Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Implications of Google Restricting Access To Anti-Islam Film

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the universality-for-some dept.

Censorship 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."

cancel ×

727 comments

If you think (4, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 2 years ago | (#41350841)

that shutting down access to anything in this country can't be done by the American gubmint "thanks" to our First Amendment then let me sell you this bridge I own...

Re:If you think (3, Interesting)

Makoska (2731039) | about 2 years ago | (#41350921)

Could someone please link to the actual video? There are lots of news about it but has anyone even see the video? What are we supposed to be talking about here?

Re:If you think (5, Informative)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | about 2 years ago | (#41350933)

Re:If you think (5, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about 2 years ago | (#41351049)

I find that video highly offensive, because of its poor production value and acting.

Re:If you think (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351067)

"I find that video highly offensive, because of its poor production value and acting."

Judging the poor production, I suspect it's another Uwe Boll movie.

Re:If you think (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351115)

I can see why they are rioting, that was the worst film i have ever seen.

Re:If you think (4, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41351179)

Because it is not the film they are rioting over.
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:If you think (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41351197)

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

Re:If you think (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350943)

Could someone please link to the actual video? There are lots of news about it but has anyone even see the video? What are we supposed to be talking about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-EF7WkM2Uk [youtube.com]

Re:If you think (-1)

coastwalker (307620) | about 2 years ago | (#41350975)

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. 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. This just makes the US look even more arrogant and stupid than usual. 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. How effing stupid can you get? Get them locked up and pull the video. Free speech my arse.

Re:If you think (5, Insightful)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41351025)

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.

Re:If you think (4, Insightful)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 2 years ago | (#41351105)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351177)

There was a time before printing presses when a public insult demanded a fight with swords to satisfy demands of honor. The time of printing presses is still not upon the areas affected by the riots. They are suffering from future shock.

Re:If you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350987)

Shut off internet access to all those countries and see how fucking happy the ignorant and uneducated masses are then

Re:If you think (2)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 years ago | (#41351091)

Shut off internet access to all those countries and see how fucking happy the ignorant and uneducated masses are then

Their governments would more than likely be delighted.

Re:If you think (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 2 years ago | (#41351045)

And yet, here we have an incredibly inflammatory film that the US has taken zero steps to censor, thus completely neutering your juvenile, un-sourced, conspiratorial and utterly irresponsible innuendo.

Pointless... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350851)

99% of the protesters haven't even seen the film (and won't bother to).

that is not the point. (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 2 years ago | (#41350997)

Those protesters believe that the good name and fame of their prophet needs to be protected at all cost,

just like the US commenter here believe that "free speech"needs to be protected.

The actual video made does not go above all the cat video's and "charlie bites my finger" video that are posted on youtube. those need to be protected .....

have you seen it? (3, Interesting)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | about 2 years ago | (#41350861)

this movie is not at all "free-speech"! this movie is a conspiracy!!! this movie was designed to cause riots!!

watch the movie trailer, all parts with mohammed and anti muslim intent are COMPLETELY DUBBED IN!!

the actors themselves have stated that they did not know that the movie was about Islam, but was casted under the title "Dessert Warriors"

it screams psy-ops or simple chaos sowing.

Re:have you seen it? (4, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41350893)

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? (-1, Flamebait)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | about 2 years ago | (#41350905)

this is quite true. but those who know that the Islamic faith have always responed thusly to any slights to faith or their Prophet. previous slights were very very minor, an insulting cartoon, some burned Quar'ans. but making a movie calling Mohammed a child molester?@!?!!#$!^!^!%% they are going to KILL PEOPLE (and have)

this screams Israel, even though it was proven that this movie was created by Egyptian Copts living abroad. there is no way in hell that israel didn't partially fund this.

before i get trolled, Israel and Zionism does not necessarily equal Jewish or Hebrew, okay?

Re:have you seen it? (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | about 2 years ago | (#41350965)

this screams Israel, even though it was proven that this movie was created by Egyptian Copts living abroad. there is no way in hell that israel didn't partially fund this.

Have you actually seen the trailer? No more funding went into this piece of crap than into a purchase of a Domino's pizza. Anyone with an axe to grind and a green screen could have made this. It in no way "screams Israel".

Re:have you seen it? (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41351093)

Anyone with an axe to grind and a green screen could have made this.

Yes, but only a real pornographer from the 70's could give it that authentic, sleazy look: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/anti-islam-film-directed-form-hollywood-soft-core-porn-filmmaker-alan-roberts-report-article-1.1160487 [nydailynews.com]

It in no way "screams Israel"

Well, in one scene of the film, The Prophet is given a Tabasco enema by "The Satanic Nurses", and he does squeal:

"Oooh! You make me feel so Macho!"

Re:have you seen it? (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41350967)

this screams Israel, even though it was proven that this movie was created by Egyptian Copts living abroad. there is no way in hell that israel didn't partially fund this.

Don't worry about trolling. That'll die down after you've posted something to substantiate this claim that the Israeli government provided funding. After all, it's not as if this is likely to be just something pulled out of your arse.

Re:have you seen it? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350977)

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:have you seen it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350981)

What?
Troll a troll?
Never!

