Pakistan Lifts Ban After Facebook Deletes Offending Page 677
crimeandpunishment writes "Facebook is back in Pakistan today. A day after Bangladesh banned the social networking site, the Pakistani government lifted its ban after officials from Facebook apologized for the 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' page and removed it from the site. The page caused outrage and protests among Pakistan's Muslim population, and led to the ban two weeks ago. A spokesman for Pakistan's office of information technology said Facebook assured the government 'nothing of this sort will happen in the future.'"
pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
way to cave face book. please move your hq to islamabad.
Beard stroke (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm turning my face into a caricature of the Prophet.
The right thing? No. Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)
I rather enjoyed deluding myself that Facebook was standing up for free expression, denouncing idiotic religious extremism, etc., but I now realize the folly of that thinking. Thank you, Facebook, for restoring my faith in the utterly amoral nature of American business.
Neville Chamberlain (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is full of these types now in our age of appeasement. Another repeat of history is almost due. And after such a short time, while people are still alive from the last time this happened. UGH! Sickening!
Re:Another point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, if that's the way you want to go with it, lets all be "tolerant" of what _any_ other group doesn't like.
I mean, if Russia doesn't like something, lets get rid of whatever it is they don't like. If France doesn't like the anti-France jokes, lets scrub sites of anything resembling it. If MADD doesn't like alcohol references, lets be "tolerant" and get rid of those as well, oh hey, 2 birds there. Oh there are a lot of groups who are offended by the idea of evolution, scrub that. Oh hey, there are other groups who only believe we come from aliens, etc. Scrub anything anti-alien created/derived.
It's a slippery slope. If you don't want to read something, click away, or hey, just don't click it in the first place. It's not _my_ problem if you don't like something that is legal in my country where my post is located.
Huge slippery slope. Cave to one groups demands and now you've set precedent. Now the next group sees that you cave to demands, so lets all demand what we want. I mean, hell, we can't police what we view ourselves so fuck it, lets have everyone self censor so I can live happily the way I want to. Fuck the rest of the world and their ideas!
It's draw Mohammad MONTH now! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah! Selective censorship fixes EVERYTHING! Just cave into the most aggressive believers, and you tend to generate more aggressive believers.
So, what happens when 1000+ pages are now created, celebrating Draw Mohammad Month, Draw Mohammad Brunch, Draw Mohammad Restaurant, Finger-Paint Mohammad with your Toes, Bake a Mohammad Cake, etc., etc.
If you ban all mockery of religion that gets offended, then many religions will suddenly decide to get offended - and many groups will decide to define themselves as religion in order to get the censorship ability.
There's always going to be overlap between validly interpreting religion as an outsider, and taking an insulting view from the perspective of an insider - making that perceived insult a crime is equivalent to making observations as an outsider a crime. I am not prohibited from drawing Mohammad. Creating a system where I am prohibited is saying my view isn't as valid as the aggressive believers in that space.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Another point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with Bill Maher on this one. Religious thought, in all it's forms, is a cancer of our civilisation. If you can't reason with something which threatens you, and you can't avoid it doing damage to you, then it needs to be exterminated.
Re:Another point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty poorly, considering that you're still alive to post that....
The issue is that the radical Muslims are just that, radicals. just like the radical Christians, and the radical Jews, etc. hell, there's even been radical Buddhists doing this sort of thing in Sri Lanka. the problem is that we only hear about the radical nutjobs out there... but there's a billion Muslims on the planet. if they were *really* as bad as fox "news" would have you believe, we'd have turned this place into a self-illuminating glass-floored parking lot by now.
Or to turn the tables another way, imagine if the only Christians you ever heard about were people like David Koresh?
Bans (Score:4, Insightful)
Religious views offend me, lets petition Facebook to remove all pages with offensive content!
Why not? They removed pages that were supporting a political and religious viewpoint (free speech and cartoons) to cater for the views and feelings a single groups of people. What about my views, and those of everybody else?
New rule for Facebook, if they want to play that game, is that in order to be perceived as being fair, they must necessarily remove any content that is offensive to some group or people.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
We just became a little more Islamic fundamentalist by giving into their way of life, rather than standing up for freedom.
Facebook, you suck.
I'm so tired of people bending over for Muslims and their way of life. Muslims will NEVER give us an inch, so we we give up our freedom? What a shit deal.
Re:The right thing? No. Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
For a minute think that you totally, fully, blindly believe in Quran and that God/Allah is going to fry your ass if you do not follow his words
That's all very fine except no one can quote the passage dictating no pictures be made of Mr. Mohammad. The best they can do is make a tortured trail of logic between a prohibition against worshiping images leads to no pictures. If you think the people making cartoons on facebook and Dutch newspapers are in danger of worshiping them then you're sadly mistaken of the entire point of drawing them. Such intolerance is in need of correction, not ever more unilateral tolerance.
Re: yeah lets point at them (Score:5, Insightful)
while Israel has just boarded a flotilla of ships killing 19 people in the process for importing wheelchairs, cement and wood banning a webpage seems a rather trivial response in comparison
A lot of news gets ignored. A couple of weeks ago some guy firebombed a mosque in Florida while people were worshipping there. Not a peep on the news. A few days later two white supremacists shot a couple of cops who pulled them over for something, then got themselves shot in a firefight. Not a peep on the news.
Meanwhile, CNN is interviewing American Idol winners...
Re:Another point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
OH NO! Hey look everyone, it's MUHAMMED waving at us!
0/
/|
/ \
We're gonna get banned!
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
sed -i \
-e s/Islamic// \
-e 's/[.] Muslims/. Fundamentalists/' \
-e s/Muslims/fundamentalists/
With those replacements made, is the position espoused something you would support? Why or why not?
