EFF Looks At How Blasphemy Laws Have Stifled Speech in 2012 278
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."
Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (Score:0, Informative)
or a skeptic of $prevailingOpinionOnHighlyPoliticizedTopic in the scientific community.
*yawn* The only people still denying AGW are not "skeptics" they are people who have a political or economic reason to deny it. Especially in light of this [csmonitor.com], this [discovermagazine.com] and this [nydailynews.com]. These are people who were specifically trying to disprove everyone else and instead confirmed the prevailing stance the "politicized topic".
Sorry, but the last remaining industry shills trying to proclaim AGW as not true are being intentionally dishonest.
Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (Score:2, Informative)
Not weighing in one way or the other, but just pointing out that there is a difference between global warming and AGW (human-caused global warming). One can believe that the first is happening, without believing that humanity is the leading contributor (as the second implies). There are potentially other factors at play as well.
Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously, nobody gets fired for "right leaning views".
In the 1950's, people did get fired (and also denied positions) specifically for being communists. If you're going to claim systemic discrimination against conservatives in academia, you're going to have to show consequences at least as severe as that.
Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (Score:2, Informative)
Juan Williams did. And he isn't right wing, just one of his views was, and that was enough. No tolerance from the tolerance crowd, we call that irony (or hypocrisy)