Beta
×

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!

Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the pre-emptive-suppression dept.

Censorship 874

h4rm0ny notes the furor over an anti-Islamic movie due to be released on the Web in the next week. After Pakistan disrupted YouTube worldwide over an interview with right-wing Dutch MP and filmmaker Geert Wilders, Network Solutions, acting as host as well as registrar, has suspended Wilders's site promoting the 15-minute film "Fitna" (a Koranic term translated as "strife"). The site now displays a notice that it is under investigation for possible violations of NetSol's acceptable use policy. According to the article the company's guidelines include "a sweeping prohibition against 'objectionable material of any kind or nature.'" The article describes the site's content before NetSol pulled the plug as a single page with the film's title, an image of the Koran, and the words "Coming Soon." No one but Wilders has seen the film to date. The Dutch government has distanced itself from the film, fearing Muslim backlash. A million Muslims live in The Netherlands. Wilders's party, which controls 9 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, was elected on an anti-immigration platform.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I declare a fatwah! (4, Funny)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838754)

So, being SubGenius myself and rather abhorrent of any and all religions, does anyone else think that I can get NetSol to close down any and all religious websites that they currently host?

No? Me either, but hey, it'd be fun to try.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (-1, Flamebait)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838800)

As this film hasn't been released, I give Network Solutions the benefit of the doubt.

I myself think that it's difficult to be too nasty to any religion. But difficult is not the same as impossible. For instance, if this film incites violence against adherents of Islam, then a ban (and prosecution of those responsible) is the right move.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838816)

Wait what? You're promoting censorship of the media?.. Yeah a ban on that because it's violent, let's blacklist those books since they're dangerous to the mental health of our youth, you know what let's just burn them to make sure nobody reads them...

Re:I declare a fatwah! (-1, Troll)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838880)

I love violence. I love free speech. Pretty much everything that's 'dangerous to the mental health of out youth' kicks ass. But if the film, say, encourages people to go out and punch a muslim, then yes, it should be banned.

Surely you can appreciate that some stuff should be banned. (Kiddie porn?)

If you can get your head around that, then you must realise that in some, limited instances, the right to offend is superseded by the right not to be harmed.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (5, Funny)

smallfries (601545) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838936)

Exactly! Think of the children. But, err, no not like that. Hmm, bad context maybe...

Re:I declare a fatwah! (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839014)

as long as they did not commit any illegal acts then who gives a fuck if it tells you to go out and punch a muslim? that's free speech, where as your example of kiddy porn you have to break the law to create the film.

no one is forcing these muslims to watch it, yet they think their being offended gives them the right to tell me what i can and cannot make up my own mind about.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839138)

who gives a fuck if it tells you to go out and punch a muslim? that's free speech
Not in the US. Directly provoking violence is not protected speech.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (5, Insightful)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839132)

Contrast your own words to these [usconstitution.net] :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see anything about, "unless it's speech we really, really don't like," in there at all, do you?

I Bet... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22838894)

He he could just mod the film down to -1, Troll. That way it is, for all practical matters, censored.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22838848)

For instance, if this film incites violence against adherents of Islam, then a ban (and prosecution of those responsible) is the right move.
The Koran incites violence against those not adherent to Islam. Do you propose banning that, too?

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1, Informative)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838922)

The Koran incites violence against those not adherent to Islam.
I've never read the Koran, but I am aware that, as with any text, people interpret it to serve their own ends.

If it says 'Non-Muslims are wrong, you are commanded to kill them', then yes, when I am king that will be banned.

But I've heard many moderate Muslims state that no such instruction exists.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (4, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839060)

I've never read the Koran
You've never seen the film, either.

If you're willing to give the Koran the benefit of the doubt, why wouldn't you extend the film the same courtesy?

Re:I declare a fatwah! (2)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839176)

As I've said to 2 other posters now, I was wrongly assuming that NS had some inside knowledge that incitement of violence was part of the film. I was confused, you are right, I was wrong. All apologies.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1)

Wm_K (761378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839082)

Wilders did.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (5, Insightful)

ecotax (303198) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838938)

>As this film hasn't been released, I give Network Solutions the benefit of the doubt.

Despite the fact that I think this guy is an islamofobic, racist and generally unpleasant guy, I still have to disagree with you here: before having seen the film, you can't assume it contains legally or otherwise unacceptable material. It will probably do so, but we'll have to wait and see whether this is indeed the case. Until the movie has been published, the benefit of the doubt should be given to Geert Wilders, regardless of his lousy reputation.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838992)

You are right, I was wrongly assuming that NS had some specific information on the specifics of the film.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (2, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838960)

As the movie has yet to be released and NS has not a friggin' clue as to what's in it -- that is exactly the reason I give them no benefit of the doubt whatsoever.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839038)

As I said to someone else, I'd wrongly assumed that NS had inside info on something in the film- you are right and I am wrong. Shame on me.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839058)

For instance, if this film incites violence against adherents of Islam, then a ban (and prosecution of those responsible) is the right move.

So you don't believe that we have a free will either, huh?

Re:I declare a fatwah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839150)

I do not give Network Solutions the benefit of the doubt. Gagging someone whose political beliefs you disagree with is both abhorrent and a call to violence. Who is inciting who to violence?

