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."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:have you seen it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's certainly possible that it was a deliberate provocation altough people who want to be offended can always find a reason to do so.
Re:have you seen it? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't troll people who don't CHOOSE to be trolled!
Piss Christ didn't cause Christians to kill people, and THAT was a much more stylish troll.
If your Superstition (all religions are bullshit, prove /Deity exists or fuck off) can't deal with criticism, it reflects on the Superstition.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:have you seen it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks to pussies like you it's the reason religion gets a green pass to do retarded shit like this. Remember Christianity? It wasn't very far from today's Islam... in fact, I find it far worse. But if we don't step up and just let others coerce us into submission just because they can scream louder, it will not get better any time soon. You know why? Because there's no reason for them to change. They're getting it their way, and violence works out for them. It's kind of like a bully; if no one stands up against them, chances are he'll keep doing it till (if ever) he reaches the age of reason.
The motives behind the movie does not matter at all. Under these circumstances, you can't justify violence. They're just freaking words for fuck's sake. Whatever happened with "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."? Seriously.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov
Re:Do it already (Score:5, Insightful)
The film "caused" nothing. Islamists CHOSE violence, which reflects on their Superstition, not the film.
This perfectly exposes Islamists, and is well worth the few casualties the Islamists inflict. If _I_ attack Superstition that makes me not PC and a Bad Man.
Well, have some Superstition direct from the source! In your face, by their choice.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/us-ambassador-christopher-stevens-killed-body-dragged-through-streets-by-muslims-islam-religion-of-peace-2.jpg [nowtheendbegins.com]
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
If you go online and threaten the president it wont take long for your free speech to put you in a cell. So how some right wing nutjobs can be allowed to kill an ambassador and hundreds of thick rioting foriegners I dont understand at all
You don't understand this because you're seeing insults and threats as being one and the same thing. They are not, and that's why you're confused. The film is pretty shitty, but no excuse for the violent responses its seen. Any government censoring in order to protect hypersensitive and violent people from taking offence is going to be very busy indeed.
No One Murdered Because Of This Image (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:have you seen it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Invisible forms (Score:5, Insightful)
A popular meme in the Information Age is that the Internet spreads democracy by enabling citizens to organize and speak out...
A rather one sided meme. The internet spreads hate and intolerance as well using the same principles. The internet is both a conduit and a doorstep shaped by the capacity to make perception what we want.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand this because you're seeing insults and threats as being one and the same thing. They are not...
*dingdingdingding* We have a winner!
Understanding this distinction is key to this whole situation (the Muslim rioters don't get it, either), and the Preacher's post merits many Insightful/Informative mods.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
These are bored, uneducated sheep. The real Islamic people are not bothered by words, because their education level is higher than the fifth grade.
If anything should be learned from this it is that education is key to maturity.
Re:Tarek Mehanna (Score:4, Insightful)
And in response, there's the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, whose site alisina.org and allied site faithfreedom.org are both currently conveniently down. He writes movingly about his journey from being a devout Muslim to one who researched the Koran in its original Arabic and decided to quit the religion as he was appalled by what it teaches. And every statement he makes is backed up with chapter and verse citations from the book, no less.
He makes the case that Islam is by nature a violent and conquest obsessed religion that advocates no mercy towards non Muslims (with full citations from the Koran, no less) and that Muslims who get offended by this statement are living in denial about the true nature of their faith (i.e. that all talk of peace and brotherhood is only applicable to fellow Muslims, that those who don't worship Allah are beneath contempt and should be crushed, and that its ultimate goal is to take over the world).
And well, you just have to look at the history of Islam to see that barring very few exceptions, Islamic rulers have just sacked and pillaged their way around the world.
Islam is overdue for a reformation movement such as what swept Christianity during the Renaissance. Unfortunately most people go on parroting that it's the religion of peace [thereligionofpeace.com], that terrorists are misguided fanatics instead of the fact that they're actually doing what their book tells them to [thereligionofpeace.com] i.e. it is a recipe for fanaticism, intolerance and murder of non Muslims.
Finally - as most of you will see this as a bigoted rant - there is a distinction between Islam and Muslims. It is the former that should be opposed, not the latter, the majority of whom are content to mind their own business and live their lives without trying to hurt others. But hey, let's all be politically correct because, 'religion of peace [thereligionofpeace.com]', right?
And if you say 'Old Testament'- BITCH PLEASE. There was this little thing known as the Reformation, and do a tally of the number of Christian fanatic inspired terror attacks around the world compared to Islam inspired ones.
Then again, there's no telling how many are going to just blindly mod this as a troll post.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't last more than two minutes into this horrible thing. What the hell am I watching? And this trailer and it goes on for 14 minutes? What?
