a convenient scapegoat for Anti American protests in the Muslim world. Particularly the Libyan embassy ones. There have been attacks and skirmishes for the last year on the embassy there.)
Remember, in the United States, you don't have a right NOT to be offended. The concept of Freedom of Speech means that someone may say something you find offensive... That's the price of freedom. I don't care if Muslims are offended. I don't care if you are offended, just as you shouldn't care if I am offended. As a human being, we can be tolerant of each other and still have free speech, or as Penn puts it "the marketplace of ideas exists because of freedom of speech."
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Nowhere is freedom of speech absolute, it's limited by the ability of the society to tolerate it.
The founding fathers believed Freedom of Speech to be a "natural" right. This means that the right to Free Speech is something that everyone is born with (ie. an absolute).
The founding fathers got it right, societies that can't tolerate Free Speech are getting it wrong.
On one hand, believing God X is the one and true; the controller of all; omnipotent in every way, and on the other hand, killing people over the lamest and poorly done parodies to defend God X almighty? Make up your mind: is God X an unassailable, infallible supreme being, or a 98-pound weakling that must be defended from bullies kicking sand in his face?
Religion: Organized Stupidity
It's made out of pig shit and it depicts the prophet having gay sex with Allah.
Now go burn something down, fucktards.
Would it kill the Muslim culture to get a sense of humour? It seems every single time a video is posted that is apparently "offensive" we get wars, protests and freak outs. If a Christian sees a picture of Jesus eating a hot dog we laugh and close it or just don't do anything. If a Muslim notices a picture of Muhammad eating a hot dog seven mosque's get blown up, acts of terrorism get spoken against the free world and people get killed. Here is a new idea, laugh or ignore but shut the F up, radical Muslims are children maturity wise, time to grow up a bit.
So, they can say whatever they want, they just can't be heard?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I never said that the embassy guards do not have the authority to retaliate. I'm just contesting the notion that the actions of independent citizens translate as a formal declaration by their nation state. The United States, of course, are free to interpret such an attack as an act of war and declare war on Libya; but to say that Libya have declared war on the United States when the embassy was attacked flies in the face of international laws and conventions.
Score: i, Imaginary
I've not seen the film, but I have seen a lot of right-wing propaganda, and have my own theory. A common sentiment on the right is that the western world and the islamic world are already fighting an undeclared culture war, and there can be only one victor. They are very concerned that those on the left deny this. From the point of view of the right, this is a disaster: There is a war on, and their own generals refuse to fight back or even admit a conflict exists. Thus the production of materials like this, intended to be inflamatory and provoke a violent reaction, and force this simmering culture war into an open conflict which no-one can deny.
I think "direct" does not mean what you think it means.
I refer you to my earlier post:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3121705&cid=41360505
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you should have greater right over something else than those NOT offended.
Being offended is partly voluntary. You are choosing to view it and choosing to be offended by it because of what you choose to believe or not. Being offended by a random thing on the Internet is, pretty much, like being the child who runs to teacher "because Billy called me a name".
Really, it's just that childish. If someone calls you a swearword on the street, you can try to start a fight, you can try to get them to apologise or, in the privacy of your head or aloud, you can choose to disregard their personal opinion that's obviously incompatible with yours. Guess which response is associated with hooligans, thugs and playground fights, which response will either end in a fight or humiliation when they turn around and so "No" when you ask them to apologise, and which response the sensible majority of most peaceful adults will take.
I'm offended, to the same degree and to the same extent as others, when people disregard, say, science to forward a religious doctrine in a country. Seriously. I get offended. I find it inconsiderate, ignorant, demanding, demeaning, unfair and detrimental to the health of myself, my children and my country. But religions don't take me seriously when I'm offended by their intrusion into the educational system.
So I can work to ban all religion (which I would see as "wrong"), I can work to remove that religion (e.g. through violence, censorship or other means), or I can ignore that religion and its followers and explain to my child that some people have some very strange ideas that I don't think are correct.
It's not about extremism, it's not about religion, it's not about offence. It's about what you do when a random stranger on the Internet does something that you find distasteful. So far, the impression given via the media is that Islam enacts violence. True or not, that's what shown.
You wish to ban the video completely. So, technically, that means that even the creator of the video would not be allowed to have a copy. You're saying that the very act of insulting Islam should be "illegal". Strange, then, that insulting agnosticism isn't. I would demand the same right if that were true and there'd be a LOT less nonsense on the web if I could just get Google to pull those videos and websites that I'm aware of spreading anti-agnostic diatribe.
What you suggests creates an environment where a thought or opinion is "illegal". Not an action, or a product, but a thought. The video may be a product itself, but it's only a brief extension to say that his believing those things is illegal, whether or not he speaks about them. Or did you just mean that he can't distribute it? Or that he can't distribute it to people who might potentially be offended? How do you police that sort of action?
This isn't about anything but child-like bullies who are NOT immune to criticism (given that it offends them so) who want criticism outlawed for them and them alone. Or for some select group which includes them and not the guy who made that film.
If the video is illegal in a country, it should be banned in that country. What you're suggesting, though, is a universal, outright ban on anything vaguely critical of Islam. That suggest more to people like myself that there's something to hide, something that you disapprove of others knowing, lurking in the video (which I haven't watched, but millions have JUST because there was a fuss about it). That's not how you deal with critics. You either ignore them, or provide counter-arguments. And any mention of banning, blocking, censoring, violence or anything else just makes your whole position untenable.
"The sky is purple. I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and anything to the contrary will be eradicated or silenced."
That's not a reasonable opinion. And
And they are getting hit by it and hard. You can certainly test untested legislation, but you're ultimately responsible for results of such testing. In this particular case, the legislation has been tested before and Google was forced to comply. They don't want to step on the same rake again.
How many movies cover the Inquisition? The Crusades? Bad Buddhist Kung Fu? Make Hindi Gods into animated villains? Show faithful anywhere to be subversive and evil in the name of good?
I haven't seen The Innocence of Muslims, nor its trailer, but I understand it contains a mocking portrayal of Mohammed himself. Not some historical incident committed by Muslims, but the central holy figure of the religion.
None of the above target the central tenet of the religion in question. Most Christians can look at the Crusades or the Inquisition, and say "that's not my religion".
