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!

Google Blocks 'Innocence of Muslim' Video In Indonesia and India

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the not-in-my-country dept.

Google 484

hypnosec writes "Google has blocked the anti-Islamic video, which was posted on YouTube, in Indonesia as well as India. YouTube has already denied a complete removal of the clip 'Innocence of Muslims' that mocks Islam and Prophet Mohammed. The video has led to protests and violence across the Arab world. The foreign ministry spokesperson of Indonesia and India have confirmed that Google has blocked access to the video. Indonesia has also asked RIM to filter the video on its smartphones."

cancel ×

484 comments

What happened to freedom of speech (-1, Troll)

StinkyDanger (2732033) | about 2 years ago | (#41360007)

What happened to freedom of speech, Google? You are the one that always cites of freedom of speech when denying removing material, yet you now block access to videos? Or does freedom of speech only concern the U.S.?

Google has let itself go. They are no longer the freedom loving and defending company they once were. All went downhill after the failured product Google+.

Have you guys tried to use Google? They are constantly trying to guess what we want to search, up to the irritating point. They don't supply the search results we want, they supply search results for another queries they thought we wanted instead. We didn't!

What comes to Google+, they really did a bad choice there. There is a reason why pseudo-anonymity like nicknames is common in internet. There are people that are so against something you say that it gets you into trouble. That is when and why we use nicknames. But nooo, Google+ demands real names for everyone. It's Google's way or the highway.

Google is only little about openness while most of their stuff is actually closed source and closed ecosystem. They have both and in a way that always suits them better. There are in fact more closed systems than open, just see Google's search engine, adwords/adsense, youtube etc.. They only use and support open source when they can't be bothered to do all the work. In a way they steal from open source projects and hardly ever bring anything back.

So in fact this is old problem with Google's products. Other products too... Hell, just look at Google+. It's a perfect copy of Facebook and a product that greatly emphasizes closedness. They are even more closed than Facebook as currently they only allow very few developers to be make apps and games for Google+. I mean it's been like this for ages. It feels like they've given up all hope about Google+. They're just thinking how to phase it out now that they made the whole thing such a big thing, like including it in search results etc. But Google+ is dying.

Android is about the same shit Google has thrown at us multiple times. They only open it because they used Linux as the base. They wouldn't open it otherwise. In fact they've even ignored GPL multiple times when they've been late to open up their sources as required. Android is only open because it has to be.

Google tries to close it, be no mistaken. They require you to pay lots of money to Google if you want to use any of the Android trademarks, logos or name on your product. You don't get any of the Google apps if you don't pay up and stick to Google's "standards" (which are there to limit competition, like in this case). You don't even get to give your users access to Google Play so that they could buy and download apps and games. No, you don't get any of that. It's Google's way or the highway.

That being said, it doesn't surprise me at all that Google is doing like this. They are scared of the competition in China because they can't get Chinese people to like their products. Google China failed miserably too, and they tried to use "ok China is baad mmkay" as an excuse for leaving. The real reason for their escape was that Google China was failing miserably while Baidu was winning as search engine and other Chinese social networks and market places were winning as such. Google just didn't have anything to offer to Chinese people.

And you may wonder what they are afraid now? Well, of course the same Chinese companies. Both North American and European finances are going to shits and Asia just keeps growing. They are already much bigger than US and their GDP is only growing. Soon they are much larger market than we are and that is when things really start rolling and happening. Google is very afraid of that and tries everything it can to limit competition in China. Google is afraid of losing.

--------------
Corporate VP of Developer Division at Microsoft Reddit IAmA [reddit.com]

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (5, Insightful)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 2 years ago | (#41360037)

Google complies with the laws of the country it operates in. If they are required by law to remove something, they do it.

Are you suggesting that big companies in general should be exempt from the law and obey it only as they see fit?

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (-1, Troll)

StinkyDanger (2732033) | about 2 years ago | (#41360051)

Google complies with the laws of the country it operates in. If they are required by law to remove something, they do it.

Are you suggesting that big companies in general should be exempt from the law and obey it only as they see fit?

Google definitely acts like they are above the law. See the multiple occasions they've been under investigations and in court in various countries and EU as a whole. You can start from the Wi-Fi snooping.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (5, Informative)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 2 years ago | (#41360283)

Don't understand. If anything your remark only supports the point that companies should comply with the law.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360381)

"Google complies with the laws of the country it operates in."

If people are not able to use the comment section under the video, they have to go to the street to vent their anger.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360561)

Right, because the violence started right after Google blocked the video?

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41360385)

it's a tough call

1. there are laws in china that are odious and disgusting in terms of privacy invasion and censorship. such that an american company operating there, by submitting to that law, breaks it's fidelity with the principles of its home country in ways that stink. but google has, in fact, stood up to china in some ways, such as with censorship, and lost market share in china due to that and pissed off the chinese government. go google!

