YouTube Refuses To Remove Anti-Islamic Film Clip 622
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that Google officials have rejected the notion of removing a video that depicts the prophet as a fraud and philanderer and has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. Google says the video does not violate YouTube's policies, but they did restrict viewers in Egypt and Libya from loading it due to the special circumstances in the country. Google's response to the crisis highlighted the struggle faced by the company, and others like it, to balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events. 'This video – which is widely available on the Web – is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,' Google said in a statement. 'However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt, we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.' Underscoring Google's quandary, some digital free expression groups have criticized YouTube for censoring the video. Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says given Google' s strong track record of protecting free speech, she was surprised the company gave in to pressure to selectively block the video. 'It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint,' says Galperin. 'I'm not sure they did the right thing.'"
It's already out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.
Doesn't matter anyway, most of these protesters are taking it word of mouth from word of mouth from word of mouth. Few have likely seen it. Few even stop to consider if it even has merit (being seen to think for yourself can be hazardous to your health in some circles.)
It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical (to say nothing of the internet trolling) wringers. Perhaps there would be some good if it got some people to think, but see above. The people who tell these people to be angry like their control over them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having actually seen the movie, it much ado about nothing. Yes, it is offensive in a Monty Python sort of way. Think of the movie "Life of Brian" but done on a shoe string budget with bad acting, horrible editing, and obvious overdubbing.
Heck, that is giving too much credit to the producers and making the "Life of Brian" seem worse than it really is. Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....
Re: (Score:3)
Having actually seen the movie, it much ado about nothing. Yes, it is offensive in a Monty Python sort of way. Think of the movie "Life of Brian" but done on a shoe string budget with bad acting, horrible editing, and obvious overdubbing.
Heck, that is giving too much credit to the producers and making the "Life of Brian" seem worse than it really is. Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....
You might get a kick out of the crazy people and their idea behind the film, to smoke out terrorists in southern california. [latimes.com]
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....
Wikipedia pointed out a subtlety about that scene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#Religious_satire_and_blasphemy_accusations [wikipedia.org]
The Pythons unanimously deny that they were ever out to destroy people's faith. On the DVD audio commentary, they contend that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern organised religion, but that it does not blasphemously lampoon the God that Christians and Jews worship. When Jesus does appear in the film (on the Mount, speaking the Beatitudes), he is played straight (by actor Kenneth Colley) and portrayed with respect. The music and lighting make it clear that there is a genuine aura around him. The comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statements of peace, love and tolerance ("I think he said, 'blessed are the cheese makers'"). Importantly, he is distinct from the character of Brian, which is also evident in the scene where an annoying and ungrateful ex-leper pesters Brian for money, while moaning that since Jesus cured him, he has lost his source of income in the begging trade (referring to Jesus as a "bloody do-gooder").
So in Life of Brian the comedy comes from idiots not understanding the message of peace and tolerance.
Then again of course, Jesus discouraged stoning - "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Unlike Mohammed
http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/082.sbt.html#008.082.809 [iupui.edu]
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.
"I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess". How chilling is that?
And it's clear that if Muhammad hadn't have been there the couple would have got a token punishment of face blackening, not be killed horribly.
In fact if you don't think either Jesus or Muhammad were divine these sorts of differences in their morality make it pretty clear that Jesus as a historical figure is owed a more respectful portrayal than Muhammad. Muhammad not only had sex slaves, he actually enslaved them himself after killing their husbands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayhana [wikipedia.org]
Rayhana was originally a member of the Banu Nadir tribe who married a man from the Banu Qurayza. After the Banu Qurayza were defeated by the armies of Muhammad in the Siege of the Banu Qurayza neighborhood, Rayhana was among those enslaved, while the men were executed for treason.
According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took her as a maiden slave and offered her the status of becoming his wife if she accepted Islam, but she refused. According to his account, even though Rayhana is said to have later converted to Islam, she died as a slave.[1] According to Marco SchÃller, Rayhana either became the Prophet's concubine or, was married to him and later divorced
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
It IS pretty offensive.
It's also pretty damn hilarious. These protesters must be simply being told what to do, because I can't see anyone taking this seriously if they had actually seen it. Sure, the movie completely trashes Mohammed, but in the most cartoonish way possible. I liked the part where he was like "Everyone but Muslims must die" and then there's an explosion as he puts his sword up. Sort of like he's an action hero.
If they made the same sort of movie about Jesus, I probably wouldn't be able to stop laughing.
This is like if they made a sequel to Borat, but where he was teleported back to 7th Century Arabia and founded a religion.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, I wasn't interested in seeing this movie...until now. BRB!
Re:It's already out there... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they made the same sort of movie about Jesus, I probably wouldn't be able to stop laughing.