Re:have you seen it? (1)

rvw (755107) | about 2 years ago | (#41350989)

this is quite true. but those who know that the Islamic faith have always responed thusly to any slights to faith or their Prophet. previous slights were very very minor, an insulting cartoon, some burned Quar'ans. but making a movie calling Mohammed a child molester?@!?!!#$!^!^!%% they are going to KILL PEOPLE (and have)

this screams Israel, even though it was proven that this movie was created by Egyptian Copts living abroad. there is no way in hell that israel didn't partially fund this.

before i get trolled, Israel and Zionism does not necessarily equal Jewish or Hebrew, okay?

Israel doesn't even equal Israel. What is Israel? I don't think this is funded by the Israeli government. And most of the time when we speak of "Israel" in a context like this, we mean the government.

Movies like this are probably funded by christian and jewish extremists, or better: anti-islam extremists, and maybe even anti-Obama extremists, or anti-anything extremists. Groups like these are as big a problem as the groups they pretend to fight. I don't even believe that they are really fighting against Islam. They are fighting to fight, for whatever reason.

Re:have you seen it? (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | about 2 years ago | (#41351037)

You don't think that this was funded by atheists?

Re:have you seen it? (0, Flamebait)

terjeber (856226) | about 2 years ago | (#41351111)

'cause atheists have brains, brains able to produce stuff better than this. It is obvious this was produced by someone suffering from some superstition or another. Christianity would be the prime suspected superstition.

Re:have you seen it? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | about 2 years ago | (#41351193)

Reversing bad mod

Re: (2)

davide marney (231845) | about 2 years ago | (#41351201)

And I could argue that as atheists aren't smart enough to know they should believe in God, it's obvious they couldn't have produced this film. There's a logical fallacy in here somewhere, if only we could find it.

Re:have you seen it? (1)

Jalfro (1025153) | about 2 years ago | (#41350991)

before i get trolled, Israel and Zionism does not necessarily equal Jewish or Hebrew, okay?

OK, but a conspiracy theory is still a conspiracy theory.There are enough Islamaphobes in the US willing to fund this kind of garbage without dragging Israel into it. By the way, have you seen it - how much could that garbage have cost anyway?

Every ACTUAL conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351013)

Therefore you need to indicate the chances of any conspiracy theory being true are lower than the chances of it being false before you can admit a dismission of a "conspiracy theory" is anything more lazy ignorance.

Re:Every ACTUAL conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. (1)

Jalfro (1025153) | about 2 years ago | (#41351087)

Therefore you need to indicate the chances of any conspiracy theory being true are lower than the chances of it being false

Which is exactly what I did

Re:Every ACTUAL conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | about 2 years ago | (#41351139)

I don't see any indiction of either being true or false. Can you provide a link to what wrote about the probability of one being true?

Re:have you seen it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351017)

Before I get trolled, why Israel needs to be involved here? Some egypt copts have reason of their own to want to offend muslims. I do no think it was a good thing, I am only saying that some copts feel that they are being harrased in their own home land (where they have been living for many centuries, before Egypt was muslim) and they took a stupid, cheap revenge

Re:have you seen it? (1)

terjeber (856226) | about 2 years ago | (#41351101)

there is no way in hell that israel didn't partially fund this.

The saying is that there is a, let's use the term "moron", born every minute. In terms of monronic additions to the human species, the minute you were born the number went through the roof. Have you seen this? We know for sure the Israeli didn't fund this, it's so bad it is obvious there were no funds available. I can make it better (even with better dubbing) using Premiere Pro on my PC.

The world is full of conspiracy nuts. Moon landing. 9/11. All that stuff. Every one of them are dumber than the shoes of the morons currently demonstrating against free speech.

Re:have you seen it? (5, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41351007)

Quite possible. Look at it from the perspective of someone in the religious right: They see the world divided, with the forces of Islam threatening to destroy western civilisation - a violent barbarian horde, willing to kill all who oppose them. Even worse, the rest of western society seems blinded to this - unable to see through their political correctness and fear of being seen as racist that there is a culture war on. This must be quite terrifying for those right-wing Christians - it's as if Hitler was marching across Europe, and Chamberlain just wants to sit down with him for tea and crumpets. So, they ask, how can they convince the leaders of the free world that Islam poses a threat so serious that action must be taken? The answer seems obvious: Let the fanatics be their own undoing. Goad them into acts of violence so great that they can no longer be ignored, and so prove to everyone that there can be no possibility of a peaceful coexistance.

It's a good plan, too, because it really does prove their point. If even just making an obscure film insulting the religion is enough to spark off riots and murders around the world, then it does start to look like the multicultural dream isn't realistic. When the foundational ideals of one culture are an intolerable evil to another, how can they occupy the same space without conflict?

Re:have you seen it? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351157)

When the foundational ideals of one culture are an intolerable evil to another, how can they occupy the same space without conflict?

You are unfortunately speaking the truth when it comes to fanatical members of Islam. Their culture is incompatible with the majority of western cultures, I'm not stating this based on having read anything in the Koran, simply based on observation. You do not see Christian's on crusades murdering, you don't see Jews in violent riots, the Sikh's do not try to destroy embassies, or those with believe in Hinduism (the 3rd largest world religion behind Christianity and Islam).