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/01/1450204/google-highlights-censored-search-terms-in-china [slashdot.org]

other western companies, for example, will do business with oppressive regimes in ways that support those oppressive regimes in evil and odious ways:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/31/1434229/finspy-commercial-spyware-abused-by-governments [slashdot.org]

what a company like this deserves is to be shut down, kicked out, and have their business actively destroyed in righteous indignation of operating from the west while grossly violating important beliefs of the west and in support of evil regimes

2. however, there are also local laws that, while you can find more abstract objections with them, it makes prudent sense to just comply with the local laws to continue doing business there, and also be in a position to effect long term liberty improving change in that country by remaining a force there

such as, for example, with this stupid video: while speech should be free all over the world, it isn't in some places. and going crazy and not cooperating, for example, with germany for not allowing nazi imagery or indonesia for not allowing mohammad imagery, doesn't convince anyone of anything and you just piss off that country and lose market share

so it's better to just comply with local law on this issue. but on other issues, it's better to stick up your middle finger at oppressive governments. each case is different

shrewd governance, of countries or companies, is a matter of finesse

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (4, Insightful)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 2 years ago | (#41360487)

Yes, that's a valid point. But the decision that a company makes should be whether or not to withdraw from the country or whether or not to pressure the government for a change but not whether or not to break the law. That should be used only in extreme cases (aka Oskar Schindler) but not in issues such as removing a video from your server.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (4, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | about 2 years ago | (#41360553)

I suspect this is more a humanitarian issue to lessen bloodshed amongst the ignorant, than a political issue. Blame newsclowns for coloring it any other way.Election year.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 2 years ago | (#41360541)

I think he's mistaken freedom of speech as being honored worldwide. Blame public schools.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360039)

This isn't about freedom of speech. People can still post videos on youtube like this without any concern for having it removed, and Google has been utterly unequivocal about that.

This is only about distribution. And in this case, for the most part, it is doing things in order to try to avoid distributing to a group of callous thugs with no sense of decency and every desire to exploit whatever religious or political motivation they can to grab at power.

I'm not sure whether their stance here is the correct one, but it is not the stance you seem to think it is.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360103)

What's that? You want to allow completely free speech to those terrorist pedophile human-trafficking druglord hackers do you?

Sir, would you have a seat, we need to have a little chat.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360143)

> What happened to freedom of speech, Google?

Trumped by local laws. Local laws like the DMCA, copyright, etc. Theres no way for a company to fight laws.

> They are no longer the freedom loving and defending company

They cannot fight a state, they can only get out of that state.

> All went downhill after the failured product Google+.

No, all went down the crapper when single states introduced laws to censor the net. Theocracies introducing laws to censor blashpemy is no different than capitalist states having laws censoring filesharing.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360155)

What happened to freedom of speech, Google?

Fatwas, son. Fatwas [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (5, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | about 2 years ago | (#41360197)

Frankly I'm not hugely bothered by it.

Nowhere is freedom of speech absolute, it's limited by the ability of the society to tolerate it. Even in the US advocating violence [umkc.edu] can get you in trouble along with forms of obscenity. Quite relevantly public nudity, which I'd qualify as a form of speech, will get you arrested in a lot of places, but if society was more comfortable with the idea than that restriction would be removed.

In these countries video they're not used to this level of freedom of speech and their society needs time to adapt. I like pushing the boundaries of free speech in these countries, but sometimes things go viral and push past their ability to deal with it. Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship (given that it's far beyond what they're allowed to do in their own society).

As to whether it's effective is another matter, censorship can easily be circumvented, but maybe it's enough of a hindrance to stop it from going viral.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (4, Insightful)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 2 years ago | (#41360423)

Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship

I disagree with the above statement. This is a way to grant power to extremist groups. If societies are 'unprepared' for free speech, as you say, they should have laws about the matter. And in fact they do - there are laws against (religious) slander, even laws protecting a specific religion such as Islam.

I don't think that Google should break the laws in such country in order to make a point - that should be done by activists from inside if they think the law was unjust. So Google should remove the video from the countries where the law requires it. However, it should not cater to extremist groups giving them the power to change things through violence.

That would only bring more violence.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (0)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about 2 years ago | (#41360539)

Google is just trying to stop it becoming more violent. However it's the American government that needs to step up, citizens of Libya technically declared war on the US and they did it with an invitation engraved in the blood of American citizens. But the US government is being it's usual weak willed self and tiptoeing around the situation sticking a couple of special forces units on the ground and emphasizing their cooperative relations with the Libyan government. Attacking an embassy is an act of war and should be treated as such. Yes I feel for the non-extremists in Libya that didn't participate in the attacks, but they didn't stop it either.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360457)

Muslims gets more and more power. The police now BEGS for muslim forgiveness.

Norway police begs that muslims should accept Norways(!!) apology for the US video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=531_1347751421

What's next? Norway prime minister begging forgiveness for americans eating pig meat?

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (2)

slim (1652) | about 2 years ago | (#41360515)

He doesn't "beg for forgiveness at all".

He makes it clear that he (and the Norwegian authorities) "utterly reject" the video, and he calls for a calm response.

It all seems perfectly appropriate to me.

Mitt Romney has also apologized for the film (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360585)

http://articles.philly.com/2012-09-16/news/33864030_1_efforts-by-misguided-individuals-anti-muslim-mitt-romney

"And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong," [Romney] said. "And I wish people wouldn't do it."

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360211)

Freedom of speech means that one shall not be punished for having expressed any opinion (save a few, at least in France, where for example speech that promotes racist hate -- incitation à la haine raciale -- is not protected under freedom of speech).

However, freedom of speech does not mean that one would have a right to express oneself through any specific medium. Thus, the fact that some medium refuses to carry someone's message is not a restriction to that person's freedom of speech.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (1, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41360227)

So under freedom of speech, should they be allowed to publish neo-Nazi material too? Post up a video calling for the extermination of all the Jews and see how long it takes before it gets pulled.

This "Innocence of Muslims" video is exactly the same as the anti-Semetic propaganda produced by the Nazis 80-odd years ago.

Well, with a lot of differences (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#41360281)

Jews didn't control much of the world oil, making them filthy rich with little to do to keep their exploding population happy. (The arab "spring" was just a lot of young people with an education and no jobs getting fed up with doing nothing. Even in Libia which could afford to have an enormous essentially un-employed population)

Jews are one of smallest groups in the world, Muslims one of the biggest.

