Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech

Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to questions of free speech. First YouTube: reader skraps notes that the Google property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments against Christian beliefs; but when he turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.' Amazon.com provides a second example of how to react to questions of free speech. Reader theodp sends along a story in TheStreet.com about how Amazon hung up on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of selling animal-fighting magazines. The article notes that issues of free speech are rarely cut-and-dried, and that Amazon is doing itself no favors by going up against the Humane Society.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by KD : updated Nick Gisburne link to new account.

Religion

Doesn't surprise me that someone who criticizes religion gets censored. After all, religious ideas are completely sacred and can't possibly be questioned by anyone. That would be progress, and progress is WRONG.

It wasn't religion, it was Islam;

when it was Christianity, it was OK.

Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam;

That's because Christians don't blow things up when you disagree with them.

Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam;

Well not anymore. They used to burn you at the stake, go on crusades, and generally kill anyone that was not christian.

Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam;

Funny, if you go back a few more centuries, folks in power were doing this to Christians just for being Christian. It isn't about what one believes in, it comes down to who is in power and how they exercise it. Sadly, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So when a bunch of Christians happened to be at the helm of Europe, if anyone was trying to combat them in even the mildest of ways, they were punished, and sometimes this meant death. The fallacy so many love adhere to is that that somehow all Christians in 1000 AD or so were murdering crazies. Of course this is completely erroneous. But it makes for a great uninformed point that plays to the incompetence ignorance of many.

Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam;

> That's because Christians don't blow things up when you disagree with them

Your facts suffer from selection bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph [wikipedia.org]

http://www.answers.com/topic/james-charles-kopp [answers.com]

The KKK

The IRA

et. alia. usw. et cetera et cetera et cetera

Re:It wasn't religion, it was Islam;

That's because Christians don't blow things up when you disagree with them.

Ummm... yes they do. Someone else pointed out some fine examples... but aborition clincs [religioustolerance.org] are a big issue among many "Christian" groups.

Any fundamental religious group scares me.

Re:Religion

I know this is Slashdot, but did you read the summary? This Gisburne fellow posted quite a few videos about Christianity without any problems. It was only when he posted them against Islam that it became a problem, and that because a number of users flagged it. I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is not protection of religion, but protection is Islam - which Americans have an awkward relationship with right now due to the quandary posed by having a significant (and peaceful) Muslim minority while fighting against any number of predominantly-Muslim foes in the name of fighting terrorism. As you can see, it's the sort of fight that political correctness (in all its self-righteous glory) demands.

Re:Religion

Someone needs to start a new religion that can speak freely - and as a religion it will be protected. Take down notices can be vehemently fought on religious grounds. Fight fire with fire, as it were.

It can't be that hard, there are plenty of made up religions that have protected status standing. I mean if Science Fiction writers can make up religions, why can Slashdotters?

How about making up a religion called Objectivity? You can have the Church of Objectivity, the members would be Objectivists, and the main tenant would be that to get to Heaven you must point out the failings of other religions.

You can tell people that this is the Word of God, because he told me so. (We were having lunch one day, at Hooters. He hadn't been here for a while, and He actually snorted milkshake out of his nose when I described to him the current dogma and beliefs of the predominant religions of the world.)

Yea, it is written, let it be so. Amen.

Re:Religion

"there are plenty of made up religions" Hmm, are the any that aren't made up? ...and on the 7th day, man invented god in his image...

Or rather:

1. In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him.
2. And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord over all the earth when it was suited to Man.
3. And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.

etc. :)

Re:Religion

Someone needs to start a new religion that can speak freely - and as a religion it will be protected. Take down notices can be vehemently fought on religious grounds. Fight fire with fire, as it were...

Unless you start decapitating people, no one is going to take you seriously. No one takes christians seriously now that they no longer set fire to people who disagree with them.

Re:Religion

Such a religion already exists: Pastafarianism [venganza.org]. Or, at least, if free speech isn't already one of its tenets, it's a young enough religion that I'm sure they'd add it if you asked nicely. rAmen!