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now! (Score:3, Insightful)
[i]If you ban all mockery of religion that gets offended, then many religions will suddenly decide to get offended - and many groups will decide to define themselves as religion in order to get the censorship ability.[/i]
We kinda missed that boat, though. To get people to give a crap what your group says about anything you need two things.
1) Ability to do a lot of damage.
2) A lot of followers.
3) The reputation of being completely unreasonable.
If you're just a psycho with a few people in the club they'll take you out like you're a Branch Davidian. If muslims never killed people or hijacked planes nobody would give a crap about them. To be fair, if the christians never had the crusades nobody would give a crap about them either. If we could reason with them we'd try that every time instead of moving on to the "delete offensive content" step. I suppose, though, that if those in question were reasonable they wouldn't be very religious.
Re:Another point of view (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
So the US is funding Israel, which just killed a number of people on a humanitarian flotilla delivering food to blockaded Gaza today, a flotilla on which there is a Jewish holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace Prize winner and various European MPs. The US grabs Iraqis off the street and puts them in Abu Ghraib, forces them to masturbate and films them doing so (besides the one tortured to death). The forced masturbation is allowed to be done, but not broadcast on US TV because our good Christian values does not allow us to see what we are doing over there or something.
So on top of all this bloodshed and mayhem the US causes in these countries, as their bodies pile up, Americans are now attacking their culture and religion. It is an attempt to dehumanize the people already being killed. If drones were not flying through Pakistan killing people, it would be one thing, but this Facebook thing is just another attack on all the blood and bodies Americans are stacking up in these countries. It has worked too - this sort of thing has stirred up fundamentalists in Pakistan, who just bombed some mosques of the moderate Ahmadis. So the usual US practice of getting rid of secular moderates and putting radical Islamists in charge is working.
Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another point of view (Score:3, Insightful)
In the U.S. the laws of Man far outrank the laws of Religion. The U.S. Constitution, Article VI states:
Except in this case we see that they don't. Facebook is trying to become the default method of communication for everybody and doing pretty well with many. If they allow this level of censorship that becomes very serious. Ideas, such as how to cure breast cancer, may not be allowed because some American fundamentalists don't like breasts.
We really really need to get a decent decentralised alternative to Facebook up as soon as possible and get people migrated away. If we don't there are going to be reall problems with practical freedom of speech in future.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
continuation of that quote (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. However the discussion here is decidedly about MUSLIMS. Does that make you uncomfortable? Why or why not?
8===> O:
^^ That is Muhammad sucking cock. Does that make you uncomfortable? Why or why not?
I could go on all day you want to be troll.
Re:Another point of view (Score:5, Insightful)
We understand the other point of view. The point is in a free society, you do not have the right to not be offended.
so, the other point of view does not matter.
Every fairy tale god has taken its share of criticism, and ridicule throught out history, and in our so called free society, we are supposed to value the idea of freedom of expression.
Instead here we are selling out our constitution, our struggle from historical oppression of thought and ideas.... only to find ourselves giving all of it away to make Muslims happy? Fuck them and their selfishness. We make fun of Jesus Christ every fucking day here in America, in music, arts etc. We also praise him every day in music and arts... and the same for Muhammad. If they dont like it... They can stay out of our way of life. They can STOP watching and listening to our are. And they can stay the fuck off our websites.
Its all nice to "think of their side of things"... but their side of things beats women, forces them to wear burkas, and kills anyone who questions their god. WE already thought about their side of things... and it's fucking stupid.
Here we are giving in to it?
Fuck us. We're pathetic cowards.
Complaints (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have deactivating my facebook account in resp (Score:4, Insightful)
I have deactivating my facebook account in respons[e]
Try to do it together with a large group of friends. Try to find a decent alternative they can all move to together. If you don't do that then you may eventually find yourself moving back just because your friends are still in Facebook and you feel you need it.
Re:Another point of view (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion people have the right to believe whatever they want and practice whatever they want. People also have the right to ridicule and mock whomever they want. These rights are not absolute, however. Your right to worship may not impinge on my rights to free speech, or any other rights that an individual has in a free, civilized society. Go to you church/mosque/temple and pray - fine. Getting in my face about accepting Allah/Jesus, etc - you're approaching a line. Threatening others with violence or death because they do not believe in your religion and they mock it? - a line has been crossed and this behavior has no place in any society I want to live in.
Personally I think anyone who believes that some supernatural being that lives in the sky is responsible fo thing that happen is an utter idiot, but that's my opinion - I respect your right to practice your religion, but if you tell me I cannot do something because it is against your religion I'm going to do it, especially if there is an implied threat on your part.
The biggest problem is, how do you argue with someone who "knows" they are right based on blind faith? If a rational person believes them self to be right based on evidence, if you show evidence to the contrary, they will generally adjust their position or at least debate the merits of the argument you have presented. How do you debate the question of, for example, whether or not Muhammed was in fact a pedophile with a group of people that have blind faith in their prophet? You can't without risking that some radical faction will threaten to injure or kill you, and that is unacceptable. Where religious beliefe run afoul of established secular law, the law does, and should, trump the religious beliefs and there should be no exceptions. Unfortunately we see exceptions based on religious beliefs creeping into our laws, the recent healthcare law is the most recent example: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090806.html [findlaw.com].
Short version: do whatever you want, but if in practicing your religion you step on my rights or somehow get you preferential treatment from the government, fuck off.
Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, Larry Flynt might differ with you on that one.
Beyond that what you write is troubling. Who gets to decide what is meaningful? That's always been the issue surrounding free speech and censorship. We can all agree, to one degree or another, that some forms of speech are damaging, but beyond the "yelling fire in the theater" kind of speech, where there is a very direct correlation between the speech and the harm it can cause, it becomes far more difficult to meaningfully quantify.