Jews don't hijack aircraft.

There is no mass immigration of jews into atheist countries from Jewish countries and then trying to turn their new homeland into a muslim state. Muslims are fleeing muslim controlled countries, then trying to convert their new country to be run the same way. See Sharia4Beglim and Sharia4Holland. England already has Sharia courts.

Need I go on? Stop comparing the conflict with Islam with nazi germany, the differences are gigantic and the parallells are at right angles to each other.

Re:Well, with a lot of differences (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#41360323)

Have you ever heard that every discussion on the internet, if it runs long enough, will lead to a Hitler/Nazi comparison?

The parent sure has a valid point, though: That video is pretty much on the same level as Nazi propaganda, only far less spectacular.

Frankly, these provocations won't help anyone. I do believe most of those people could learn quite a bit about democracy, freedom of speech, cooperation and tolerance. However, provoking them is asking for troube, since they don't yet respect the aforementioned principles and still seriously listen to religious extremists.

Re:Well, with a lot of differences (2, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | about 2 years ago | (#41360461)

You're getting the Nazi comparison wrong. It's not muslims who are victims here, they are the offenders.

Let's see:
* vicious hatred towards jews, to the point of utter annihilation
* hatred towards everyone not of their race^Wreligion, considering them not good for being anything but slaves (dhimmis)
* demand for all the land
* personality cult of the Glorious Leader (uncle Adolf vs Muhammad)
* mass-murders of any perceived opposition
* ... especially of civilians

Re:Well, with a lot of differences (4, Informative)

jlar (584848) | about 2 years ago | (#41360465)

"Frankly, these provocations won't help anyone."

I agree that the Mohammed film in question is terrible. But it does address some important issues with Islam. And that will help us non-believers in the long run. For example the issue of child marriage. Aisha, one of Mohammeds wifes were 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. And we should of course (also as non-muslims) be free to debate if that is behaviour befitting for a prophet. Another example is the glorification of violence against non-muslims. At least as long as the main schools of Islam argue that the behaviour of Mohammed is perfect and should form an ideal guideline on how muslims should live in the 21st century.

Another point is that this film is only one pearl in a series of incidents where muslims are threatening fellow muslims or non-muslims over perceived blasphemy. The last example was a documentary on Channel 4 (examining the historical roots of Islam) where a planning screening was cancelled due to threats to the historian behind the film:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/channel-4-cancels-controversial-screening-of-islam-the-untold-story-documentary-after-presenter-tom-holland-is-threatened-8125641.html [independent.co.uk]

Re:Well, with a lot of differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360527)

If you look hard enough, you will find that marriage was in fact frequent between very young girls and men. Even among Christians and Jews. Not sure about 9-10 years old but then again who can really accurately tell us the age of those girls?

Re:Well, with a lot of differences (5, Informative)

miketheanimal (914328) | about 2 years ago | (#41360327)

England already has Sharia courts.

This is technically true but grossly misleading: England also already has Jewish courts. They have exactly the same standing, which is they have no standing in law. They operate purely where the plaintiffs agree to abide by their judgement. Really, they are no different from say two people going to a mutual friend and asking the friend to adjudicate on a disagreement.

Re:Well, with a lot of differences (4, Funny)

martinX (672498) | about 2 years ago | (#41360391)

And the US has Bozo Courts [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Well, with a lot of differences (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360583)

The one issue w/ sharia courts being voluntary is coercion of defendants.
Women in particular.
They may be "voluntarily" agreeing to a system which may deny them civil rights.

Re:Well, with a lot of differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360401)

"Jews don't hijack aircraft."

They don't need to, they were the ones who built nukes for the US seven decades ago.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360343)

So under freedom of speech, should they be allowed to publish neo-Nazi material too? Post up a video calling for the extermination of all the Jews and see how long it takes before it gets pulled.

This "Innocence of Muslims" video is exactly the same as the anti-Semetic propaganda produced by the Nazis 80-odd years ago.

BULLSHIT

The "Innocence of Muslims" would be a parody of Hitler and the Nazis.

The rioting jackasses are the murderous Nazis.

Literally.

Way to really fuck things up, you grovelling twerp.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360531)

So under freedom of speech, should they be allowed to publish neo-Nazi material too? Post up a video calling for the extermination of all the Jews and see how long it takes before it gets pulled.

Have you seen what is regularly produced about Jews in the Islamic world?

Also, false equivalence. A video calling for the extermination of all the Jews would be subject to the same universal set of rules as this one - i.e. that calling for people to be murdered is 'informally illegal' (would get your video pulled or not shown most places) but mocking people is not.

This applies quite universally. Your video would be pulled if it seriously called for the extermination of all Nepalese, or gingers, or Buddhists, or farmers, or people in skirts, and it would not be pulled if it parodied and presented in a ridiculous way the leaders of Nepalese, or gingers, or Buddhists, or farmers, or people in skirts.

It is surprising to me that so many people apparently find this concept difficult to comprehend.

This "Innocence of Muslims" video is exactly the same as the anti-Semetic propaganda produced by the Nazis 80-odd years ago.

Is there any parody or ridicule that is not exactly the same as the anti-Semitic propaganda produced by the Nazis?

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#41360579)

Is there any parody or ridicule that is not exactly the same as the anti-Semitic propaganda produced by the Nazis?