Re:Religion

I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is not protection of religion, but protection is Islam

I dunno, they might just be covering their asses, like in the 90s, when the card game "Jihad" was renamed "Vampire" because some people pointed out that if they didn't rename it, they'd learn the true meaning of the word.

Sometimes it's political correctness, sometimes it's fear for your safety.

Re:Religion

That is the point exactly. All the anti-Christian bigotry, like the posts here that just assumed that Christianity was the focus of the story because it "is" stupid, patriarchal, evil, stoned or burned people at the stake (hundreds of years ago, and don't pull up an isolated incident or two to say it still happens), feels no fear to express their opinion. They do of Islam, because a significant minority threatens or uses violence any time they feel Islam was insulted. For example, during the controversy of the Danish publishing some cartoons poking fun at Islam Islamic protestors carried signs like "Behead those who insult Islam". So this incident has nothing to do with religious freedom of speech and everything with Islamic radicals inhibiting freedom of speech through fear. Sadly, too many of the people here and other places that claim to be so for freedom of speech and expression stay qiuet or even support Islmalic radicals suppressing it. Usually because the west was colonial at one time or because Chimpy McHitler is still Us president.

Unfortunately, this isn't unique...

This Gisburne fellow posted quite a few videos about Christianity without any problems. It was only when he posted them against Islam that it became a problem, and that because a number of users flagged it. I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is not protection of religion, but protection is Islam.

South Park has lampooned a multitude of religions since the first season. Last year Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) forced them to remove the image of Mohammad from an episode.

Re:Unfortunately, this isn't unique...

Indeed, the Mohammad episode concluded with a purposely blasphemous hodge-podge of Jesus crapping on people and the like. Comedy Central let it through. (The cut Mohammad scene was an innocuous three-second clip of Mohammad handing a guy a fish.) When the usual folks complained about the depictions of Jesus they were making South Park's point for them - there wouldn't be a violent retaliation for the completely disgusting and inflammatory images they had portrayed.

Re:Religion

Free enterprise is also "sacred", and it's no one's damned business what videos YouTube deletes from their own servers.

It's a reasonable thing for a consumer to want to know, so they can make a more-informed choice about which businesses to frequent.

Re:Religion

The irony is that in the Cruelty in the Quran video the article is referring to, what's being presented are not quotes, but paraphrases. I took the liberty of looking up some of them, and although you can see where Gisbourne is getting his paraphrase, I'm not sure that he's always correct.

For example, one of the slides at 5:06 references Sura 28:62-64. In my copy of (Yusuf Ali translation) the Quran, it is apparent that Gisbourne went ahead and helpfully replaced "them" with "Christians". Looking at the passage, it doesn't even appear to me that this is a correct paraphrase since I think Muhammad was addressing polytheists, not Christians. But I'm not an expert, so I don't know. Either way, Gisbourne made a logic jump there.

I'm just refuting any claim that these are "quotes".

Quran Translations vary widely

English-language translations of the Quran vary so widely that Islam doesn't accept them as translations, they are all regarded as paraphrases. You should read this short article [soundvision.com] to get a feel for how the various translations make errors.

Here are some other translations of that same verse (Al-Qasas 28:62):

Khalifa: The day will come when He calls upon them, saying, "Where are those idols you had set up beside Me?"

Pickthall: On the day when He will call unto them and say: Where are My partners whom ye imagined?

Shakir: And on the day when He will call them and say: Where are those whom you deemed to be My associates?

Sher Ali: And on that day HE will call to them, and say, `Where are those whom you allege to be my associates?'

Yusuf Ali: That Day (God) will call to them, and say "Where are my 'partners'?- whom ye imagined (to be such)?"

Transliteration: Wayawma yunadeehim fayaqoolu ayna shuraka-iya allatheena kuntum tazAAumoona

Re:Quran Translations vary widely

English-language translations of the Quran vary so widely that Islam doesn't accept them as translations, they are all regarded as paraphrases.

If the Koran has a meaning, it can be translated, and of the millions of English-speaking Muslims in the world there must be a few who are up to the job of translating it correctly.