I do believe there are a majority of Islamist people who are peaceful and compatible with other religions. Unfortunately for them there are a large number of radical members of their religion causing a serious problem.

Terry Jones and Fred Phelps are real embarrassments for many Christians. They both spread hate in the name of their religion, which is shared by millions of others. They don't speak for those millions of others, and I hope the world generally understands this. These are fanatical members of Christianity. These are the people who incite others to violence--either it's gay rights, military families, or radical Islamist's.

I think the important thing to take away is that not all Islamist's are the problem. Arab does not equal bad. Individual people are bad. Groups of people are not always* bad, and so it is unfair and wrong to target entire groups when a small segment is the problem.

BTW, we should also consider our own media outlets. For example, if you were an foreign person watching mainstream media reports during the peak of the Occupy movement you might get the impression that it was a movement that the majority of the US was behind, that it was disrupting daily life, and a real clash between the people and the establishment... the truth is that it was quite localized, and while many average citizens were willing to make some posts to Facebook about it, they were not going to the movement organizations, or anything like that. So the truth is that the number of American (and other) people actually actively involved in the occupy movement were very small. The same thing is going on here. We see reports of riots, destruction, etc--how many people are showing for these vs. the total populations? Is this just an over inflation and over dramatization by our news media which are compelled to have 24/7 video coverage of events? The same media who will select the best angles to make a crowd look bigger? The same media who will float a canoe down a street with 2" of water, while filming at a low angle, to make watchers believe the street has feet of water on it--only to be embarrassed when two people walk right has the canoe in standard boots?

Don't allow the media to "radicalize" YOU. Yes, violent demonstrations that end in death and destruction must be taken very seriously. And those who performed these terrible acts should be caught, tried and punished. But do not be goaded into escalating that violence.

Re:have you seen it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351169)

*some would say that certain groups are "always" bad... like Nazi's... and I would tend to agree.

Re:have you seen it? (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | about 2 years ago | (#41351165)

You touch on a lot of points, but what makes you think that atheists would never resort to creating that video?

Do you believe that no atheists would ever kill in the name of atheism?

Re:have you seen it? (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#41350957)

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.

Re:have you seen it? (2, Insightful)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | about 2 years ago | (#41351033)

If you perform an act that has no other intention than to deliberately provoke someone you know to be an unstable violent maniac and you know will choose to go on a murderous rampage, you carry a some measure of responsiblity for that rampage.

Re:have you seen it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351207)

Your moronic thought process is how women end up with their faces covered. If the sight of a woman driving sends a man into a rage, then perhaps we shoudln't have women driving, eh?

Re:have you seen it? (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | about 2 years ago | (#41351083)

How do you know that it reflects on their beliefs as opposed to their lack of beliefs?

Re:have you seen it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351089)

"but was casted under the title "Dessert Warriors"

I saw such a war in Florida between retirees at the buffet.

Tarek Mehanna (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350867)

First Amendment is BS. Read up on the Tarek Mehanna case .

Exactly four years ago this month I was finishing my work shift at a
local hospital. As I was walking to my car I was approached by two
federal agents. They said that I had a choice to make: I could do
things the easy way, or I could do them the hard way. The “easy “ way,
as they explained, was that I would become an informant for the
government, and if I did so I would never see the inside of a
courtroom or a prison cell. As for the hard way, this is it. Here I
am, having spent the majority of the four years since then in a
solitary cell the size of a small closet, in which I am locked down
for 23 hours each day. The FBI and these prosecutors worked very
hard—and the government spent millions of tax dollars – to put me in
that cell, keep me there, put me on trial, and finally to have me
stand here before you today to be sentenced to even more time in a
cell.

In the weeks leading up to this moment, many people have offered
suggestions as to what I should say to you. Some said I should plead
for mercy in hopes of a light sentence, while others suggested I would
be hit hard either way. But what I want to do is just talk about
myself for a few minutes.

When I refused to become an informant, the government responded by
charging me with the “crime” of supporting the mujahideen fighting the
occupation of Muslim countries around the world. Or as they like to
call them, “terrorists.” I wasn’t born in a Muslim country, though. I
was born and raised right here in America and this angers many people:
how is it that I can be an American and believe the things I believe,
take the positions I take? Everything a man is exposed to in his
environment becomes an ingredient that shapes his outlook, and I’m no
different. So, in more ways than one, it’s because of America that I
am who I am.

When I was six, I began putting together a massive collection of comic
books. Batman implanted a concept in my mind, introduced me to a
paradigm as to how the world is set up: that there are oppressors,
there are the oppressed, and there are those who step up to defend the
oppressed. This resonated with me so much that throughout the rest of
my childhood, I gravitated towards any book that reflected that
paradigm – Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and I
even saw an ethical dimension to The Catcher in the Rye.