I would say those who commit the first violent act, censorship, are the ones most responsible for violence.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839180)

Yeah, right, islam sites promoting violence against the west aren't taken down.. As a dutchie I stand behind Wilders if his film stays with the facts.. It's ridiculous that even islamcountries are threathening the Netherlands because of some shortfilm which nobody even has seen with voilence, well, I say let worldwar begin if they actually use violence, as I'm fed up with other countries telling us what to do, get real.. Religion should be banned if it was up to me, as it has never ever did anybody any good. No politics should be based on any kind of religion, there shouldn't be any christion,jew, muslim or whatever, there should only be people..

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839212)

I agree.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839210)

As this film hasn't been released, I give Network Solutions the benefit of the doubt.

Why? NetSol hasn't seen it either. For all they know it's 15 minutes of elevator music and a capition saying 'see what I mean?'.

The thing is, no matter what it is, someone won't like it. Sometimes with good reason, sometimes you'll wonder if the complaintant needs a psych evaluation. If we ban all speech that might offend, we won't even be able to grunt (too suggestive).

I can't say how I feel about the movie or Wilders' views sincce I haven't seen either.

More reasonable actions might include pointing out that site traffic is likely to way exceed the limits of the account and requiring a deposit on overages, notifying him that they just don't want that much heat and he should make other arrangements, etc.

Those are reasons I can sorta understand NetSol's position, but they could have handled it much better.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (2, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838804)

Why would anyone ever use them? They're expensive and their AUP is absurd.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (2, Informative)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839076)

Why would anyone ever use them? They're expensive and their AUP is absurd.
Indeed. Weren't these the guys that changed their TOS so they owned your domain [slashdot.org] and you were just "renting" it from them?

On topic here I agree with others that have said since NS didn't have any first-hand knowledge of the movie content then they shouldn't have shut down the site.

Re:I declare a fatwah! (4, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839236)


As the submitter of this story, I just wish to add that kdawson has rather heavily rewritten the original submission. Also, the link to the story on the BBC site, which was the original first link has been removed. It is here [bbc.co.uk] for those interested. I also had a look for the film on torrent sites and though I found something pretending to be the film, it turned out to just be some "music to inspire peace" and a README saying "we the Dutch don't support this politician."

I'm offended (4, Interesting)

crow (16139) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838912)

I'm offended by any material served by Network Solutions. Hence all their customers are in violation of the terms of service, so they should all be shut down.

How many complaints does it take to shut down a site? Let's pick one at random, and get it shut down. Then pick another...

Re:I declare a fatwah! (1)

jacquesdubois (768201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838944)

Praise Bob! Fair is fair after all...and it sounds like this could be an interesting little movie...

I'll host it. (1)

notdotcom.com (1021409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839126)

Just give me the Adsense revenue and I'll put it up offshore somewhere and... 3. PROFIT!!

hum (0)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838760)

See, I wouldn't have a problem with his 15 minute film if he pointed out the same problems (which definitely do exist!) in the other two major Abrahamic religions. However, he doesn't. He's flamebaiting people who are as protective of their religion as American Evangelicals are of theirs.

Re:hum (5, Insightful)

CyberData4 (1247268) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838776)

American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view. They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...

Re:hum (2, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838808)

No, but they do go on psychological warfare, going apeshit at other religions for no good reason. Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims. They all do it.

As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant. You're talking about a minority of extremists. I'm talking about the majority. If you want to go down that route, the AmEvs took a developed nation's army into two (three if you include pakistan) nations for the sole purpose of teaching them our own point of view. Same idea as what the suicide bombers are doing, is it not?

Re:hum (2, Insightful)

arstchnca (887141) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838942)

"Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims" because if you belong to a group you are the group, right? i better get me a group quick

Re:hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839034)

No, but they do go on psychological warfare, going apeshit at other religions for no good reason...They all do it.
If by all, you mean all groups based on an ideology, be it religion, global warming, animal rights, economic system, ect, then you're absolutely right. Pretty much any group you can find does something of the sort. Welcome to human nature, it's everywhere.

Re:hum (2, Informative)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838872)

Don't know about USA, but here in Europe Christians killed all male civilians (including young boys, all unarmed) in city of Srebrenica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_genocide [wikipedia.org] ), Bosnia, in 1994 only because civilians were - guess what - Muslims. It happened thanks to namely UN-appointed Holland troopers let Serbian terrorists go to city they were supposed to protect. UN declared it to be a genocide, first in Europe since WWII.

(Dutch Govt && NS) == Pussies (0, Flamebait)

cmholm (69081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838958)

Yeah, the Srebrenica incident was not a highlight in the history of the Dutch Army. Neither is Network Solutions banning a site whose subject matter they haven't even seen... much like the Manhattan coop that wanted to kick out the US publishers of Salman Rushdie's best known work, their own neighbors, least some whack job target their building. Pussies, all. They should all convert to Islam now, the Salafi school at that, for their own sheepist protection.

Re:hum (1)

complex(179,-70) (1101799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839048)

And guess what? To save their own political ass, politicians gave them all medals afterwards. As Dutch myself, I was ashamed as hell when it happened If it were up to me, I would've put them all against the wall for cowardliness.