It's more akin to something like The Last Temptation of Christ (in which Jesus marries Mary Magdalene - perhaps in a dream) or Jerry Springer The Opera -- both of these received widespread protests from Christians. Of course a lot of Christians ignored it, just as a lot of Muslims are ignoring this.
It's worth noting that there is a significant cultural difference at play here. What one culture considers "free speech", other may consider "defamation", "copyright infringement", "inciting of hatred" and many other things.
Consider for example the legislation in place in Germany against denying the Holocaust. Under "universal" free speech umbrella, I should be able to talk about Holocaust not having happened and it being a one big lie. Political and historical realities suggest that such free speech has potential to cause catastrophic damage, and as a result it's illegal in Germany, while legal in, for example, some Nordic countries.
To add to the mess is the current transition from centralised broadcast media to user-generated one. Much of the stuff comes from amateurs with meagre budgets, such as this movie and can be screened worldwide within minutes of being finished. This was an impossibility only a decade ago. We're in a new territory in terms of what is acceptable in different cultures, and as shown with this particular example, free speech can carry significant price paid in blood by those not even related to the speech in question.
There really are no easy solutions here. Internationalism is very difficult to make work because of cultural clashes like these. We simply have to take it one step at a time and hope and work for the best outcome.
Founding fathers? Which religion is this?
Google complies with the laws of the country it operates in. If they are required by law to remove something, they do it.
Are you suggesting that big companies in general should be exempt from the law and obey it only as they see fit?
No, but since when does Indian or Malaysian law apply to a US company?
Google "do no evil" should especially not break basic human rights like the freedom of expression, which actually include the right to receive the expressions of others. Freedom to express yourself is practically worthless if people are prevented from 'listening'.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
There are ways to fight local laws. It's called corruption outside of the Western countries and lobbying inside them.
Problem is that lobbying/corrupting in cultures very hostile to your idea is difficult. The stronger the innate resistance to your ideas, the more effort is needed, and at certain point, diminishing returns on effort simply become too great.
Protests, but not violent, murderous ones...
those countries have no problems with videos bashing Christianity, etc...
Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship
People are dying because Darwin's evolution (see the irony here where it applies to people denouncing Darwin?) is being proved. If you are too stupid to benefit the gene pool it's better you're killed off as soon as possible for the benefit of the future human race. There's no better way to prove stupidity than to fight (to the death) over whose God is the most peaceful...
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
There's nothing 'humanitarian' about censorship. And I blame newsclowns for linking speech to violence. This whole thing is designed to apply the pressure of the 'crowd' against free speech rights. It is textbook terrorism by the censors looking for and getting public support for their cause.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Or, said otherwise: file sharing is blasphemy 2.0
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Corporate VP of Developer Division at Microsoft The name says it all
Fuck Beta
If I transferred the youtube to 35mm film, and threw the film at someone's head, thus killing him, would that be direct?
If it were a director's cut, would that enhance the direct-ness?
cheers,
I'm not sure that a freedom of expression is violated if someone or a company does not give you a venue or platform to express it. Or would you consider the 6 O'clock news to be violating your freedom of expression every time they do not do a story on one of your rantings?
I would put following a stupid law in a country you have offices in as less evil then not giving you a stage to vent your (illegal in those countries) expressions in that country. Now there are areas where google doesn't have offices at and should be criticized to some extent. But I do not think it rises to the level of evil. Evil would be killing someone who had no part in the expression over the contents of the expression.
I just watched the Life of Brian and I was offended as it's portral of the origins of christianity. I say we go protest England!
What happened to freedom of speech, Google?
I actually watched the youtube video in question, and as an atheist (from the UK), I'd quite like it to be removed from youtube. These days, watching something such as 'Bugs bunny nips the nips' is interesting from a historical perspective, but through modern eyes, it's a pretty repugnent piece of derogatory racist propoganda. The 'innocence of muslims' is insulting to anyone who watches it. It's out and out racism, designed to incite a large population of people into reacting in an angry way, and as a result, people have died over this video. You are entitled to free speech, but in most civilised countries, there is a line drawn between free speech, and incitement. The innocence of muslims has crossed that line by a very long distance indeed, and imho, it's on a par with Westboro Baptist Church turning up to protest at a dead soldiers funeral. The people who created the video should not be able to hide behind the claim of 'free speech'. It isn't free speech, it's hate speech plain and simple. The people responsible for the video, should face criminal prosectution for that video. My 2 cents....
how many GIs are demanding that other Americans be sent off to risk life and limb to satisfy their lust for blood sacrifices in the name of religion while they stay safe at home?
I would say probably none. But then, I would count the number of Americans in general that believe that as ALSO none.
I WOULD count the number of Americans that falsely believe that some their fellow Americans are crazed religious nutbags that want to slaughter people who theologically disagree with them as AT LEAST one, and probably more as I know that there is a strain of anti-religious (Really, Anti-Christian) fervor that has infected some people in America that has no grounding in reality and is instead held up by anti-religiously bigoted propaganda by people with political and financial hay to make.
Congratulations on buying into the lie, BTW.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Why don't Muslims around the world stand up, look at the violence around the world perpetrated by other Muslims, and publicly state "that's not my religion"? I think the answer is they're scared to be outspoken because violence is a part of the Muslim religion.
You're intentionally missing a forest for the trees. Just because citizens are represented by the state does not mean that state represents all of its citizens. Else, every time a citizen of US kills a citizen of another country, you could argue that it constitutes an act of war by your logic.
That is obviously not the case.
And not to mention it's illogical and the result of a mind too lazy or unaware to differentiate some Muslims with all Muslims...
I agree with the GP. It is exactly the same as the anti-semetic propoganda from 80 years ago. I'm fairly tolerant of most things, but that video is not a comedy, it's an insult to everyone who watches it (be you christian, jew, atheist, or muslim).
they can be heard. in fact unless yo live in one of the countries that has requested by law this video be taken down, you'll still be able to see it on youtube. unless you are saying google should ignore local laws and decide for itself what it can and cant do.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
I think that a movie like "Life of Brian" couldn't be made in this day and age. Or it would be made but not shown, what with religious sensitivities flaring up even in more or less normal countries. Think of it: if you screened a new "Life of Brian" (new, because then the excuse of showing it as our cultural heritage doesn't fly), then you'd kind of be obliged to also screen a "part 2" movie spoofing the life of Mohammed, and we all know that that would lead to... Easier to ban any religion bashing, which is what is slowly happening in many European countries.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
when a bunch of citizens of another foreign country flew planes into US buildings the US declared war on countries,
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Actually, in France there were.
