The Implications of Google Restricting Access To Anti-Islam Film 727
ideonexus writes "While the decision has been a footnote in most news stories, the Washington Post is raising the question of what it means that Google can shut down access to the anti-Islam film in countries where that film has sparked riots, something the American government cannot do thanks to our First Amendment. A popular meme in the Information Age is that the Internet spreads democracy by enabling citizens to organize and speak out, but we forget that much of that speech is now hosted by third parties who are under no obligation to protect it."
have you seen it? (Score:3, Interesting)
this movie is not at all "free-speech"! this movie is a conspiracy!!! this movie was designed to cause riots!!
watch the movie trailer, all parts with mohammed and anti muslim intent are COMPLETELY DUBBED IN!!
the actors themselves have stated that they did not know that the movie was about Islam, but was casted under the title "Dessert Warriors"
it screams psy-ops or simple chaos sowing.
Tarek Mehanna (Score:5, Interesting)
First Amendment is BS. Read up on the Tarek Mehanna case .
Exactly four years ago this month I was finishing my work shift at a
local hospital. As I was walking to my car I was approached by two
federal agents. They said that I had a choice to make: I could do
things the easy way, or I could do them the hard way. The “easy “ way,
as they explained, was that I would become an informant for the
government, and if I did so I would never see the inside of a
courtroom or a prison cell. As for the hard way, this is it. Here I
am, having spent the majority of the four years since then in a
solitary cell the size of a small closet, in which I am locked down
for 23 hours each day. The FBI and these prosecutors worked very
hard—and the government spent millions of tax dollars – to put me in
that cell, keep me there, put me on trial, and finally to have me
stand here before you today to be sentenced to even more time in a
cell.
In the weeks leading up to this moment, many people have offered
suggestions as to what I should say to you. Some said I should plead
for mercy in hopes of a light sentence, while others suggested I would
be hit hard either way. But what I want to do is just talk about
myself for a few minutes.
When I refused to become an informant, the government responded by
charging me with the “crime” of supporting the mujahideen fighting the
occupation of Muslim countries around the world. Or as they like to
call them, “terrorists.” I wasn’t born in a Muslim country, though. I
was born and raised right here in America and this angers many people:
how is it that I can be an American and believe the things I believe,
take the positions I take? Everything a man is exposed to in his
environment becomes an ingredient that shapes his outlook, and I’m no
different. So, in more ways than one, it’s because of America that I
am who I am.
When I was six, I began putting together a massive collection of comic
books. Batman implanted a concept in my mind, introduced me to a
paradigm as to how the world is set up: that there are oppressors,
there are the oppressed, and there are those who step up to defend the
oppressed. This resonated with me so much that throughout the rest of
my childhood, I gravitated towards any book that reflected that
paradigm – Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and I
even saw an ethical dimension to The Catcher in the Rye.
By the time I began high school and took a real history class, I was
learning just how real that paradigm is in the world. I learned about
the Native Americans and what befell them at the hands of European
settlers. I learned about how the descendents of those European
settlers were in turn oppressed under the tyranny of King George III.
I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed
insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as
the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field
trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet
Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this
country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles
of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne
Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned
dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King,
and the civil rights struggle. I learned about Ho Chi Minh, and how
the Vietnamese fought for decades to liberate themselves from one
invader after another. I learned about Nelson Mandela and the fight
against apartheid in South Africa. Everything I learned in those years
confirmed what I was beginning to learn when I was six: that
throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between the
oppressed and their oppressors. With each struggle I learned
Do it already (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me see, the film has caused a violent backlash and Google is wanting to block people from seeing in areas that further cause a violent backlash? I'm not at all concerned about the implications. As stated many times, it's their service, if Al Qaeda want's to spread it they can make VHS (VCD?) copies or whatever and do so. The film maker who is certainly enjoying the violent response (that he aimed for) is more than welcome to ship copies anywhere in the world he wants.