The Life Of Brian?
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Informative)
Wasting my mod points, but it's not about Jesus. It's about the very people who show up late, learn about the miracle (or offensive video or whatever) by word of mouth and then follow the wrong guy. The "real" Jesus is even in the movie, giving the sermon on the mount, and in the beginning.
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical
Except that Christianity doesn't expressly forbid depictions of jesus etc. Muslims don't have free speech, it's a foreign concept to them. It was, for a long time, a foreign concept to the christian world too after all, the Christian, Asian Orthodox and Catholic and protestant churches (see what I did there, I implied eastern orthodox as the real christians not anyone else, you didn't go burning an embassy down over it?) all disagree over who's interpretation is right. But that's kind of the point. By steel and gunpowder they got themselves to the point of simply disagreeing, and not making any more of a fuss over it. Part of that of course comes from the balance in power between the state and religion, and the eternal conflict between the Catholic church particularly as a state and as a religion.
Just about everything one christian denomination stands for one of the others disagrees with, about the only thing they agree on are that a god exists and that jesus is his son, and none of them are too fond of people pointing that out as being obvious nonsense. But beyond that, they've long since fought their wars and revolutions, inquisitions and witch hunts over it and it's just not worth it. Free speech isn't some grand ideal about why it's great to hear everyone's opinion, it's a grand ideal because I know I don't have to listen to other people's opinions. The new islamic movements are going to find it very hard to get anything done if they want to waste a week every time someone of no importance says something they don't like, but that will take some growing pains because for years they've been like sheltered children by their authoritarian states, and they just discovered that the world has porn and gays and they don't like that. Eventually they'll figure out that there are a lot of people in the world who say a lot of offensive things, and most of the time no one cares, and making a fuss over it just gives attention to people who don't deserve it.
Granted, it may well be that we need to extend the principles of Augsburg (1555) and Westphalia (1648), importantly 'Cuius regio, eius religio' through the UN. Your state can set its own damn rules about religion but keep your nose out of anyone elses so to speak. That would require leaders in muslim states to go along with it, and they're not there yet, or at least, not all of them, but they're getting there.
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cuius regio, eius religio worked for another time. Censorship used to actually work. Now, it really doesn't, even where they try to implement it. That means that you can't keep the other countries' infectious ideas from getting in your own nice dictatorship and you can't keep your extremists from getting their hands on this stuff and inciting people over it either.
Other than that, I have to agree that certain liberties are earned by a lot of effort, frequently with blood involved. These people don't understand that the US Government does not go around telling people what they are allowed to say. That's something they are not used to in their own countries, so they believe that since the US Government allows it to exist, it is because the US Government supports it 100%.
They have a lot to learn about freedom of expression now that they have the chance at it. Some will hate the idea even when they see it in action and long for the days of a strongman to keep people in their places.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh bullshit. The current dust up is merely an excuse for frustrated Muslims to show to Allah that somehow they are worthy for Heaven. And if Islam is going to be offended by freedom of speech, what does that tell you about Islam? If Allah is so fucking powerful and sacred and his Prophet so Holy, how come He doesn't, in his infinite power, deal with it Himself.
This is yet one more expression of Islamic arrogance. They want to dictate to the rest of the world the terms of other peoples thinking. Fuck'em, tak
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You are confusing "US" and "company".
If google decides they don't want to have people inciting religious violence, it does not violate any constitutional right to free speech. Last time I checked, Google was not the US government. At least it wasn't yesterday, but things change quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
So you think companies have no responsibly to act morally or ethically? Why is that? It is my strongly held opinion that all people, even the ones running companies, should hold themselves to the highest moral standards at all times.
Freedom of speech is such an important right that all people, the companies made up of people, and the governments of these people should uphold this important right.
Personally, I would not have blocked the video at all, as it will have no effect one way or the other on rel
Movies don't start fires. (Score:5, Insightful)
The blame would be placed solely on the shoulders of the "bible thumpers or skinheads." It wouldn't be inappropriately misdirected at a movie trailer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's already out there... (Score:4, Insightful)
"How would this play in the media if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads into something horrible?"
Honestly, nobody would give a shit about some video from Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. would arrest and prosecute the bible thumpers and skinheads. It's not that hard.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure they're hunting down the rabble over there now too, and will prosecute them in the way they do those things over there.
And what about the people that got something horrible done to them. Any thought for them?