I hardly expect Facebook to a beacon of free speech. It isn't even a beacon of security or privacy. Still, these people were exercising a legitimate right, and while I think they're rude and crude, I believe they have the right to be, just as Muslims have the right not to look.
Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (Score:2, Insightful)
No more than we need to keep people from posting pro-Klan materials on the site.
If people want to post pro-Klan material on the site, let them. I'm an adult, I know it's bullshit. Having Facebook Thought Police removing content others find distasteful is just bullshit.
Re:It's draw Mohammad MONTH now! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're just a psycho with a few people in the club they'll take you out like you're a Branch Davidian. If muslims never killed people or hijacked planes nobody would give a crap about them. To be fair, if the christians never had the crusades nobody would give a crap about them either.
I agree. I've heard it said that a cult becomes a religion when it begins to kill people outside its own membership.
Re:Way to set a precedent for caving to zealots. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimately is is both derogatory and hateful.
Agreed. And yet South Park showing a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding out of her ass is tolerated. Gotta love hypocrisy...
the fact is that there's a lot of bigots out there to get their lulz by insulting Islam.
Yeah, unfortunately that's true. The sad fact is, there are many who choose to attack Islam as a whole, without realizing that the real issue is with the extremists. Unfortunately, that makes the battle against the extremists rather tricky, as inevitably, the fucktard racists/bigots end up jumping onto the bandwagon.
More than that it's hardly an effective way of bringing the extremists into check.
Yeah, but you'll *never* bring the extremists into check. They've *already* decided that the western way of life must be stopped. The best you can do is paint them as the ridiculous zealots that they are, and hope that the rest of the world realizes that bowing to their demands is tantamount to surrendering to their beliefs.
The real problem is that the moderates aren't out there attacking the zealots with equivalent force. IMHO, moderate Islam needs to start actively working to cut the cancer of fundamentalism out of their ranks, as it's the only way these people will finally be marginalized.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
nice try.
So you're saying that you would call me an intelligent, well educated individual if I just gave up my rights and bowed down to Muhammad?
Well.. I'll a be an uneducated redneck twat then.
But I'm not... I'm an American who understands free thought, freedom of expression, and the great American tradition of simply saying "Go fuck yourself".
My problem with this... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Jews wanting to take down a "money grubbing Jews" page
-Christians wanting to take down a Woodland Critter Christmas South Park page
-Environmentalists wanting to take down an anti-Earth Day page
-Vegetarians wanting to take down a "For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three" page
Honestly, where does it stop? You can't start taking down one page for one party because that would be discriminatory to everyone else. Why shouldn't environmentalists get the same treatment as Muslims? What about the vegetarians? They have their reasons and causes, too.
My guess is that Facebook knew how much money they were losing from advertisers and that once again, they would rather take the "less free" way out once again to rake in as much cash as possible.
Thanks, Zuckerberg!
Re:yeah lets point at them (Score:3, Insightful)
How about the fact that they wouldnt let isreal check to make sure they wernt bringing in weapons?
They were in international waters when boarded. No nation has the right to board ships in international waters unless the ship in question is registered in that country. Doing so is classed as piracy or privateering. Even boarding a ship registered in another country when it is your own waters can have repercussions, because ships count as sovereign territory of the country in which they were registered. From a legal standpoint, Israeli soldiers entered another country and fired upon civilians. Whether the civilians fired first is largely irrelevant - if Palestinian soldiers marched into Israel without invitation, you'd expect any armed Israeli civilians to open fire on them without waiting for them to shoot first.
Re:yeah lets point at them (Score:3, Insightful)
while Israel has just boarded a flotilla of ships killing 19 people in the process for importing wheelchairs, cement and wood
banning a webpage seems a rather trivial response in comparison
"Hey guys - look over there!" Nice attempt to distract.
Re:My problem with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
they would rather take the "less free" way out once again to rake in as much cash as possible
What are you talking about? Facebook's goal is to make money for their investors. If they think taking the page down will be more profitable over some period of time, then of course that's what they will do.
Re:I'm a Muslim... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't become more fundamentalist, I've never made the choice to associate myself with Facebook, so I should hardly start pretending that they speak for me.
We certainly learned something about some of our neighbors.
Re:I'm a Muslim... (Score:3, Insightful)
>> I honest to goodness don't want to argue about the merits and demerits of my faith with some
>> of the slashdotters on here, who are convinced that Muslims "don't belong."
Oh please - you belong as much as any of us non-rational beings. You very well may hold faith in the ultimate truth of the universe - just as the stories held by the raelians or even the ancient Greeks may truly be the true story of the universe... they're just not rational stories.
But it IS important as a story! We all tend to care about getting a bigger perspective - and about how to more reliably deduce truth from the countless imperfect stories around us.
In that regard, your story is important, from your personal insights into computers, to how Islam informs your understanding of ideals and choices. Without those views, we miss a piece of perspective, a part of our imperfect truth.
The more 'different' you are, the more you belong.
Ryan Fenton
This isn't about free speech at all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Draw Muhammad Day isn't about us standing up against terrorists. It isn't even about standing up against Islamic fundamentalists. It's about blatant bigotry. I'd venture to say most (if not close to all) people who participated did so out of pure hatred and with complete ignorance. This certainly violates Facebook's terms.
Fighting hateful behavior with more hateful behavior is sophomoric. While I really wish I could be defending free speech here, there has to be a point where I draw the line. If Draw Muhammad Day was a peaceful, public demonstration where people where drawing the prophet hugging pandas and sniffing roses, this post would be quite different. Unfortunately, that's not the case. People where being intentionally hurtful on a publicly-accessible, corporate-owned website. Facebook did the right thing.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
I have just one question.
