Slashdot Mirror
EFF Looks At How Blasphemy Laws Have Stifled Speech in 2012
As part of their 2012 in review series, the EFF takes a look at how blasphemy laws have chilled online speech this year. A "dishonorable mention" goes to YouTube this year: "A dishonorable mention goes to YouTube, which blocked access to the controversial 'Innocence of Muslims' video in Egypt and Libya without government prompting. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, a group based in Egypt, condemned YouTube's decision."
The EFF can suck my 2-inch dick and choke on my balls.
All I said was that this piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!
I am officially gone from
A real shame not more people got killed because of an unfunny badly created clear "lets stir some shit up" movie.
They hate it, they would kill for it, yet they don't want to see it banned or blocked.
Are they fucking mental challenged? WTF with these people, eh?
Using the term "Blasphemy" serves to moderate what is truly an abomination: the fanatical intolerance of Muslims for anything that even smacks of an insult to the so-called prophet and they outrageous response that ultimately ends up getting people killed. Ironically, the people getting killed are usually Muslims.
Considering the UN's liberal agenda of stifling free speech, and the US submitting to trampling over its constitution, we are facing another step closer to an Orwellian dystopia. See where the slippery slopes lead?
All of the instances of application of blasphemy laws are in regards to the Muslim religion (if you can call it a religion at all) Islam is not compatible with free thinking, democracy (Egypt worked out wonderfully didn't it?), women's rights, or anything which may be considered different. When is the world going to realize the problem is Islam and it's inherent intolerance? As for Greece, I can only wonder what the hell is happening in the birthplace of democracy?
Well, infinitely powerful God apparently needs humans to kill off his political enemies. Censoring them ain't no thang.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Free speech incorporates the right not to say things just as much as it incorporates the right to say things. YouTube should be allowed to determine what it is saying on its network just as much as the creator of the video should on whatever channels it controls. EFF is wrong about this.
Seeing that you did not even have the balls to put your username and posted A/C, we can safely assume they would not choke at all, and would probably ask if it is already "in".
Traditionally blasphemy was something you said and the God got angry. Now the laws are scarier as the clear church-God binding is missing. Now it is like homosexuality. To believe or not, to be overweight or not or to be homosexual or not is a matter of personal habit (and you should not disagree as your selections/tendencies/genetics/politics/etc. are no way "better" than his/hers).
What will happen to skeptics in the future? See the example of Edamaruku. A real farce.
My country's Great Firewall of Religious Purity is blocking it.
It isn't about religion, but the decline in Moderate thinking.
With the internet people in general get caught up in a competition on who is the best in their group.
I don't have the citation and it has been a few years (and I am too lazy to look it up for a slashdot post), but there was a study that shows the stricter groups (Religions, Parties...) have a better retention and growth rate then the groups that are a bit more moderate.
So a Religion that says you are going to Hell unless you follow these commandments are more popular and tend to last longer than a religion that states if you are good of heart than you will be saved.
The same thing is happening with political parties, Parties are creating stricter guidelines to say what it means to be in the party. The difference between a republican and democrat isn't as simple as Small Local Governments vs. Large Centralized government. But to an array of policies often contradictory to each other that define the groups stances.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
For residents of countries where separation of Church and State is upheld, Blasphemy Law is clearly one step too far.
What interests me is the tensions which exists between Free Speech, Privacy, Intellectual Property and Slander. There are Non-Trivial Tradeoffs involved, making this a domain where opinions are more divergent and definitions far trickier to formulate. Attacking an Idea or an Institution is quite a different story than attacking a Person.
... try being a right-leaning prof in a large, prestigious college (or in Hollywood), or a skeptic of $prevailingOpinionOnHighlyPoliticizedTopic in the scientific community.
Just something to keep in mind.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Youtube's blocking of that video was an effort to save lives. I'm not convinced that the production of the "Innocence of Muslims" wasn't intended to have the effect it had. Perhaps as a people those who are murderously offended by such things need to grow up and get a thicker skin. I'll grant that. But any words, religiously themed or not, which are intended to offend are reprehensible. And I applaud Youtube for taking steps to mitigate the disaster that video initiated.
Beyond this, so many people (Americans especially) have this "I may not like what you say, but I'll die to defend your right to say it" attitude that sounds good on the surface, but which denies a basic fact, which is that words which are intended to be hateful do hurt. There is no place for any action which is intended to harm, whether that action is picking up a stick or a pen. There is a difference between an unpopular idea expressed in good faith, and one intended to offend. And while differentiating may be difficult, in an age of instant global communications, at least Youtube stood up and tried. They made a call with what they will allow on a network they own. No one should have gotten murderously angry over this video, but the fact is some people did. And you may not like suppressing ideas, but there may be some people alive today who wouldn't be if that video wasn't turned off for a time. Which of those people is the EFF going to tell shouldn't be alive today?
"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) Homepage from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 since that disgusting fatbody pig is a waste of life with no self-control.
