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!

EFF Looks At How Blasphemy Laws Have Stifled Speech in 2012

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the noodly-appendage dept.

Electronic Frontier Foundation 278

As part of their 2012 in review series, the EFF takes a look at how blasphemy laws have chilled online speech this year. A "dishonorable mention" goes to YouTube this year: "A dishonorable mention goes to YouTube, which blocked access to the controversial 'Innocence of Muslims' video in Egypt and Libya without government prompting. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, a group based in Egypt, condemned YouTube's decision."

cancel ×

278 comments

Fuck the EFF (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394697)

The EFF can suck my 2-inch dick and choke on my balls.

Re:Fuck the EFF (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394827)

"Present them."

Fat chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394853)

Seeing that you did not even have the balls to put your username and posted A/C, we can safely assume they would not choke at all, and would probably ask if it is already "in".

Re:Fat chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395457)

Did you miss the part about the 2-inch dick? Or do you and your micro penis consider that to be well endowed?

I don't think it should be blasphemy (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394721)

All I said was that this piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!

Re:I don't think it should be blasphemy (2)

MrSavage (2127458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394769)

Blasphemer!

Re:I don't think it should be blasphemy (3, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394935)

Nobody is to throw a rock until I blow this whistle... Even if someone says "Jehovah"

Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394961)

... try being a right-leaning prof in a large, prestigious college (or in Hollywood), or a skeptic of $prevailingOpinionOnHighlyPoliticizedTopic in the scientific community.

Just something to keep in mind.

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395063)

What would a right-leaning prof do in Hollywood? Or any kind of prof, for that matter?

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395161)

professional

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (1)

nanoflower (1077145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395237)

You mean like Alec Baldwin?

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395789)

Teaching girls how to swallow since 1969?

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395123)

or a skeptic of $prevailingOpinionOnHighlyPoliticizedTopic in the scientific community.

*yawn* The only people still denying AGW are not "skeptics" they are people who have a political or economic reason to deny it. Especially in light of this [csmonitor.com] , this [discovermagazine.com] and this [nydailynews.com] . These are people who were specifically trying to disprove everyone else and instead confirmed the prevailing stance the "politicized topic".

Sorry, but the last remaining industry shills trying to proclaim AGW as not true are being intentionally dishonest.

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (1, Informative)

WilliamGeorge (816305) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395525)

Not weighing in one way or the other, but just pointing out that there is a difference between global warming and AGW (human-caused global warming). One can believe that the first is happening, without believing that humanity is the leading contributor (as the second implies). There are potentially other factors at play as well.

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (4, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395401)

If you want your point to be taken very seriously, it would be useful to point out someone who has suffered serious consequences for simply being right-leaning and not for corruption and/or using their doctorate in one field as credentials for their press releases in a different, completely unrelated field.

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395585)

Obviously, nobody gets fired for "right leaning views". But you can find a cause to fire anybody if you look just hard enough. Academia is generally a pretty hostile environment to either social or fiscal conservatives. Most conservatives I know just don't talk about their political views in such environments at all, but sadly still have to listen to the endless left-wing chatter of their colleagues.

Re:Not all "blasphemy" is religious in nature... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395475)

Yeah, or throwing rocks at old people. What's with all these totally arbitrary sensitivities, right?

Re:I don't think it should be blasphemy (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394991)

You're only making it worse for yourself!

A real shame (-1, Troll)

Servaas (1050156) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394749)

A real shame not more people got killed because of an unfunny badly created clear "lets stir some shit up" movie.

Re:A real shame (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394781)

A real shame not more people got killed because of an unfunny badly created clear "lets stir some shit up" movie.

Like it's scumbag creator, perhaps? Ya'know, the one who remained somewhat anonymous while allowing the actors and actresses to take the heat for something they didn't even know about.

Re:A real shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395005)

That apostrophe is pretty scummy. So is that second one. Really, are you completely unable to grasp how to use the apostrophe? Are you also confused by the comma or the period?

Re:A real shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395071)

Jehovah! Jehovah!