Re:hum (4, Informative)

crashfrog (126007) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838884)

American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view.

No, I guess they just go regular bombing. [cnn.com]

Re:hum (2, Insightful)

sigzero (914876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839032)

And I would say...they aren't Christians. There is nothing in the Bible that gives them leeway to do what they did. However, the koran specifically tells Muslims to kill infidels.

Re:hum (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839102)

the koran specifically tells Muslims to kill infidels.
[Citation Needed]

Re:hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839026)

Plenty of American Evangelical Christians have committed hate crimes. And they have called for the execution of people whose lifestyle offends them. Remember Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming man that was strung up on a wooden fence, beaten, and left to die? Ever heard of Rev. Fred Phelps? This kind of "Christianity" is still common, though by no means mainstream.

Re:hum (2, Informative)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839124)

American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view.

No, just an abortion clinic or two. They're too cowardly to blow themselves up with it.

They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...

No, but they've come pretty close [washingtonpost.com] .

Re:hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839198)

No, the authorize military air strikes on civilian targets instead. The only difference being that the US has a more sophisticated delivery mechanism (B-52's, etc.) and doesn't need to strap the bombs to people.

Re:hum (1)

Sitnalta (1051230) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839204)

"American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view"

Yup. They just leave the bomb at the abortion clinic.

Re:hum (0)

ettlz (639203) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838826)

He's flamebaiting people who are as protective of their religion as American Evangelicals are of theirs.

It's twenty-oh-fucking-eight, and still we have these silly people getting wound up about, of all things, a bunch of fairy tales.

Prats.

Re:hum (0, Flamebait)

rossz (67331) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838874)

Please post your list of terrorist attacks by Christians and Jews. For every one terrorist attacks by all other religions combined, I can list a thousand by the religion of hate (islam).

Post a cartoon of the muslim prophet, they go on a murderous riot.

Arrest a muslim for violently attacking a police officer, they go on a murderous riot.

A couple of muslim thugs get themselves killed eluding the police, they go on a murderous riot.

Criticize muslim for being unable to accept criticism, they go on a murderous riot.

Are you starting to see a pattern?

You are what is known as a "useful idiot."

Re:hum (3, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838976)

Time out there dude.

Lets be clear about something. Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence. Unfortunately, it only takes one small group to do some pretty horrendous stuff.

Note also, that most muslim violence is directed against other muslims.

Yes there is a problem with poor levels of education, and also that religious leaders can spin any old line of bull and have it believed in its entirety by large numbers of muslims, but if we are to be honest, christians do the same thing quite often, especially some of the christianity 2.0 people. Ok we don't do the suicide bomber thing, but again, neither do the vast, vast majority of muslims, many of whom are just folk. Once again, most suicide bomber attacks are directed against muslims.

What's really going on, in my opinion, is a muslim civil war, orchestrated by powerful people who'd rather like it if only their flavour of beliefs were allowed, oh, and that they be rich and control the entire muslim world. We should butt out and let them solve their own problems.

Re:hum (1)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839112)

No, but even in moderate Islamic nations, they won't consider non-muslims as friends but instead people they should educate and convince to give up their religion (or lack of religion) to join up with their 'better' religion. While that's far away from violence, it doesn't make them anti-violence. Ask most moderate or 'peaceful' Islamists how they feel about the Americans or Danes getting killed, and they'll typically have a look of satisfaction. I'd consider it an overwhelming majority that are not against violence, as long as it's perpetrated against non-muslims.

Lets be clear about something. Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence.

Re:hum (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839144)

Christianity 2.0 - a recent revision and in need of far too many bug fixes.

Re:hum (2, Informative)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839240)

Time out there dude. Lets be clear about something. Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence.


Got any stats to back that up, or are you just pulling opinions out of your ass?

Here's a suvey of "moderate", American muslims [muslimsfor...merica.org] . If these are the opinions held by Muslims who have lived in, and, theoretically, been further liberalized by exposure to our society, how do you think the rest of the Muslim world would answer these questions?

Re:hum (2, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839114)

Until the formation of the Nation of Israel, the Jews weren't in any position to engage in the listed activities. Now...now they use a *real* army. And instead of terrorists, they have an intelligence service.
The christians haven't been so limited. But they still prefer to use real armies and real intelligence services.

Do you think it's really about religion? It's US vs THEM. Any "us" you pick. It's not the power that corrupts, it's the immunity to consequences. Peer pressure helps. Riots used to be common after a high school team lost it's game. Now it's less so, as the local community is less supportive. (They've got professional teams to watch on TV.)

This violence *is* common in muslim countries, but not only muslim countries. It's probably related to polygamy, where the less successfully aggressive males are denied all access to women. (Look for an increase of this in China in the coming decades. Different reason, but the number of male children is far higher than the number of females.)

All THAT said, yes, the Koran explicitly encourages violence against the non-muslim. Read your bible. It does the same thing. Less so in the new testament, but the christians have, if anything, been more violent than the jews. This probably dates back to the christians out-competing the mithraists for dominance of the Roman Empire. Ever since then christians have had considerable conventional military power in their hands.