You make quite a good point there; it's ridiculous to the point of parody. The trouble is, it was created as hate speech by an anti-islamic group which kind of knocks the parody idea on the head. These are the same people who support the idea of having the Israelis herd even more Palestinians into ghettoes and exterminating them; something you'd think the Israelis would have more sense than to do.

Re:What happened to freedom of speech (2)

toddmbloom (1625689) | about 2 years ago | (#41360547)

Hate speech should never be included in any definition of "free speech". The video in question was not made to inform, it was made to offend and inflame.

Not Convenient (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360021)

Apparently freedom of speech applies only when it's convenient. Sounds a lot like the model in China where only specific protests/violence are "allowed". Way to go Google for adopting the China model. Maybe they'll let you back in!

Re:Not Convenient (1, Troll)

StinkyDanger (2732033) | about 2 years ago | (#41360043)

Apparently freedom of speech applies only when it's convenient. Sounds a lot like the model in China where only specific protests/violence are "allowed". Way to go Google for adopting the China model. Maybe they'll let you back in!

Essentially it's this. It also applies to Google's action elsewhere. First they pirate ebooks and defense that right, but they have no problem removing megaupload and the pirate bay from suggestions. Secondly they open source products when they have to, but most of their products are sealed closed source projects.

Re:Not Convenient (0, Troll)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41360125)

Secondly they open source products when they have to, but most of their products are sealed closed source projects.

Like that has anything to do with anything. I already know you don't believe the shit you spew in your little trolls. I just wish you'd have a heart attack already so that we can get on with grown up conversations.

Re:Not Convenient (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360201)

Dude- he's right. Google is awfull. They're a corporation with a goal which doesn't align with freedom, rights, or liberty.

Re:Not Convenient (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41360269)

Compared to pretty much all other global corporations, they're saints. There is nothing wrong with complying with the law in these countries. You don't personally agree with the laws, but that's irrelevant. If you were brought up in a Muslim culture you'd be saying Google are evil for leaving the videos viewable in other countries.

Re:Not Convenient (2)

StinkyDanger (2732033) | about 2 years ago | (#41360289)

This has nothing to do with complying with the laws of a country. India doesn't have such laws.

Re:Not Convenient (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41360439)

Well, after actually reading up on this I see that Islamic "protesters" have killed people in US embassies over this, so maybe Google are trying to save lives here. They've left the videos up in countries where people are less retarde- oh sorry, I mean religious.

Re:Not Convenient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360451)

Article 25(1) states, "Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion".

Article 19 gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression but subject to reasonable restrictions for preserving inter alia "public order, decency or morality".

Riots are not public order.

Are they also going to block this image (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41360069)

Are they going to block this image from the Onion, entitled "No One Murdered Because Of This Image" [theonion.com] ? After all everyone tells us that Muslims are no worse than people of other religions, so surely this insult to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism will have the members of respective religions storming embassies and murdering people all over the place?

If not some people might suspect that Islam really is a more violent and savage religion than the others

Re:Are they also going to block this image (0)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#41360341)

The problem isn't as much Islam as the assholes who put themselves in charge of preaching "Islam" to the masses.

Just because the Catholic church is a mess (and it's gotten much better), doesn't mean Christianity is bad.

Re:Are they also going to block this image (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41360363)

The problem isn't as much Islam as the assholes who put themselves in charge of preaching "Islam" to the masses.

To paraphrase, "the problem is not so much Islam as what the followers of Islam believe and is taught by the leaders of Islam.

Just because the Catholic church is a mess (and it's gotten much better), doesn't mean Christianity is bad.

The Catholic church is guilty of many things, indifference, cover-up, etc. but I have not heard one Catholic priest say that child abuse is right, and that those who follow Catholicism should support it and encourage their kids to put up with it. I have heard many Muslim teachers and Imams say that killing people over films, books, cartoons, lifestyle, or choice of belief is not just right but an obligation.

Re:Are they also going to block this image (1, Insightful)

slim (1652) | about 2 years ago | (#41360471)

I have heard many Muslim teachers and Imams say that killing people over films, books, cartoons, lifestyle, or choice of belief is not just right but an obligation.

Out of interest, how many?

How about as a percentage of the 1.6 Million imams in the world (rough estimate, based on one imam per 1000 muslims)?

Re:Are they also going to block this image (4, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41360581)

I have heard many Muslim teachers and Imams say that killing people over films, books, cartoons, lifestyle, or choice of belief is not just right but an obligation.

Out of interest, how many?

How about as a percentage of the 1.6 Million imams in the world (rough estimate, based on one imam per 1000 muslims)?

100% more than those I have heard saying that killing over cartoons etc. is unjustified and wrong.

Re:Are they also going to block this image (2, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 years ago | (#41360445)

"so surely this insult to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism will have the members of respective religions storming embassies and murdering people all over the place? "

I suspect you're too young to remember the deaths that 'Christians' caused after having seen the movie 'Jud Süß'
The film premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 8, 1940 and received rave reviews, earning the top award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F_(1940_film) [wikipedia.org]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032653/ [imdb.com]

Re:Are they also going to block this image (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41360495)

"so surely this insult to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism will have the members of respective religions storming embassies and murdering people all over the place? "

I suspect you're too young to remember the deaths that 'Christians' caused after having seen the movie 'Jud Süß' The film premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 8, 1940 and received rave reviews, earning the top award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F_(1940_film) [wikipedia.org] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032653/ [imdb.com]

Yes, I am too young to remember Nazi propaganda films. leaving aside whether or not it was a "Christian" film - it is much more aligned to NAziism than Christianity, I will make two points:

  1. 1) I doubt if you would find any mainstream Christian denomination that would support this today
  2. 2) Muslims are fond of pointing out a time in history or an individual who acts like them and use it as justification. They say "yes we blew up the World Trade Centre, but McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma building", or "Yes we go on murderous rampages but so did Medieval Christians". In my view the attempt to say that it is OK to behave in the worst way that anybody else ever has done is wrong. Setting of bombs and killing is wrong, even if you can show that someone else did it before.