Re:A real shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395175)

Fuck Jehova! He refused to marry Gaia and disses Satan

Re:A real shame (-1, Troll)

Servaas (1050156) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395323)

Fuck Jehova why was I modded a troll? o.O

Re:A real shame (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395009)

For a moment there, I thought you were talking about Salman Rushdie, but then I realized that he just wrote an unfunny 'let's stir some shit up' book, not a movie.

My bad.

So wait, which one do you think deserved to die again?

(I think I still have Satanic Verses in the bookshelf somewhere, just that I can't be arsed to crack it open.)

Re:A real shame (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395023)

One person's scumbag is another person's multi-platinum recording "artist".

Re:A real shame (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394855)

Those people did not get killed because of an unfunny movie, those people got killed because certain other people felt they, and only they, are entitled to not have their particular set of irrational believes made fun off.

Re:A real shame (4, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394861)

that is not why anyone got killed. the problem was between the left ear and the right ear of religious whackjob killers. they will kill again for no reason

Re:A real shame (0)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394911)

In a world where you know that there are people ready to kill over an insult, slinging out insults (or helping someone else do it) becomes an irresponsible and antisocial act.

Re:A real shame (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394945)

Not saying something for fear of some group of asshats using it as an excuse to kill people is being a coward. These people would have killed even if the film hadn't been made. It was nothing but a convenient excuse.

Re:A real shame (-1, Flamebait)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395125)

Not saying something for fear of some group of asshats using it as an excuse to kill people is being a coward. These people would have killed even if the film hadn't been made. It was nothing but a convenient excuse.

Please explain the circumstances that make it morally acceptable to engage in asshattery that is likely to incite other asshats to violence.

Also, please explain why defending the first sort of asshattery isn't another sort of asshattery.

Re:A real shame (4, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395247)

Again, they didn't kill because of the film. Almost none of the people outraged by it had even seen it. It was used as an excuse for why they were killing people. Nothing more. If the film had not existed something else would have been used as the excuse. You're ether incredibly naive or stupid to think that stifling free speech in some misguided attempt to appease a bunch murderers is the right thing to do.

Re:A real shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395441)

Not saying something for fear of some group of asshats using it as an excuse to kill people is being a coward. These people would have killed even if the film hadn't been made. It was nothing but a convenient excuse.

Please explain the circumstances that make it morally acceptable to engage in violence.

Also, please explain why defending THAT sort of asshattery isn't another sort of asshattery.

FTFY.

When are you going to explain why your implicit defense of violence in response to "asshattery" isn't "asshattery" itself?

But you won't.

Because you're an asshat who condones violent censorship.

It's Theo Van Gogh's own damn fault he got murdered, right?

Re:A real shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395721)

Not saying something for fear of some group of asshats using it as an excuse to kill people is being a coward. These people would have killed even if the film hadn't been made. It was nothing but a convenient excuse.

Please explain the circumstances that make it morally acceptable to engage in asshattery that is likely to incite other asshats to violence.

Also, please explain why defending the first sort of asshattery isn't another sort of asshattery.

The distinction is with "likely to incite" versus "incite." The former is making controversial thing; like being biased for or against any topic. The most common form of this is trolling for flame wars. This could incite people to violence. The latter is actually telling people to be violent. Actually "inciting" violence itself. I don't know which god you worship, so I cannot mention morals. But I will mention that this is a pretty big distinction, and if you want to ban all "likely to incite" things, we should start with burning all books that are not officially government sanctioned.

Re:A real shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395741)

Please explain the circumstances that make it morally acceptable to engage in asshattery that is likely to incite other asshats to violence.

You are inciting me to commit violent acts. Please stop all online presence immediately if you dont want to engage in immoral asshattery conducts. I hope to never heard from you ever again. Lives are at stake. Thank you for your cooperation.

Posting anonymously because this discussion is pointless and stupid. But I can't help myself, I enjoy pointing out how stupid peoples are. Fuck off.

Re:A real shame (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394949)

That's very dangerous reasoning.

Re:A real shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395349)

That's very dangerous reasoning.

You give GP waaay too much credit.

Re:A real shame (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395099)

In a world where you know that there are people ready to kill over an insult, slinging out insults (or helping someone else do it) becomes an irresponsible and antisocial act.

And women wearing revealing clothes deserve to be raped? Because showing ankle skin is too much for men to resist?