By the time I began high school and took a real history class, I was
learning just how real that paradigm is in the world. I learned about
the Native Americans and what befell them at the hands of European
settlers. I learned about how the descendents of those European
settlers were in turn oppressed under the tyranny of King George III.
I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed
insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as
the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field
trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet
Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this
country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles
of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne
Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned
dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King,
and the civil rights struggle. I learned about Ho Chi Minh, and how
the Vietnamese fought for decades to liberate themselves from one
invader after another. I learned about Nelson Mandela and the fight
against apartheid in South Africa. Everything I learned in those years
confirmed what I was beginning to learn when I was six: that
throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between the
oppressed and their oppressors. With each struggle I learned about, I
found myself consistently siding with the oppressed, and consistently
respecting those who stepped up to defend them -regardless of
nationality, regardless of religion. And I never threw my class notes
away. As I stand here speaking, they are in a neat pile in my bedroom
closet at home.

From all the historical figures I learned about, one stood out above
the rest. I was impressed by many things about Malcolm X, but above
all, I was fascinated by the idea of transformation, his
transformation. I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie “X” by Spike
Lee, it’s over three and a half hours long, and the Malcolm at the
beginning is different from the Malcolm at the end. He starts off as
an illiterate criminal, but ends up a husband, a father, a protective
and eloquent leader for his people, a disciplined Muslim performing
the Hajj in Makkah, and finally, a martyr. Malcolm’s life taught me
that Islam is not something inherited; it’s not a culture or
ethnicity. It’s a way of life, a state of mind anyone can choose no
matter where they come from or how they were raised. This led me to
look deeper into Islam, and I was hooked. I was just a teenager, but
Islam answered the question that the greatest scientific minds were
clueless about, the question that drives the rich & famous to
depression and suicide from being unable to answer: what is the
purpose of life? Why do we exist in this Universe? But it also
answered the question of how we’re supposed to exist. And since
there’s no hierarchy or priesthood, I could directly and immediately
begin digging into the texts of the Qur’an and the teachings of
Prophet Muhammad, to begin the journey of understanding what this was
all about, the implications of Islam for me as a human being, as an
individual, for the people around me, for the world; and the more I
learned, the more I valued Islam like a piece of gold. This was when I
was a teen, but even today, despite the pressures of the last few
years, I stand here before you, and everyone else in this courtroom,
as a very proud Muslim.

With that, my attention turned to what was happening to other Muslims
in different parts of the world. And everywhere I looked, I saw the
powers that be trying to destroy what I loved. I learned what the
Soviets had done to the Muslims of Afghanistan. I learned what the
Serbs had done to the Muslims of Bosnia. I learned what the Russians
were doing to the Muslims of Chechnya. I learned what Israel had done
in Lebanon – and what it continues to do in Palestine – with the full
backing of the United States. And I learned what America itself was
doing to Muslims. I learned about the Gulf War, and the depleted
uranium bombs that killed thousands and caused cancer rates to
skyrocket across Iraq. I learned about the American-led sanctions that
prevented food, medicine, and medical equipment from entering Iraq,
and how –according to the United Nations – over half a million
children perished as a result. I remember a clip from a ‘60 Minutes’
interview of Madeline Albright where she expressed her view that these
dead children were “worth it.” I watched on September 11 th as a group
of people felt driven to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings
from their outrage at the deaths of these children. I watched as
America then attacked and invaded Iraq directly. I saw the effects of
‘Shock & Awe’ in the opening day of the invasion – the children in
hospital wards with shrapnel from American missiles sticking out of
their foreheads (of course, none of this was shown on CNN). I learned
about the town of Haditha, where 24 Muslims – including a 76-year old
man in a wheelchair, women, and even toddlers –were shot up and blown
up in their bedclothes as the slept by US Marines. I learned about
Abeer al-Janabi, a fourteen-year old Iraqi girl gang-raped by five
American soldiers, who then shot her and her family in the head, then
set fire to their corpses. I just want to point out, as you can see,
Muslim women don’t even show their hair to unrelated men. So try to
imagine this young girl from a conservative village with her dress
torn off, being sexually assaulted by not one, not two, not three, not
four, but five soldiers. Even today, as I sit in my jail cell, I read
about the drone strikes which continue to kill Muslims daily in places
like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Just last month, we all heard about
the seventeen Afghan Muslims – mostly mothers and their kids – shot to
death by an American soldier, who also set fire to their corpses.
These are just the stories that make it to the headlines, but one of
the first concepts I learned in Islam is that of loyalty, of
brotherhood – that each Muslim woman is my sister, each man is my
brother, and together, we are one large body who must protect each
other. In other words, I couldn’t see these things beings done to my
brothers & sisters –including by America – and remain neutral. My
sympathy for the oppressed continued, but was now more personal, as
was my respect for those defending them.