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
if i yell fire in a crowded theatre, people may trample and kill others motivated out of self-preservation. so me, the one shouted fire, i'm the one culpable
if i call mohammed a nasty word, and people start rioting and killing, they are motivated by religious extremism. do you believe a religious zealot who will kill because of his religion is a defensible position, like self-preservation? hell no! so where does the buck stop? with the religious zealot
if i insult your mother and you kill someone, who is culpable for the dead person? you? or me because i insulted my mother? do you see how crazy this gets?
at some point you have to learn to put proper blame where it is properly due
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those people might well be alive today if that movie had not been released.
On the other hand, they may well have died tomorrow anyway, because this isn't happening because of this video, it's happening because there are people out there that want this to happen and they will find and use any excuse to make it happen. They are prepared and ready for anything they can use.
There are so many offensive things on YouTube to all sorts of people that I just don't think you can say, we'll take this down because you
Re:It's already out there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have any sympathy for those that were killed by the army of crazy?
If you had the power to not release that video, and the knowledge that the people would die, would you have saved their lives by not uploading the video?
I would save their lives by warning them to be armed to the teeth and prepared to turn the army of crazy into an army of corpses. Anyone who reacts to an expression of opinion by resorting to violence deserves no less, and the rest of the world deserves better than to have to live in danger because of them.
This video is the very essence of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and causing a panic.
Ummm... no. That involves making people believe there is an immediate physical threat. Their reaction to get out of the theater is a perfectly reasonable one, but they need to not panic and exit in an orderly way. The problem with the people attacking the embassies is that they did it at all, not that they didn't draw up into orderly ranks and carry out the assault with proper discipline.
How would this play in the media if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads into something horrible?
Actually, I expect the media would be much more enthusiastic about criticizing the beliefs of those involved. But it's much less likely that there would be that reaction. Not impossible, just much less likely. Did Christians around the world burn down embassies in response to The DaVinci Code? I believe there was one significant act of violence (in France, not usually known for its "Bible thumpers") during the run of The Last Temptation of Christ -- after huge amounts of news coverage and advertising. I don't recall any "we have to censor this or the Christians will kill people!" hysteria. And that's as it should be.
Beyond the principle of freedom of speech in this specific instance, you're also overlooking the long-term incentive of what you espouse. If people can get things censored by resorting to violence, then the message you're sending is "if you want something censored, get violent." By giving in to one religious group's violent demands for censorship, you're telling every other religious group that if they remain well-behaved they can be mocked, but if they break out the torches they can shut up their critics.
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Informative)
If the next bad thing declared was 'eating pork insults Mohammad and so kill all the pork eaters'... will you advise the banning of commercials for hotdogs? Leave accountability where it belongs: the ones being violent are at fault, regardless their ethnicity/religion/choice of food.
Personally I find the video more insulting in it's poor quality in both writing, acting and humour and technical work- a high school AV club could have done better.
Re:It's already out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about the Ed Woodesque film anyway. These folks would just find other reasons . . . real or imagined . . . to storm anything with a whiff of America about it.
"Hey, Abdul! America says, 'Tastes Great!' Islam says, 'Less Filling!' Let's riot!"
These folks are in a permanent state of outrage against the US. They are just looking for any reason whatsoever to vent their unfounded anger.
Sorry to break the news to you, America, but Islamic folks don't love you. Never have, never will.
Maybe if someone made a Reality TV Show about it, ordinary folks would finally understand this.
Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
If only the religious zealots realized all they had to do was lodge a false DMCA claim through a bot...
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
The rioters were angry before the video was posted. The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior; it could just as easily have been a book, idiotic comments by some preacher, a bomb dropped by the air force hitting a day school, etc. I doubt that most of the rioters had even heard of the video prior to hearing of riots elsewhere, and I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
The religious zealots certainly would be content to see the videos removed
No they wouldn't. The video was just a vessel to guide their anger. And only one in a long succession at that. If the video had never been made they would have found some other reason to be offended.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the religious zealots are not the problem here. Religious zealots are a minority, both of the rioters and in general.
If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?
The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior
Anyone who uses offense to their religion as an excuse to commit violence is a religious zealot.
I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.
That's even worse. If "hey, I heard some guy in another country made a video that insults our prophet" is enough to get you to storm the embassy and murder people, that's not just religious zealotry that's extreme religious zealotry.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Informative)
If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?
Hm...what might people in those countries be angry about...
Really, do you need this list made for you? Do you think the rioters were sitting on their lounge chairs beneath some palm trees in their own personal gardens, and then suddenly saw this video and went nuts?
Re: (Score:3)
And what about that made them target the US embassy? Is the US responsible for the lack of democracy in Libya?
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Interesting)
they are specifically angry about this video. they say, not me
why are you making excuses for this kind of behavior?
this is where you reply to me and continue to insert your worldview into the motivations of other people who are clearly not rioting because of the reasons you think they are
you are just as blind as they are
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Riots are infectious. You can easily generate a whole mob to riot with some encouragement. After all, last year we had a huge riot in Vancouver, Canada over a hockey game. Or so they claim.