There's nothing like $HOME
If it is our duty to ignore 'intellectual property law' (or actively wage war on it*) as you say in your sig, then it is Google's and everybody elses' duty to stand up for free speech everywhere, including by violation of local statutes. It is their obligation to break through national/state firewalls. No more sitting in the back of the bus.
* really? a shooting war?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
direct enough for you?
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Still no one murdered because of this offense to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism.
But, there's no shortage of twats on Slashdot and elsewhere making excuses about how offensive the film is, the intent of the producer, it's not Islam, it's about economics, this is only a trigger, bullshit, blah, bullshit, blah, bullshit.
What about the cops in Los Angeles picking up the film's producer for "questioning"? What the fuck is that about? How is that acceptable?
You realise, I hope, that The Life Of Brian was the subject of many protests (albeit not violent as far as I know), and was banned in many places?
a) I see lots of commentators on the web who quote the Bible - I guess as a way of breaking up their unending stream of anti-Islam rhetoric
b) I live in the hills of Western Pennsylvania - right here where Bibles and guns (lots of guns, I might add) are in everybody's living room...I hear such rhetoric "live and in person"...enough.
c) Ever watch CBN?
If it's a "lie", ya'll surely do have a lot of great actors...way better than Romney and Ryan.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
I hope that when people in these countries search for censored stuff, they get presented with a page that says:
Results hidden from you because angry men with guns pointed at us have made us hide it from you. This is part of their control mechanism over you that lets them maintain their power over you.
The alternative, Results hidden because you may run around like animals murdering people isn't much better.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Yep, just like yesterday, people like to post, and just like yesterday, your comment will be out of the bottom quite soon. Want attention? Try FP.
Slashdot (mostly) believes that, of course, Iran doesn't threaten the West as much as the West desperately wants it to be compliant. No need to get all conspiracy-theoretic about it.
You know why people don't like conspiracy theories? Because they tend to turn out wrong. You can guess all you want, but unless you actually are behind the curtain, you are not likely to know just what is going on. Only hindsight in these situations is 20/20. So why bother with hopping on to the latest guess?
Google has probably blocked the original trailer here in India, but many re-ups of it exist, and I'm watching one right now. I knew the government would do something like this as a pre-emptive measure, but other than in the restive Kashmir state, there hasn't been any noticeable protest whatsoever in the rest of the country. People are killing each other over this in neighbouring Pakistan, so that has probably influenced the Kashmiri muslims, but the rest of the country's muslim populace have not really come out and voiced anger or resorted to violence over this.
Nothing to see here, people; just another shill. This is a brand new account and this comment was posted the same time as the story.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Google and Facebook already do. They are inconsistent.
Do a search for "american cultural imperialism" and you'll see this isn't just a US-based right-wing idea. It's a pretty widely accepted thing. Liberals in the US are very pro-cultural-imperialism as well -- which is why there are movements HERE to influence laws about homosexuality in Uganda; and why activists HERE fight female circumcision in Africa. That's us trying to get our liberal-slanted cultural norms to win out over their cultural norms.
You're right that the left and right don't agree on the role of Islam in the culture wars. But I don't think you can say that the left doesn't see a culture war to begin with.
Also I don't think films like the one in question are intended to produce an open conflict. To me the purpose they serve is to force Muslims to confront themselves and their beliefs that lead to violent protests over silly and harmless images. I guarantee if every Muslim in the world sat down and watched a new film just like "Innocence of Muslims", the result wouldn't be world war, it would be a total cessation of protests about ANY religious matter after a few weeks. In reality the desensitization campaign can't be so concentrated.. it trickles in slowly. After enough years, maybe decades, I think it'll have the same effect.
Not that I'm saying you don't know this but most of the people who did protest about "Life of Brian" had never seen it. If they had they'd have seen that is not about Jesus or the birth of Christianity. It just happens to take place during the same era. Jesus is obviously there, both in the manger and at the sermon on the mount. The film is a dig at organised religion and infighting. "Follow the gourd!". "Follow the shoe!".
Ironically exactly what is going on here. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all Abrahemic religions and they split when they picked which son to follow. Islam went with one and Judao/Christian mythology the other.
Relying on public corporate entities regarding freedom of speech is like trusting a kid with watching over a bag of candy.
And plenty of Muslims loath GIs after America has invaded their sovereign territory and massacred them. It goes both ways.
Hell, they almost went to protest over the Passion of the Christ.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I agree - I was insulted by this movie, not from a religious point of view, but as a lover of film! The multiple-voice dubbing for some characters, horrid green (or blue)-screen shots, terrible acting (they weren't all bad, but you can only do so much with the material at hand - see SWI-III for further examples), less-than-low-budget special effects - all contribute to the clear goal of this tripe: to put movie-making as an art form on trial in front of the world. See what can happen when we allow digital video recorders into the hands of rank amateurs!?!???!!? The horror, the horror...
Further properties of this "film" that are damaging to the image of movie makers around the globe: "sex" scenes that cause no arousal, death scenes with no on-screen interaction between attacker and victim, and parody with no wit, no clarity, and no true sense of purpose other than to be generally insipid. All of these things are an affront to cinema fans in every nation! We must NOT allow just anyone to make movies. We must stamp out those who only "believe" themselves to have a vision but have no true skill.
Oh, wait... we allow people in this country to freely express themselves as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others? Oh, I didn't realize that. You mean, if we start clamping down on one form of expression that we find distasteful, it could lead to others wanting OUR way of expression suppressed? Oh, I didn't think of that. Never mind then, make your stupid movie. I'll just ignore it like I did Avatar.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
I am in the process of making a film that insults your imaginary friend. hope google censors it after you make a big deal about it
artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
That film was actually banned in Norway at the time. In was marketed in Sweden as "so funny it's banned in Norway".