Did you ever think that under that "logic" we'd be justified in killing your for that oppression-enabling weakness?

Of course not - you don't think at all, do you?

Re:A real shame (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395273)

It's called fetishes. Oh wait, that's not logical because we live in a civilized society. Don't mind me, I'm just here to mention S&M, foot, and school girl fetishes. I mean, guys don't get hot over that? Nahhhh, that's a myth.

Re:A real shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395769)

Yeah that's a myth. What you said isn't logical or correct because we do tend to live in a civilized society. Or we're not trying to mislead to justify our points. Some of us anyway.

Don't confuse getting turned on by some random topic and going out and raping someone 'cause you're horny - unless you're just desperately trying to be misleading.

Please also don't say some random topic isn't considered a fetish - have you *looked* at fetish boards these days?! Or that clowns aren't a fetish. I don't see much clown raping in the actuarial tables these days. This conversation took an odd turn... anyway, back to my original point...

Asshat.

Please use the latest gun violence tragedy for your own social agenda because you got whipped up by the latest non-government sanctioned use of firearms next like the rest of the idiots...

Re:A real shame (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395203)

Irresponsible, maybe. Antisocial? Only if the killers were the majority. They are not.

Re:A real shame (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395281)

So in a world where there are people that will kill to protect slavery, slavery should never be criticized?
Being willing to kill to prevent something from being said does not make it wrong to say that thing. It just makes you wrong.

Re:A real shame (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395453)

Tolerating the existence of "people ready to kill over an insult" is the problem, not the insult itself. But how do you get rid of those people without becoming the person that can't be tolerated? That's why people like Dawkins come in and say things like "every one of you who tolerates the belief in a supernatural power makes this problem worse, because these beliefs are always going to be mutually incompatible." His point is to start from the viewpoint that everyone who believes in the supernatural is defective, and should be fixed instead of tolerated.

So I'd say you're exactly half right. Insulting people's religions is antisocial. But if it's part of an attempt to get rid of it, it's not irresponsible.

Re:A real shame (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395045)

the problem was between the left ear and the right ear of religious whackjob killers. they will kill again for no reason

So, umm, what valid reason did these guys have then? [wikipedia.org]

Re:A real shame (1)

elewton (1743958) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395139)

Neither group had an acceptable reason (either may have been valid).

They appear to have been motivated by the delusions of religion and ideology, respectively.

Re:A real shame (1)

Smallpond (221300) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395229)

I think I see Godwin lurking just around the corner.

WTF? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394759)

They hate it, they would kill for it, yet they don't want to see it banned or blocked.

Are they fucking mental challenged? WTF with these people, eh?

Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394771)

Using the term "Blasphemy" serves to moderate what is truly an abomination: the fanatical intolerance of Muslims for anything that even smacks of an insult to the so-called prophet and they outrageous response that ultimately ends up getting people killed. Ironically, the people getting killed are usually Muslims.

 

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394801)

Yep. To deal with Islam we need to either continue mocking them until they shut the fuck up or we just exterminate them all. Either way, nothing of value will be lost. Although the camel and ankle porn industries may face trying times as demand dries up.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394821)

Your mother must be proud.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394879)

I couldn't care less what that bitch thinks. She's a crack whore race mixer. I haven't talked to that slut in 15 years since she married some dumbass Sambo.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395109)

You don't actually need to mock them. Just pointing out the obvious facts makes them stark raving mad anyway.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (-1, Flamebait)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395163)

You don't actually need to mock them. Just pointing out the obvious facts makes them stark raving mad anyway.

To be fair, that works just as well with Christians, too. The difference is, the Christians are more likely to park a car bomb outside your office.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395315)

[citation needed]

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395381)

What? When did that happen to any scale. Conversation tends to be better when are telling the truth and dealing with the main points, otherwise situations like this pop up where we have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394813)

There are 2 reasons I can see for the EFF using the more general term:
1. One of the winners was Greece, going after someone who was satirizing a Greek Orthodox monk. It's not always about Muslims.
2. The organization opposes all attempts to censor online speech, not just religiously motivated attempts.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395033)

There are 2 reasons I can see for the EFF using the more general term:
1. One of the winners was Greece, going after someone who was satirizing a Greek Orthodox monk. It's not always about Muslims.
2. The organization opposes all attempts to censor online speech, not just religiously motivated attempts.

