UTMC

Why is this film more offensive than any other "anti-muslim" material that is posted all over the internet? Do a search at Google, Youtube...you'll find material all over the place. The White House called on Google to yank it. If this film is going blocked...block it all! I mean that! Some of those who supported Draw Muhammad day are cowering, they aren't shouting free speech with regards to this. If you are going to stand behind that cause, why not this? Fucking hypocrites...go ahead, bury your heads in the sand and hope for the best. Allow others elsewhere in the world to (indirectly) dictate what freedoms we have here in the U.S.

Because the US gubmint covertly supported the production and distribution of this film, and now they are overtly trying to shut it down since they have made their point about the continuing threat of Islamic radicals.

A handfull of idiot american radicals made a stupid film to make you believe that all muslims are a threat (with the help of the media of course), and a handfull of idiot muslim radicals made stupid demonstrations to make the other muslims believe that all americans are idiot radicals, with the help of the same media. nothing new.

This is different from the cartoons because it was made with the intention of provoking exactly the sort of violent reactions we now see. The cartoons had, largely, valid artistic intention and, although they were intended to provoke, they weren't intended and designed to provoke this sort of thing.

Right now, over here, we got a lot of debate whether to allow hard-rightwingers (those who go after the neo-nazi vote) to show it publicly. Some modernist muslim groups actually oppose prohibiting it. The law, on the other hand, makes it illegal to publish material which rallies hate against specific religious groups. Not mockery, just actual hate material. Same goes for specific ethnic groups, btw. The courts will decide this one.

Personally, I think censorship, as a whole, is bad, bad, bad. But some stuff is just as bad as calling to murder people of religion x, so it should be just as illegal. A thin, fragile line the courts gotta tread here, but I've got 6 million reasons why, in my country, for my people, freedom must have a limit there. You can still spout a lot of racist stuff, and the catholic church gets as much flak as anywhere for the kiddy fiddling, just for example, so it's not like muzzling just any criticism.

Personally, as pertains to this crisis, I think the US government should go and find a few prominent muslims who understand the difference between US citizens and the US government and can explain that to their brothers who have never ever lived in a society where a publication didn't have to have a govt. seal of approval. Maybe make a few videos, bomb all video hosting sites with these, and commercials on TV in the countries in question.
Also, Lybia now owes the US big time. BIG time. Murdering an ambassador is a big doo doo on the world stage.
If Obama plays his cards right, he can present the US voters with a new ally in the muslim world and a new trade deal that brings cheap oil just in time for the election. Considering how competent Romney is behaving, the right wing bastards that made that video may have given Obama the election on a silver platter. If the White House plays these cards right.

DerGolgo wrote: Personally, I think censorship, as a whole, is bad, bad, bad.

No arguments here. With you 100%!

I've already had it out with a bunch of r/w nutjobs over this. My point; just because you can doesn't mean you should. Their point, tough shit you fucking dirty arab socialist fuckstick.

So yeah.

Seriously though, I think it's bullshit that the guy who did it masqueraded as an Israeli Jew, when he's actually a coptic christian. Then once he got four people killed he hid behind the flag.
I say he should be deported to israel where they can kick his coptic christian ass.
Then turn him over to the Egyptians.

I saw this fourteen minute turd, and it was an amazingly awful batch of antagonism. Others have noted that all the religious references were overdubbed, implying that the actors were unaware of the intended trolling.

The analysis I've heard is that people in other states do not understand freedom of speech, and assume either that the US is a lawless land of blasphemy or that our government approves of this message. And in a way, they're right.

Another interesting point is that YouTube, an entity of heavy-handed censorship, both keeps the video up and fails to openly acknowledge that it's getting bazillions of views.

Whatever to all of this.

People need to grow the fuck up and learn about dialog and impulse control instead of not start reaching for their guns and Molotovs every time their fairy tale of choice is offended.

This world would be a much better place if every Muslim, Christian, Jewish whatever religious nutjob had their way and could fight eachother out in their own rapturous final battle. Put them in the middle of the Sahara--fence the place off. Give everyone their own shotgun with 10 shells, 10 gallons of water and a snack of their choice. Rolll the cameras and let them go, then see how quickly the global IQ rises by the second.

I'm sick of all these demented religious idiots--this Coptic shyster and every other nut who fell into his trap. Grow a brain and learn how to use it, people.

Two fucking words.

Salman Rushdie.

Whether you like Salman Rushdie or not, you can't argue with the fact that he is a serious artist who should have the right to express himself freely as such. The man has been in hiding for decades now and just had another 1/2 million dollars tacked on to his bounty.

