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."
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?
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
"Muslim world rising against America" is your shock doctrine for this election, please vote accordingly and against your own interests.
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
Freedom of speech is a concept that applies to law-making, not web-hosting. Google has done nothing to prevent the filmmakers from distributing this trailer. They are also not blocking it from search.
All they do is abstain from hosting it themselves in ceratin countries in the same way as a US newspaper might refuse to publish a nazi propaganda ad. People perceive publication/distribution as (weak) a form of endorsment, and Google wants to avoid this.
(Also, the movie itself seems to be a piece of crap, regardess of any point it's trying to make.)
Compared to pretty much all other global corporations, they're saints. There is nothing wrong with complying with the law in these countries. You don't personally agree with the laws, but that's irrelevant. If you were brought up in a Muslim culture you'd be saying Google are evil for leaving the videos viewable in other countries.
which is totally what she said
Don't understand. If anything your remark only supports the point that companies should comply with the law.
England already has Sharia courts.
This is technically true but grossly misleading: England also already has Jewish courts. They have exactly the same standing, which is they have no standing in law. They operate purely where the plaintiffs agree to abide by their judgement. Really, they are no different from say two people going to a mutual friend and asking the friend to adjudicate on a disagreement.
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
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
And the US has Bozo Courts.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
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.
Well, after actually reading up on this I see that Islamic "protesters" have killed people in US embassies over this, so maybe Google are trying to save lives here. They've left the videos up in countries where people are less retarde- oh sorry, I mean religious.
which is totally what she said
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
"Frankly, these provocations won't help anyone."
I agree that the Mohammed film in question is terrible. But it does address some important issues with Islam. And that will help us non-believers in the long run. For example the issue of child marriage. Aisha, one of Mohammeds wifes were 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. And we should of course (also as non-muslims) be free to debate if that is behaviour befitting for a prophet. Another example is the glorification of violence against non-muslims. At least as long as the main schools of Islam argue that the behaviour of Mohammed is perfect and should form an ideal guideline on how muslims should live in the 21st century.
Another point is that this film is only one pearl in a series of incidents where muslims are threatening fellow muslims or non-muslims over perceived blasphemy. The last example was a documentary on Channel 4 (examining the historical roots of Islam) where a planning screening was cancelled due to threats to the historian behind the film:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/channel-4-cancels-controversial-screening-of-islam-the-untold-story-documentary-after-presenter-tom-holland-is-threatened-8125641.html
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.
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 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!
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!
Wow. That was a little harsh? In case you haven't realized this, there are groups, right here in America, that do that sort of thing too - boycotting books, TV shows, movies, or anything that has content they don't agree with. Why was it necessary for the bigoted slur on Muslims?
Typical Muslim equivocation. Other groups boycotting stores means that it is OK to drag people out of embassies, torture, and murder them. "We are just doing what those Catholics who said 'don't buy the davinci code' did'". I say no it is not the same, if Muslims said "don't watch youtube" then I would not have a problem with it. Its because they react in their traditional manner of killing, rioting, etc.
They haven't been killing people over the video. They've been killing people because someone is telling them or paying them to. The video is merely an excuse.
England already has Sharia courts.
Please stop repeating this crap. You might be able to dump a village elder in a local community centre and pretend it is a court but it carries no legal weight. The only way it can work is if both parties decide to forgo their normal entitlement to a real legal court and agree to an independent tribunal with no legal weight.
England does not have sharia courts with and legal weight. Just because some dickhead can sit in a room and pretend it is a court does not mean it carries and legal weight. If I do not like what a Sharia court says it has no legal right to force me into it unless a real court also agrees following normal legal precedent.
England does not have Sharia courts with any legal standing.
I dont read
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.
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?
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.
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.
They've left the videos up in countries where people are less retarde- oh sorry, I mean religious.
No, I think you got it right the first time -- retarded. From what I understand (which isn't much when it comes to Islam), killing is as much a sin to them as to Christians. They're retards following secularists who pretend to be religious for their own personal gain. The rioters are being duped.
The religious ones aren't rioting, they're at home reading their Korans and praying.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
dhimma is a form where you are put into a lower class, receive less legal and other rights, are TOLD that you are INFERIOR to the 'master race' (yes, I used that wording on purpose) and your lands and rights could be snapped away at a moment's notice if you displease the rulers or religious folks.
ie, just a notch above slavery.
nice, huh?
btw, they see ALL of us as being in this role sooner or later.
religion of pieces, indeed.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."