There is only one "religion" that has arguably decreased the amount of violence and that's Buddhism. Even there, it's dubious. One could argue that the violence just became secular. (OTOH, the various schools of hand-to-hand combat were developed because the secular authorities felt it necessary to prevent the Buddhist sects from forming their own armies, so they made it illegal for monks [or peasants] to carry weapons.)

Re:hum (1, Flamebait)

weorthe (666189) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839128)

Please post your list of terrorist attacks by Christians and Jews.

The destruction of the Canaanites
The Crusades
The Inquisition
The Portuguese slave trade
The "Discovery" of America and the Christianization of the "Indians"
The British/American slave trade
The Colonization of Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Orient
The Opium War
The "Lost Children" of Australia
The creation of Israel in the middle of Palestine

At least recently we have graduated to killing in the name of money instead of that other god.

Re:hum (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839140)

here is the list you requested: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html [blogspot.com] Please list a thousand islam has killed for every 1 on that list. I look foward to it.

Re:hum (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839226)

also in terms of how many christians have killed, you guys are just as bad, if not worse than islam. crazy witch hunts, crusades, and intolerance for religion. its funny you call islam the religion of hate when it was islam that tolerated multiple relgions within the empires they conquered. the christians wouldnt tolerate it. lets not forget its the same god they worship.... the best religion is keeping your personal beliefs to yourself and respecting others for theirs. but all these world relgions are so wrapped up with promotional dogma and intolerance that it creates war, murder, and they even justify it with god (just like they did with Jim Crow Laws).

Re:hum (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839156)

You are what is known as a troll. Again, the vast majority of muslims don't agree with what one sect of the religion believes in.

The fact that the mods are moderating your comment up despite the rather bigoted analysis you just presented ("religion of hate") shows the state of fear around the world thanks to people who commit these outrageous attacks and the people who propagate fear (you) in order to profit from the attacks.

I'm personally not committed to any particular religion myself; the Abrahamic religions have the same focus, so why should I follow one and exclude the rest?

Re:hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839220)

So, Terrorist attacks by Christians and Jews? Where do we start?
At the Beginning when the domestic Israelites bring a godly plague upon egypt killing the to kill every firstborn child?
Or perhaps some more modern examples? Just because they haven't (thank goodness) been very successful dose not mean they don't exist..
wikipedia ofc has many
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier [wikipedia.org]

Re:hum (2, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839120)

You hit the nail on the head. This guy is flamebaiting. And everybody who bites is making things a bigger deal than they actually are.

Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people take him seriously, politically. It's one thing to want to get attention for important issues. It's quite another thing to make an issue where there hardly was one and act like a total ass just to get attention. This guy is a troll, and, fortunately, more and more people are seeing that.

Re:hum (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839164)

See, I wouldn't have a problem with his 15 minute film if he pointed out the same problems (which definitely do exist!) in the other two major Abrahamic religions. However, he doesn't. He's flamebaiting people who are as protective of their religion as American Evangelicals are of theirs.
Oh really? How many riots were started over Piss Christ [wikipedia.org] ? How many buildings destroyed, and how many people killed?

I'm not religious in the least, BTW, but this moral equivalence bullshit has got to go. Even the worst Christian organizations on this planet are not as violent or radical as "moderate" Muslims.

On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (4, Funny)

gozu (541069) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838762)

Hi, I don't give a fuck about some dutch movie. Now, back to the..uh..musliming.

Re:On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22838902)

Good for you, but the remaining 5% is a hell of a lot of pissed off Muslims.

Re:On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (1)

renoX (11677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838956)

Of course, but the issue is with the 5% remaining and the way the silent majority treats them.

I would like more criticism of those who answer to drawings or writings with death threats or violance from the 'remaining 95%'.

Also there's more than 95% of muslim which live in countries where 'muslim laws' applies and let's say that those law are not very tolerant.. So unfortunately, it isn't only a case of the 5% wackos..

On behalf of 95% of Dutch people everywhere: (1)

ABoerma (941672) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839040)

Neither do we.

Re:On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (2, Insightful)

sigzero (914876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839080)

So where is the 95% condemning suicide bombings? -- No where

So where is the 95% condemning the killing of innocents? -- No where

So where it the 95% condemning all the crap that happened after the publication of cartoons? -- No where

Re:On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839106)

So why aren't you viciously criticizing the violent 5%? They need to hear it from you, a fellow muslim, because they definitely won't listen to the voice of reason from any non-muslim. The silence (or in your case, apparently apathy) of the muslim majority is deafening, and that's a huge part of the problem.

Religion of peace (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22838764)

Do we even need to see the movie to learn anything about Muslims? As far as I'm concerned these actions speak for themselves.

My only concern is that Network Solutions is so quick to censor their customers over something so trifling as an (anti-) religious statement. I have kept my domains at NSI for over a decade just because I was too lazy to move them to a better registrar, but in light of this they are losing my business immediately.

PS Please don't think I have anything against Islam exclusively. I was raised as Catholic, and I find that religion for more reprehensible. It's not that I'm anti-religion per se... I am merely anti war-mongering, fear-mongering, child molesting, brain washing, suicide bombing, etc.