Am I the only one who doesn't give a flying fuck about what facebook censors, as long as it doesn't affect me?
It's not like it's a fundamental need. If they ever bother me, I'll stop using it.
I'm not interested in what they do with the info I post, as I consider it about as secure as screaming that info in a train station. I'm not interested in whether they cave in to fundamentalist claims, nor any other kinds of claims; I don't use it as a platform to spread my religious disbeliefs. I'm simply not interested on the politics of Facebook.
Just as I wouldn't care if gmail decided to write "ISLAM IS THE BEST!!!!1111 lololol" in every mail sent by someone in the middle east. As long as I find it useful I'll use it. As soon as it bothers me, I'll stop using it.
Would you care if the S of slashdot was actually a picture of a million diminute swasticas?
Re:I'm a Muslim... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually people do this all the time against Christianity and the US, even in Alabama, with nary a peep. We don't kill anyone, burn something down, or attack innocents. In fact, your British art galleries are carrying a crucifx in urine, and you call it "art". It does in fact seem the only religion you can safely insult is Christianity.
So perhaps you should grow up.
(Just FYI, it's the Muslims that lynch people now. You can find things like that out by a process we quaintly refer to here in the US as "education". Perhaps you should check into it.)
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?
Hell yeah. I'm a British atheist too, and PC attitudes like yours are the reason this country's lost so much freedom under New Labour.
Re: yeah lets point at them (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, the top TWO of three spots on Google news is about the Israeli shooting. Is it even remotely possible to be more popular than that?
As to the news worthiness of the Facebook issue, it is news worthy. It is in fact far more important that a few people dying in the fill-in-the-blank scary thing of week (please tell me shark panic season is almost upon us...). There are almost 7 billion people in the world and hundreds of thousands die each day. Any death is a tragedy, but when we are stripped of our ability to communicate, especially in the political realm, a crime is committed against millions. The repercussion has the ability to make miserable or kill untold numbers. Free speech is the top defense against most forms of oppression and persecution. Hell, oppression and persecution is ALWAYS preceded by a reduction in the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is the primary defense against injustice in this world. When it gets reduced, you should care. Hell, if nothing else, count in your head the number of times that a reduction in the freedom of expression was followed by something terrible. Okay, now count how many times an increase in the freedom of speech was followed by something terrible. It is pretty easy math.
Re:Face palm (Score:5, Insightful)
My concern about caving into the extremist Muslims on this issue is that it is it gives legitimacy to their viewpoint.... to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. The freedom of speech is something that is incredibly important to preserve, including preserving viewpoints that are on occasion distasteful and against your own viewpoint.
The dilemma of "new media" groups is to see how much editorializing will be done.... and sticking to your guns in terms of that editorializing. Facebook unfortunately, for good or ill, has become a community bulletin board where they have at least to this point cultivated all sorts of viewpoints including overtly political viewpoints that they are broadcasting and supporting.
If Facebook, or any other similar group starts to engage in censorship for what is overtly political speech, and much of what is done here in regards to cartoons of Muhammad is explicitly political speech by its nature, it puts that group onto incredibly slippery ground to be "forced" to censor other kinds of speech to the point they are really only advocating a particular political point of view. I don't have a problem with censoring types of content, such as pornographic images or perhaps groups that are advocating various kinds of illegal activity (aka some video on YouTube that is a "how to" for making meth.... to give an example). What concerns me here is more that the topic itself is somehow forbidden.
I don't see that Facebook would be censoring a cartoon depicting either George W. Bush or Barack Obama with nuclear missiles in a hat they are wearing. Why should the fact that the subject of the image simply being Muhammad be singularly targeted if anybody else would be acceptable? This is where it really goes over the top. If Muhammad were to be depicted in a manner that would be otherwise offensive and censored regardless of who is the subject of the image.... fine, get rid of the image.
The other aspect here is that those who are promoting the Islamic faith are cramming that faith down my throat, and the throat of everybody else in the world too. I respect the freedom of worship and belief. This is something which is essential to a free society in general and something I claim for myself. That freedom includes even the complete and total rejection of a belief in a god of any type, or worshiping things that I would consider down right silly.
By telling me that I, a non-believer in the Islamic faith, can't make a rendering of the image of Mohammad and use that image in a political fashion, they are in turn forcing a religious belief upon me and others who may wish to engage in this kind of activity. It is especially galling when the target of the activity (in this case the cartoon) is in fact directed toward other non-believers and is not being done explicitly make to flamebait or otherwise cause a reaction out of the believers.
As a Christian, I am particularly offended that in this case the Islamic faith is somehow being protected when in fact religious icons and symbols of Christianity are routinely depicted in a negative light as well and are not similarly protected. Perhaps it is a valid point where something which is held as sacred should be respected in some fashion and not trashed. This includes even symbols that are not overtly religious but are still held in some reverence such as a national flag. If Facebook is going to be consistent here, at least set up some general and broad policy that all sorts of similar symbols ought to be treated with respect. That isn't exactly an easy policy to implement nor enforce.
I certainly don't understand why death threats ought to be made over non-believers (or believers for that matter) making light of these things. When people make light of religious symbols which I consider important, I certainly am willing to grant them some latitude and don't necessarily get angry with them. I still am disappointed, but I wouldn't seek to harm somebody for doing that.
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
The 'Left' gave women the vote. (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop trying to say Left-leaning people support this religious bullshit. I certainly don't.
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
And you would be an intelligent well educated individual to know that obviously I'm NOT speaking about every Muslim. But you instead proclaim its intelligent to point that out at every turn?