Apparently the English subtitles are what the Arabic overdubs were. Even I find it offensive in English. The English dialog offensive and insulting to the viewer in a "You're kidding me, right? No, wait, you're serious?" kind of way and text translation of the Arabic dub is just a middle finger to the viewer, whether Muslim or not. Uwe Boll's movies look like Citizen Kane in comparison (yes, I did just write Citizen Kane and Uwe Boll in the same sentence, deal with it). It is the equivalent of taking a shit on the centerpiece of a dinner table while the diners are eating, which in some instances might be absurdist, but not in this case.
It has no artistic merit at all, not even as a study in how to insult someone cleverly. I have no single word to truly describe how offensive this as a film except just obscenity.
And then we have people with power over there in the ME telling their followers that this movie should be taken seriously and to go out and riot not knowing the full truth behind it and most of the time never even seeing the trailer.
And we've got neocons like the FPI (you know, Romney's foreign policy advisors) pounding the war drums for yet another war somewhere in the ME. Preferably in Iran, but given Romney's words the other day, I guess anywhere in the ME where we can send 19 year old kids to die is good enough.
No, this isn't a setup, no not at all.
Cui bono?
--
BMO
There is no credo for atheism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Atheism isn't AGAINST GOD. It's a nonbelief in God. Atheism isn't a fanatical belief that there cannot be a god, but the recognition that no god has shown itself even once.
You're still, as a faitheist, insisting that any and all positions MUST be a position of faith, since that is all that you think defines you. But atheism isn't a faith, in the same way as not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
There is ABSOLUTEY no need for any atheist to make this movie. And there is no credo that would impel atheists to collect together and make it.
However, those who DO believe in THEIR god and believes that the Muslims want to put a false god over them, DO have a reason to do this.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh, is this like Palin's "real America."
Here's a clue, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were college educated.
Perhaps the Islamists not bothered by mere words are the ones who, regardless of education, don't take that religion so seriously. Because any cursory reading of the Quran has it repeated to you how all apostates are evil and doomed forever by Allah, and that lying and killing them is no big deal.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's not the film, it's their evil, sick society. However ...
"Education" is not inherently a bright, shiny magic bullet. Education and brainwashing are so closely related in principle that you can't tell them apart. The course material has to be wisely selected and presented in the proper manner and in the right atmosphere. The PHILOSOPHY of learning must be inculcated. Finally, and most importantly, the philosophy of life and moral self conduct must be developed, and school cannot do this alone.
If they are under religious instruction to hate and do evil to those not of their own faith, that is education OF A SORT.
In the end you can send two kids to the same classes in the same school, and one will develop into a fine growing human, and the other will turn into an evil, brooding bully with a chip on his shoulder. The latter will more than likely turn out that way because of a sordid home life, and association in free time with other evil, sullen SOBs.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Cui bono?
--
I've been asking myself this same question since the story broke. Sadly, far too many disparate groups are benefitting from this, including but not limited to Israel, Al Qaida (whatever that really means), fundamentalist Christians, Salafists and Wahabbists in the Middle East, the idiot who made the film, and possibly others. And this doesn't count people or groups who may have thought they'd benefit from it, but aren't, like Mitt Romney's campaign team, and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.
So yeah, pick your motive, take your chances. This mess is benefitting someone, somehow. I wonder if the US based creators of this film can be charged with negligent homicide. I sure hope so.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Any country that cant find some way of deleting the offensive excoritating rubbish that this film represents doesnt deserve to belong to the world community whatever santimonious freespeech bullshit they go on about.
Oh, there are plenty of ways to "delete" such things. What makes the US special here is that it is illegal to do most of those things. If that means the US doesn't "deserve" to be part of the so-called "world community", then so what? It is odd that you think that civilization should have an upper threshold on enlightenment.
Oh and dont think that I dont believe that information should be free becuause it should, but that doesnt extend to blatant offensive trolling directly causing many peoples deaths.
First, note that this has yet to happen. Offensive trolling hasn't killed anyone directly. Second, in the case of the movie, keep in mind that the people who did the killing just wanted a pretext. They would have found some reason to kill even if the movie had been promptly suppressed (or never started in the first place) by the US government.
Read the catholic bible. Says the same there too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because religion is a complete load of wank and the successful ones are the ones that scare the shit out of their believers about leaving (see scientology), hound them far more radically if they leave (see scientology) and insist that anyone who ISN'T of the same faith is
a) evil incarnate
b) destined to hell for eternal punishment
c) out to destroy the REAL believers
(see scientology).
The only difference between Muslim, Christianity and Scientology is we accept the idea that Scientology has been made up by a bloke.