Two reasons out of what? 331,154,836?

GP was right - it's hiding.

No one's allowed to talk about the elephant in the room.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394835)

Problem with most laws over there, they are based on the religion and not some sense. In some countries over there "Blasphemy" carries the death sentence.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394975)

Problem with most laws over here, they are based on the fear and not some sense. In some airports over here carrying a water bottle carries a torture sentence.

Every government tries to enact laws that mold its citizens to fit one particular morality, regardless of whether it's led by religion, hivemind democracy, or dictatorship. For localized groups that face communal problems, this has usually been perfectly fine. The real problem comes from applying one group's morality (and therefore its laws) to another group. The Internet lets everyone see everyone else's actions immediately, so what's perfectly fine to an irreverent filmmaker with poor taste in comedy can quickly spread as outrage among people with a stricter sense of decency.

To the people who enact and support the religious laws "over there", they make perfect sense, just as the people who support anti-terrorist or gun control laws in America think those laws make sense.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395103)

In some airports over here carrying a water bottle carries a torture sentence.

That's because the water from outside an airport is exploding water. You need to get your water for $5.00 a bottle inside the airport so that you get that special non-exploding water.

More seriously, if you mean it carries a sentence of "throw your water away" or "if you don't throw it away when told we will take you to a little room where some police will ask you questions" then yes, you are right. However your allegation of it being a torture sentence is perhaps just a bit overblown.

Re:Don't Hide Behind "Blasphemy" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395451)

More seriously, if you mean it carries a sentence of "throw your water away" or "if you don't throw it away when told we will take you to a little room where some police will ask you questions" then yes, you are right.

sir, your water bottle might be filled with explosives, so you can't take it on the plane. please throw it in the trash can.

Good luck on this one. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394819)

Considering the UN's liberal agenda of stifling free speech, and the US submitting to trampling over its constitution, we are facing another step closer to an Orwellian dystopia. See where the slippery slopes lead?

Re:Good luck on this one. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394837)

Yeah because Saudia Arabia and the other countries pushing these balahphemy laws are such reknowned bastions of liberalism. Eat a dong, troll boy.

Re:Good luck on this one. (4, Funny)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395043)

Considering the UN's liberal agenda of stifling free speech, and the US submitting to trampling over its constitution, we are facing another step closer to an Orwellian dystopia. See where the slippery slopes lead?

That word doesn't mean what you think it does. I suspect you use it often.

Re:Good luck on this one. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395137)

Considering the UN's liberal agenda of stifling free speech

I see a contradiction in terms there. Either you're stifling free speech, or you're liberal. You know, that's the word that is cognate to "liberty".

Re:Good luck on this one. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395287)

Don't try to argue with a conservative. They know that liberals are stifling free speech because they don't allow teaching science in classrooms: like creationism, climate constancy, and dinosaur riding.

With the exception of Greece... (0)

MrSavage (2127458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394829)

All of the instances of application of blasphemy laws are in regards to the Muslim religion (if you can call it a religion at all) Islam is not compatible with free thinking, democracy (Egypt worked out wonderfully didn't it?), women's rights, or anything which may be considered different. When is the world going to realize the problem is Islam and it's inherent intolerance? As for Greece, I can only wonder what the hell is happening in the birthplace of democracy?

Re:With the exception of Greece... (3, Insightful)

BLT2112 (1372873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394889)

Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity (as paraphrased from The West Wing). Let's call out those who hate and oppress, and leave the rest of the members of a religion that preaches peace alone.

Re:With the exception of Greece... (1)

MrSavage (2127458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395083)

I had explained that a woman's asking for equality in the church would be comparable to a black person's demanding equality in the Ku Klux Klan - Mary Daly

Re:With the exception of Greece... (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395181)

Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity

Actually, that should have read "as Catholicism is to Christianity". You know, it's not like they are a tiny minority.

Re:With the exception of Greece... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395297)

That's just pure baloney. The KKK has basically no political power in the United States. "Radical" Islamic Fundamentalism has oodles of political power in the Middle-East, as evidenced by the number of countries ruled by Islamic theocracies and/or legitimizing extreme interpretations of Sharia Law in their constitutions.