Re:Religion of peace (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839116)

Please don't think I have anything against Islam exclusively. I was raised as Catholic, and I find that religion for more reprehensible. It's not that I'm anti-religion per se... I am merely anti war-mongering, fear-mongering, child molesting, brain washing, suicide bombing, etc.

My parents are ex-Catholic. Fortunately their awakening came long before I was born.

Seriously though, you don't need to have any of the attributes you mention to move your domains from NetSol. I also have some domains there, and will be moving them (for this and other reasons.) Me, I'm anti-censorship, which is in itself sufficient reason to move away from a registrar that believes it has any right to turn off Web sites in other countries without some semblance of due process. Once they start taking sides like this (and they are, whether they want to admit it or not) it's time to find someone with more respect for the Domain Name System, and freedom of information in general.

Can anyone recommend a decent registrar? I don't want one that claims ownership of my domains and will hold them hostage.

MP? (1)

tulcod (1056476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838766)

MP as in prime minister? Luckily Geert Wilders isn't our prime minister!

Re:MP? (1)

Daar (850963) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838802)

No, as in Member of Parliament.

Re:MP? (1)

tulcod (1056476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838824)

oh, like that. see, in the netherlands, we (well, actually primarily the prime minister himself) often abbreviate prime minister ("minister president" in dutch) as MP. so that's why i wondered.

Rule #1: Insult Islam under pain of Death! (-1, Troll)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838772)

Rule #2: Everyone must convert to the religion of peace.

Here's the BBC article (4, Informative)

26199 (577806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838786)

Nothing much interesting [bbc.co.uk] but if you follow one of the 'see also' links there's an old video interview [bbc.co.uk] where he talks about his views on Islam.

Do you think they would do this to ANY other... (2, Insightful)

Agent__Smith (168715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838794)

reilgion>?

Christians and Jews make convenient targets. Hindu and Buddhist would too. It is only the Islam religion that gets these kinds of consessions. Thats because they respond unreasonably and brutally.

Nice going you cowardly asshats.

Serious Question: (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838814)

If we replaced all instances of the word "Islam" with "Scientology", what would your reaction be?

Now replace the same word with "Catholicism". Then "Buddhism". Then "Liberalism". Then Conservatism"...

Censorship over mere ideals? Sucks no matter what angle you view it from.

/P

Re:Serious Question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22838878)

Try replacing it with Jews :p

PS. I'm Dutch, I think Wilders should be able to show his movie (in a I might not agree with what you're saying, but I'll still defend your right to say it kind of way) and I think the guy's an ass. And this is coming from a fairly right-wing kinda guy.

Not Surprising From NetSol (2, Informative)

Sterrance (1257342) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838906)

This is not surprising coming from NetSol. NetSol will shut down hosting and even lock down domain names if enough pressure is put on it, without anything even resembling a court order to do so. Anyone holding Internet property through NetSol that is even remotely controversial or that is threatened by hostile entities seeking to shut it down should move expeditiously to a different host and registrar.

Re:Not Surprising From NetSol (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839086)

NetSol exists because they were picked by the US Departmnet of Commerce to run the DNS system when there was a need for somebody to manage .com, .net, and .org and for a while they got to charge high prices thanks to that monopoly. Deregulation allowed there to be market competition for domain name rights and bundling of related services, but NetSol still controls the master database and gets a piece out of every domain name sold at the wholesale level.

So, NetSol lives a life where it has to do whatever is politically popular at the moment. If they don't, they easily could be stripped of their main asset, it's simply a license to operate a there-must-be-exactly-one service that can be given to somebody else.

Re:Not Surprising From NetSol (1)

Sterrance (1257342) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839206)

Are you entirely sure that NetSol still maintains the master database and gets a piece of ever domain name sold? I don't know if there's anything special about NetSol at this point. Yes, it was a monopoly at one point certainly. But if it were getting a piece of every domain name sold, I'd expect to see such a fee when purchasing a domain; the only fee I see is a small ICANN fee. I think you may be confusing NetSol with ICANN. If NetSol still had any real power over anything other than its customers, it would not have been purchased and then spit out by VeriSign. In any case, one is afforded greater protection by registering with almost any other major registrar. Godaddy, for example, has gotten some negative press over a few calls it has made, but it's a far superior choice to NetSol.

Back to the Nazis (1)

GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838926)

If the Netherlands falls to intolerant predjudiced bastards, can Canada 'un-liberate' them, and give them back to the intolerant predjudiced bastard Nazis we saved them from?

Re:Back to the Nazis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22838994)

Canada will not be in a position to do anything for the Netherlands when Canada is also a majority muslim country. Stupid, smug Canadian. Don't think your dumbocracy is going to save you. The first election where they have the upper hand is going to install an ayatollah and there will be no more elections after that.

Re:Back to the Nazis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839186)

That was an utterly confusing question from an European perspective.

This is not censorship (1)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838948)

This is not censorship because Network Solutions is a private company that can choose what content it wants to serve. If the government banned the film from production or release, then that could arguably called censorship. It is ironic that the people crying censorship in the name of freedom want to take away Network Solution's freedom to choose what it serves on its machines.