None of the list are true (when you have bunch of kids wearing $300+ clothes...) - it was just a riot fueled by alcohol and a bunch of drunken idiots who felt like having a good time destroying stuff. It was, as they say, remarkably easy. And once it started, others poured in to join in the fun.
All you need is someone to go apeshit and others will follow. Hell, who knows why the riot started - perhaps afterwards someone claimed they rioted because of the video - finding the reason after the fact to justify what they did.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Funny)
You can easily generate a whole mob to riot with some encouragement. After all, last year we had a huge riot in Vancouver, Canada over a hockey game.
Which might also qualify as religious motivation in that country.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, in what other culture can an insult to a long dead religious figure trigger riots and murder?
Criticize a dead Pope? Get in line.
Criticize Buda? You get tolerant smiles.
Criticize a Rabbi, living or dead? Yiddish curses.
Criticize L Ron Hubbard? hmmmm, lemmie think about that one.
But muhammad? people have to die for that, any people, just kill someone.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Funny)
You spelled Buddha wrong.
Die.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Interesting)
No One Murdered Because Of This Image [theonion.com].
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure sure you saw the most recent coverage about this, but things are a bit more complicated than one movie = lots of violent riots.
For instance, the Libyan assault on the US consulate wasn't protestors (in fact recent reporting says that there were not protestors), but rather a well organized militia associated with al-qaeda. The arrived in jeeps that had black al-qaeda flags. And this is 24 hours after a 9/11 al-qaeda memorial type video was released about the US killing al-qaeda's second in command. His nickname was "The Libyan".
As for the rest of the rioters, we could start with Egypt. According to Richard Engle's latest interview on the Maddow show, the protestors are motivated by religion, yes, but mostly by conspiracy theories. And keep in mind, the ones protesting are a tiny sliver of the population. Those conspiracy theories, like the US secretly funded the creation of this movie, that our troops in Afghanistan are ordered to burn Koran's, that free masons are involved to destroy Islam, etc.. have been subtly and at times not so subtly used by various dictators over the years to create suspicion of the west and unify people under that dictator. And at the same time shifting focus from real problems at home to focusing their attention on 'the real enemy' (the west).
Like is often the case, religion makes a nice simple excuse to act out over a what is mainly a general frustration/fear/anger about the circumstances you find yourself in. Poor economy, no job opportunities, repressive society, and you've been told all your life that their is some big conspiracy that is keeping you down...
It sure doesn't help to tamp down the conspiracy theories when we are still in a "no ends in sight" war on terror that is conducting secret operations all over the place.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Informative)
Then you're missing something:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/libyan-peace-rally-slams-terrorism-offers-apology-for-attack_n_1881798.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Great Response... (Score:5, Insightful)
Restrict the video only in places where they can't handle the freedom of speech without maniacal violence. Google got it right for the first time in a while.
Re:Great Response... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons. It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.
The actual trailer is just stupid. Better is Sam Harris Fundamentals of Islam (9 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE [youtube.com]
or the full version (82 mins):
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa [c-spanvideo.org]
sam Harris doesn't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love Harris and Dawkins. But they don't get it. They think that religious belief can be disputed on a rational level.
It cannot.
Religion appeals to our emotional primitive brain. That is why you have people who can build atom bombs and understand the physics of it still believe in the Biblical god. They have the intellectual ability - more than I - to dispute on rational and logical grounds why the Biblical God is as likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and yet they do.
And it's just not the Biblical God. Humans are predsposed to have magical thoughts. Whether it's making a deal with the Universe, Karma, or anything else for a better life or what have you. It's our brain that want's to see patterns where none exist it's our brains unable to accept that this is all there is. There must be something more to life than eating, fucking and shitting. Hence, for modern people the stubborn belief in God and other superstitions.
Re: (Score:3)
No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons.
This I completely agree with, though might replace the word 'fuck' with 'damn', though please don't respond to that sentiment which would make good troll-bait if that were its intent
It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.
This is where I think you are as wrong as the people you are calling wrong. No religion is the religion of X or not the religion of X. All religions are collections of vast individuals, that have really rather varying beliefs about such things as when to be at peace and when to be at war.
But again, I totally agree with that fi
Re: (Score:3)
I dont disagree that Youtube has every right to show it. I do just want to point out that sometimes there is a price to pay for defending free speech, and sometimes it involves peoples lives-- other peoples lives.