I mean I thought intelligent people already knew all Muslims weren't bad. Do we have to have this politically correct disclaimer every time we speak? Dont we all know this by now?
"This Broccoli taste like shit... but not all broccoli is bad..."
Fuck this PC shit. I'm a progressive independent politically, and I'm even tired of it. Its just fucking dumb to end every god damn statement with a fucking disclaimer.
Arent we smart enough to know that there are no absolutes?
But you go right on pointing it out at every opportunity. Use that to win your arguments. Hell point it out so i dont have to point it out every fucking time.
Re:Another point of view (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm. Says who? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another point of view (Score:4, Insightful)
The question here is then if Facebook has become a "common carrier" and as such must take all forms of speech (including offensive kinds of speech) or if they are exercising editorial control over their content. Once you accept that you are engaging in editorial control, you need to make editorial decisions about all content.... something I think Facebook would have some trouble with.
Facebook then becomes liable for everything which is posted on its site and written about on their site. That is a situation which most sane people would not want to be in and that having the status of common carrier is preferable. That requires permitting speech that can from time to time be offensive.
The only thing that was a problem with the depiction of Mohammed is the topic and subject, not the method or manner in which somebody is depcited.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you, you pathetic piece of shit. You do not have a right not to be offended. No one does. That's one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Every time someone whines and bitches about how something or other offended them and forces other people to conform to their notions of decency, a little bit of our culture dies.
I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?
And I think most people in Alabama would just ignore you if you did that. I'm thinking you've never actually been to Alabama or else you'd know that already.
you have a lot of work to do (Score:4, Insightful)
i agree 100% with you that economic development, education, and healthcare are far more important than rabble rousing
however, what i see that you don't is that if those issues are ever going to be addressed, it will be done by YOU
you are the majority? then you solve your problems in muslim communities. do you want to know why the muslim world has the problems you dislike? i'll tell you why:
"Almost all Muslims (both in the "West" and in the "East") have no beef with anyone or anything, and just want to go ahead living their lives."
no, you can't go on living your life. you are part of the problem BECAUSE YOU DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS IN YOUR COMMUNITY
you don't have the right to just go on living your life. you have the RESPONSIBILITY to clean up your community. if that doesn't cdome first, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE UNMOLESTED. not by the west, but by the lunatics in your own community. clean them up!
if the demagogues are in charge, it is because the majority, you, let them be
you are to blame. because you don't understand this IS your problem
as the obvious reciprocal corollary, as an american i loathe gw bush and the tea party morons with every fibre of my being for being the ignorant propagandized sheep they are. and i will do my best to make sure these crackpots and assholes do not get power in my country again
now i am asking you to say the same about your lunatics
and if we fail, god save us. if we are the moderate middle in this world, it is our responsibility to keep the keys of power out of the hands of the stupid and the evil, in BOTH our communities. and if we don't, god save us all, because it is nothing but suffering for all of us
so your a 3 year old ..er..a muslim (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:My problem with this... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, "what period of time"? If some advertisers return tomorrow, sure, it could be short-term profitable. But what about when Facebook develops the reputation that it will take a page down the moment it offends someone? I don't honestly think that will enhance their profitability long term. Do you?
The problem with the "damn the torpedoes, only exists to make money for the investors" concept is that it is ultimately harmful even to the business and the investors. Ultimately, a bad reputation is corrosive to a business. It may take years for the damage to manifest (especially in arenas where there is a high degree of lock-in), but eventually, if everyone loves to hate you (even if they have to stay with you today), at some point, someone will come along with an alternative, and your customers will stampede out the door. You may also find yourself hit with regulations that are actually harsher than what you would've had to do on your own. Ultimately, it is society, through government, that grants the limited liability corporations enjoy, and society has every right to restrict or revoke such grants if an entity granted such is acting so as to damage the public for the enrichment of its shareholders. I wish we exercised that right more.
Doing the right thing and acting decently may cost a little more today, but it pays off in terms of long term sustainability of a company. Ultimately, "being evil" has a cost. Preserving your company's reputation long term is something you can do for your investors, and that's only done by setting clear principles and then steadfastly sticking to them. For a site like Facebook, one of those principles should clearly be "We will not interfere with what our users want to post, unless they are doing something illegal", and then pointing any critic of any page to an FAQ clearly stating that they do not write or approve the content of anyone's page, just as no one from Slashdot wrote or approved this comment. If you find it offensive, then, I offended you, not Slashdot.
Then again, that's why I would tend to say to avoid crap like Facebook, and if you want to put something up on the web, build it and do it. It's not that hard to build a basic website. If you want something done right (and to stick around even if someone doesn't like it), do it yourself.
Ban this, you spineless mother-fucker. (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Free speech sometimes means offending people! You don't support all free speech, you don't support free speech at all! What's next? Should Slashdot automatically delete this post for calling you out as the freedom-hating douche-bag you are?
Do you think I'm being deliberately offensive? The words you have said here are much more offensive than mine. But I haven't been dishonest by covering up my harsh words with flowery language. You don't want to protect people from offense, you want to prevent people from openly expressing their honest opinions in favor of your sanitized version of communication.
Re:Damn right! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you truly dislike fundamentalism of any stripe, it would be nice to see that claim backed by political actions. Batshit crazy Christian fundamentalism very rarely surfaces these days in terms of actual laws, but large sections of the world live under Islamic law that is unchanged since the middle ages.
Christian fundies are a bit backwards perhaps when it comes to women's rughts (if you see abortion that way), but Islamic fundies savagely punish rape victims for being sluts and this is law in many countries. Christian fundies are against gay marriage, but Islamic fundies punish homosexuality with death and this is law in many countries. Alcohol, pornography, I could go on.