Yes it is. (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839042)

Read a fucking dictionary. This is absolutely censorship. What you meant to say is that this isn't a Constitutional Free Speech issue.

Re:Yes it is. (1)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839244)

No, it's not. And don't tell me what I mean to say, motherfucker. :)

Sounds like a case for... (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838950)

nearlyfreespeech.net

Freedom of speech... (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838954)

... also means that people with different views can voice their opinion.

I don't like Wilders at all (he's on the same level as Jack Thompson), but NetSol's action is retarded, I hope Wilders will be able to stir up some trouble for NetSol.
Then again, why did Wilder host the same at NetSol in the first place? Wouldn't XS4ALL be a better place, at least they care about things like freedom of speech.

Re:Freedom of speech... (1)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839100)

Maybe he hoped this would happen. If you are making an anti-religious film, or selling anything remotely anti-religious, then the best thing that can happen to you is a bunch of crazy religious dudes kicking up a fuss about it. You get immediate sympathy from just about everyone else, plus lots of media attention, and it almost certainly proves whatever point you were trying to make. And since Wilders' point is "Islam is a bad thing for freedom", being forced offline by Muslims is great news for him. "It's the film they tried to ban!"

He'll be back on a different ISP soon enough. Conspiracy theorists might like to ask if Wilders could have forced himself offline, then blamed it on the Muslims...

Re:Freedom of speech... (1)

ecotax (303198) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839224)

If he would like to make a point about freedom of speech, the best thing he could do now is *not* publish his film, and point at all the fuss already made about a film that nobody has even seen yet.

But, since he is most likely more interested in trolling, I think will just go ahead. Which, indeed, is his right to do - assuming his film stays within the boundaries of the law..

So, does anyone know what would happen if (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22838962)

Someone made a film that consists entirely of Muslims protesting violently to stupid shit all over the planet? I'd say 15-20 minutes of film showing nothing but angry violent Muslims protesting stupid shit should be enough to paint them as stupid, to the point that anytime they protest anything the entirety of the rest of the world would laugh at them.

Seriously, not all Muslims are violent. Not all Muslims protest everyone else that does anything anywhere in the world that does not affect them. This whole 'insult to Islam' business is as out of control as political correctness in the US. We should start hanging signs up everywhere that state "Sharia Law not legal here" ()

The non-Muslim part of the world should be posting that loudly and proudly... to the point that ordinary Muslim peoples are ASHAMED of their violent militant Muslim friends. When other Muslims tell them to STFU and sit down perhaps the rest of us can stop worrying about stepping on the toes of Muhammed, prophet or otherwise.

No, I do not for an instant believe that Christians or Jews are any better. All the BS about Mr Gibson's movie was stupid. The crap about The Davinci Code was idiotic. The bruhaha about 'The last temptation of Christ' was ignorant. All of these religious groups that are claiming sacred right to this and that and feel they are being insulted actually need to adhere to the words in their books. Oh, but that's the problem... they think they are. Well, for all their 'righteousness' the have surely fucked this planet up.

If you feel insulted, take it as a reason to ponder for a few moments how well you live your religious beliefs. If you think I left your religion out SMACK!! You too can go ponder your religious beliefs. If when you are finished you still find that you are right to be intolerant of other people's belief systems I have a friend with a gun store and plenty of single use bullets. Use these to massage your temples and all will begin to get better in the world.

Personally I'd like to see more people making fun of ALL religions. ALL of them. If your god is almighty and doesn't want anyone to make fun of them, or tell jokes about them, or in some way portray them in ways that you don't like... well, then I suggest your god come right on down here to little old Earth and tell me about it in PERSON. I will not accept the likeness of his mother on a piece of burnt toast or a water stained wall as a sign. I will not accept that a human prophet speaks for an ALL POWERFUL god. If your god does not want me to draw cartoons or make films, he can come down and explain it in PERSON.

Perhaps that is the problem? god doesn't come down and explain things in person so when there is a challenge to god's authority religious zealots have to act before someone points out that there god is not much good at protecting his image, never mind the feeble lives of his followers?

If that makes you wonder about god... good. I do not want to believe in anything or entity whose supporters are so violent, militant, dogmatic, ignorant, disrespectful, hateful and ... well downright antisocial. As such I have less than zero respect for the god of a group of people that want to kill anyone that disagrees with them.

Yes, I know that only a small group of people hijack religion to server their militant causes. My point is that others of whatever faith should be rising up to stop such people from ruining their otherwise good intentions.

Final point is that when good people let bad people ruin their faith and do nothing to stop it, it denigrates all of them. Where are those Muslims that renounce violence? Where are the Muslims that renounce suicide bombings? Why did the Iranian vigils after 9/11 get no real news airplay?

Thanks to all the high profile religious people in the world, Atheism is the fastest growing set of beliefs in the Western World, if I can say it that way.

Re:So, does anyone know what would happen if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839066)

"No, I do not for an instant believe that Christians or Jews are any better."

I assume your criteria does not include 'number of critics killed' or 'amount of death threats sent'.

Re:So, does anyone know what would happen if (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839170)

And I assume your criteria (which is plural, btw) do not include anything that happened "in gods name" before 1990, or anything that happens to this day in Israel?