For the record, I think that while the pastor who produced the video may have been justified by the american legal system and the first amendment, and it may be a good principle, he nevertheless shares some small degree of culpability for what has happened. I wouldnt call him a murderer or anythi
Re: (Score:3)
Meh I'm Jewish(reform from orthodox). I'd be happy if Islam grew up and joined us and Christians at large after reforming. Here's the problem, they kill people wanting reformations. Those who do create reformation movements have fatwa's issued against them. They have them issued against their families. And all the rest. I really couldn't care if someone is worshiping another god, or the same god in another way, or no god at all. Good on them, let them do whatever the hell they want.
What I have a prob
Re: (Score:3)
Or they were martyred because Obama's people at Foggy Bottom refused to put any non-local security at the consulate and relied on LOCKED DOORS on 9/11.
Terrible precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Either we have free speech, or we do not have free speech. If Google is going to be the service provider for an important communications medium, they need to respect free speech. The video did not say, "Go out and riot." People who were already angry saw the video and exploded.
The Chinese government claims their censorship is to keep the peace as well. How ironic for Google to follow that same logic, after all they went through with China...
Terrible Response (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say you are some person in that country trying to make up your mind about how bad the video really is. Your religious neighbor says it is the worst form of blasphemy ever.
Pre Google Ban, you could have watched it and said "well this sucks and is stupid, why should I care about this?"
Now they have no choice but to believe the neighbor, perhaps go out and protest as a result.
Blocking the truth from view never makes things better, especially in a situation where so many seek to inflate the importance of a single video.
Why stop there? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good. They're keeping it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is showing some spine. Good.
I've seen the movie. It's not very well produced, but it's better than 80% of the non-pirated stuff on YouTube.
Re:Good. They're keeping it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't seen it, and, frankly, I don't even care what's in it. But if it provokes this kind of reaction from religious fanatics, it's done right.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
"ethical concerns" (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you have free speech or you do not. "Ethical concerns" is a thinly veiled word for "censor that which offends us".
The Onion [theonion.com] has this pegged...
Re:"ethical concerns" (Score:5, Informative)
Marking that NSFW would have been nice. Normally the Onion is pretty clean and work-safe. That image was not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes of course. Do you not? Not sure what you mean by "the WikiLeaks Debacle" though, in what sense do you consider it a debacle?
I am Libertarian. The hallmark of the libertarian is consistency of thought. I am offended by censorship in ANY form.
Let it be seen.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a video of an Egyptian Muslim leader tearing up and burning a Bible [weaselzippers.us]... No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...
FYI, the Innocence of Muslims movie is also available on LiveLeak [liveleak.com] and other sites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...
No, all it takes for Christians to throw a tantrum is the existence of a doctor's office:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence [wikipedia.org]
As for Muslims, what delicate sensibilities would you be referring to? I look around my town and I see Muslims going about their business, not killing anyone or burning anything. Do you think they have not heard of the video? What, are they a different kind of Muslim? Some of my Muslim friends moved to America from the very countries where these riots are
Re:Let it be seen.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Only a handful of people protest abortion clinics. How many have actually been killed - a tiny number.
Meanwhile with Muslims you have whole nations rising in anger, wars being fought with hundreds of thousands dead. To claim the two equivalent in any way is sickening.
Icing on the cake (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite Qadaffi's efforts to appease the West in recent years, as soon as he became vulnerable, the US urged NATO to help overthrow the Libyan government. Air strikes, drone strikes, CIA officers on the ground coordinating attacks - the largest military power in the world overthrew the government of this small country - a government which has been making concession after concession to the West in recent years. Apparently not enough. Can anyone imagine the US ambassador in Libya getting blown up if the US hadn't bombed the Libyan government out of existence, working to put its own regime in? You play with fire you get burned.
Imperialism, foreign intervention, torturing Muslims in Abu Ghraib - forcing them to masturbate to the videotaped laughs of sadistic American soldiers, drone attacks, puppet governments, financing the Zionist siege of Gaza - this is what the US is doing to Muslims. Then Korans are burned, put in toilets, mocking videos are made just to rub it in. Then Americans get all indignant that their mockeries of an almost-conquered people are not taken in a light-hearted fashion.
The real question is why is the US over there, why were they bombing Libya and arming the people who overthrew their government. If I was a Libyan patriot, and I knew US insults to Islam would help rally Libyans in an anti-imperial campaign, of course I'd use that. Libyans are responding to everything the US has done to it. The Marines hymn "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" refers to US interference in Tripoli going back to the beginning of the 19th century. None of this can be discussed of course, so it all becomes about religion, when really it has little to do with religion. Middle class Muslim Turks are nor burning down embassies. Americans are more gullible and steeped in imperial propaganda then any Muslim is in guile to religious ideas - not that Americans should talk, as the country is crawling with fundamentalist Christianity more than any other industrialized nation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Icing on the cake (Score:5, Informative)
shores of Tripoli refers to US *interference*? Are you fucking kidding? What sort of revisionist islamo-centric history pipe are you smoking?