Islamic fundies are vastly worse in each area that Christian fundies are annoying about, and are agressively moving to impose thier mindset worldwide. Holy War has been declared on Western liberal culture, but Western liberals seem too conflicted over "tolerance" to fight back. If you've ever said "be tolerant of everything but intolerance" you're being called out on that right now!
Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site? Why does the left go apeshit over any suggestion that any counter-terrorism activities ever focus primarily on muslims? The other side isn't at all conflicted over "tolerance", as the facebook debacle clearly shows.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)
a non-religious "capitalist" (why did you combine capitalist and non-religious together?) doesn't follow the beliefs of a Muslim.
Failing to follow their belifs is by no means doing anything to any balance.
Capitalism is an economic structure, Islamic faith is a religion.
The two have no correlation. It just so happened that a faith did not like it, so they bitched, that's what it boils down to.
Any other way you attempt to structure it only dilutes it and attempts to paint another picture.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell yeah! Free speech doesn't just mean you can speak out against real injustice, it means you should be intentionally abusive of other people's cultures and religions! As often as possible!
This attitude utterly disgusts me. You people are pathetic. "Not drawing pictures of Mohammed" (PBUH) takes away precisely one "right" of yours, the right to be an idiot with no sense of tact or respect. ...
I'm a British atheist. What say I go to Alabama, defecate on a bible, wrap it in the US flag and burn the bundle. That's free speech isn't it? That's me exercising the right of a person living in the US isn't it?
No, it's me being an offensive dick for the sake of it. I'd get lynched, and rightly so. Grow up, the lot of you.
No, it is free speech.
During protests, Muslims will often protest by desecrating or burning flags, and openly uttering death threats. All of these are actions that are intentionally offensive. Media outlets will routinely insult Christianity, especially Catholicism, Judaism and other belief systems, as well as insulting atheism, certain nationalities, etc. without ever receiving a threat of violence. Everything we hold dear to us in this culture is open to offence.
Only Islam is magically off limits and unable to be criticized. People who insult Islam fear a very real possibility of a violent death, including the South Park creators, who were threatened, sent pictures of another filmmaker who was murdered for criticizing Islam, along with having their home addresses published on an Islamic fundamentalist website.
This specific act of causing offence to Muslims in this situation had a very important function. The South Park guys had their lives threatened for daring to present images of Muhammad. The idea behind "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" was to present the world with so many offending images that the South Park guys would be flooded out. Their would simply be too many offending images out their for the Islamic fundamentalists to murder everyone who had drawn one.
As soon as certain topics are declared forbidden, freedom of speech dies, and a dangerous precedent is set.
"If that topic is forbidden, then surly it's ok to ban this topic, too" "well, since those topics are banned, we can also ban this list of topics."
Freedom of speech makes certain undesirable things possible -offence, hate speech, pornography, evangelicals, etc. but developed countries are based on the idea that free speech is a greater good than all those negative side effects combined. One slashdotter's sig sums it up nicely "The act of censorship is always worse than what is being censored. Always."
Offence is a necessary part of free speech for the simple reason that not every shares the same views and opinions, and the way to handle this difference of opinion in an open and civilized country is not by censoring one side of the debate, driving it underground, or brutally murder your opponents, the way to deal with it is to have an open debate, and discuss the issue, knowing that no matter how offensive some may find the topic, it is still safe to discuss.
Re:I'm a Muslim... (Score:1, Insightful)
I always wondered what percentage of the local population is represented by those people shown on TV burning the Danish flag demanding death to those who drew the caricatures. Just like some people from the Middle East and Central Asia I talked with had the mistaken belief that everyone in Europe is christian - and that all christians agree to the message of those caricatures -, many intelligent westerners view muslims as an unreasonable fanatic mass. Dozens of cameramen circling around other dozens of idiots burning some effigies won't give us a real picture of those people.
Re:I'm a Muslim... (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like the active, crazy Muslim population hates the passive, reasonable Muslims even more than they hate atheists. They'll totally murder you for being the wrong kind of Muslim.
Re:Score (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the cheap shot against the "left"? You could say I'm a "leftie" (especially by US standards), and I'm pissed off by this.
Because there has been an internal division among the left (of which I consider myself a proud member) about the limits of free speech. Some openly deride the value of free speech in favor of hate speech laws, campus/employer speech codes[3][5], laws prohibiting "defaming or insulting religion"[6]. Outside the US, there appears to be no limit to prosecutions for even trivial insults against Christianity[1] or Islam[2]. In a most bizarre ruling from Canada, apparently you can be sued for libel for calling someone an 'enemy of free speech' in response the plaintiff's initiation of various cases before the CHRC that were, in fact, attacks on speech[4].
Slashdot has a particular brand of leftism that is largely against these attacks on free speech but it would be silly to think that this represents a worldwide view. There are significant attacks on free speech from the left (and, as always, from the right as well on different issues) and it would behoove us to pay attention and confront our fellow lefties that are clamoring for European-style (or even Canadian-style) regulations of 'hate speech' and the like.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/atheist-given-asbo-for-leaflets-mocking-jesus-1952985.html [independent.co.uk]
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders [wikipedia.org]
[3] http://volokh.com/tag/rodriguez-v-maricopa/ [volokh.com]
[4] http://www.nelligan.ca/e/PDF/Warman_Court_Decision.pdf [nelligan.ca]
[5] http://www.tuftsdaily.com/2.5511/csl-hearing-turns-spotlight-on-controversial-source-pieces-1.590986 [tuftsdaily.com]
[6] http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/combating_defamation_of_religions/ [theamericanmuslim.org]
Re:I'm a Muslim... (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably you moderate Muslims should stop being so passive, stop hiding and reclaim your religion from the loonies that hijacked it.