It's not "saving lives" it's rewarding intolerance by showing sensitivity to intolerance. It also creates a precedence that says that you recognize their intolerance and will react affirmatively to it again in the future, guaranteeing another intolerant reaction.
Is it wrong to purposefully offend someone? Sure, that's Ethics 101.
But Ethics 201 asks more questions about what intent means and what it means to be offended and how far you can go to react to that offense.
By most civilized standards, rioting and killing people in response to a video is also unacceptable.
The headline reads like something from a new fiction genre... cyber-inquisition-noir.
If this freedom of speech "thing" contradicts other basic/human rights, for instance, "The dignity of men is unimpeachable". Do people still "trumpet/twang" the freedom of speech lyre as their ultimate law/right of choice? There are many, many laws, and most of them tend to 'interact', as in causal law. Don't get me wrong, I love my freedom to say whatever I want to, but; as certain times arise, it is sometimes wiser to not say anything at all. Cheers. And oh, I "believe" that google has any right to "censor" whatever they want to. Even if it tweaks in an admin's finger to "censor" a flying cartload full of adorable kittens. Would this be wise? You tell me.
Blasphemy is for wimps. Real men use heresy or apostasy to distinguish themselves from the common infidel.
A lot of people got offended this year, like Sarah from New York who was called several unpleasant names by a stranger on the street. Sarah, as most people, was told an important lesson from her parents: Sticks and stones may break my bones, But names will never hurt me.
Some people however, weren't brought up with common sense, and got quite a bit of a knee-jerk-reaction to the insults. These 'knee-jerkers' went as far as trying (and unfortunately in some cases succeeding) in shutting people up. Because of 'insults'. Mind you, these 'insults' are the 'names' bit in the lesson, not the 'sticks and stones' bit! People who just had a different opinion or said something the "offended" got REALLY CROSS about.
The nominees for the 2012 "Stop offending me"-award are:
- The Christians living in predominately Muslim countries for being physically and verbally abused by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
- The homosexuals that got beaten up, hanged, stoned or otherwise mistreated by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
- The Jews who got an even worse treatment by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
- The people who wore 'the wrong clothing' or listened to the 'wrong music' and got in quite a bit of trouble with the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
- The women who (this year again) had to suffer gross inequality, injustice, mental, verbal and physical abuse by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
- The Girl who got shot in the face by by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect for wanting to get a proper education
- The Girl who got accused for burning pages of the Koran and was severely endangered of being killed by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
- The people who got fed up with the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect, stood up to them and got their mouth shut by the Muslims
- And the last nominee is: the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims themselves!
Complaining about 'offences' the most in 2012 were... DRUM ROLL PLEASE ! ! !
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
No amount of appeasement will ever satisfy them. If it isn't a silly video, it's a silly cartoon, or "santanic passages" or whatever.
Kill the infidels where ever you find them, right?
2012 has been a free for all attack on religion. This site has consistently ridiculed religion, and almost any subject that appears on the site turns into a debate about religion.
The nuttier religions may be about to crack. In the US, the number of people reporting "no religion" has doubled in the past decade. There are now more than twice as many atheists and agnostics (4%) in the US as Jews (1.7%). "Unaffiliated" is at 16.1%. Islam only has 0.6% market share in the US, and Mormonism is at 1.7%. Total US "Christian" is at 78%, but that's self-reported. The number of people who say they go to church is about twice the number churches report showing up.
Some religions need a high level of coercion to maintain market share. For most of the period since the decline of the Roman Empire, Catholicism was the worst offender. It took several wars in Europe to overthrow that tyranny. Today, militant Islam (and its mirror image, ultra-orthodox Judaism) struggle to keep their members in line and coerce their children into their grip.
That isn't about religion. It's about power. Political power. The religions that fear "blasphemy", demand obedience, and want theocracy are political organizations. They should be treated as such. They have no moral right to demand that they not be criticized. Indeed, citizens have a duty to point out their failings and fight their excesses.
So keep that "blasphemy" going out. Religious leaders, not their followers, should be afraid. (And up the production value; "Innocence of Muslims" was ineptly executed. Read "Florence of Arabia" for what's needed.)
History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. - Jefferson
We should, though. Nothing worse than a dry flag, I say.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why are portions below illegal in Canada?
The Nazi's justifiably interned and exterminated Jews, Poles, Gypsies based on sound social Darwinist logic.
The British and Americans and to a lesser extent the Australians, Canadians were angered they were beaten to the punch in the liquidation of their under-desirable's.
Oh and for the record, the Nazi's did not kill 6 million Jews from 1938 - 1945. The population drop from 1935 to 1948 records show a drop of around 800k, which could be attributed to wartime civilian casualties and/or KIA in the service of an armed force.