You fucking idiot. America attacked the Barbary pirates for the same goddamned reason we launched into the War of 1812. American vessels at sea were being captured, American sailors were being captured, and shit was not right. They were treated no better nor worse than any other aggressor. Any treaty made with them was less a treaty and more -- actually, not just more, it was ENTIRELY nothing but a protection racket.
You've got your shit ALL wrong, son. It was the Barbary states who were interfering with the *United States*, as well as much of Europe, because the Barbary states were strong and their victims were too weak or preoccupied to do anything about it except hand them money. Well, except for the US, who decided to say Fuck That And Fuck You.
Yeah. WE were victimized, BY the North Africans. Not the other way around.
You can argue the tables have turned, but don't fucking misrepresent history. There's not even any question or different take on this particular point of historical significance, there's only what happened.
Why are "these people" not responsible? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?
Sorry, but forget the "cause" because this is merely an insult at best. Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult. If you can't contain yourself after being angered in this way, you should be destroyed in the most literal sense of the word.
There is more to this than the video (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult
Funny how American Muslims, even orthodox Muslims, are not rioting, even now that they know about the video and presumably have had the chance to watch it.
Angry people do not need much to set them off, and the rioters have been angry for a long time. They live in awful places, they have seen multiple wars (no, not "seen" as in "live from a foreign country," but actually seen tanks rolling down their streets and bombs dropping from planes), and most have not lived under any sort of democratic system. The video was just a spark, and it just happened to be right next to a crate full of dynamite.
May be an internal matter within Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
One school of thought on this is that the violence is an attempt by one of the more militant branches of Islam to get attention.
The real cause of riots in Egypt is a steadily declining standard of living since Egypt hit peak oil in 1996. Oil production has declined 45% since 1996.
Plenty of precedent (Score:3)
"It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint"
You mean like them blocking Nazi videos (including Downfall parodies) from being viewed in Germany?
upside-down (Score:5, Interesting)
So, insulting violent religious fanatics and inciting riots is fine, but having a 50 year-old record playing in the background of a video of your dog running around the backyard is completely outside the bounds of acceptable human behavior.
And using the words "super" and "bowl" together will earn you permanent banishment.
Fucking world...
But just let .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just have the Muslims copyright Mohammad's image. Problem solved.
Re:But just let .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm half joking here, and I'm half sarcastic. But let's face it: there's a blatant double standard going on here. On one hand, lives are being threatened and people have been killed, and this silly video causing this stays on... because it doesn't violate some copyright. On the other hand, a couple of fat cats from the MAFIAA lose a couple of dollars and Youtube jumps proactively to their rescue with massive take downs or country-wide censorships (think GEMA). It's as if peoples' lives, US Citizens' lives, are less important than the bottom line of the copyright holders. THIS is disgusting, IMHO. Just as disgusting as those Muslim riots. Both sides are deeply entrenched in their ideologies, and are totally lacking reason and responsibility.
Completely incorrect (Score:3)
No, it's oversensitive, murderous psychopaths impacting world events. They're actively looking for a reason. If there weren't so many maniacs like them following that fake, evil religion, there wouldn't be a problem. The video itself isn't doing anything. It's just a video. It can't come out of the screen and shoot something and youtube isn't reponsible for how viewers may react. Ohhhh no, Ms Peach's legendary fried chicken music video might make someone a racist who will join the KKK. Not youtube's problem.
YAY!! (Score:3)
Google did the right thing. There is no legitimate ethical or legal ground for restricting free speech in such a case. I would have been quite disturbed if they had taken the opposite stance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you quote the Quoran, can it still be called hate speech?
If you selectively quote it to misrepresent what it means, then yes.
Ironically, that is exactly what both the jihadi nutjobs and the religious bigots do - often agreeing on the same hateful misrepresentations because in both cases it furthers their symbiotic causes.
BTW, none of Mohammed's wives are mentioned in the quran. Including Aisha, the wife that the bigots always mean when they call him a pedo. So the question is moot anyway.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?
(Child brides were rather common in the Christian Middle ages as well; the concepts of pedophilia and age of consent are relatively modern and secular, largely based on women's rights campaigners. In many religions children - in particular girls - are almost treated as property. Remember the Old Testament: "But all the children among the women that have not known lying with a man, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:18)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?
His first wife was 15 years his senior too. What's funny is that the bigots just incorporate that into their narrative, saying that he was a total deviant because he must have had thing for cougars too.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, so if I get married to a 50 year old woman, it's OK with you if I rape a 9 year old? I guess it all averages out or something?