Re:With the exception of Greece... (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395767)

Sorry you are wrong. And for these reasons:
- The KKK would wish for the enormous numbers of followers (hundreds of millions world wide)
- The KKK would wish that democratic leaders would just bend over and appease them
- The KKK was a 'secret' society, the scimitar yielding hatebeards are in the open (without caps that is)
- The KKK was. (yes there are a hand full left, but that hardly counts does it?)
- The KKK were never demanding respect and a 'different treatment' to their wishes as the Mohammedans are. (let alone getting their wishes granted)
- The KKK was a political group, not necessarily a religious one
- The KKK would wish that their atrocities wouldn't be criticized

The similarity is the same only as far as their extremism and funny dresses go. The rest is a completely different matter.

And all-knowing and omnibenevolent, too! (3, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394847)

Well, infinitely powerful God apparently needs humans to kill off his political enemies. Censoring them ain't no thang.

Re:And all-knowing and omnibenevolent, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395271)

Well, he'd do it himself but his phaser's lowest setting is "deluge"...

Re:And all-knowing and omnibenevolent, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395277)

God also needs a starship.

Re:And all-knowing and omnibenevolent, too! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395503)

Well, infinitely powerful God apparently needs humans to kill off his political enemies. Censoring them ain't no thang.

I guess that's why they call their God omnimpotent, or something like that. Whatever that means.

Hmm (1)

nomadic (141991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394849)

Free speech incorporates the right not to say things just as much as it incorporates the right to say things. YouTube should be allowed to determine what it is saying on its network just as much as the creator of the video should on whatever channels it controls. EFF is wrong about this.

Re:Hmm (2)

MrSavage (2127458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394893)

"Free speech incorporates the right not to say things just as much as it incorporates the right to say things." You reminded me of something Abraham Lincoln said: “To sin by silence, when they should protest, makes cowards of men.”

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394895)

Amen!!! Freedom of speech is great, however, YouTube doesn't need to broadcast everything.

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394921)

It doesn't, but I and the EFF can use their free speech rights to criticize them.

Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394907)

Just because Google can do what it wants doesn't mean it is above criticism for its actions. Any racist shitbag can spew whatever racist nonsense they want. At the same time, I can call them out as a racist shitbag all I want.

Re:Hmm (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395189)

YouTube isn't exercising a "right to say thinks" of their own. They are simply providing infrastructure that allows others to do so. Just like the phone company isn't responsible for the content of the conversations they carry.

YouTube should be allowed to determine what it is saying on its network

That's a slippery slope. Once YouTube or any other content host begins exercising editorial control, they could be held liable for failing to do so. And then if they let something slip by that offends one group, that group will sue for blasphemy or some other form of imagined discrimination.

Re:Hmm (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395591)

How are they going to 'be held liable'? Unless there is some law that says otherwise (there isn't) they can decide what they will and won't host. They have been doing just that since their inception (find a lot of porn on YouTube?).

If someone is going to sue YouTube for blasphemy, they are going to do that regardless of what OTHER content YouTube hosts or doesn't host.

And you can't (successfully) sue someone for 'imagined discrimination'. If you are going to sue for discrimination it has to be about some PROTECTED characteristic of the submittor, not the content. And if you are going to claim discrimination of protected characteristics of submittors, then you need to prove that YouTube knows those characteristics (they don't) and that they have shown that they discriminate based on those characteristics alone.

So in reality the opposite of what you said is true. By exercising ANY control over content (which they have always done) they get the ability to say 'we determine what content is acceptible', and are thus protected against charges of discrimination.

Your statement makes as much sense as saying 'I am going to sue my neighborhood conveniece mart because they decided to carry brand X of ice cream, and I do not like that brand'. You can sue, but you aren't going to win.

Real farce (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394877)

Traditionally blasphemy was something you said and the God got angry. Now the laws are scarier as the clear church-God binding is missing. Now it is like homosexuality. To believe or not, to be overweight or not or to be homosexual or not is a matter of personal habit (and you should not disagree as your selections/tendencies/genetics/politics/etc. are no way "better" than his/hers).

What will happen to skeptics in the future? See the example of Edamaruku. A real farce.