The variations between the examples you give are small and in any case doctrinally relatively trivial. I'd be more interested in seeing the various translations of things like 3:118, the gist of which is: "Do not be friends with unbelievers. They all hate you." Or 2:222-224, which has some pretty harsh things to say about women, likening them to fields that a man can go into any any time he chooses.

The difficulty of translation always gets raised any time anyone mentions any of the terrible things the Koran actually says that Muslims and Muslim sympathizers would like it not to say. It gets tiresome, particularly as it always gets raised as if it were a new and interesting issue instead of an old and tired one. Muslims have been complaining about this for decades. Don't you think its about time that some Muslim leaders got together and produced an authorized edition? Bible translations vary widely too, and there are a few cases where even good translations differ on substantive matters, but the gist of the sentiment is almost always clear: God loves everyone, unbelievers will burn forever in hell, stuff like that. It isn't self-consistent, but there is no major problem with what the text actually says. Whereas no one seems to agree on even the basic sense of the most trivial passages in the Koran.

Of course, for Muslims to get together and produce an authorized translation would first require Muslims to get together, which is something they appear to have a lot of trouble doing for purposes other than burning embassies because they have been offended by some silly cartoon ~0:-{=

Re:Quran Translations vary widely

Which translated into a UK relative frame would say:

Do not place yourself in the Rangers stands, when thy believe in Celtic.

Re:Quran Translations vary widely

If the Koran has a meaning, it can be translated, and of the millions of English-speaking Muslims in the world there must be a few who are up to the job of translating it correctly. ... The difficulty of translation always gets raised any time anyone mentions any of the terrible things the Koran actually says that Muslims and Muslim sympathizers would like it not to say. It gets tiresome, particularly as it always gets raised as if it were a new and interesting issue instead of an old and tired one. Muslims have been complaining about this for decades. Don't you think its about time that some Muslim leaders got together and produced an authorized edition?

Subtle gradations of meaning can be lost during translation. The fact they you don't know this simply shows that you haven't done a lot of translation, especially of ancient languages. Jews don't consider translations of the Koran as authoritative (or even "holy", in any sense) for exactly this reason. The same is true of many Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist texts. For example, any "serious" student of Taoism is expected to learn ancient Chinese.

Bible translations vary widely too, and there are a few cases where even good translations differ on substantive matters, but the gist of the sentiment is almost always clear

No it isn't. There are often radical differences in translations which can lead to serious doctrinal differences. Part of the split between Protestant and Catholic has to do with the interpretation of various passages. You're coming from the perspective of an unbeliever to whom such fine distinctions don't matter. They do to Christians.

And you also don't seem to recognize the awesome effort put into translating the Bible into English by Christians. Literally BILLIONS of USD has been spent, and literally centuries of effort. There certainly ARE English translations of the Koran, it's just that they aren't as precise as the Bible translations because nowhere near as much effort has been spent translating them and there is less incentive to do so as the Islamic academic culture strongly prefers study of the Koran in Arabic (see above). I find it unlikely that Islamic scholars are going to risk the integrity of the Koran by altering this culture.

Now wait a little

So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to, and Amazon refuses to be intimidated or allow them to intimidate others on their property. Sounds more like a good way to handle free speech to me.

Re:Now wait a little

The way I understand it (which may be flawed), when Wal-Mart caves in, it caves in to market pressures. When they 'censor,' they are censoring what they are willing to sell, not what the artist can produce. Wal-Mart's refusal to push somebody else's idea of art does not constitute censorship, despite what your article says.

Your link makes it sound as though there's some Church Lady in the back of every Wal-Mart Distribution Center who is bleeping out the F-Bombs on each individual CD that comes her way. And her neighbor with an airbrush, blurring out all the nasty cover art. No, they come to Wal-Mart pre-censored, and not by Wal-Mart executives. If you want to blam someone, blame the artists who are willing to violate their artistic integrity for the sales boost they get from having their albums sold at Wal-Mart.

Don't kid yourself. Amazon doing what they think is best for themselves, as is Wal-Mart.

Re:Now wait a little

As for Amazon hanging up on them, well, you have the right to voice an objection but that doesn't mean they have to listen. If Amazon was deleting comments or otherwise preventing people from making their opinions known, that might be a case for freedom of speech...