Spare me the false logic arguments of "what's next?". Google does not have to be the hosting provider of hate speech if it doesn't want to. And they certainly have the right to be selective on what airs where. I see it as good "citizenship" in a way. They already can remove my videos calling for the mass murder of all Slashdot readers - just because, never mind it's not even constitutionally protected speech.
I'm pretty sure by looking back now at Google, Twitter and Facebook they didn't discourage spreading information that lead to violent revolutions (Wikileaks still shows up in searches for example) in these countries when the causes were noble (i.e. toppling un-wanted and brutal/corrupt leaders). The track record thus far has shown they self censor when appropriate.
I get slippery slopes and all that - and I get that you don't have the right to not be offended... but today money is speech, corporations are people and hate speech is lauded over violent reactions. Even shooting and killing your own citizens to defend an embassy of another country isn't enough to satisfy those who want to further fan the flames of hate. In what world is is okay to continue answering hate speech with more hate speech and then cry foul when it comes down to blows? There is less civility in civilization every day. What happened to "mutual respect"? Why sabotage years of peace just because you can?
For goodness sake, do you think the people who died want the video spread even more? Don't you think their families hold both parties accountable (of course the killers more so - but still)?
Re:If you think (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:have you seen it? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a good plan, too, because it really does prove their point. If even just making an obscure film insulting the religion is enough to spark off riots and murders around the world, then it does start to look like the multicultural dream isn't realistic. When the foundational ideals of one culture are an intolerable evil to another, how can they occupy the same space without conflict?
Re:They can shut down access to terrorist films (Score:5, Interesting)
Rubbish. A movie can not have the intent to offend since a movie can not offend. The only person who decides who is offended is the person who gets offended at stuff. I can say whatever I want to you, if you get offended by it that is your problem, not mine. You can chose not to be offended by it. Adults generally do when children say offensive things. When retards say offensive things too.
In this case the "offender" and the "offendee" are equally retarded, and boom, you have a boom.
People supporting free speech should sponsor one such movie a week, hitting every major and minor religious figure in history, until these retards stops electing to be offended by something that is not offensive.
No One Murdered Because Of This Image [theonion.com]
Re:have you seen it? (Score:4, Interesting)
When the foundational ideals of one culture are an intolerable evil to another, how can they occupy the same space without conflict?
You are unfortunately speaking the truth when it comes to fanatical members of Islam. Their culture is incompatible with the majority of western cultures, I'm not stating this based on having read anything in the Koran, simply based on observation. You do not see Christian's on crusades murdering, you don't see Jews in violent riots, the Sikh's do not try to destroy embassies, or those with believe in Hinduism (the 3rd largest world religion behind Christianity and Islam).
I do believe there are a majority of Islamist people who are peaceful and compatible with other religions. Unfortunately for them there are a large number of radical members of their religion causing a serious problem.
Terry Jones and Fred Phelps are real embarrassments for many Christians. They both spread hate in the name of their religion, which is shared by millions of others. They don't speak for those millions of others, and I hope the world generally understands this. These are fanatical members of Christianity. These are the people who incite others to violence--either it's gay rights, military families, or radical Islamist's.
I think the important thing to take away is that not all Islamist's are the problem. Arab does not equal bad. Individual people are bad. Groups of people are not always* bad, and so it is unfair and wrong to target entire groups when a small segment is the problem.
BTW, we should also consider our own media outlets. For example, if you were an foreign person watching mainstream media reports during the peak of the Occupy movement you might get the impression that it was a movement that the majority of the US was behind, that it was disrupting daily life, and a real clash between the people and the establishment... the truth is that it was quite localized, and while many average citizens were willing to make some posts to Facebook about it, they were not going to the movement organizations, or anything like that. So the truth is that the number of American (and other) people actually actively involved in the occupy movement were very small. The same thing is going on here. We see reports of riots, destruction, etc--how many people are showing for these vs. the total populations? Is this just an over inflation and over dramatization by our news media which are compelled to have 24/7 video coverage of events? The same media who will select the best angles to make a crowd look bigger? The same media who will float a canoe down a street with 2" of water, while filming at a low angle, to make watchers believe the street has feet of water on it--only to be embarrassed when two people walk right has the canoe in standard boots?