I'd love to see that report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394915)

My country's Great Firewall of Religious Purity is blocking it.

The Tragic decline of Apathy and Moderation (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394941)

It isn't about religion, but the decline in Moderate thinking.
With the internet people in general get caught up in a competition on who is the best in their group.

I don't have the citation and it has been a few years (and I am too lazy to look it up for a slashdot post), but there was a study that shows the stricter groups (Religions, Parties...) have a better retention and growth rate then the groups that are a bit more moderate.

So a Religion that says you are going to Hell unless you follow these commandments are more popular and tend to last longer than a religion that states if you are good of heart than you will be saved.

The same thing is happening with political parties, Parties are creating stricter guidelines to say what it means to be in the party. The difference between a republican and democrat isn't as simple as Small Local Governments vs. Large Centralized government. But to an array of policies often contradictory to each other that define the groups stances.

 

Re:The Tragic decline of Apathy and Moderation (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395791)

there was a study that shows the stricter groups (Religions, Parties...) have a better retention and growth rate then the groups that are a bit more moderate.

Then why are the "fire and brimstone" Christian denominations shrinking while the "Jesus died to pay for your sins" nondenominational Christian churches thriving and growing?

Sorry, but the citction you're too lozy to look up is completely necessary in light of the facts.

Free Speech, Privacy, IP & Slander (4, Interesting)

m.shenhav (948505) | about a year and a half ago | (#42394959)

For residents of countries where separation of Church and State is upheld, Blasphemy Law is clearly one step too far.

What interests me is the tensions which exists between Free Speech, Privacy, Intellectual Property and Slander. There are Non-Trivial Tradeoffs involved, making this a domain where opinions are more divergent and definitions far trickier to formulate. Attacking an Idea or an Institution is quite a different story than attacking a Person.

Saving lives (4, Interesting)

Excelcia (906188) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395091)

Youtube's blocking of that video was an effort to save lives. I'm not convinced that the production of the "Innocence of Muslims" wasn't intended to have the effect it had. Perhaps as a people those who are murderously offended by such things need to grow up and get a thicker skin. I'll grant that. But any words, religiously themed or not, which are intended to offend are reprehensible. And I applaud Youtube for taking steps to mitigate the disaster that video initiated.

Beyond this, so many people (Americans especially) have this "I may not like what you say, but I'll die to defend your right to say it" attitude that sounds good on the surface, but which denies a basic fact, which is that words which are intended to be hateful do hurt. There is no place for any action which is intended to harm, whether that action is picking up a stick or a pen. There is a difference between an unpopular idea expressed in good faith, and one intended to offend. And while differentiating may be difficult, in an age of instant global communications, at least Youtube stood up and tried. They made a call with what they will allow on a network they own. No one should have gotten murderously angry over this video, but the fact is some people did. And you may not like suppressing ideas, but there may be some people alive today who wouldn't be if that video wasn't turned off for a time. Which of those people is the EFF going to tell shouldn't be alive today?

Re:Saving lives (5, Insightful)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395319)

You don't have the right to not be offended.

No, it's rewarding intolerance (4, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395391)

It's not "saving lives" it's rewarding intolerance by showing sensitivity to intolerance. It also creates a precedence that says that you recognize their intolerance and will react affirmatively to it again in the future, guaranteeing another intolerant reaction.

Is it wrong to purposefully offend someone? Sure, that's Ethics 101.

But Ethics 201 asks more questions about what intent means and what it means to be offended and how far you can go to react to that offense.

By most civilized standards, rioting and killing people in response to a video is also unacceptable.

Re:Saving lives (1, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395455)

which is that words which are intended to be hateful do hurt

NONSENSE. You sound like the biggest douche on the planet with that statement. When I was coming up it was "sticks and stones", now its douchebags like you with your "fluff is the new real" crap. Ya feel hurt now, little boy? I suppose you do. I guess that means you have every right to lob a bomb my way. I have NO USE for you and your ilk, you immature little fuck. I'll call ONE MAN who has more substance and fibre in his body my friend before I take 100 of you "words hurt" buggars as acquaintances.