Jews are famous for their self-deprecating humor but Catholics too have mercilessly made fun of their own faith. It was a great liberator because it was not always thus. Once, religion was deadly serious and to question let alone make fun off, that is heresy and that gets you killed.
A joke might not seem like much but it forces you to not take things to serious, it was essential in tearing down the ivory towers of religion and force it to become accountable. And this was not something that has stopped. The chaos in the Catholic church now people are talking about its abuses is just part of process. For decade, no, centuries, people knew and did not nothing.
For evil to triumph all that is needed is for good men to do nothing.
The so called moderate muslim, does nothing. This leaves a tiny handful of reformers who are often prosecuted or killed (Pakistan can't even protect its ministers, what hope does a normal civilian have) fighting the extreme elements who have the backing of countless hangers on, protected behind the veil of silence. Moderates might not agree with all the extremists do but you stick up for your own, regardless what.
A very recent case in Holland has a man under arrest for having had sexual encounters with over 200 boys. How did he manage to go undetected with so many victims? Well, people knew, but didn't speak out. The community is a closed one and they keep their troubles to themselves...
There are countless such cases in history and far bigger ones, hidden behind walls of silence and false respect. But humor has created cracks in this facade. In holland, the catholics created the 8 may movement, which basically told the pope to mind his own business. It allowed people to ignore the church doctrine and make up their own minds on birth-control, on politics, on marriage. On everything.
For modern free youth, it is hard to realize just how controlled religious communities are. In certain place, if a young couple is married and has not produced a kid after the first your, the pastor comes by to have a talk.
This control is not nice control, it is to make sure everyone walks the line, no dissenters, no free-thinkers. It is very effective. If you don't question, you don't challenge to status quo and those in charge like that.
Read up on some of the practices of popes, these weren't devout people, they were depraved men who craved power above all else. And they got away with it, because they were beyond question.
But humor, that challenges everything, breaks down the most powerful with a simple line or drawing. Don't believe me?
How tall was Napoleon? He was in reality above average height for french men of that age. It was a cartoon drawing that started the idea that he was a small power crazed war monger. A British cartoon made at a time Napoleon was kicking limey ass.
Spitting Image, a British satire puppet show, ripped politicians and others in power to shreds, and changed politics forever. People remembered the caricature better then the real person.
In my life time, the same joke has been done twice. The pope speaking and having underwear thrown at him as if he was a popstar. Caused mild affront but was considered part of a free society. The same joke was done off the Ayatollah (the previous one) in Germany. It caused a crisis, the comedian had to be protected and politicians fell over themselves to try to a peace Muslims.
It wasn't always allowed to joke about the pope, the christian faith. And the Muslim leaders KNOW what humor lead to and they don't want the same to happen. So anyone who dares to question, make humor, challenge, is silenced. Silenced most of all by moderates who do nothing but silently support the extremists by their inactivity. If you donate to your mosque even when you know the money goes to extremist, turning a blind eye to does, still makes you a supported of these extremists.
Western leaders are at a loss about how to deal with it. In the west, the crumbling of organized religion just seem
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
By "more enlightened" read dhimmi.
And by dhimma you mean members of other Abrahamic faiths that follow scripture (Jews, Christians, and Sabians) living in majority-Muslim countries, correct? Of course people of Abrahamic faiths need to be encouraged to see their similarities and love one another. What point are you trying to make exactly?
. Political and historical realities suggest that such free speech has potential to cause catastrophic damage, and as a result it's illegal in Germany, while legal in, for example, some Nordic countries.
If you are talking about the rise of nazism, it is worth to note that the Weimar republic did not have freedom of speech, to the degree that leading nazis were imprisoned for blasphemy. The nazis used the witness stand as a pedestal for getting their message out, and used the prison sentences to "prove" that they were being suppressed by the evil state. If anything, the rise of nazism proved that limiting free speech helps the purveyors of hate.
"Lots of Christians protesting" for Last Temptation meant a few really angry types marching outside movie theaters. The director, writers and actors didn't have to have armed guards or live in fortresses forever after.
By and large in the West we've pulled a sufficient number of the Church's teeth that even Piss Christ or South Psrk's scatological sacrilege get only the rabid few even to respond.
Nothing demonstrates how backwards and filled with fear some populations are than this latest event. Allah must be one pathetically weak god if he needs a mob to kill an ambassador whose only crime was to share the nationality of the silly kooks who made this film.
And as to those kooks, it strikes me that the response has proven them right.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Are you a new kind of stupid?
No, the violence started because some clueless religious fanatics:
1. can't comprehend the idea of free speech
2. would outrage even if they did understand
It's a moebious strip really. The film exists because people exist that would organize mass violence about anything that puts their faith in bad light, which sort of is the film.
I have to side with the fanatics on this one though; there isn't one redeemable thing to the film. Viewing it, even in order to teach people what not to do, could easily be classified as psychological torture.
-- no sig today
Try reading what I said again.
Score: i, Imaginary
You are entitled to free speech, but in most civilised countries, there is a line drawn between free speech, and incitement.
In the United States, the relevant case law is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Under this interpretation of the First Amendment, speech can only be banned if it is intended to incite "imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so. The classic case would be the leader of an angry mob telling them to attack or kill someone. Does the Innocence of Muslims video qualify? Almost certainly not. While Nakoula may well have intended it to rile up the Islamic community in the US and overseas, it did not pose an imminent threat of lawless action. The reactions of hostile third parties cannot be used as a justification to prohibit free speech; as the Supreme Court put it in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), there is "no heckler's veto".
The innocence of muslims has crossed that line by a very long distance indeed, and imho, it's on a par with Westboro Baptist Church turning up to protest at a dead soldiers funeral. [...] The people who created the video should not be able to hide behind the claim of 'free speech'. It isn't free speech, it's hate speech plain and simple.
The WBC protests are also protected free speech in the United States under the First Amendment. You mentioned that you are posting from the UK, so one thing that may be confusing you is that in the US, there is no such legal category as "hate speech". It's all protected by the Constitution. The idea is that if you allowed the government to decide that certain speech was "hate speech" and suppress it, there would be a slippery slope that would inevitably lead to the repression of open and free political discourse.
how did this particular video become relevant to all these Muslims? Something seems off about why this became important and the timing is suspicious right before the US election.