Don't allow the media to "radicalize" YOU. Yes, violent demonstrations that end in death and destruction must be taken very seriously. And those who performed these terrible acts should be caught, tried and punished. But do not be goaded into escalating that violence.
Re:There is no credo for atheism. (Score:5, Interesting)
What you describe is agnosticism, lack of belief in God. Atheism is the explicit belief that God doesn't exist.
To me, this difference is important, because I used to be an agnostic until I've realised that this position was just a result of my liberal upbringing. Atheism is a much more reasonable position, because there are many good arguments why God cannot and does not exist in addition to the arguments against the positive arguments for the existence of God.
Bertrand Russell's "Is there a God?" was an eye-opener to me. Some of the arguments in it support only agnosticism, but some also support atheism.
You're right, though, that even an atheist might not have a motivation for arguing or fighting against theists. For that you need independent additional motivation, like e.g. believing in rational enlightenment or, from a more practical perspective, being against the countless wrongdoings of the religious institutions. I personally would fight against religion, because it's stupid and I dislike stupidity.
Re:If you think (Score:4, Interesting)
That is not what happened here in Belgium last night when 230 people were arrested. Most of those people are born here and have got an education. We have one of the best school systems here and education is virtually free here. By law anybody under the age of 18 needs to be in school.
I have sometimes have the feeling they just riot because of the "fun" of it and it has less to do with religion or lack of education. Today it is about Mohamed, then there was a riot about the niqnab, then we got a riot because they arrested a Muslim woman who attacked a cop, etc. Every reason seems to be OK just to create mayhem and destruction.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called the inquisition. A time when people where routinely tortured to death for a wrong word. Burned at the stake for espousing un-Godly ideas. You want it back, then let the fundamentalists religionists shut down free expression with threats of violence. If idiots want to tear down their own countries be being goaded by trolls then more power to the trolls.
There is only one way to react to this religious violence, troll the shit out of the idiots until the fellow citizens learn it is smarter to lock up violent religious reactionaries then people who express challenging ideas.
I refuse to be silenced by religious whack jobs. I refuse to allow the rebirth of the religious inquisition in my time. I honestly was largely indifferent to pro or anti-Muslim sentiment until now. The greater the violent reaction to the spread of anti-Muslim ideas then, the more I am for the spread of those anti-Muslim ideas and absolutely no different for any other violent repression of ideas by any other religion, Christian, Hindu etc.
This is exactly why free speech was instituted as law, to protect people from persecution by religious freaks, by those who abuse religion for personal gain, by those who claim superiority through religion. Free speech has it's roots in the resistance against religion, it was the weapon used to tackle the inquisition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition [wikipedia.org] and prevent it from recurring. Based upon the way Muhammad is depicted in the Koran he comes off as a paedophile and a misogynist, a person who created a religion for his own personal benefit.
Re:have you seen it? (Score:5, Interesting)
My kids (non-religious and mixed-race) are in a Jewish day care center whose employees include a hijab-wearing Muslim. Now, I'll grant you that the Orthodox members do have their own room with their own teacher - but in general it shows that multiculturalism can and does work.
What doesn't work is extremism, and we should all work to rein it in.
Re:well, fuck you (Score:5, Interesting)
If you owned the ground at "ground zero", you could do that.
It's called "free speech".
It would be insulting and offensive, but legal. Just like this video.
Do you remember when a cross (crucifix?) was placed in a bottle of urine in an art gallery? The Christians were rather upset, to say the least. The Pope got all bent out of shape. People protested the museum. Public funding for art was attacked, again. NOBODY FUCKING DIED. Get it?
If the Muslim world ever wants to be seen as something other than a bunch of animals, they need to learn to deal with stuff like this without killing people and rioting. It *is* free speech. Offensive free speech, actually.