Re:Not Convenient (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360189)

Apparently freedom of speech applies only when it's convenient.

Apparently you think US law governs the whole world.

The film is inciteful enough to be in a grey area legally even in some western nations like the UK.

I think you're stretching the truth to just call this speech anyway. There is no significant communication in the entire bit. It is just a call to violence.

Re:Not Convenient (5, Insightful)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about 2 years ago | (#41360215)

Freedom of speech is a concept that applies to law-making, not web-hosting. Google has done nothing to prevent the filmmakers from distributing this trailer. They are also not blocking it from search.

All they do is abstain from hosting it themselves in ceratin countries in the same way as a US newspaper might refuse to publish a nazi propaganda ad. People perceive publication/distribution as (weak) a form of endorsment, and Google wants to avoid this.

(Also, the movie itself seems to be a piece of crap, regardess of any point it's trying to make.)

Re:Not Convenient (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360313)

here's a big surprise for you... the first amendment only applies in America. Other countries have their own constitutions (or not) and their own laws. Google is obliged to conform to local laws of the countries in which it operates. They're also a private company, not an arm of the state - so the first amendment wouldn't even apply if they chose to block the video in the US.
There is no violation here - but you can continue you to rant if you wish (as is your first amendment right) - but please be aware that to do so only shows the rest of us that either you can't understand this point or that you are so ignorant in your rhetoric that you chose to ignore it.

Re:Not Convenient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360321)

Freedom of speech only applies in countries with Freedom of speech laws...

Re:Not Convenient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360335)

Sounds a lot like the model in China where only specific protests/violence are "allowed".

Pretty much like free speech zones then. You are free to say whatever you want as long as you don't do it where anyone can hear you.

Censorship has never been about preventing people from talking, it's about preventing people from hearing.

Re:Not Convenient (0)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 2 years ago | (#41360403)

Since when did the US laws apply to everyone else in the world? The case could easily be argued that this video was meant to incite violence and hence falls under laws that prohibit such in most countries (prior examples in the world easily demonstrate that a reasonable person could well expect that posting such a video would lead to people getting injured or killed), Watching the poor quality of it you could probably argue that the producers of it had sufficiently low intelligence level to be able realise the innocents that might get hurt by their video, but none the less that only excuses them, not those allowing it to be hosted.

BTW, here is an archive of Mohammad images (4, Informative)

Adult film producer (866485) | about 2 years ago | (#41360041)

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ [zombietime.com]

Pass it around, Free Mohammad.

Re:BTW, here is an archive of Mohammad images (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360099)

Pretty naive of the admin of this web site to believe that he will be able to safeguard his anonymity in the long run.

Anyway, picture of Mohammad are boring and nobody wants to see them.

Re:BTW, here is an archive of Mohammad images (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360229)

The guy probably knows what he is doing. Not everybody is a pussy like you.

Re:BTW, here is an archive of Mohammad images (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41360433)

There are only two types of people who will take the risk of activism against those willing to use violence: Those who are so dedicated they are willing to risk their life or freedom, and those who are too dumb to realise that is what they are doing.

Re:BTW, here is an archive of Mohammad images (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360301)

Pretty naive of the admin of this web site to believe that he will be able to safeguard his anonymity in the long run.

Why would he have to?

Anyway, picture of Mohammad are boring and nobody wants to see them.

[citation needed]

Delicate Balance (1, Flamebait)

wermske (1781984) | about 2 years ago | (#41360071)

I believe there is a delicate balance between having and holding values and imposing them upon others. I don't deny that the violent reaction is itself an imposition of values; however, I posit that traditions of free speech can withstand the assault and our culture is unharmed by demonstration of respect. Where as, I am not confident that opposition cultures with outspoken and violent counter-mainstream elements -- unsteeped in and intollerant of traditions of free speech -- are capable of withstanding the intense pressures of cultural imperialism.

I think it is entirely appropriate, for regional stability, diplomatic relations, and national security to consider being judicious in how we share our culture, how we respect minority voices (while at the same time reserving the right to disagree), and how we permit individual members of our society to cause harm through negligent speech or action.

Within the boundaries of our civil society remedy can be sought for harms; however, when the reach of members of our society extend beyond our sphere of influence with ramifications and consequences (blowback) that cause harm or create disruption (directly or indirectly) for our society...it is the duty of governments -- as representatives of the people and charged with the safety and security of the people (and society) to take action.

In this case Google is taking action, but whether it is taking action of its own accord or at the insistance of governments...it is action all the same. I can understand how this would make the EFF and/or the ACLU twitchy... but when it comes to human life, there IS a price that is too high to pay for free speech relative to the time value received in return (or time cost extracted from humanity as a whole).

Since when is India a Muslim country? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360079)

87% of Indians are not Muslims, and are not going to care one way or another about this movie. What was the need to block it here? Let them block it in dar ul Islam, which includes Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh & Fuckistan, but does NOT include India.

Re:Since when is India a Muslim country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360107)

Oh, and I just checked. That movie is NOT blocked in India. Here is its link

http://youtu.be/Lgx1_JVxfZE [youtu.be]

It's a 74 minute track. Yeah, one gets a 'viewer discretion advised advisory, but that's just a blah blah blah

Re:Since when is India a Muslim country? (1)

wermske (1781984) | about 2 years ago | (#41360207)

New to the internets or just drunk? .be is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Belgium.