Re:well, fuck you (Score:5, Insightful)
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
Being offended does not mean you have the right to censor someone nor does it mean that you have the right to lash out at others. If the movie bothered you, I refer you to JSM's points 3 & 4. Explain why the movie is wrong and fight against its bigotry.
Re:Insults vs threats (Score:4, Insightful)
This is actually a fascinating distinction.
Calling the President a "poopyhead" doesn't actually hold any implied physical danger what-so-ever. Saying I am gonna _________ is a future tense action statement with a verb, sure, that would be worth looking at.
The fun starts when "loss of honor" becomes worth retaliation, as another poster below mentioned. So while there's no physical action planned, "the loss of honor is unforgiveable" etc etc.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:that is not the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
The prophet's good name ?
The problem is that most of the claims are true. The muslim prophet, by all reasonable standards, IS a paedophile, a genocidal maniac, dictator, thief, slaver. Just about the only accusation the movie makes that isn't confirmed by muslim scripture is that he's gay.
You somehow think that muslims are somehow not aware of those characteristics of the prophet. That's why it's a threat. Nobody needs to kill anyone to protect Gandhi's good name, or mother Theresa.
Muslims protect the paedophile prophet the way dictatorships protect their "great leader". It's a global threat, that goes into a circle. That's fundamentally how islam works.
Re:Tarek Mehanna (Score:5, Insightful)
and do a tally of the number of Christian fanatic inspired terror attacks around the world compared to Islam inspired ones.
Are we allowed to count Iraq invation here ? Bush said god told him to attack Iraq. There are countless other examples, but even this one war would probably tally more deaths than you can find by muslim "terrorists".
Another issue is that it is a fact that the west is oppressing the middle east. Oppressed people, whether they be christians or muslims or any other faith will tend to get violent (at least some percentage of them will) when oppressed too much. I find it strange that people think this is just "illiterates" acting based only on one incident. The constant pressure of oppression over time means that certain events that may not look so serious to you serve as catalysts for such violence.
Also, you have not had your dearest principles attacked along with all the ones you do not hold dear. It is easy to judge from a distance that "ooh, this can't be so bad can it", when it is not your every cultural principle being systematically destroyed, and it is not your people being enslaved by big business (or whatever the force behind it is) supported by military force.
Re:well, fuck you (Score:5, Insightful)
So are idiots in america viewing this as a freedom of speech issue.
This is not a free speech issue, it is a freedom of religion issue. Freedom of religion is not your freedom to censor, it is my freedom to do what I want with religion. I can follow them to the letters, I can take and leave any parts, I can completely ignore it and I can mock it. The right to mock religion is a important part of religious freedom. Consider the following:
Islam claim that Jesus is only a average prophet like many others, he is even not the best one(that would be Muhammad, right?). From the point of view of a Christian, that believe Jesus is the half-devine son of God, this is extremely offensive. Your right to worship is base on your right to mock someone else's religion.
Now take a deep breath and take your stupid hate cult back to the bronze age where it belong.
Thanks,
The civilized world.
Re:Read the catholic bible. Says the same there to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well, fuck you (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to convince me that you're truly Muslim - or at least decently educated, then you need to be able to transliterate "God is Great" in a way that follows the accepted norms. Maybe you're being dialectical, but Islam is based on classical Arabic, and there's a "proper" way to render that phrase in English. As it is, it makes me wonder if you're truly Muslim or just pouring gasoline on the fire.
As far as I'm concerned, religious displays of violence are major sins, regardless of whether they're Muslim, Christian, or whatever. They're the ultimate in hubris, because they're basically saying that God, the Almighty, is too weak and too feeble to protect Himself, and so must enlist crowds of murderous men to do the job. God, if He is Who you say he is, could do a Sodom-and-Gomorrah on any place in the Universe, or even wipe the entire planet, if he felt the need to defend Himself. We see every day how the Earth and the heavens can be subjected to earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, plagues, meteor swarms - even supernovae. And that 's just in an apparently undirected way. If God can bind Leviathian, those are the least of punishments he could aim at the infidels if that was His desire. These mobs are about as meaningful as if a nest of ants were to rush to my defense against another nest of ants. As the Qur'an states repeatedly: "Let God be the judge".
Likewise, I'm very much opposed to suppression of offensive speech, because if you have faith, you understand that God is too powerful to be overcome by lies. That lies may eclipse the truth, but the truth will eventually prevail. And that the best way to expose lies is to bring them forth into the light of day for all to observe how their details fail, not to suppress them in the hope that no one will believe them.