It is really easy to criticize asshats who post imflamatory shit on youtube. Frankly, I have no problems with people in positions of power saying they don't like it. I have no problem with politicians saying "trying to incite violence is wrong." What I have a big fucking problem with, are government officials saying "offending people's religious views is wrong." Offending people's religious views is very much a part of free expression and should be universal.

btw - this was brilliant: http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one ... age,29553/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should be. But it isn't.
So when Mister Smartass goes and intentionally pisses off the Muslim world with a shitty video, and people--our people--get killed, can you still say, "well, um, it should be universally protected." Fact is, it isn't.

I'm not a religious person. But I know what pisses people off. When one of my sons aggravates the other into action, I punish the instigator. Simple stuff. World politics doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Poor, ignorant bastards all over the world are kept poor and ignorant so that they can be led around by the nose and whipped into a frenzy whenever their owners like. I call bullshit on the whole thing.
And, at risk of sounding like a conspiracy kook. Didn't the Mujahadeen used to be our friends when the evil commies were over there? And after the whole commie thing fell apart didn't a whole bunch of white guys in middle America start to think the the real enemy was our own government? And didn't the Mujahadeen then become the Taliban, or Al Quaida or something?
I know it's all probably way more involved than that, but sometimes I just start thinking about this stuff and my brain starts to hurt.

Sisyphus wrote:Should be. But it isn't.
So when Mister Smartass goes and intentionally pisses off the Muslim world with a shitty video, and people--our people--get killed, can you still say, "well, um, it should be universally protected." Fact is, it isn't.

I'm not a religious person. But I know what pisses people off. When one of my sons aggravates the other into action, I punish the instigator. Simple stuff. World politics doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

So should we create a panel that decides what is okay and what isn't?

Perhaps they can decide which rappers are allowed to use the N word? Perhaps they can decide what is porn, and what is erotica?

Having the right to do something doesn't mean it should be done. Having the right to do something doesn't negate responsibility for one's own actions. Yes, the bastards that made that video had the right to do it. But they did it not just to express their opinions, but with the direct, clear and admitted intention of causing violence. No excuse for the Islamist fucktards, but if you tell someone to go commit a crime, whether you tell them personally or through mass media, you are an instigator and hence fucking liable. I doubt the US authorities will, or even can, go after these "filmmakers", but I do hope that the families of the dead embassy staff sue them to the fucking grave and then another six feet.

See, as soon as I left it, I just KNEW it was going to go in this direction. But since you asked, let's explore it for a bit.
The US is the only place in the world where you cannot be restricted in your speech, with a few exceptions. Terroristic threats or threatening violence, probably one and the same, or speaking with the intent of inciting violence (the old, "fire in a crowded theater" argument.)

The basis behind that speech not being protected is the time and the place. The time of inflammatory speech not being immediate, and the place not being in close proximity (the so-called movie showed up months ago IIRC, and the resultant violence was halfway around the world), the speech can arguably be protected under the first amendment. Had someone gone to a predominately black or hispanic or asian ghetto and started shouting obscenities and racial slurs in the middle of a hot July evening, and the resultant ass-beating and riot that happened and so on was blamed on the instigator, that speech would not be protected via the "theater" argument.

However, it should be noted that the modern era of information sharing has made the world smaller and much more immediate. Just ask our dead embassador.

It's not legal to do what this guy did in lots of countries in Europe either; in Germany and other countries holocaust denial is a crime.

That we place a higher cultural value on individual freedoms does not excuse us from acting as responsible world citizens and granting equal respect to other people's cultural icons. Is intentionally disrespecting another person's creed a shining example of freedom? I would think not.

France has banned any protests over cartoons being published there. I totally understand that they are dong so to prevent any potential violence. On the flip side, the right to protest over this is being quashed. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Story on France:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-19/worl ... rlie-hebdo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is an interesting and thought-provoking discussion.

In general, I strongly believe in the value of true “free speech.” This place (the UTMC) is one of the few true havens of free speech I know of, and I am very, very fond of it.
That said, the whole “don’t incite the Muslims” argument is awkward... and by “awkward” I mean “totally fucking unpalatable.”

On the one hand, it’s quite clear that many Muslims take the whole “do not depict Mohamed” thing very seriously, and that affronts to Islam are extremely upsetting. I get that. It’s also pretty clear that many of the aforementioned Muslims don’t have much problem using violence to make their point. Deliberately pissing these people off is tantamount to putting a match to kindling.