I mentioned Paul Revere – when he went on his midnight ride, it was
for the purpose of warning the people that the British were marching
to Lexington to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, then on to Concord
to confiscate the weapons stored there by the Minuteman. By the time
they got to Concord, they found the Minuteman waiting for them,
weapons in hand. They fired at the British, fought them, and beat
them. From that battle came the American Revolution. There’s an Arabic
word to describe what those Minutemen did that day. That word is:
JIHAD, and this is what my trial was about. All those videos and
translations and childish bickering over ‘Oh, he translated this
paragraph’ and ‘Oh, he edited that sentence,’ and all those exhibits
revolved around a single issue: Muslims who were defending themselves
against American soldiers doing to them exactly what the British did
to America. It was made crystal clear at trial that I never, ever
plotted to “kill Americans” at shopping malls or whatever the story
was. The government’s own witnesses contradicted this claim, and we
put expert after expert up on that stand, who spent hours dissecting
my every written word, who explained my beliefs. Further, when I was
free, the government sent an undercover agent to prod me into one of
their little “terror plots,” but I refused to participate.
Mysteriously, however, the jury never heard this.

So, this trial was not about my position on Muslims killing American
civilians. It was about my position on Americans killing Muslim
civilians, which is that Muslims should defend their lands from
foreign invaders – Soviets, Americans, or Martians. This is what I
believe. It’s what I’ve always believed, and what I will always
believe. This is not terrorism, and it’s not extremism. It’s what the
arrows on that seal above your head represent: defense of the
homeland. So, I disagree with my lawyers when they say that you don’t
have to agree with my beliefs – no. Anyone with commonsense and
humanity has no choice but to agree with me. If someone breaks into
your home to rob you and harm your family, logic dictates that you do
whatever it takes to expel that invader from your home. But when that
home is a Muslim land, and that invader is the US military, for some
reason the standards suddenly change. Common sense is renamed
“terrorism” and the people defending themselves against those who come
to kill them from across the ocean become “the terrorists” who are
“killing Americans.” The mentality that America was victimized with
when British soldiers walked these streets 2 ½ centuries ago is the
same mentality Muslims are victimized by as American soldiers walk
their streets today. It’s the mentality of colonialism. When Sgt.
Bales shot those Afghans to death last month, all of the focus in the
media was on him—his life, his stress, his PTSD, the mortgage on his
home—as if he was the victim. Very little sympathy was expressed for
the people he actually killed, as if they’re not real, they’re not
humans. Unfortunately, this mentality trickles down to everyone in
society, whether or not they realize it. Even with my lawyers, it took
nearly two years of discussing, explaining, and clarifying before they
were finally able to think outside the box and at least ostensibly
accept the logic in what I was saying. Two years! If it took that long
for people so intelligent, whose job it is to defend me, to de-program
themselves, then to throw me in front of a randomly selected jury
under the premise that they’re my “impartial peers,” I mean, come on.
I wasn’t tried before a jury of my peers because with the mentality
gripping America today, I have no peers. Counting on this fact, the
government prosecuted me – not because they needed to, but simply
because they could.

I learned one more thing in history class: America has historically
supported the most unjust policies against its minorities – practices
that were even protected by the law – only to look back later and ask:
‘what were we thinking?’ Slavery, Jim Crow, the internment of the
Japanese during World War II – each was widely accepted by American
society, each was defended by the Supreme Court. But as time passed
and America changed, both people and courts looked back and asked
‘What were we thinking?’ Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by
the South African government, and given a life sentence. But time
passed, the world changed, they realized how oppressive their policies
were, that it was not he who was the terrorist, and they released him
from prison. He even became president. So, everything is subjective –
even this whole business of “terrorism” and who is a “terrorist.” It
all depends on the time and place and who the superpower happens to be
at the moment.

In your eyes, I’m a terrorist, and it’s perfectly reasonable that I be
standing here in an orange jumpsuit. But one day, America will change
and people will recognize this day for what it is. They will look at
how hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed and maimed by the US
military in foreign countries, yet somehow I’m the one going to prison
for “conspiring to kill and maim” in those countries – because I
support the Mujahidin defending those people. They will look back on
how the government spent millions of dollars to imprison me as a
“terrorist,” yet if we were to somehow bring Abeer al-Janabi back to
life in the moment she was being gang-raped by your soldiers, to put
her on that witness stand and ask her who the “terrorists” are, she
sure wouldn’t be pointing at me. The government says that I was
obsessed with violence, obsessed with “killing Americans.” But, as a
Muslim living in these times, I can think of a lie no more ironic.

-Tarek Mehanna 4/12/12

Re:Tarek Mehanna (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351047)

Hey, sand nigger, the US is not oppressing anyone.

Please ask Daniel Pearle how he oppressed moo-slims.

Ask the US Ambassador to the shit hole called Libya how he oppressed moo-slims.

Then ask the same question to the Taliban who have been committing genocide on a mass scale, destroying historical treasures, killing in the name of the pedophile Moo-hamad and then compare answers.

Now go blow a camel you fucking rag head.

Re:Tarek Mehanna (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351137)

I believe that your mistake was to hold the above viewpoint and yet still to live in the US.

Supporting Muslim countries in resisting US occupation sounds at least faintly reasonable. Doing the same while living in the US does not seem reasonable; it arguably meets the definition of treason.

Re:Tarek Mehanna (4, Insightful)

Rexdude (747457) | about 2 years ago | (#41351195)

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.