Google might not make the right decisions sometimes, but it is nowhere close to the evil empire that Microsoft is.
See this for a good example of what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
"What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS."
It would be nice if companies had good morals, and followed moral laws, while ignoring the immoral ones. I suppose there could be disagreement about whether censorship of things that offend religious people is moral or not. I also realize that corporations' morals in practice is "can I make money from it," and that wouldn't work out well for us.
Still, I agree with OP a bit on at least this case. Would be nice if google said "fuck you" to the law in this case. I don't pretend to know if India and/or Indonesia would change their minds if that were the case. It seems possible that such a move could backfire, with google being excluded from those markets, and some other company which was totally on board with limiting the marketplace of ideas would move in.
Every time there's a terrorist attack / etc, groups representing Muslims make public statements opposing them. In Britain it's usually the Muslim Council of Britain. There's some controversy because it's a completely self-appointed organisation, but still they broadly represent ordinary British Muslims.
Where you live, I don't know who it is -- but I'm certain they exist.
Now, how keen is your news channel to broadcast their boring old conciliatory message, I wonder?
Just for the record, I want to know this.
You do understand that the world wide Christian response to the move The Last Temptation of Christ, a major motion picture, is nothing, no where, not even close to the world wide Muslim response to a shitty low budget attrocity of an amateur film by a no-budget nobody, right? That the vast majority of radical Christians maybe, maybe considered picketing and a boycot as a valid response?
That the two responses two the two movies are not just orders of magnitude different, but on completely different planes of existance different?
That if a major motion picture studio published the same level of movie about Muhammed that the studio would likely burn?
One story, of one attack? Versus how many hundreds of deaths, and thousands of attacks in the past week?
Hell there were death to america marches when a completely different country published CARTOONS.
I say pull out all the call centers in India.
Jack of all trades,master of none
are all Abrahemic religions and they split when they picked which son to follow.
Worse than that, each group has their own subgroups. Islam has, for the most part, Sunni and Shiites.
Judaism has Reform, Conservative and Ultra-Orthodox.
Christianity, gees, too many to count. First there was the Roman Catholic Church vs Eastern Orthodox. Then you have Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Anglicans (which came from a king making himself ruler or both church and state), Methodists, and the list goes on.
And this doesn't include the subgroups of these subgroups. Apparently god wanted people to be completely confused about how to worship it.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
...but if society was more comfortable with the idea than that restriction would be removed.
If society is comfortable with the speech you are using, it may not be a useful form of protest. The whole point of "freedom of speech" as espoused by the founding fathers was to allow people to express ideas that others are *not* comfortable with.
It's not really freedom if you are "free" to do anything you want as long as it's ok with everyone else.
November 1 is "Burn a Holy Book Day". Light a bonfire and burn the holy book of your choice film it and then post to YouTube, FaceBook et al.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Are you suggesting that big companies in general should be exempt from the law and obey it only as they see fit?
Suppose I own a megaphone and you say something I don't agree with. I therefore decide not to lend you my megaphone. Am I violating your freedom of speech rights?
No, I am under no obligation to help you spread your message. I have the right as owner of the megaphone to decide who I lend it to for whatever reason. You still can spread your message using other means, but you have no right to do it through my means.
This is what is going on here. Google owns an enormous megaphone called youtube. Therefore, if google decides to block the video, they have the right to. The makers of the video retain their freedom of speech because they can publish the video in some other way.
Freedom of speech is a restriction on governments, limiting their ability to prosecute you because of something you say. It in no way compels private entities to use their assets to publish other people's messages.
Before you accuse me of anything: I think the violence is completely unjustified and is wrong. And I do believe the makers of the video have the right to distribute it.
but I have not heard one Catholic priest say that child abuse is right
What you say and what you do are two different things. If you decry violence against women, but beat your wife (or support people who beat their wives) behind the scenes, then you're either a thug, a hypocrite, or both.
No, they may not "say" that it's OK. But they knowingly covered it up many, many times, moving offenders around to abuse other children rather than having them face the law.
It is unethical to obey censorship laws, so ignoring those particular laws is the right thing to do.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
you are almost right: OBEDIENCE (ie, don't question me! just DO it, dammit!) is right there in the NAME of the religion.
you can translate it many ways, but its basically 'do what I say. or else.'
is it any wonder that when you are brought up in this concept, the whole of the free world seems like they are your enemies.
islam is incompatible with the modern world. one of 2 things has to 'give'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It's out and out racism, designed to incite a large population of people into reacting in an angry way,
designed? do you know that for a fact?
perhaps there is some wisdom here that people are not seeing. the sooner we call ATTENTION to the elephant in the room and find a place for him in the world, things won't improve.
islam needed to have its nose rubbed into a pile of shit. its long overdue.
now, the stew is boiling and they have to address it.
it will be painful - as learning experiences sometimes are - but in the end, some growth might occur. some tolerance. some notion that 'hey, we should not go around killing simply because of spoken words'.
this would be a HUGE benefit and a learning experience for islam.
but the realist in me can't see this happening. entrenched, islam will fight and fight and fight. I do believe they will cause ww3 and perhaps even the end of humanity.
unles they GROW THE FUCK UP and stoping trying to make everyone think like they do.
good luck with that, world.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Most theories are wrong. So we shouldn't like theories because they are wrong most the time? Conspiracy theories are common, proven and every bit as legitimate as other theories - most of what the FBI does is investigate criminal conspiracies. Clearly they are not so poor as to devote a whole federal police task force to dealing with.
The problem is with people who cling onto a theory and make up new theories to keep the old one going -- more like creative writing or brainstorming. The conspiracy theory can be totally reasonable but like any theory it can be lumped together with a whole lot of unreasonable theories. This is when the theory becomes a belief and a religious like defensive behavior invokes imaginative thinking. In this society we have somehow decided that conspiracy theories are automatically a lower class of theory. They are not and there is no logical reason why they should be. you prove they are lesser theories as you believe they are.