On the other hand, goddamnit, it’s free speech, and if I have to put up with Fred Phelps et al, I don’t see why the Muslims should get special treatment.

It is philosophically intolerable to me for anyone – particularly here in the US where we claim to value free speech – to have to silence themselves when they are pointing out what they truly believe is “wrong” or “incorrect” or “evil.” Sometimes (often) those folks are nutjobs, but sometimes they are speaking wisdom and truth.

There’s little doubt as to why the Angry Muslim Horde (AMH) dislikes us (the West, but America in particular). Aside from the obvious religious issues, we’ve bombed the shit out of predominantly Muslim countries for decades now. We have asshat public figures ranging from clergy to politicians who are directly and openly slagging Muslims. We have used politics and dirty tricks to manipulate their leadership to our advantage. I’m not proud of these things, and I believe we (the West, and America in particular) need to take a hard look at how we deal with the rest of the world. The concept of “American Exceptionalism” needs to go away immediately lest we fuck up not just the rest of the world but ourselves as well.

All that said… my message to the AMH is this: TOUGH SHIT. You don’t like us? Fine, but don’t expect us to bow to your desires. We (America) are not bound by the rules of Islam, or any other religion (contrary to what some may say and think). We are Constitutionally and socially bound to be fair and equal, but we are not required to self-edit to satisfy the demands of another person’s religion. Appeasement of such violent ignorance must not be tolerated.

If you don’t like that, fine, but the use of violence to try to enforce your beliefs only undermines your moral/ethical stance, and hardens the resolve of Westerners like me.

Furthermore, it makes you, Mr. AMH, look like an ignorant, self-absorbed asshole. If your sensibilities are that fragile – that you cannot abide the thought that someone disagrees with you or draws a picture you find offensive – then the problem lies on YOUR end. Want to bomb us because we’ve behaved like money-grubbing capitalist fuckers who drain your country dry, kill your citizens, and blow up not just your buildings but economy? Yeah, I can see where terrorist acts might be warranted out of self-preservation… but for a fucking YouTube video? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. You sound like a petulant 6-year-old. Grow up.

I do not wish ill on Muslims--or any other large group of people--so long as they leave me and mine the fuck alone. I expect the same courtesy. If certain people cannot live with that arrangement (e.g., radical Muslims who want to proselytize with the tip of a dagger) there is, indeed, a problem… but the problem isn’t mine.

Appeasement of such mentality only encourages it.

Sisyphus wrote:That we place a higher cultural value on individual freedoms does not excuse us from acting as responsible world citizens and granting equal respect to other people's cultural icons. Is intentionally disrespecting another person's creed a shining example of freedom? I would think not.

Yeah, but here's the diff: nobody is especially worried about the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or anybody else blowing up embassies. To wit:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one ... age,29553/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

… so if pretty much everybody else can fucking deal, so can the Muslims.

I think I agree with you that it is irresponsible to be deliberately antagonistic, but it is a RIGHT… just as it’s my right to call guys like Phelps or that idiot in Florida sorry-assed ignorant, hate-filled goatfuckers.

*Yankee being defined as native-born American.

--Jaeger

I basically agree with everything Jaeger says, but I think there needs to be an addendum.

True, Muslims of any color or flavor should just fucking deal with it.
But the situation is that they don't. That's the reality of it, the reality we must all deal with, that millions and millions of people the world over are willing to commit mayhem and murder over a fucking video with production values that would embarrass open access channels.
True, it is a right to criticize and mock any and all religions or other worldviews, and if that results in violent uproar, than that is what happens and we must deal with that, also.
But if that is done INTENTIONALLY, if the purpose of the publication is not to mock or criticize, but to provoke violence, than that is NOT free speech which must be protected and for which the violence and mayhem must be suffered. It's the difference between just regular traffic noise and riding through a residential area in the middle of the night with no muffler, again and again. It's not necessary in any way, it's just fucking malice. In this case, it's getting a political/religious message across written in the blood of the victims.
Instead of creating a dialog with the newly liberated muslim countries, shepherding them into the democracy they deserve but not yet comprehend, a wedge has been created, a wedge which helps no one.

DerGolgo wrote:But if that is done INTENTIONALLY, if the purpose of the publication is not to mock or criticize, but to provoke violence, than that is NOT free speech which must be protected and for which the violence and mayhem must be suffered. It's the difference between just regular traffic noise and riding through a residential area in the middle of the night with no muffler, again and again. It's not necessary in any way, it's just fucking malice. In this case, it's getting a political/religious message across written in the blood of the victims.
Instead of creating a dialog with the newly liberated muslim countries, shepherding them into the democracy they deserve but not yet comprehend, a wedge has been created, a wedge which helps no one.