Re:So, does anyone know what would happen if (0, Flamebait)

sigzero (914876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839134)

And who are you that God should talk to you because you demand it? Nobody. You are nobody. You post just makes you look arrogant and idiotic.

If someone makes a movie (or cartoon or whatever) that speaks against your religion you have every right to let them know that sucks. Unfortunately in some religions like Islam, making fun of the prophet is a big no no and they will kill you for it. However, they should target that person and not destroy wantonly like the last stupid moronic muslim outbreak after the cartoon fiasco.

Re:So, does anyone know what would happen if (1)

josh_db (1082509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839196)

Mod parent up! I would mod you up myself if I had the points... I totally agree with you, albeit I've come to the same conclusion from a different path.

The problem today is that even if a god(s) existed, there are very few people shouting out to the heavens for real, personal, undeniable proof.

I wish for the same thing as you - that a lot more people make fun of every major religion. I wish that everyone would take some serious time to sit down and ask themselves "Why the hell should I follow this being in the sky? Does He/She/It even exist? Even if He/She/It does, is He/She/It worthy of following?" People are dogmatic over their god's words when their god didn't even tell it to them face to face. It's a "he said, she said" predicament of grand proportions, and is hurting everyone on this planet.

I'm speaking as a Christian here... Please, for the love of God, question Him. Don't follow Him until He shows up to you with something undeniably miraculous that you can point to for the rest of your life. Call and shout out to Heaven for something that is irrevocable proof to you and you'll get it... I did. All throughout my Bible it tells of God showing up face to face with people and talking directly to them, so don't settle for any less. I wish nobody settled for any less.

Don't stop until your god comes right on down here to little old Earth and tells you about it in PERSON.

Butt ugly guy (1)

justleavealonemmmkay (1207142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839002)

Let him show his film, but please force him to stop bleaching his hair, and going to Milosevic's and Eltsine's hairdresser.

It's a good thing they censored... (1)

zoltamatron (841204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839046)

...because if they hadn't then I never would've heard of this movie.

Nothing like censorship to bring a lot of attention to something.....

Dutch Censorship? Contradiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839158)

The Dutch have always taken pride in being liberal, open-minded and against censorship. Recently, they've completely changed it would seem. Free speech is no longer allowed all of a sudden, the government spies on the citizens, and economic interests are more important than freedom. Go fucking figure.

Fuck religion. Seriously. Fuck it. Religious fuckers should be fucking shot on fucking sight. Fuck you.

april 1st (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839216)

so far, for the last few months, MP Geert Wilders has said that he will post his movie Fitna on the internet. It is supposed to be anti-islamic, but no one knows for sure what's in it except himself.

I have a distinct feeling that we're all being misled in the sense that mr Wilders wants to show us what the public outcry would be. There have been rallies organised against the showing of the movie, puppets with his likeness have been burned, death threats, hack attacks, and now the ISP of his website is positioning itself in the arena of Christians against Muslims.

There probably even isn't a movie made. April 1st coming up, his release date? And he has shown us already that the West is terrified of the Islamic masses. Pah, hubbub over nothing. There are enough other movies out there mongering post-911 fear, you don't have to wait for Fitna.

US: Hizbolla - yes, Wilders - no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839222)

US: Hizbolla - yes, Wilders - no

Network Solutions hosts Hizbolla !!!

US: Hizbolla - yes, Wilders - no: "Fitna fatigue or not, when you see something like this, how can you not blog?

Network Solutions, a US company, is the host for hizbolla.org
view whois.

Until a couple of days ago they also hosted a mostly empty page for Dutch politician and movie maker hopeful Geert Wilders, announcing his upcoming movie will be out soon.' However, now the site is down, while Network Solutions investigates whether this blank page is in violation of acceptable policy.' Maybe you must be a registered terror group in order to host by them?' Klein Verzet brings ways to contact them and complain.

There are rumors Google is also banning the site.' Though I find that hard to believe, even a search for fitnathemovie.com doesnt bring up the site.'

Wilders is facing a court case this Friday by the Dutch Islamic Federation, asking to ban the publication of his yet non-existent film.' He is considering putting it out beforehand, though he says hes not fully ready yet.

The Dutch Muslim Broadcaster is meanwhile the only public broadcaster in the Netherlands who is considering showing the film, with a debate afterwards.

Among the non-Wilders Fitna sites now proliferating, Radio Netherlands put out a site titled About Fitna the Movie, where you can see and hear how tolerant the Netherlands is in English, Arabic and Indonesian.' Wilders is such a tough cookie.. the rule of law applies to everybody, and so you cant stop Wilders until he actually does something.' But, since Wilders wants to treat immigrants differently, hes not democratic.' A very shallow film, apparently addressed to Muslims who are not expected to understand democracy or freedom of speech.

http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/us-hizbolla-yes-wilders-no/ [wordpress.com]

Fuck NetSol anyway (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#22839228)

I'm getting sick of registrars acting as the morality police.