Disappearing every time the crazies go insane is the last thing you should do.
Take the responsibility of your beliefs and confront the crazies, as a Muslim you are in a better position to do it than anyone else.
Re:This isn't about free speech at all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fighting hateful behavior with more hateful behavior is sophomoric.
And to paraphrase Clausewitz, war is won by the most violent. While no one is shooting anyone over this (yet), acting mature will not work when dealing with loud-mouthed ideaologues who will take any opportunity to strip you of your rights (while at the same time granting themselves more political power). Stand up, or shut up.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
The Qu'ran, like the Bible, definitely wants to strip you of your freedom.
Muslims and Christians DO want to take your freedom away.
If someone paints themselves as a moderate, they're certainly not Muslims or Christians in the sense that they are adhering to their scripture.
Don't want to be associated with the stupidity in either book? Then they should stop calling themselves Muslims and Christians.
Re:Face palm (Score:1, Insightful)
My concern about caving into the extremist Muslims on this issue is that it is it gives legitimacy to their viewpoint.... to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. The freedom of speech is something that is incredibly important to preserve, including preserving viewpoints that are on occasion distasteful and against your own viewpoint.
Yeap, agree with you.
I don't have a problem with censoring types of content, such as pornographic images or perhaps groups that are advocating various kinds of illegal activity (aka some video on YouTube that is a "how to" for making meth.... to give an example). What concerns me here is more that the topic itself is somehow forbidden.
Ahh, the old attitude from someone who sees themselves as religious: you can do and say stuff that other religions oppose, but not what my religion teaches.
Fucking hypocrite.
And besides, what is wrong with people learning how to synthesise a chemical? Who is harmed if someone watches a video? Who is hurt when a person takes drugs? Is a person's body not their own? If you think otherwise, then you are saying someone else owns that person's body. And that means you are advocating slavery. Much like many so called christians from history....
Designer chemical drugs like crystal methamphetamine are a consequence of the long-term prohibition of some drugs. A policy advocated frequently by those who call themselves religious, but to anyone with an IQ of more than about half a point it is clear that prohibition does not work.
And due to the shitty policies prohibitionists come up with, when I have a cold or flu I can no longer get pseudoephedrine to treat symptoms. Sudofed now contains some chemical that is about as effective as a placebo (though if you know this, its effectiveness is even less).
I don't see that Facebook would be censoring a cartoon depicting either George W. Bush or Barack Obama with nuclear missiles in a hat they are wearing.
The US is the only country, after all, to have used nuclear weapons in battle. So censorship of US leaders being depicted as warmongers would be contemptuous to the memories of the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
The use of nuclear weapons on Japan was a war crime, and there were no consequences because the US was on the winning side. Just like the atrocities committed by other allied forces.
Why should the fact that the subject of the image simply being Muhammad be singularly targeted if anybody else would be acceptable? This is where it really goes over the top. If Muhammad were to be depicted in a manner that would be otherwise offensive and censored regardless of who is the subject of the image.... fine, get rid of the image.
The other aspect here is that those who are promoting the Islamic faith are cramming that faith down my throat, and the throat of everybody else in the world too.
Like you are doing with your avocation of censorship of porn and drug info? You are willing to enforce your moral standards on others.
I respect the freedom of worship and belief.
Hahahahaha, bullshit.
Or maybe you are one of those fuckers who is cool with people as long as they are stupid enough to subscribe to any system of faith?
You know, faith. The thing where you accept what the world is like from what people in positions of authority tell you, rather than what your own eyes tell you.
This is something which is essential to a free society in general and something I claim for myself. That freedom includes even the complete and total rejection of a belief in a god of any type, or worshiping things that I would consider down right silly.
You nearly understand!
When people call themselves atheists, they are frequently trying to explain their world view in a way that people who practice religions can unders
Re:Ban this, you spineless mother-fucker. (Score:4, Insightful)
People were being bigots, and that's Just Not Right.
And you are the biggest bigot of all, Mr. Holier than Thou. Because you talk about bigotry instead of standing up for the principles of free Western civilization, while that framework is being eroded from under your very feet. If you are white, I am sure there are parts of town you refuse to go to, bigot or not. And the same applies if you belong to another ethnic group. The hatred is out there, and the guy that stabs or shoots or bombs you isn't going to care if you are or aren't a bigot. He will kill you for what you stand for to him, not for who you are.
So if you want to go ahead and ignore everything that's happening around you, watching government after government cave in because of the threat of violence from radical muslims, go ahead. That's what living in a free society means. However do not get in the way of us "bigots" as we struggle to keep you free by forcing the governments to finally choose to abide by our long standing principles, or declare themselves puppets of the new caliphate.
However the radical muslims would do well to remember that most of us come from Viking stock...
Re:Face palm (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that showing pictures of a 7th-century pedophile who started a death cult is somehow "offensive"? The whole fucking religion is OFFENSIVE to anyone sane anyways...
Re:I'm a Muslim... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because this censorship is not being done by the government, does not make it right.
But it does make it an issue where Facebook is exercising their protected free speech, not violating the rights of others... or would be if Facebook had deleted the page, instead of the page creators.
. Free society is free everywhere, not just on public or government property.
I demand that you go out in public and yell about how you rape kittens. Otherwise you're censoring me. My freedom of speech isn't restricted to the government not telling me what comes out of my mouth, but I'm also free to express what I want through your mouth, right?
Re:pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that horse dead yet? Blocking free speech is against the way and spirit of tthe United States no matter who does it.
Alright, please respond to my post with a comment that says, "sjames is a twat". Otherwise you're blocking my freedom of speech in your posts you evil un-American censor.