Nope. But it does indicate that it is bigotry in search of a justification that drives the mohammed was a pedo meme.
As for the direct issue of Aisha's age, the bigots have chosen numbers that fit their narative. It's not anywhere near so obvious as they make it out to be, with plenty of evidence [muslim.org] that she was well into her teens.
Re: (Score:3)
But it does indicate that it is bigotry in search of a justification that drives the mohammed was a pedo meme.
How exactly do you figure? Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?
As for the direct issue of Aisha's age, the bigots have chosen numbers that fit their narative. It's not anywhere near so obvious as they make it out to be, with plenty of evidence that she was well into her teens.
This is actually the first decent argument I've seen on the topic. However, do m
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
How exactly do you figure? Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?
You missed my point. What I am saying is that the aisha thing, just like everything else on websites like jihadwatch, atlasshrugs, etc is all about rationalizing bigotry, not finding truth. It doesn't matter what the specifics of any event are, they will always pick and choose an intrepretation that suits their agenda. Just like extremists (of any religion) do.
However, do muslims get to pick and choose what parts of the Hadith they believe to be true?
Yes. It is not unknown for different hadith to be contradictory thus forcing people to pick. Intrepretations of the hadith can vary hugely between different sects - in some cases it is the difference in interpretation that defines the specific sect. This stuff is huge in the religion with all kinds of effort put into figuring out things like the "chain of custody" for the oral reports that ended up being written down and thus the quality of the reports. Some sects even deny the whole concept of hadith.
An important thing to keep in mind is that the issue of aisha's age has always been of little importance. Nobody goes around using it as a justification for child abuse. Most muslims don't even consider it a question of any interest. Ask any average muslim how old Aisha was when she got married and you'll get "I dunno" and a guess from mid-teens to probably mid-20s because that's the Mohammed of their religion. The pedo-mohammed is just the mohammed of people with an axe to grind who aren't even muslim.
Re: (Score:3)
actually non-consensual
Uhuh. And what exactly do you think would have happend if Aisha had said "no"? If you're not offered a choice, you cannot consent. That's rape.
Re: (Score:3)
Since when are young girls in arranged marriages given a choice? Since when is a 9 year old girl even capable of making such a choice? Be realistic.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And the world was populated through incest, polygamy is a-ok, slavery is dandy, and killing non-believers is supported. At least, that's what I get from a few passages in the Bible. What's your point again? That the Koran, like the Bible, is an origin myth massaged to also be a political and social guide to the world? Or that by pointing to the right verse, I can support whatever I want?
Re:So your telling me... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, people died because of religious fanaticism. The video was just a largely inconsequential trigger for the current round of violence. But even if said video wasn't there, they'd find another reason.
Re:So your telling me... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, people died because of religious fanaticism coupled with decades of American Imperialism.
FTFY; let's call a duck a duck, shall we?
Since we're quaking about the middle east, let's not leave the British & French out. Their decisions about how to divide the Ottoman empire has not helped. Nor the decision to create Israel.
Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree if you talk at all the people believing in the same God. You know, Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Yes, cause they are all the same. I remember fondly when Viacom and Fox were razed to the ground and the CEO's raped, killed and dragged through the streets by Catholics because of the way that Jesus was portrayed on SouthPark and Family Guy. And the nasty stuff that Jews did to Sarah Silverman and Seth MacFarlane before cutting off their heads for not just leaving Judaism, but ridiculing Jews and God.
Good thing that hating people for their religion is considered bigotry... well, except it is.
Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac (Score:5, Insightful)
We've "adapted" the religion to fit the times.
Oh, so that's why homosexuals can get married in any state in the US?
Or that abortion clinics are allowed to conduct their perfectly legal business without harassment.
Whilst religions have adapted in other western countries, the US is alone in it's Christian fundamentalism.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't the same G-d. That idea only comes from the New Testament and the Koran accepting some or all of the Torah. Christianity added several features that Jews would never agree to. Similarly the Koran is inconsistent with the New Testament and inconsistent with the Torah. And each adheres to different principles and have different ideas on just what this G-d is.
Both the early (non-Jewish heritage) Christians and the early Muslims where keen to separate themselves from Judism.
Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac (Score:5, Interesting)
"Just let them kill each other"
I have more humane proposal.
We give out tons of aid money: (all amounts USD$ for 2010)
Afghanistan = $11,446,800,000
Pakistan = $2,853,500,000
Iraq = $2,087,900,000
Egypt = $1,698,900,000
Sudan = $975,900,000
Gaza = $693,100,000
Why don't we just say: ...and so on.
Every time you kill an American, we take $80 million of your aid money, and give it to Israel.