There are a lot of ideals that America has discarded in the last 30 years or so, but one that we've managed to hold on to is the idea that free speech means free people. In a more authoritarian country, such slanders as this "film trailer" would either become underground "forbidden knowledge" (with all the appeal inherent), or officially sanctioned. Either way, the message would be legitimized. Instead, the controversy enabled by free speech and the freedom to view and dissect this work has exposed the tawdry underpinnings of this scheme and the lack of moral character of those behind it. Instead of undermining Islam, it may, in fact, have done the opposite. We learn a lot about people (and religions, and ideologies) by the calibre of their enemies.
Re:There is no credo for atheism. (Score:2, Insightful)
Agnostics are pussies who don't apply the basic thinking that they use everywhere else to religion.
Re:well, fuck you (Score:5, Insightful)
So are idiots in america viewing this as a freedom of speech issue.
What is it then if not a freedom of speech issue? The only effective way to fight idiocy is to drag it to broad daylight and humiliate it publicly. If you can't criticize others because you might hurt their feelings, they'll never find out there's something wrong. Yes, the movie is retarded and offensive, but you're free to just ignore it or you can respond with another movie that's even more retarded and offensive to the other side.
As long as there are huge masses of people who are willing to kill over a retarded movie, this kind of retarded movies will need to be made. I know it sucks to be caught in the crossfire between two camps of retards but the alternative to a little disgust is to stay sorrounded by retards forever.
Re:If you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh, is this like Palin's "real America."
Here's a clue, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were college educated.
Perhaps the Islamists not bothered by mere words are the ones who, regardless of education, don't take that religion so seriously. Because any cursory reading of the Quran has it repeated to you how all apostates are evil and doomed forever by Allah, and that lying and killing them is no big deal.
Except that (presumably), the WTC wasn't full of apostates. According to the tenets of Islam, Muslims, Jews, and Christians are all "people of the Book" and all equal in the eyes of Allah (well, maybe Muslims are more equal, but whatever). As such, they are not apostates (Muslims who rejected Islam) and that killing any of them is a sin, hence killing roughly 3000 of them is a major sin, especially when the hijackers were armed and prepared for war and the victims were not. These killers were not true Muslims and I don't mean in the "No True Scotsman" way. What they did was not only inexcusable even for "true" Muslims, but if I'm not mistaken, the habits of at least some of these men included vices that anyone who was as pure and holy as they claimed to be would not have indulged in.
Where Islam failed was in failing to denounce this kind of behavior in a way that would leave no doubt in the minds of any future imitators and wannabes that mass murder is the work of Iblis, not of Allah and that in fact it was murder and not jihad. This semi-legitimization of evil in the name of God was not only a smear on the name of Islam; most of the like-minded attacks since then have been in Muslim countries themselves.
They have only themselves to blame.
Re:If you think (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this anti-Islam video call for the murder of anyone? I bet not, since Google's looked at it and said "doesn't threaten anyone, doesn't even insult Muslims, just their religion, it's not against our terms of service".
There is a big difference between calls to violent jihad and a video condemning a religion.
Re:Should Google host Bin Laden's messages? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you also think the Norwegian Labor Party should be censored because a follower of Breivik's ideology might be offended by their stance on immigration, and go on another shooting spree because they see it as a message that embraces the destruction of their white race? After all, we have to appreciate the fact that the white nationalists likely perceive the pro-immigration message as a threat.
Re:If you think (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for offending someone, for inciting the very predictable violence that resulted in the deaths of the Ambassador and his staff. There is a difference, you know.
It's the difference between your actions, which are your responsibility, and the actions of others, which are their responsibility. Even getting angry is an action, and one which you can choose (or learn to choose) or not choose. People who choose to be angry because someone has insulted their faith are a problem. If they truly had faith, it would be stronger than insults. People who choose to react to their own angry feelings with violence are another problem. If they cannot keep their violent impulses in check, then their existence is contrary to civilization, and civilization cannot tolerate it.
Re:well, fuck you (Score:2, Insightful)
Excuse the language but my sincerest fuck you, being a muslim i find this highly offensive.
I find Islam and many of the values it promotes to be highly offensive.
Let's all be insensitive about each others culture, I'm sure we will have a better society.
So if you want to be sensitive towards my values, you would need to ban Islam from public life. Do you think that this is a good idea? Or, you and your muslim brethren could just grow a backbone and not throw a hissy fit as soon as someone mocks your religion, culture and/or values, and I'll do the same for you.
Re:If you think (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if the US based creators of this film can be charged with negligent homicide. I sure hope so.
Couldn't possibly disagree more. You're basically saying that if I offend a Muslim and they kill someone while they're throwing their tantrum, the death is my fault? This kind of attitude is just enabling their precious, immature behaviour.
How about they get a thicker skin. Better idea.