Well, no. Amazon can within very broad limits decide what gets said and not on their site. "Free speech" is not a right you have on private property. They could pull most any kind of comments at impunity and your rights would pretty much extend to taking your comment business elsewehere.

Of course, the Human Society is claiming the material is illegal, and if that's true it adds a whole other aspect to the situation - but I don't know enough about whatever laws may apply so I can't comment on that.

More to the point, the Humane Society is not the arbiter of what is legal and not. And Amazon is not the publisher of the material. If the Humane Society has issues with the legality, they should get in contact with the police or a prosecutor, and address the magazine publishers, not Amazon.

They're just using harassment as a way to stop ideas they don't like - which, in the long run, probably harms their cause more than it helps. I'm very much against blood sport, but right now I feel like laying down a bet on a dogfight just to spite these hateful morons.

Google being evil

Maybe now some of the Google is wonderful nonsense will stop. Censoring people on religious grounds qualifies as being evil in my book. Of course, after Google sold to out to please the Chinese government, it was clear Google had decided that greed was a better motive than not being evil.

What I heard from a former employee

was that the concept was taken seriously at all levels he saw and that proposals died quickly in meetings if someone questioned the ethical implications.

That's "former employee", so it's not like he's defending the source of his paycheck.

Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship

Private parties can do as they please. You have *NO* constitutional right to say what you want on their services. It may not be "nice" to do, but no one can stop them from doing this. Your right may vary by state, though.

Re:Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship

Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom to slander, libel or incite. It rather means freedom to discuss any topic in a dry, boring, responsible, sane, adult, philosophical manner.

Yeah, and that's what the video apparently was doing. I mean, how does showing a sequence of direct quotes from the main religious text--nothing more--amount to "slander, libel, or incitement"?

In fact, the problem here is on the side of the religious nuts: they are offended by any criticism of their religion. Should we limit free speech according to whether the target of criticism is offended? I don't think so.

Re:Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship

Unless the service is gov't regulated, like telephone lines. Common carrier status and all that. The telephone companies (at least the landlines) are not allowed to censor anything that goes over their lines. OTOH, without net neutrality, the telcos could very well examine packets and try to censor packets that are part of hate speech (or really anything they want to censor, like fluffy blue bunnies) with no legal repercussions. IANAL.

Re:Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship

Mod parent up! He's exactly right. Youtube can't afford to lose the safe harbor provisions as defined in the DMCA [wikipedia.org], or it will open itself up to massive copyright infringement claims.

Any large community site like Youtube is full of copyrighted material, which means it is committing massive copyright infringement by allowing people to download those materials. The DMCA says (paraphrased) "don't look closely at what's on your site, and pull down promptly anything that someone claims is theirs, if you obey those rules then you can't be sued".

So it's wrong to say that Youtube can do whatever they like simply because it's their private site. They can of course, but only if they don't care about being massively sued.

Re:Freedom of speech is from *GOVT* censorship

It doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be unethical.

If Google wants to provide a public forum in the form of YouTube, it's better if they don't censor the videos there on the basis of topic. They are legally required to censor certain content (pornography involving animals or children). They are socially expected to censor other content (any other porn and certain extreme violence). Beyond that, they deserve a raft of shit for any censorship - not because they don't have the right to control their content, but because the public forum is much more useful if they allow it to be used.

Yeah, but

You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation. The US Constitution guarantees that "government" shall not infringe the right to a citizen's free speech. Any time you have a non-governmental agency "it doesn't apply".

Amazon can cut off anyone they wish, so can Google. Google is not obligated to do a damn thing concerning free speech. They can censor anyone they want because they are a corporation, not the government. The law/Constitution isn't going to protect someone from posting in a forum/newsgroup ran by Google. Too bad, that's what you accept when you post in Google's forum/newsgroup; a place owned by essentially a private party.

The only repercussions from something like this (private censorship) is the free market system. Boycott, attention getting, etc. But you can't force them to make them accept your free speech.

Terminology

You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation.

That's because everyone perpetually equates "free speech" with "censorship". Censorship CAN be a violation of your right to free speech, b