"Words hurt so I get to use violence as a remedy." What a silly, immature thing. You must have been raised by talking wolves. And justifying the actions of a militant, paternalistic, medieval cult that does the same thing is worse. If you were my brother my parents would be ashamed of you. Stuff and nonsense. Grow up and take charge of your own failings and immature mistakes, don't put them on some one else who says something you don't like.

Re:Saving lives (2)

Excelcia (906188) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395663)

I didn't say you get to use violence as a remedy, I'm saying that the reality is that people were using violence as a remedy and that Youtube did the correct thing. It's fine for some airy-fairy rights-obsessed intellectual in the EFF to say that all censorship is wrong, but there were real people with real guns at peoples heads. Which innocent are you willing to sacrifice for the ideal of never taking a video off of Youtube? A video made with the intention to inflame hatred.

I'll tell you what, hero... you want to stand up for rights? Get a nice big tablet, hang it off your chest, and put that video on it while walking around in Libya. I will seriously pay for the tablet and the plane ticket to Libya. You and I both know I will only be out for a one-way ticket.

If YOU want to make a point about censorship.... then YOU go make your point. Put your own life on the line. Youtube execs acted in good faith to save lives in a terrible situation. They decided they weren't going to play with other people's lives. And good for them!

Muslims always want an excuse to be "offended" (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395637)

No amount of appeasement will ever satisfy them. If it isn't a silly video, it's a silly cartoon, or "santanic passages" or whatever.

Kill the infidels where ever you find them, right?

erroneus (253617) FatASS "needs Pizza" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395131)

"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) Homepage from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 [slashdot.org] since that disgusting fatbody pig is a waste of life with no self-control.

The future is now! (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395395)

The headline reads like something from a new fiction genre... cyber-inquisition-noir.

What happens.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395435)

If this freedom of speech "thing" contradicts other basic/human rights, for instance, "The dignity of men is unimpeachable". Do people still "trumpet/twang" the freedom of speech lyre as their ultimate law/right of choice? There are many, many laws, and most of them tend to 'interact', as in causal law. Don't get me wrong, I love my freedom to say whatever I want to, but; as certain times arise, it is sometimes wiser to not say anything at all. Cheers. And oh, I "believe" that google has any right to "censor" whatever they want to. Even if it tweaks in an admin's finger to "censor" a flying cartload full of adorable kittens. Would this be wise? You tell me.

Wot? (4, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395559)

Blasphemy is for wimps. Real men use heresy or apostasy to distinguish themselves from the common infidel.

And who were offended this year? DRUMROLL PLEASE!! (1, Flamebait)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395635)

A lot of people got offended this year, like Sarah from New York who was called several unpleasant names by a stranger on the street. Sarah, as most people, was told an important lesson from her parents: Sticks and stones may break my bones, But names will never hurt me.
Some people however, weren't brought up with common sense, and got quite a bit of a knee-jerk-reaction to the insults. These 'knee-jerkers' went as far as trying (and unfortunately in some cases succeeding) in shutting people up. Because of 'insults'. Mind you, these 'insults' are the 'names' bit in the lesson, not the 'sticks and stones' bit! People who just had a different opinion or said something the "offended" got REALLY CROSS about.
The nominees for the 2012 "Stop offending me"-award are:

  - The Christians living in predominately Muslim countries for being physically and verbally abused by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
  - The homosexuals that got beaten up, hanged, stoned or otherwise mistreated by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
  - The Jews who got an even worse treatment by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
  - The people who wore 'the wrong clothing' or listened to the 'wrong music' and got in quite a bit of trouble with the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
  - The women who (this year again) had to suffer gross inequality, injustice, mental, verbal and physical abuse by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
  - The Girl who got shot in the face by by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect for wanting to get a proper education
  - The Girl who got accused for burning pages of the Koran and was severely endangered of being killed by the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims
  - The people who got fed up with the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect, stood up to them and got their mouth shut by the Muslims
  - And the last nominee is: the followers of the religion of tolerance, peace and respect; the Muslims themselves!

Complaining about 'offences' the most in 2012 were... DRUM ROLL PLEASE ! ! !

You must be joking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395707)

2012 has been a free for all attack on religion. This site has consistently ridiculed religion, and almost any subject that appears on the site turns into a debate about religion.

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...