Canada has a "Governor-General" and a Queen. Fuck the Queen. At least Hitler told the Kaiser to blow it out his ass, both as a Monarch and a leader. Hitler did not view himself as a right-wing monarchist, but a left wing pro-german nationalist socialist liberator. Which in fact he was. Why else would Stalin have signed a treaty with him?
True right wingers: Mussolini (installed and fired by the King of Italy). Franco (supported by the Church, and reinstalls the King of Spain!).
Stop buying the secret euro monarchist manipulated bullshit on what right/left wing is.
"Only one man is king and he died on a cross".
Signed,
Anonymous Yankee
I am a constitutional libertarian. Anything that degrades the constitution, and any natural rights not specifically spelled out in the constitution, is worthy of scrutinizing. I wish more people would move beyond the tight, smothering binds of democrat and republican philosophies.
Congratulations! You defied /. groupthink!
The American taxpayers paid for the initial development of the Internet. Result? First Amendment trashed. Online companies are turning cyberspace into the equivalent of an American university (or should I say monoversity), where one is free to express any opinion one is allowed to.
Right now you are clamoring to self-disarm your populace. Once that has been accomplished it will be much easier for us to infiltrate your entire country and force you to submit to Sharia exactly like we are accomplishing in western Europe. It is a slow process but a steady process and we have more patience than you can ever imagine.
First, treaty does NOT overide the constitution. You can read about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
Second, no law can be made which will infringe on constitutional rights to fre speech. In other words, you can be critical of Islam all you like, and those sensitive about it are free to not read it.
Hosting a video that is solely intended to cause outrage is bad for business and YouTube should remove it if it causes trouble. What does YouTube gain by hosting this video? This is not a US First Amendment issue, since the producer of the film is quite welcome to have the film hosted and published by some other means. Put it on vimeo your own web site or even host it via The Pirate Bay. Free speech does not mean that a company has to help you to spread your message.
The blasphemy laws in this could easily be revised. I'm not against moderating public speech to some extent in order to respect public sensibilities. We have this in the US with our obscenity laws; free speech is important to us, but we realize that not all types of speech are good or valuable to a free society. In countries which have liberal democracies, blasphemy laws can be a little difficult to understand since people here generally don't care about religion, but oh boy if you criticize something they really care about then you're in for it. In how many of our countries is treason punishable by death? Forget about asking people to respect God--we demand respect for something so lowly as the state.
That being said, the revisions I would propose to blasphemy laws are simple. With mediums like the Internet and computer, everything people access is done so voluntarily--you get content only when you request it. This is not like shouting something in public with a megaphone or broadcasting something on radio or television where someone may unwittingly be exposed. Therefore, the laws could make a clear distinction that would allow blasphemous content when transferred over the Internet or in writing, but forbid it in volatile spheres. The goal of the laws is not to stifle discourse, but rather prevent public unrest, so this measure would be fitting. Take the recent example in Egypt where there were massive protests in response to the YouTube clip of the video that ridiculed the Holy Prophet; a great many people were genuinely hurt and upset, but not because the video was on YouTube. The outcry started because the offensive content was broadcasted publicly on local television in Egypt. This is analogous to shouting fire in a movie theater. Shouting fire in this manner is illegal not because of whether or not fire is dangerous, but rather because it generates a crisis when the people react. Therefore, with respect to religious sentiment and social order, I suggest that websites or written materials not be censored, and that blasphemy laws be refined to apply to spheres in which they were originally intended to do good.
India has pretty strict blasphemy laws. Recently, an atheist was charged with it when he declared a Christian statue a fake. Ireland has had annoying blasphemy laws for years as well.
Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity (as paraphrased from The West Wing). Let's call out those who hate and oppress, and leave the rest of the members of a religion that preaches peace alone.
Uh, Islam IS what you call 'Radical Islamic Fundamentalism'. Nothing less. Nothing in the religion preaches peace alone (particularly towards Infidels) - read the Quran and Sunnah.
Uh, no he wasn't. He had a 100 year old poet Abu Afak assassinated because the latter dared criticize him, and when a female poet Asma bint Marwan - a pregnant mother of quite a few kids condemned the assassination, she too was murdered by Mohammed's henchmen. One of the assassins later told Mohammed that he felt guilty about it, and Mohammed told him that 2 goats wouldn't gore each other over her.
Citation - if you want to, read the hadiths of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, or the sira of Ibn Ishaq. Or google 'Abu Afak' or 'Asma bint Marwan'.
Long story short - what al Qaeda, Hizbullah, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Lashkar e Toiba, Jemiah Islamiya or other Islamic fanatical groups claim is actually the authentic Islam.
Of course it is OK to criticize some decisions of Youtube, but bashing it like this seems childish, unfair to me. No other company has done as much for free speech (by far IMO).
I sincerely hope the EFF can one day have 10% of the impact Youtube has had to defend our rights worldwide.
In particular among the corporate world, no company is close to Google in the defence of freedom and openness. The fact that some times they give in to government pressure does not change that. I believe it is in our interest to recognize that fact, even when urging Google to do better.