Personally, I think this one stupid move has given the anti-Islam film a ton of free publicity. I'll be snatching it off the Pirate Bay the minute it's released by the producer, and you can bet your bible I'll be seeding the everloving crap out of it. I don't care whether something is right or wrong, in all likelihood this movie will be a steaming pile of racist filth like its creator, but the point is: censorship is even worse than racism in my opinion.

Quick FAQ on Wilders, the Movie, the site, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22839246)

( apologies for the poor formatting thanks to Slashdot's 'junk character' and 'too few characters per line' filters) )

Wilders:

Q. Is Wilders an idiot? A. something of a, yes. He incites reactions from colleagues and the public for the sake of inciting reactions, without making a clear point. A tactic not entirely uncommon in politics in general.

Q. Is Wilders speaking on behalf of all Dutch? A. No, although he does have his share of sympathizers.

Q. Is Wilders speaking on behalf of the Dutch government? A. No

Q. Is Wilders releasing this movie in the function of a 'minister' as part of the Dutch government? A. No.

Q. In what capacity would Wilders be releasing it? A. In the capacity of a private individual

Q. Is that how the Dutch see it? A. Mostly, yes.

Q. Is that how, say, Islamists see it? A. Mostly, no.

Q. Didn't Wilders say that the Danish PM was a great man for standing for freedom of speech? A. Yes.

Q. And didn't the Danish PM reject Wilders' support, stating that freedom of speech is a great good, but that Wilders' speech crosses boundaries in unacceptable ways? A. Yes.

Movie :
Q. Has the movie been released yet? A. No.

Q. So everybody is up in a tiff about something that has not been released yet A. Yes and No.

Q. What do you mean? A. Although most people are up in a tiff about the movie he's about to release which nobody has seen yet, several are actually up in a tiff about the fact that Wilders has, among other, equated the Koran (Qu'ran/etc.) with Mein Kampf.

Q. Godwin! A. Yep.

Q. I hear the movie will have ..., is it true? A. Nobody beside Wilders, as far as we know, has seen it.

Q. Could it all be an elaborate hoax? A. Maybe, but this is doubtful.

Q. Can't the government ban the movie from being shown? A. No, as the content of the movie is unknown.

Q. Isn't a muslim interest group suing to have the movie rated by experts to see if it does actually violate laws regarding inciting hatred, etc. A. Yes.

Q. Must Wilders wait for this to come before the court before releasing? A. No

Q. Will he release before this comes before the court? A. He may or he may not - he has not responded to such inquiries.

Consequences :

Q. Do the Dutch fear retribution after the release of the movie? A. Some do, yes - akin to the type of retributions to Denmark after the cartoon affair (economical, import retributions, possibly attacks on Dutch living abroad), although some fear actual attacks on Dutch soil as well.

Q. Wouldn't it be best if Wilders did not release the movie, given the tensions? A1. Yes - it might ease unrest A2. No - it would mean a serious blow to freedom of speech and would make those who have opposed the release of the movie (again, without knowing its content) and threatened with action feel like they have won. The 'those' referred to are not the type you want to give such impressions. In addition, although it *might* ease unrest, given that the unrest itself is based wholly on unknowns, there is no guarantee that this unrest -will- ease if the movie is not released at all.

Q. How is the Dutch government dealing with this? A1. The Prime Minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende, has stated in no uncertain terms that Wilders is indeed free to release his movie, but that Wilders should think long and hard about the possible consequences. A2. The Prime Minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende, has been meeting with foreign heads of state in search for support in case reactions are indeed of the type that Denmark faced in the cartoons affair, or even beyond.

Q. Which states have pledged to stand by The Netherlands if it does all go awry? A. Only known at this time: France.

Q. What sort of assistance can The Netherlands expect? A. It is generally accepted that The Netherlands would mostly enjoy diplomatic support. Other support follows from EU regulations, if necessary.

The site and Network Solutions:
Q. Why did NetSol dump the site? A. Unknown.

Q. Did the site have the movie online? A. No - as stated before, the movie is as of yet unreleased.

Q. What did the site have? A1. A picture of possibly a Koran cover, the title "FITNA" and a supposed release date. A2. Alternative sites exist, such as http://www.fitnathemovie.co.uk/ [fitnathemovie.co.uk]

Q. Hey, that site says it was an April Fools joke! A. It does, but the site has been hacked before and it would not be surprising if the message left there at this time was left by a hacker.

Q. The message has a point, though - a lot of hubbub over a movie that hasn't been released or even seen? A. Correct, and this will be a point of discussion regardless of whether the movie exists or not, and will be released or not.

Q. Is this in itself a violation of the NetSol TOS? A. No.

Q. What might be, then? A. This is a complex matter pertaining to Dutch law; at stake is whether or not the very existence of the site is encouraging people to become aggressive (aanzetten tot haat). At a glance one would say, and common sense says: no. However, it is a complex matter that is currently being looked into.

Q. Didn't NetSol pledge to keep the site up no matter what? A. No - NetSol stated that they always keep in mind the possibility of attacks, including DDoS attacks, and that they are fully prepared to deal with those as they see fit.

Q. Meaning? A1. Meaning that if there are other reasons to take it down - they can. A2. Meaning that if the best way they see fit as to deal with it is to shut it down, they will.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?