Every time you attack an embassy: $200 million
Every time you issue a fatwa (on some cartoonist or author, or filmmaker, etc.): $10 million
Any time the violence stops, that aid level is restored the next year.
If you just cut off all their aid, they have no incentive to do anything.
This way, they have incremental rewards to act civilized.
Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics, the nature of jewish control over the US economy and political space and the belief held by jews that it is jewish destiny to dominate the world.....
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but yes, there's tons of antisemitic videos on YouTube.
Most of them are malicious flamebait, just like your comment and the "innocence of muslims" video.
Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics
Since [youtube.com] there [youtube.com] aren't any [youtube.com] of those [youtube.com] movies [wikipedia.org] or books [wikipedia.org] in the world I guess we'll never know.
I know it's a troll, but. . . (Score:3)
I know this is a ridiculous troll, but I'd like to point out that Judaism is not a well organized religion like Catholicism or Mormonism. They don't have a central authority. Teachings vary widely by synagogue, and beliefs vary widely by individual. It doesn't make sense to speak of the "jews" as you do because they are not a cohesive group acting with a single central purpose.
It's true that there are jews who hold positions of authority in the government and in the business world and in the entertainment i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See imho religion itself isn't bad, people can believe what they want as far as I am concerned.
The problem is idiots. When you get idiots that start to use religion to justify their "being an idiot" then all hell breaks loose.
Every religion has got 'em. Even the Athiests :/
Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... (Score:4, Insightful)
For the last time, Atheism in NOT a religion, there is no deity involved
Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure how many times people will have to tell you this, but atheists believe in what there is evidence for. If there was any evidence of a god, then I'd believe in him. I believe in electromagnetic radiation, I'm sure we don't understand it completely (i.e. what it's 'made' of, we know a lot about how it works), but there's evidence for it.
I even give others the benefit of the doubt. There's not that much evidence that Jesus existed, but I give Christians the benefit of the doubt, and feel he may have existed.
There is absolutely zero evidence that gods exists. Nothing. Nothing at all that even suggests this. Most of the data about what God is meant to do (save lives, help people win reality TV shows, cure the sick, watch us masturbate, make the world in 6 days) indicates that he doesn't do any of these things. So what's the fucking point in believing in a god that does absolutely nothing?! And when looked at objectively doesn't even exist!?
Take the blinders off. Life will be a lot better if you stopped believing in that nasty iron-age fairy tale. And that very least it means you'll be able to stop sounding like an idiot trying to justify DNA similarities, fossils, cosmic background radiation, astronomy, etc, etc etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow... where to begin?
I would love for you to educate me on how Jews are insidiously infiltrating and controlling world politics considering the number of stone-age countries with outright mandates on Israel's destruction.
Please explain to me how Jews control the US economy (have you seen the US economy? whomever is in control is doing a crappy job).
I would love for you to explain to me how you came to the conclusion that is it the Jewish destiny to dominate the world militarily (seeing as Jews make up a tiny fraction of the world population)...
Reminds me of an old joke. Two elderly Jewish guys are enjoying a sunny day in the park, sitting on a bench reading two different newspapers. The first guy is reading the New York Times, and after a while he looks over, curious to see what the second guy is reading. To his horror, he sees that it's some sort of Neo-Nazi publication. "How in the world can you stand to read that kind of garbage?" he asks in shock. The second guy smiles and says, "When I read your paper, it's 'Recession, war, crime, disaster.'
Re: (Score:3)
I'm tired of the religious zealotry too, but consider the importance that fidelity to Israel has in American politics for a sec. An American politician who doesn't pronounce he would defend Israel to the death would get eaten alive by either party as well as several political groups. Look at the recent Democratic National Convention. There was a need to publicly proclaim that Jerusalem is and will forever be the capital of Israel. If you lean to the right in the country and are evangelical, Israel factors h
Re: (Score:3)
They're not pulling it from Egypt and Libya because of fear it might undermine the Google brand in those countries, they're pulling it because the movie is being used as a pretext to kill people.
This isn't about merely avoiding offense. This is about trying to avoid escalating an already terrible situation.
Extremists and terrorists will use whatever excuses they can. It's quite likely that the attack in Benghazi would have happened regardless of the movie. Both Libya and Egypt are very young democracies and need to work out a healthy balance between freedom of speech and rule of law. It is not Google's or anyone else's responsibility to accomodate terrorists or other misguided people who use stupid YouTube videos as excuses for violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not "people of Benghazi". Some people of Benghazi demonstrated against the attacks. You conveniently forget about the existence of other people of Benghazi, who e.g. were hoisting black Shahada flags (the very same that al-Qaeda uses) over government buildings not long ago.