Politically related theories always involve MULTIPLE PEOPLE and therefore they are almost all going to be conspiracy theories. Politics brings in a lot of emotions and religious defensiveness. Look at global warming and how a really strong non-political theory is attacked by politics. Luckily, being a scientific theory there are no experts willing to risk their reputation by making up crazy defenses (or feeling they need to do so) but instead the opposition is making up the crazy stories to attack it even going so far as to try strawman attacks by lumping made up claims onto the science - like how the head of GM claims incorrectly that scientists claimed we'd be under water by now. I don't know of any such claims; he must have wanted to misunderstand 100 years to be 10 years or something like that.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You speak as if "Freedom of Speech" should protect the speaker from the consequences of their speech. This is an incorrect assumption. Just because one has the right to speak their mind doesn't indemnify them from the reactions of the audience. All it means is that they won't be stopped by the government, and they won't be arrested. That's all.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
You were offended by the scene where Brian is on the hill next to Jesus while he's saying the sermon on the mount? Are you sure you actually saw Life of Brian? It's about Brian, not Jesus.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Google believes in freedom of speech unless there's a slight hint of it having an effect on their profits. So basically freedom of speech only has PR value to them. So that makes them just like any other corporation. No real surprise there.
The word is god, not g-o-d.
The name, a proper noun, is God, not god. Thor is a god. God is the judeo-christian god.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Google can host or not host anything it wants but if I had a vote then I'd answer "YES" to each of those questions. I'm sure you can search youtube right now and locate videos of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or someone calling for the extermination of Isreal. I'm equally sure that you can find neo nazi propoganda on youtube as well if you look for it. As I said google is a private entity and can censor what they want but yes I find acts of censorship for all of the above to be objectionable and given a choice I would be a member of a video sharing community that allowed the distribution of all of the above.
No, I don't. I didn't say anything about the author. How did you conceive of that one?
-- no sig today
Wow...obviously you're blinded by beliefs or have an agenda. How many examples of violence by Christians can you cite? I'm not talking about a person who was a Christian and did something bad, I'm referring to people who do bad things in the name of Christianity. Not very many...Muslims on the other hand, kill in the name of Allah all the time and yet nobody cares. Trying to turn the tables without any facts is not going to get you very far on /.
Obviously they weren't protesting because of the movie, it was a pre-coordinated attack on September 11th. How many (non-Muslim) people bring an RPG to a protest anyways?
It's not as if the protesters actually need to watch the clip to know how offensive they find it, or why.
So far the full movie has only had one poorly-attended screening in Hollywood. It's not online. The YouTube clip is a short preview, and it doesn't appear that the violent protesters even had to watch *that*. Someone they trusted told them they...I mean their prophet... had been insulted, and that was enough.
Well could always do:
The following video is intended for mature audiences.
Please select the century your culture has entered: [ 13th ] century.
They removed the a big part of the first scene with the Jewish suicide squad IIRC.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How about Monty Python's "History of the World"?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
So under freedom of speech, should they be allowed to publish neo-Nazi material too?
Not just allowed...encouraged.
That way, we know who they are and can avoid them, or round them up for questioning if a temple is bombed.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Muslims are fleeing muslim controlled countries, then trying to convert their new country to be run the same way.
you've never met a Muslim who's actually fled their home country have you? hell i'd bet 50/50 you've never had a real conversation with one of Islamic faith. everyone i know certainly does not want to turn this country into something like where they came from (hint: there's a reason they fled.) generally those with enough power who's anti-west statements you hear did not need to flee their home country, and those on the streets inciting violence are just lapping up what they say (and like do not know what their hometowns are like)
It is interesting to note, however, that complaining about how one's new country is not like one's old country is a common staple in *any* immigrant community. I spent years living in Japan, and one sliver of the gaijin community there loved to complain that Japan wasn't the UK/US/Australia etc, and go on and on about how XYZ thing about Japan should be just like it is in the UK/US/Australia etc, and then everything would be so much better.
So there's a certain amount of what the GP says here that rings true. But with their blinders so firmly in place, they probably haven't noticed that this is something that all humans do, to some extent, when transplanted to a new country and culture.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I know where *I* would draw the line. It's the International Declaration of Human Rights. If there is a law that violates it or an order given to you by your commander that violates it, you should intentionally fight against it.
Any other laws should be generally respected - especially by an outsider such as Google is in Indonesia. If bad laws shall be broken then by somebody from the society that has written the law.
So if you are looking for *evil* companies that don't care about human rights, Google is probably the wrong one to criticize. There are worthier targets.
No, but since when does Indian or Malaysian law apply to a US company?
When they opened offices to do business in those countries. As long as they're interested in selling ads from Indian and Malaysian companies to Indian and Malaysian markets, and getting paid in Indian and Malaysian currency, they'll abide by Indian and Malaysian laws.
We need to carpetbomb all these countries with flyers showing every blasphemous depiction of Muhammed anyone can think of, daily, until they realize its been a few centuries since racking up a body count made anyone respect Muhammed.
For great justice.
Wow...obviously you're blinded by beliefs or have an agenda. How many examples of violence by Christians can you cite? I'm not talking about a person who was a Christian and did something bad, I'm referring to people who do bad things in the name of Christianity. Not very many
That is absurd. What about the Crusades? The Inquisition? Or if you want more recent examples just look at attacks on doctors and family planning clinics.
Hey, ask the U.S. Senate about freedom of speech regarding the WikiLeaks... leaks. From the diplomatic corps. Which caused their friends some embarrassment.
... and since limiting freedom of speech was such a nice instrument of power, the Nazis expanded on the already established trend...
What does "Christianity is good/bad" even mean? According to traditional Catholic doctrine, if you aren't a Catholic, you aren't really a Christian and you'll go to hell. Luther, on the other hand, thought that the Pope was the anti-Christ.
Many Christians have committed heinous crimes, in the name of Christianity, with the blessing of recognized Christian churches and authorities. Catholicism in particular claims doctrinal, spiritual, moral, and economic continuity with its entire past and claims to derive its authority from that. So, if you call yourself a Catholic, that means that you take responsibility for, and approve of, the historical actions of the Catholic church: its support of totalitarian leaders, its corruption, its torture, its oppression of minorities, its destruction of entire cultures and peoples. And others are justified in judging you by your choice.