The short bus version -- On the website YouTube, a shortener for YouTube videos is youtu.be, for example www.youtube.com/watch?v=CODE become youtu.be/CODE.

youtu.be and youtube.be are both YouTube Belgium.

Re:Since when is India a Muslim country? (1)

vodka2112 (468331) | about 2 years ago | (#41360307)

87% of Indians are not Muslims, and are not going to care one way or another about this movie.

Yes, but that 13% still accounts for more muslims than there are in all of those other countries, except for Malaysia.

Objectively speaking, the video is insipid and has substandard production... maybe the Indian/Indonesian governments simply have taste :)

Re:Since when is India a Muslim country? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360387)

The point is not about India, or for that matter any country, being a Muslim country. The point is that even if you have a minority, you cannot afford to hurt their sentiments. To understand this better, you need to have lived in India, which you have not - that is pretty obvious from your post.

By now I am sure that most slashdotters would be aware that politics and religion end up in bed together. Minorities may be minorities in comparative numbers, but they are valuable weapons in the political arsenal. A politician who ignores the minorities stands little chance of getting elected.

You may be right by saying that the common person will not give a rat's ass about what is happening, but there will be 10 politicians for every common man, who would be willing to ignite fires to make themselves 'visible'.

Makes me laugh... (0)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 2 years ago | (#41360081)

Strange, how the blood-thirstiest Americans on all subjects Islamic are those who have avoided - or, all too often, evaded - wearing one of the uniforms of this nation's military.

Laugh when Muslims slit your throat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360137)

Doesn't matter. Muslims already here can slaughter them and others who disagree with them at will, like in Ft Hood, SLC Mall, UNC and so on... various Muslim attacks on American citizens who probably thought that there's nothing wrong with them. Until Americans and other non Muslims from Anchorage to Auckland say GFY to Muslims, that's how it's likely to be.

Re:Makes me laugh... (2)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#41360297)

Plenty of GI's hate Muslims after personal experience with them.

However, it's unprofessional to voice it, and why voice it when you can act on it instead?

Re:Makes me laugh... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 2 years ago | (#41360361)

Perhaps...I won't bother to contest the definition of "plenty"; instead I would ask how many GIs are demanding that other Americans be sent off to risk life and limb to satisfy their lust for blood sacrifices in the name of religion while they stay safe at home?

Re:Makes me laugh... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41360463)

I imagine that if someone in the US military went around talking about how much they need to purge the world of the evils of Islam, their superiors would make sure they are kept far, far away from the front lines. Right now, it's important the US military mainstains a squeaky-clean image. People in uniform declaring they are waging holy war are just providing material for enemy propaganda.

Election Year People (4, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 2 years ago | (#41360085)

"Muslim world rising against America" is your shock doctrine [youtube.com] for this election, please vote accordingly and against your own interests.

Protests ALL over the World. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360535)

This morning, Sept 17, 2012, I've been watching and listenting to reports of riots and civil unrest all over the World - from mostly international sources.

While the American news sources are focused almost exclusively on the Middle East, their are riots in China, Japan, S. Africa, Western Europe, etc ....

NONE of them are about Islam. They are all about economics.

Deep down it's the same with the MIddle Eastern riots. This piss-ant video was just a the spark or an excuse for the riots.

ANYONE who thinks these riots are really about Islam being "insulted" is horribly provincial and uninformed.

An example of something similar in the States would be the Occupy Wall Street protests. It's really not about Wall Street "greed". It's about young people pissed off about the percveived lack of economic opportunities and jobs that are available to them - exactly the same reason all those young people in the Middle East are rioting. Give'em jobs and they'll be back in their homes.

We have BILLIONS of people trying to get a slice of the ecnomic pie and the pie isn't growing fast enough for us all to have increasing standards of living. Hence, the haves are getting more and the have nots are being left in the dust.

But go ahead, blame the video and Islam because that's what the media is telling you.

And go ahead be a smug that you have a nice life because you were smart enough to get a degree in the right field in the right country and live in the right are.

If this keeps up, YOU will be affected - if not already.

Re:Election Year People (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360545)

"Muslim world rising against America" is your shock doctrine [youtube.com] for this election, please vote accordingly and against your own interests.

Except that the mythological 'Shock Doctrine' is supposed to be a purposely manufactured or media overblown event.

There is nothing that indicates this was a purposely manufactured or media overblown event.

If you apply the 'Shock Doctrine' mythology of Naomi Klein in this way then every crisis or bad thing that happens will be a conspiracy designed to control you, manufactured by the shadowy capitalist masters.

It seriously concerns me that this view is at +5 on Slashdot.

manufactured media overblown event - tick. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360559)

There is nothing that indicates this was a purposely manufactured or media overblown event.

*cough* *cough*. Yeah, right.

It's phenomenally rubbish (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | about 2 years ago | (#41360121)

Noone would be trying to watch this without the Streisand effect. I can't see how anyone could take such a terrible piece of filmmaking seriously. Hell, it doesn't even make fucking sense most of the time, it's just so disjointed and jarring. Blocking it worldwide would be doing humanity a favour.

Re:It's phenomenally rubbish (1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41360279)

Noone would be trying to watch this without the Streisand effect. I can't see how anyone could take such a terrible piece of filmmaking seriously. Hell, it doesn't even make fucking sense most of the time, it's just so disjointed and jarring. Blocking it worldwide would be doing humanity a favour.