Video Is Still Up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350871)

At this time, the video remains up, does it not? I am sure there are some exceptions to any rule. At this time though, this hateful video seems no to break any of these exceptions.

inbred animals (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350879)

These inbred animals know nothing but violence, and if they would stop marrying their first cousins, maybe they would have the insight and intelligence to find a better way to solve their problems.

Re:inbred animals (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350917)

What has Southern USA got to do with this?

Re:inbred animals (1)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | about 2 years ago | (#41350925)

OH SNAP

Re:inbred animals (1)

rvw (755107) | about 2 years ago | (#41351005)

What has Southern USA got to do with this?

That's what you make of it. It has everything to do with creationism, neo-cons, anti-government or anti-anything groups who only want to mess things up because probably someone gets better, most probably financially, when things get messy.

Can I just ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350881)

Where the fuck is this video? So many stories on it and no direct links to it.

Re:Can I just ask (1)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | about 2 years ago | (#41350913)

linky:

http://youtu.be/1RagKWM8ldk [youtu.be]

Re:Can I just ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351069)

Thanks, I took a look, stopped watching after a short while because the acting is shit.

I couldn't give a stuff about religions and found it quite boring & uninteresting.

Much of that speech? Try 'All' (3, Informative)

mentil (1748130) | about 2 years ago | (#41350883)

All Internet 'speech' is hosted by third parties, if you go far enough up the chain. Even if you avoid Youtube etc., and post a video/article to your website, someone can complain to your webhost and get your hosting yanked. Colocate or own a blade in a datacenter? Datacenter owner can yank you. Use Akamai or another CDN? They can yank you. If they're getting DDoSed because of 'speech' on your site, they'll find an excuse in their EULA to justify dropping you.

Now let's say you own a datacenter. Your BGP peers can disconnect from you, stranding you from the Internet. If you find a webhost that cares about free speech, people can jump over them and get their provider to disconnect the entire webhost (this has happened before).

P2P infrastructure depends on peers wanting to connect to you. If you're seen as 'toxic' then noone will.

Re:Much of that speech? Try 'All' (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41351021)

Not an issue, so long as there are alternatives. If your webhost yanks you, you can always get another - there are thousands of them. The problem arises when one company becomes of such importance that it has an effective veto over what may be published and seen. There are alternatives to youtube for hosting video, and plenty of them, but there are none for promoting video. If this same film had just been posted on someone's website, chances are it would never have been seen by more than a hundred or so people.

Re:Much of that speech? Try 'All' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351073)

Have you heard about things such as Tor, I2P and Freenet?

How do you know if I'm "toxic" or not, if you don't know what I'm doing/hosting/downloading?

Your argument doesn't apply to pseudonymous/anonymous P2P networks.

IF IT IS NOT THIS IT IS SOMETHING ELSE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350885)

Crazy !! Crazy !! CRAZY !! muslims !! Every songle one of them !! No exceptions !! Well, maybe Kim Kardashian is not, but all the others are CRAZY !!

Do it already (2, Interesting)

ImaLamer (260199) | about 2 years ago | (#41350897)

Let me see, the film has caused a violent backlash and Google is wanting to block people from seeing in areas that further cause a violent backlash? I'm not at all concerned about the implications. As stated many times, it's their service, if Al Qaeda want's to spread it they can make VHS (VCD?) copies or whatever and do so. The film maker who is certainly enjoying the violent response (that he aimed for) is more than welcome to ship copies anywhere in the world he wants.

Spare me the false logic arguments of "what's next?". Google does not have to be the hosting provider of hate speech if it doesn't want to. And they certainly have the right to be selective on what airs where. I see it as good "citizenship" in a way. They already can remove my videos calling for the mass murder of all Slashdot readers - just because, never mind it's not even constitutionally protected speech.

I'm pretty sure by looking back now at Google, Twitter and Facebook they didn't discourage spreading information that lead to violent revolutions (Wikileaks still shows up in searches for example) in these countries when the causes were noble (i.e. toppling un-wanted and brutal/corrupt leaders). The track record thus far has shown they self censor when appropriate.

I get slippery slopes and all that - and I get that you don't have the right to not be offended... but today money is speech, corporations are people and hate speech is lauded over violent reactions. Even shooting and killing your own citizens to defend an embassy of another country isn't enough to satisfy those who want to further fan the flames of hate. In what world is is okay to continue answering hate speech with more hate speech and then cry foul when it comes down to blows? There is less civility in civilization every day. What happened to "mutual respect"? Why sabotage years of peace just because you can?

For goodness sake, do you think the people who died want the video spread even more? Don't you think their families hold both parties accountable (of course the killers more so - but still)?

Re:Do it already (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#41350979)

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]

And some dickhead CHOSE to dub over the movie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351035)

If someone dubbed over the movie "E.T." and made it a sex movie about kids being shagged by an alien and their parents and the police, how long would it last?

Five seconds? Ten?

PS you didn't go to war over 9/11, you CHOSE to kill innocents because the people who smashed planes into a couple of buildings were beyond your reach.

Re:And some dickhead CHOSE to dub over the movie. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#41351097)

If someone dubbed over the movie "E.T." and made it a sex movie about kids being shagged by an alien and their parents and the police, how long would it last?