And it's the same when you call yourself a Muslim: either you accept and take responsibility of what mainstream Islam has done in the world since the time of Mohammed, what its preachers and holy books say and teach, or you shouldn't call yourself a Muslim.
World wide? Four countries? Here in "Eurabia" as the funny Americans like to say, there have largely just been annoyance.
Well, it was also banned. In at least two countries: Norway and South Africa. Then it was allowed onto Norwegian cinema screens as long as it omitted subtitles in the parts where our theocratic overlords felt were too close for comfort.
All religions are incompatible, but we have pulled the claws out of most of the Christians who held the Western world in its grasp for centuries. So it can sit there in its corner and sulk. Islam seems to be important to have as an enemy: If the Muslims went away tomorrow, would you go back to Jew-bashing?
I WOULD count the number of Americans that falsely believe that some their fellow Americans are crazed religious nutbags that want to slaughter people who theologically disagree with them as AT LEAST one, and probably more as I know that there is a strain of anti-religious (Really, Anti-Christian) fervor that has infected some people in America that has no grounding in reality and is instead held up by anti-religiously bigoted propaganda by people with political and financial hay to make.
Congratulations on buying into the lie, BTW.
Guess I should have included:
d) Ever heard of the Family Research Council?
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Can't you tell when U.S. centrism is being mocked? You are no fun at parties.
... or if you say something offensive often enough, people start to believe it, and soon enough hundreds of thousands of Tutsi and moderate Hutu have been murdered. Can Rwanda happen again? Yes, that is why we have the concept of hate speech.
Yeah, I omitted all the legacy acts (e.g. crusades) due to irrelevance. Are the perpetrators of the attacks on doctors and family planning clinics attacking in the name of God or are they just religious people who do bad things? After the attacks, does the Christian community commend them or at least not stand against them? I see the Muslim community either applaud crimes committed in the name of Allah or they're silent (due to fear of reprisal if they speak against the perpetrators). Again, Christian crimes aren't widespread and lauded by the Christian community while Muslim crimes are plus the Muslim crimes are committed in the name of Allah and are typically much more heinous (e.g. beheadings and rapes) although there've been plenty of Catholic priests molesting children which is equally as heinous (thought you'd mention that point). I respect the Muslim religion but I wish they were help to the same standard as other religions...
Sorry to ramble and repeat myself but I wanted to stress what I feel are the important differences, neither religion is blameless but Muslims (at this point in history) are much more violent yet get a pass.
Google gets stuck in a 'do no evil'-mantra, but don't get that is understood differently by different people/cultures.
I think religion is stupid, but ignoring hundreds of million of people is even more so...
Better than a Christian shooting up a cinema because he has seen Batman...
Islam has become more of a political machine than a religion just like when the Catholic Church used Christianity to get their way with the world, well especially with Europe, they still do today to some degree. Religion should be about having a personal relationship with their creator not turn it into a political ideology orgy where a few use it to control the masses and wielding it against the non-believers. This is why it's good to have here, in the U.S, separation between church and state and in place we have common, Statutory, and Constitutional Law . But who am I kidding, look at how Bush, Obama, democrats, republicans, supreme court, all have twisted, misinterpreted, raped our laws for the governments own benefit or their corporate masters.
People need to stfu, not be so thin-skinned, and just try to live their lives as best as they could instead of getting upset of what others think of their religion, country, or as a people. You have only 1 life so don't waste it so carelessly.
Well, it has to be self-appointed, since Sunni Islam does not have a formal church like the Catholics do, so who else should appoint it? As long as it has been accepted by most it should function as intended.
I would like to have seen Fox News' coverage of the recently uncovered cover-up of sexual abuses in the (largely Christian and conservative) Scout organizations over there...
No it's not. Hate speech (as the statists would have it) is a nice blanket term for "stuff that's not PC" or "stuff that offends us". It's not about saving anything, but suppressing YOUR speech and mine.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
And yet, there are laws that protect that here in the United States. I am sad to say they're not exported. Violence is the last bastion of cowards anyway.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
So under freedom of speech, should they be allowed to publish neo-Nazi material too?
Yes, of course. Are you one of those crazy people who think that "Mein Kampf" should be banned?
Post up a video calling for the extermination of all the Jews and see how long it takes before it gets pulled.
There is a big difference between calling for extermination of someone, and mocking someone (even in a very offensive way). The first is incitement to violence. The second is just being an asshole.
"Hate speech" is nothing but an emotional label for "speech that I don't like". There's no human right to not be offended.
We should pick someone we hate, and wind them up and point them in that direction.
Seriously, those idiots are not storming a US embassy because they are upset about a Youtube video, they are storming it because it's a US embassy, and 9/11 was a convenient excuse to celebrate by storming an embassy.
According to Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-usa-libya-attack-idUSBRE88B1C620120913 and the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444517304577653680320732176.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, the Libya attack was planned in advance.
Aw.
We indigenous Terrapin tribespeople of so-called 'North America' don't riot over you depicting us as stupid, lazy, drunken Indians, denying the existence of Chief Black Hawk and claiming that the mass-murderer Abraham Lincoln who waged 'Total Warfare' against us was 'The Great Emancipator' but schizophrenic, mental-retard, hate-criminal Arabs actually believe that they can torture, rape and murder a U.S. Ambassador in retaliation for a movie called 'Innocence Of Moslems' because it mocks their fortune-teller Mohammed. Screw their inferior asses.
They don't have to suck it up, if they don't like it, then why watch it? Turn it off Muslims! There are plenty of jackasses spouting jackassery, you are not required to view it all.
Well, when has the US senate or any other form of government ever been correlated with honesty?
-- no sig today
Actually the Crusades were Christians vs. Muslims round 1. ,however cheesey and low budget,contained nothing I hadn't read about in the past.
The movie
I'm sure the movie is born from fear that Islam will spread and we will be up to our necks in Sharia (?) law and camel crap.
The local cultures of the Islamic, usually dependent on which country and how "sandbilly" the Muslim is, like female castration, stoning, amputation and distain and insult to every other religion on earth , turns the fear to hate. Hate always comes from a fear.