Re:Damn right! (Score:1, Insightful)
See I with you until this:
"Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site? Why does the left go apeshit over any suggestion that any counter-terrorism activities ever focus primarily on muslims? The other side isn't at all conflicted over "tolerance", as the facebook debacle clearly shows."
I'll tell you were the opposition is, nowhere, because its not a "celebratory Mosque." Its not an al'quiada front. Look, here's the website. I know it doesn't start with foxnews.com, but you'll have to deal. http://www.cordobainitiative.org/ [cordobainitiative.org]
Re:Damn right! (Score:3, Insightful)
You were doing fine up until this:
celebratory? It is a mosque and a community center. Saying "celebratory" implies the people building the mosque are celebrating 9/11 and the death of over 3,000 Americans. This is untrue and needlessly inflammatory. It seriously weakens your otherwise solid post.
Re:pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)
You miss the point. Facebook decides what free speech they want to put up on their Web site. You decide what free speech you want to put in your posts. I decide what to put on my website and in my posts. It's not a violation of freedom of speech for you to refuse to put what I want in your posts just as it's not a violation of free speech for Facebook to not put any particular post on their Web site. It's only a violation of free speech if the government prevents you from speaking in your own speech, Website, post, etc. You have as much right to have an particular page on Facebook as I have a right to have you post particular content in your Slashdot post. You have done the exact same thing as Facebook, err, well, you would have if Facebook had actually deleted the page, which it seems they did not. Rather the creators of the page deleted it themselves.
Re:what i don't understand is (Score:3, Insightful)
What is a "moderate Muslim"? Is that like a moderate Communist? Many many years ago I was talking to a person who was telling me how wonderful communism was. I said to him "Look at China and the Soviet Union. How can you say communism is good?"
... that's not true communism".
... possibly death.
His reply was "Oh no
Well, true communism or not, that's how it is practiced in every communist country in the world. And the same is true of Islam. There is no country where Islam is the dominant religion and where there is freedom of speech codified in law and where you can criticize Islam or Mohammed without suffering serious consequences
You can try to claim that the problem is just a few "crazies" but that's false. The "crazies" are Islam.
When has there ever been a good fundamentalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not me; because fundamentalism == "a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles", and depending on what the principles are, I might either applaud or abhor any given kind of fundamentalism.
For example, I don't like the principle that you shouldn't have any principles (or that actually adhering to them is a bit too much) -> therefore I don't like anti-fundamentalist fundamentalists =P
Fundamentalism is ALWAYS stupid. There is never one set of principles which apply to all situations regardless of calculation, logic, or reason. Fundamentalism of the religious kind is generally a source of problems for humanity.
The ability to weigh the pros and cons of each individual action is what determines rightness and wrongness.
Re:Face palm (Score:1, Insightful)
Ever wondered what would happen if they had NOT used nukes?
Yes, and there's so many possibilities with hypothetical situations that debating them could almost be a waste of bits.
But here's some spares: The Soviet Union might not have been friendly right at the end of WWII, had America not had a piece of tech that the Soviets wouldn't have (working) for another 10 years or so. Dropping the nukes on Japan was a clear message to the Soviets that the US could project its power thousands of miles from home, "so don't have any big ideas, commie".
The allies went all the way to Berlin to make sure Europe wasn't ruled by the Soviets after WWII, there would have been other decisions made along similar thinking for the Pacific war too.
Remember, Japan didn't look like it was going to surrender.
No, the US was demanding an unconditional surrender. The Japanese offered a conditional surrender. The US rejected that, and proceeded to use nuclear weapons against non-military people.
The planned invasion would certainly have caused several million deaths, mainly civilians.
Don't worry, the PR machine would have kicked in. They would have been labelled insurgents, or something, and the invading and occupying troops would have been called heroes for shooting people.
Whilst I'm boat-rocking, does anyone know what the Nazis called the French resistance? Or were things so controlled that any notion of opposition to the Nazis just wasn't talked about?
Consider the numbers, and you can't say a little nuke here and there was really that bad for them.
Spoken like a true capitalist.
Re:pathetic (Score:1, Insightful)
It just shows how pathetic and fragile the political ideology that is known as 'Islam' is - it cannot stand up to the slightest public debate. It cannot stand up to even the most basic of investigation.
The 'prophet' of Islam was a mass murderer, multiple rapist, bigamist with 14 wives, and a paedophile, who 'married' a nine year old girl when he was fifty four.
All documented by MUSLIMS for 1400 years. They saw no reason to hide any of this information, and in fact, revelled in their 'great leader' committing these crimes.
Need I say more?
No wonder you can't have a rational discussion with a muslim - their world is literally upside down. Good is evil, and evil is good, in Islam.
Re:Face palm (Score:3, Insightful)
Were any of those forms porcine? I rather expect it did.
I am seriously disappointed in the violent muslim community. I've got Turkish friends and they are Muslim and are quite accepting of the fact that other people live completely different lives. They do and don't do as Muslim should and shouldn't do according to their beliefs. That is great. It doesn't interfere with my life and every time someone refuses to eat pork, I don't go on any sort of murderous rampage. (More pork for me anyway) Seriously, if the coin were flipped and every time non-Muslim people saw something that Muslims did that offended them, would it be fair to threaten and even murder Muslims over it? Of course not.
What just happened is a major company on the internet just rolled over for a bully.
I am perfectly okay with people practicing their religion until it interferes with my own rights to freedom of speech and expression. That's then a religion becomes an enemy of the people. In this case, that is exactly what is happening. But what can you expect from a religion that, according to its scriptures, expects you to kill offenders. Any religion that preaches murder should be abolished from the planet or humanity will never completely mature. (And yes, I know the Judaism and Christianity also preach murder... same goes for them as far as I am concerned.)
Re:My problem with this... (Score:2, Insightful)