I don't think there are many E.T. worshippers out there. However Universal Pictures would probably send a DMCA takedown notice quite soon.

Re:And some dickhead CHOSE to dub over the movie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351107)

They weren't innocents.

That implies that they were human.

Re:And some dickhead CHOSE to dub over the movie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351203)

Weren't they? I'll bet a lot of christians think they're animals, too. I know one christian, who demands that everyone accept that christianity is the true religion of peace, wants all muslims dead because they're not of his faith and therefore are evil and want him dead. I'm fairly sure everyone not a christian fits in that category.

Re:Do it already (2)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#41351103)

Mod parent up.

We say "cause", but that's far from the truth. If watching a movie makes you kill someone then you were already ready to do that before, the movie just triggered it.

I had the luck of having a great history teacher in school, and one of the most important lessons he taught us was the difference between causation and occasion. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not the cause for WW1, but the occasion that started it.

Same here, the movie was the occasion that started the violence, but in no way was it the causation.

Re:Do it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351151)

The film "caused" nothing. Islamists CHOSE violence, which reflects on their Superstition, not the film.

What you choose is in part caused by how your environment influences you, don't overestimate the autonomy of social creatures like humans. Religions and religious fanaticism wouldn't exist if people weren't influenced by their social environment, and that influence happens largely through language and images. Things that aren't in themselves violent CAN cause violence.

After the fatwas against Salman Rushdie and cartoonists the violent reaction is predictable. I have no doubt that the maker of this film was aware of that, aware enough to trick the actors into thinking they made a very different film. How can you say he didn't cause anything if he knowingly started the chain of events that led to violence?

This does NOT excuse the people who commit the actual violence, they're fully responsible for what they do. But if someone chooses to provoke violence his actions are one of the causes of the violence they provoke.

This perfectly exposes Islamists, and is well worth the few casualties the Islamists inflict.

So you're willing to sacrifice other people's lives for a cause. Not as a last resort, but just to make a point. That makes you a fanatic yourself. You're part of the problem, not of the solution.

Re:Do it already (2)

Jalfro (1025153) | about 2 years ago | (#41351059)

ImaLamer, I applaud most of your post, but let's get one thing straight: freedom of speech includes the right to be offended and demonstrate peacefully against what offends you. Most of the demonstrations have been peaceful, though attention has naturally been focussed on the atrocity at the embassy in Libya, which was probably due to a different issue anyway: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/12/opinion/benotman-libya-attack/index.html [cnn.com]

Re:Do it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351125)

Free speech has its limits. Namely inciting (direct) violence. The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded (movie) theatre.

I do think that the response by people in the Muslim countries just shows how simple minded and uneducated they really are.

link please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350899)

I would like to see what exactly caused these riots. Link please?

Re:link please? (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#41351053)

I would like to see what exactly caused these riots. Link please?

Sure. Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks [wikipedia.org]

Look at your calendar. What anniversary just passed?

These attacks were far to well coordinated and planned for them to be simply an unusually-bad outbreak of the typical muslim-outrage insta-riot over a rather shoddy YT video.

Besides, look at the date on the video. That video had been up for a couple of months with maybe 10 views.

The video story is a distraction thrown up to cover the fact that the US is being attacked because the radicals sense the US leadership is weak. Our government pushes the video excuse to cover their own incompetence and weakness.

Strat

Story makes no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350903)

If the US government were, for some reason, hosting the video they could certainly choose not to continue to host it.
Google choosing not to show it doesn't prevent anyone else from doIng it. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with compelling others to carry your speech for you and the fact remains it is far easier to distribute speech widely today than pre Google etc.

YouTube is Google's front lawn . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41350919)

They can "host" a Tea Party on their front lawn, or host a Occupy Lawn! on their front lawn as they damn well please. Around election time, folks in the US put up signs on their front lawns saying "Obama's Cool!" or "Romney Rocks!" No one can force them to put up or take down a sign.

As long as it's not violating any laws, Google can choose to host whatever they want on their YouTube. It's THEIR site and THEIR policy. There is nothing "new" about this. Newspapers have always been free to print or not print what they want.

You want an Islamically Correct video site? Go build one yourself!

No obligation to protect your free speech... (1)

tangent3 (449222) | about 2 years ago | (#41350923)

To be precise, they actually have no obligation to host your free speech, especially not in countries where there is no free speech.

Re:No obligation to protect your free speech... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350949)

Yep - Free Speech != Free publishing by anyone and everyone you want.

No one complains their free speech is being violated because the New York Times won't publish the article of vague dribbling I submitted.

Google aren't knocking down the video authors front door and hauling them away to prison.

hypocrisy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350947)

Javed Iqbal was sent to prison in the US for years for installing satellite cards that could watch Al-Manar television. And now all this carrying on because a private company temporarily blocks a video in a few countries? Where is the hand wringing over Javed Iqbal?

Nonsense (0)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41350961)

Is GOOGLE hosting this shit?
no
Then its not exactly restricting access to it. Just removing links to it on their site.

Google owns YouTube! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350993)

Or didn't you know that?

Re:Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351031)

It's a good thing that you get to post at +2 so that we can all share your marvelous insights.