Hello, we're talking MUZZIES here. They go nuts over books, cartoons, TV shows - just about anything. The more you limit free speech the more they will want it limited.

Re:It's phenomenally rubbish (1, Insightful)

toddmbloom (1625689) | about 2 years ago | (#41360501)

Wow. That was a little harsh?

In case you haven't realized this, there are groups, right here in America, that do that sort of thing too - boycotting books, TV shows, movies, or anything that has content they don't agree with. Why was it necessary for the bigoted slur on Muslims?

Re:It's phenomenally rubbish (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41360481)

Just because people are outraged that the video exists doesn't mean they've actually seen it.

Nothing new here (1)

aepervius (535155) | about 2 years ago | (#41360157)

Specific video have been region blocked for a long while. I can watch many video even from game because it is blocked in germany due to copyright reason. So if you block due to one law (copyright) you can block due to anotehr law (incitation at blasphemy or whatever the law is called there).

I am not saying it is good or bad or anything, it is jsut business as usual and local law compliance.

execuse me :) (-1, Offtopic)

dayoo (2728337) | about 2 years ago | (#41360163)

Yang sangat membahagiakan konsumen pastinya mesin baru Sepeda Motor Bebek Injeksi Kencang dan Irit Jupiter Z1 [blogspot.com] yang membuat performance-nya meningkat 20 persen karena mengadopsi teknologi motor balap YZ Crankshaft Technology, Low Friction Technology dan Forged Piston. YZ Crankshaft Technology meningkatkan akselerasi dan torsi, sudah digunakan di motor trail Yamaha YZ450F. All New Jupiter Z1 yang diluncurkan Yamaha kian sempurna dengan Low Friction Technology yang memperkecil hambatan tenaga akibat gesekan sehingga tenaga mesin menjadi lebih optimal. Forged Piston yang memiliki daya tahan tinggi dan ringan sehingga mampu menyalurkan tenaga mesin yang besar serta menjadikan motor lebih mudah berakselerasi. Baca selengkapnya: http://go-bisnisonline.blogspot.com/2012/09/sepeda-motor-bebek-injeksi-kencang-dan.html [blogspot.com]

wise to poke animal in cage? (2)

zugedneb (601299) | about 2 years ago | (#41360165)

this is not about freedom of speech, this is about not angering the animal. say, even if u had the right to poke the monkey in the cage, would it be wise to do it?

freedom only works when the involved partys can reason, and have reasonable education. this is not true about large parts of the world.

the people in the middle east are not human beings, as it is today. their minds can not handle higher functions like duality, humor, poetry, analogy and such...

they are animals, posessed by an abstract entity, Muhammed. be polite and hard towards them, but do not provoke or insult them.

Re:wise to poke animal in cage? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41360293)

this is not about freedom of speech, this is about not angering the animal. say, even if u had the right to poke the monkey in the cage, would it be wise to do it?

freedom only works when the involved partys can reason, and have reasonable education. this is not true about large parts of the world.

the people in the middle east are not human beings, as it is today. their minds can not handle higher functions like duality, humor, poetry, analogy and such...

they are animals, posessed by an abstract entity, Muhammed. be polite and hard towards them, but do not provoke or insult them.

Firstly this is about Islam, not the Middle East. The funny thing is they want to be seen as sub-human. Their cry is "look what you made me do with your pictures/words. You should have known that Muslims are not capable of self control". And we are supposed to give them special status as an "exemption to free speech" because of this.

Re:wise to poke animal in cage? (0)

JockTroll (996521) | about 2 years ago | (#41360383)

If the animal gets angry and threatens you, you kill it. Mob of angry moo-slimes? Miniguns are your friends. Flamethrowers are your friends. Bullets tear flesh apart, no matter how fanatic one may be. They may not listen to reason, but no amount of irrationality can make them go through a wall of fire unharmed. They might have the numbers, we have the firepower. What about a tasty dose of nerve gas, moo-slimes? Feel the might of Western science. You call us Crusaders? Be careful: Crusaders went Dalek on your populace long ago. The only thing that stops us from depopulating your lands and taking your resources (your resources? face it, without our tech they would be useless) is that your second-class citizens make for cheap slaves that you have to maintain. Nothing a little forced emigration cannot fix. The other real hassles are our little delusions of morality. But make no mistakes, moo-slimes, you're not the tiger. You're the chimpanzee, noisy and bothersome. WE Westerners are the tiger, backed by heavy weaponry and nuclear might. 1 billion people can easily become 1 million corpses. Do not provoke us. Our appetite for wholesale slaughter may reawaken.

In other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360167)

Religious people offended by

Google = Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360237)

...and let's face it, YouTube blocks based on 'country' more than anyone else based on nothing more than COPYRIGHT. How is this a surprise?

Now its blocked in Malaysia as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360241)

The video has now been blocked in Malaysia as well. I guess this request and removal phase is going to go on for a few days. Pity!!!

If Islam is such a peaceful religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360257)

why do so many of its adherents riot and call for executions every time someone does/says something vaguely (or not vaguely) insulting? Some idiot preacher in Florida says he's going to burn some Qurans and half the middle east goes up in flames. Someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed and gets murdered for it. Now some dopes make a movie and embassies all over the world are under attack.

The official line is that the violence is perpetrated by "a few extremists" but when I watch the news I see hundreds of thousands of people fighting with police, burning cars and buildings, attacking embassies, etc. Peaceful? Really?

Religion, stupidity, and politics are a bad combination.

Re:If Islam is such a peaceful religion (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41360295)

Religion, stupidity, and politics are a bad combination.