Here we have religious hate groups and we monitor them and keep their violence from spreading. Christian Identity, Westboro Baptist,even Manson Family. The worlds main problem with Islam is that No representing Islam singles out the Taliban for punishment and castigation. That would be a bit like jailing the Pope. So in the name of ignorant tolerance we allow the weeds to spread with the garden aided by enemies of humanity like Hillbillary Clinton and France.(ok humor, eh)
While some of the film may be bullshit, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. i.e. even Hitler brought the world the Volkswagen. (holy shades of Godwin, Batman). I call the film food for thought, just as I did of "Last Temptation" and just about any controversial issue I come upon.
Frankly, judging by the behaviour the the Islamic in the far East and Europe over the last decade, I wouldn't be personally surprised if the film is dead on.
Frankly the more things like this are ignored, rather than confronted makes Islam look as guilty as Michael Jackson buying his victims off to drop charges.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Lybia (though that one is a lie), Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and Bangkok more than 20 nations saw violent demonstrations. using the movie as an excuse to call for world-wide bans on insulting one dead guy.
Even an annoyance should never happen. The logical response to a movie insulting your favorite person isn't to burn something, it's to watch the movie and counter it with more free speech.
I hope more movies like this are made, maybe after the 10,000th movie, they would get sick of protesting and grow some tollerance.
Hello, we're talking MUZZIES here. They go nuts over books, cartoons, TV shows - just about anything.
I thought Muzzy was a British animated TV show, which was dubbed into several languages for teaching second languages to children.
Slavery was defended by Christians based on scripture as well (remember all the laws regarding slaves in the Old Testament).
But people who call themselves Christians (Matthew 7:21) can twist scripture to make it say something that clearly wasn't intended. For one thing, slavery in the pre-1860s United States wasn't the same thing as the sort of slavery regulated by the Mosaic law. An ancient Hebrew manservant was more like an apprentice, to be set free as a free agent after six years (Exodus 21:2). For another thing, Christians haven't been under the Mosaic law since 50 CE.
But if Christians are so sure of themselves, what is it with all the proselytism?
Jesus commanded Christians to give everyone a chance to hear the good news (Mark 16:15), to warn them of what was coming (Matthew 24) so that the sins of the people they could have warned won't be charged against them (Ezekiel 33:8-9). This is why certain Christian groups go door to door (Acts 5:42) and teach people about YHWH God and his Son Jesus Christ.
Also, if this god is so special, why the need to sell it/him/her/whatever? [Ding-Dong], "Yes?" "Hello, have you thought about letting the Lord Jesus Christ in your life?"
Answered here.
My experience seems to be that the situation is quite different. Europeans seem to be more often concerned that that Arabs are 'taking over', while from an American perspective, it's such a laughably small minority that we are amused that you even noticed them.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There's a subtle difference between sitting in Fergal O'Fuckery's with a Guinness or eight reciting your latest anecdote about what a bunch of filthy idle wankers the Belgians are and crashing an airliner into the Atomium.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I formatted my post above using generic <ol> and <li> tags, but it appears that Slashdot's code is so broken that these don't format correctly -- using Chrome on Win 7, I see no numbers; the two blocks of text are slightly indented and separated as if by a <br/> tag.
C'mon, guys. CSS shouldn't be that difficult.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Defending the video on the pretense of "free speech" is also granting power to extremist groups. There are many reasons this video needs to be taken down. From the exploition of the cast, to the attempt to incite violence against Jews and Israel by falsely claiming it was made by a Jewish Israeli director, when in fact it was made by a motley bunch of right-wing neo-nazi and Egyption Christian nutjobs.
Where do you think "religion of peace" came from? It came from ordinary muslims around the world standing up after 9/11 and saying "that's not my religion". And now it seems to get thrown back in their face every time a tiny minority does something like this, so I don't imagine they're all that keen on going through that again.
Youtube is banned in Pakistan because people here are too retarded, cancel that, because the Government here is too retarded. I mean Google banned the video anyway, why the hell did you ban effing Youtube. For Thor sake, it's just stupid. If you don't like the video, DON'T WATCH IT, if you can get easily trolled then don't use the Internet. I am just pissed off, they always do this shit. If one party doesn't take something down, they will ban the complete range, fucking terrorists.
Follow me: http://www.twitter.com/dfg
OK then: The founding fathers of the country where Google is headquartered.
I remember muslims celebrating in the streets on 9/11 and don't remember any speaking out against the attacks. I remember them trying to build a mosque at ground zero with no muslims saying it would be disrespectful to do so. I've seen too many muslims protesting with their RPGs holding flags with AK-47s and fists on them without anyone in the community saying anything. I read about a community in Michigan (I think) that wanted to enact sharia law in the USA and US citizens were told not to protest at the courthouse because it might incite the muslims to violence.
"Religion of peace" is just marketing. I understand 99% of muslims are peaceful but where are the Islamic leaders who are speaking out publicly against the violence? If they don't denounce the violence they are complicit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority
Casteism
It would be a free speech issue, if it were here in the states. The world doesn't enjoy the right to free speech as we do.
Therefore, Google complied with the countries requests to cut off access in those countries suffering deaths from protests. Humanitarian, yes. Free speech and censorship, Not there.
It's alright, you youngsters just regurgitate whatever works you up without thinking about it. Usually some activist needs to be a "thinktivist" instead.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Lenny Bruce originally had the idea to use racial epithets "Nigger, Kike,Mick, etc" without regard and with daily common use until the words meant nothing anymore. Got him ovations at the time he presented it..... to a mixed race audience.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Nobody has a right to restrict speech, regardless of what the 'law' says. Censorship needs to be made impossible. I don't care how.. Cultural and local issues should not be allowed to get in the way. They are free to tune it out. Speech doesn't cause violence. All of you are barking up the wrong tree with that BS.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Funny, but there's a world out there that has reserved the right to restrict speech more tightly than the U.S.
So I guess your're wrong.
Of course censorship is wrong and bad, but there are a world full of people who tolerate and even support it either through fear or ignorance. Tell ya what, you can write Santa Claus and wish real hard and maybe the world will have free speech for Pissmass.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
You reap what you sow... :)
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
This is why a technical means is necessary to render the censors powerless. I don't care how it's done, just that it be done.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Well , give it a shot!
Schwein haben mit das!
Let me know how that all turns out.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!