Will Google block access/disable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350973)

those anti-west videos posted by Muslim extremists?

Nope, it will not, because it is racism and would be seen as religious persecution.

Simpler solution for safety of American diplomats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350999)

It years 15 years after the American revolution before Britain sent back diplomats.

Maybe after the Arab Spring, America should wait a while:

"The evolving consensus is that the United States is morally obliged to align itself with revolutionary movements in the Middle East as a kind of compensation for its Cold War policies (invariably described as “misguided”), in which it cooperated with nondemocratic governments for sec
urity objectives." Kissinger

Re:Simpler solution for safety of American diploma (1)

Boronx (228853) | about 2 years ago | (#41351075)

How about just supporting the concept of democracy for once?

Re:Simpler solution for safety of American diploma (2)

terjeber (856226) | about 2 years ago | (#41351129)

Why? When the US does, such as when they allow for free speech, people in the Middle East goes nuts and starts killing Americans. Democracy comes after free speech. You can't have democracy without free speech, and currently the demonstrators are demonstrating against democracy and free speech.

They can shut down access to terrorist films (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351001)

They can shut down access to terrorist films too. And kiddie porn films. Indeed, in the latter case, even if the porn is not illegal on one country (e.g. Japan which has the lowest age of consent IIRC), the USA government WILL NOT let the film of a 15-year-old getting banged just be blocked in the countries where this is illegal.

The outrage here is that the USians have a massive ego and if it's legal for them, IT HAS TO BE FORCED ON EVERYONE ELSE, whilst if illegal or even threatened illegal, IT CANNOT REMAIN.

If I were to make a self-made movie about McD's and have an actor playing Ronnie rape the children at the happy meals, that would be withdrawn IMMEDIATELY, even if it doesn't depict the actual act, just allude to it off camera. Why? Because I'd be using the trademarks of McD and using a trademark is illegal in the USA.

Guess what? Using the image of Mohammed is illegal in Islamic states.

I ***REALLY*** don't agree with that, but in the case of this movie which has NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO OFFEND I entirely agree that it SHOULD be illegal and removed IMMEDIATELY.

If I were to stand outside some mall or government building and scream abuse at anyone walking by, I would be ARRESTED for disorderly conduct. And who would defend my right to scream abuse at anyone and everyone? NOBODY.

This movie is EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Re:They can shut down access to terrorist films (5, Interesting)

terjeber (856226) | about 2 years ago | (#41351149)

Rubbish. A movie can not have the intent to offend since a movie can not offend. The only person who decides who is offended is the person who gets offended at stuff. I can say whatever I want to you, if you get offended by it that is your problem, not mine. You can chose not to be offended by it. Adults generally do when children say offensive things. When retards say offensive things too.

In this case the "offender" and the "offendee" are equally retarded, and boom, you have a boom.

People supporting free speech should sponsor one such movie a week, hitting every major and minor religious figure in history, until these retards stops electing to be offended by something that is not offensive.

No One Murdered Because Of This Image [theonion.com]

Peace and tolerance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351011)

Just remember that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, so they keep telling us.

Consistency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351023)

Personally, I would allow all videos (except, say child porn + DMCA violations). The rest would be dealt with by a voluntary rating system, like Google SafeSearch.

But Google already has a censorship system called the Community Guidelines [youtube.com] . Among other things, it bans "hate speech":

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

Regardless what you think about that concept, it's already in the guidelines. So, if you want to apply it consistently, unemotionally, geekily, you'd ban this video, which was thought by the director himself to be so possibly offensive that he didn't even tell the cast [dailymail.co.uk] , opting to dub in the offensive lines during editing.

Keep in mind also the fact that AFAIK, Youtube deleted a lot of videos a while back that purported to explain the point of view of people fighting the US military in various countries at the behest of Senator Lieberman [blogspot.in] .

Again, hate speech is a really nebulous concept, but it'd really be hard to argue that this Youtube wasn't hate speech as defined above.

No One Murdered Because Of This Image (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351027)

The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist [theonion.com] reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.

Invisible forms (4, Insightful)

Ostracus (1354233) | about 2 years ago | (#41351099)

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.

The "usefulness" of Google's restrictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351117)

How many protesters have seen the film ?
How many are planning to watch it ?
My take is that many people are protesting because they have heard about it rather than seen it.
Is the usefulness (in Google's terms) of blocking it (to select users) worth bringing the numerous issues in free-speech arbitering ?

Semi-OT, but relevant nonetheless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351119)

http://w2.eff.org/legal/Jurisdiction_and_sovereignty/anon_juris.article

Almost 20 years old, too.

Not new (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41351131)

For years, the GEMA (German RIAA) has forced Google to indiscriminately block any video with protected music in it from playing in Germany.

surprising? (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41351135)

Wait, nobody knew that Google was a private company and can do pretty much whatever they want in terms of limiting access to content?

Listen to Eben Moglen (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351171)

https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia

Capitalist platforms will not afford robust privacy or free speech.

Kate's boobies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351205)

British govt has managed to intimidate UK newspapers from publishing pics of Kate's (rather flat) boobies. I want to see as I (being a taxpayer) pay for them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...