Yes, its called islam

Re:If Islam is such a peaceful religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360575)

Also 'Bipartisanship', but you're not supposed to mention that in mixed company :)

Re:If Islam is such a peaceful religion (1)

slim (1652) | about 2 years ago | (#41360429)

why do so many of its adherents riot and call for executions every time someone does/says something vaguely (or not vaguely) insulting?

Define "so many". There are 1,600 million Muslims, most of whom are not extremists.

A better idea (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 2 years ago | (#41360291)


Let's just give people an option in their web browsers to filter content. Perhaps a similar option to "do not track" we can have a "stick head in the sand" option?
Perhaps better described as; "If I can't see you you can't see me too"

On a more serious google is a multinational business. As a business it must protect its revenue. A good business knows better than to anger it's customers. When you will anger them anyways, you choose the lesser of two evils. Perfectly understandable on their part.
Besides, the people that really want to see the video will find a way.

About the video...yes the video is intentionally provocative and at the same time it does not preach violence. It makes a mockery of a religion.

I'm not a scholar of Islam but I am told that a Muslim must always try to represent Islam in a positive manner. If anything such an approach would lead one to behave in a manner that was better.

Is this how those people hat are burning flags and embassies want to represent Islam? will this lead people to respect your beliefs?

Just because some people believe in some unicorns does not mean it's special. Does not mean it demands respect. Heck it can be a genuine fact based belief and still would be made fun of.
I believe that humor is the real offense to totalitarian regimes, the real danger to unilateral and undisputed rule.

Still.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360357)

I really don't care... Really. This is just the latest excuse someone somewhere tossed out for the reason that muslims are killing people... again.
If it wasnt this video it would be some cartoon. Or maybe a book. Or a newspaper. Maybe just something someone somewhere did or said... or didnt say.

You can't deal with a religion that wants everyone else dead by saying ' i respect your right to religious differences' and pandering to them.
It's just not gonna work.

Someday the world is gonna have to deal with the muslims in a much stronger tone. A good chunk of them don't seem to be compatable with the rest of the people on the planet.
Doesn't look like that's gonna change anytime soon either. In fact it seems to keep getting worse.

The longer you wait to deal with the problem. The worse it will be to deal with too.

Stupid is as stupid does (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360371)

These are just angry poor people who want someone to blame for the injustices and inequities in their lives, there is no coherent ideology, kinda like poking bees. They deserve our sympathy for the pathetic uneducated lives that they leave. Despite all this, how we treat them is a test (of sorts) for how far "we" have progressed from them.

good compromise (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#41360377)

I actually like what they are doing here.

Refusing to take it down entirely is good. Blocking it in countries where the authorities want it blocked is also good. Refusing to do that would be a typical USA "we know better than you" move, and that is a big piece of the reason why the US is hated in so many places around the world.

If people within the country don't like what their government is doing, it is their job to solve that problem. If they need help, they can ask for it. Don't force "help" on people who may or may not want it.

Not blocked in Pakistan (3, Informative)

kokoko1 (833247) | about 2 years ago | (#41360379)

This still not blocked in Pakistan. Google should block it in all the Islamic countries.. India is not Islamic country however after Indonesia it has the 2nd largest Muslim population.

Re:Not blocked in Pakistan (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360505)

Why does something critical of a religion have to be blocked?

I'm an agnostic, and I've seen any number of documentaries, interviews and propaganda by various religions suggesting that I'm anything from a devil-worshipper to a deviant to an idiot for not wanting to believe whatever religion it is that they believe in and also that I'll burn in hell for all eternity. I don't call that a pleasant belief and especially not when they want to tell me that I'm going to suffer eternal pain for how I live my life.

I don't ask for them to be blocked, though, or banned. Hell, I can barely be bothered to be offended. If that's truly someone's opinion then it's an opinion (and therefore person, and whatever group they claim membership of) that DOES NOT MATTER to me. Disregard it, move on.

If it's offensive, don't watch it. Don't encourage it. Ignore it and it will be in the Recycle Bin within a week. As it is, "banning" it has made it one of THE most googled-for items across the world and exposed it to millions who wouldn't have cared and also, because of the ban, put it into people's head that maybe there's something in there that the religion DOESN'T WANT US TO KNOW. Why would you call for something to be banned just because it's inaccurate when you could just put out a correction, an official statement on the film's veracity, and invite the filmmaker to tack it on to the end of the film?

I don't know. I've not seen it. I don't really care. All I see is people wanting something banned that isn't against YouTube's content guidelines in most countries (i.e. if it's not offensive or inaccurate enough to ban in my own country, then it's probably not actaully that "offensive" at all - just taken personally by the target of the movie).

Please think of this next time you comment to an athiest, agnostic, or even someone of another religion about how their belief is "wrong". As far as I'm concerned, I've been subjected to more insults and complete dismissal of my opinion from members of religious organisations than just about any other type of organisation, ever.

One of which is that some of them believe that they should be immune to all forms of criticism, and be endowed with superior powers to curb it and censor such criticism - involving violence. I find that more insulting than anything that could find into a clip on YouTube.

While at the same time (4, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#41360455)

Indosiar (one of the largest TV networks in Indonesia) is running a vicious anti-Hindu series "Sembilan Wali". The Balinese are upset but they aren't beheading anyone.

Red Herring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360529)

We're being told night and day that these protests are against this video and not a general uprising against the US and its policies, yet when you watch coverage of the mobs they don't seem to mention it at all. This is the propaganda work of an administration desperately trying to get re-elected.

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...