Indeed, but legislating intent is a very, VERY slippery slope.

Since you're a Kraut Gen-Xer I wager you have a different view on some of this given Deutschland's anti-Holocaust-denial laws. Philosophically I'm opposed to such things, but as the husband of one Jew and father of another, I cannot help but see the value and reason behind such legislation. I have difficulty reconciling these truths, but I at least am aware of at least some level of my hypocrisy.

Let me ask you this: Do you, Golgo, believe that the anti-Holocaust-denial laws are good/useful/worthwhile? Do they interfere with your ability to express your opinions? (Not that I think you're a revisionist, but rather do you ever worry that what you say might be misconstrued or get you in trouble?)

--Jaeger

I do not feel that the anti-holocaust-denial laws interfere with my life in any way, except when I get angry at the people who break them.
I do not even feel that the other laws governing what may or may not be said interfere with my life or free expression, with a handful of exceptions.
Our constitution states, quite clearly, states that there is no censorship. With those actual words. And there isn't, unless I inform the authorities in advance that I intend to publish something that might be illegal and they hurry up and get an injunction, no one can stop me form publishing any idiotic shit I desire. I might get to enjoy striped sunlight after the fact, but no inspection happens before.

The laws making publishing certain things illegal (I can walk into a forest, with a group of friends even, and say almost anything, no problem, publishing in some manner, however, is another kettle of fish) are, of course, subject to interpretation.
It is, for example, illegal to call to violence. I know a guy who published a flyer for a protest march which had a cartoon on it, a popular cartoon figure in the leftist press, Emily, aiming a slingshot. This:
The district attorney considered it a call to violence, the court agreed. I think they were a bit harsh there, but then again they tend to err on the side of the political right, so for a bunch of lefties to give them a free-kick like this was a bit dumb. But the court case wasn't entirely without merit, it's a call to attend a protest march, a counter-protest to oppose a simultaneous Nazi march (they wanted to stop the building of the city's first synagogue since the war) and a young lady aiming a weapon is pictured. Not a good combination. Probably harmless, but only that, probably, after all, at such encounters of left-v-right over here, violence has not been unknown in the past. BTW, I was there, the Nazi fucks had many cops protecting them, who seriously didn't like to be there, talked to a few, nice bunch, and some dickhead from the ministry in charge who wouldn't stop the nazis from yelling just the slogans the courts had prohibited when they had to sue for their protest.

Things that are illegal to publish (including yelling them in public, where someone might act upon what they hear, unlike my friends in the forest) include calling to break the law (iffy, but not that bad, they never shut down all the dopehead rags despite the ongoing cannabis prohibition), calling to commit violence, calling to overthrow the constitution, rallying hatred against specific ethnic, cultural or religious groups.
These restrictions on our freedoms are good and necessary. We don't deserve the freedom to do these things, because of our history. We need these restrictions to remind us what we can do if we let such things drive the public debate.

A few more things are illegal to publish, such as injuring the honor of the Bundneswehr or of certain civil servants. Not entirely useless, and I've only ever heard of one case where such laws were enforced, there's plenty of honor injuring and just plain mockery and joking about these people and organizations going on, even on state owned TV and the like, and no one cares. I don't like these laws and think they serve the opposite effect of those mentioned in the previous paragraph, but since no one seems bothered to enforce them, they don't really interfere with my life, either.

DerGolgo wrote: That's the reality of it, the reality we must all deal with, that millions and millions of people the world over are willing to commit mayhem and murder over a fucking video with production values that would embarrass open access channels.

I'm sorry but this is an invention of the media. a few hundreds maybe, followed by a few thousands that don't even know what they are protesting against, but millions and millions of muslims are equally embarrassed by the imbecility of the christian movie and the reaction of the muslim radicals. Most of the reactions are caused by the frustration that occidental racism generated, it has nothing to do with a religious will to impose their faith, they're just tired of being considered as the lesser ones.
How many demonstrator in european cities? never more than 150 to 200 for what I heard.
I really think that consciously or unconsciously, the image of the muslim terrorist as the new fable figure of the bad guy has deformed our perspective on the situation. When some white guy commits a crime, we take measures to avoid crimes and we think that crimes are a problem, when an arab commits a crime, we think that arabs are a problem and we take measures against the arabs.

I don't think that humanity reached the level of evolution necessary to deserve the right to free speech. You offer them free speech now and what do you harvest ? "fuck your prophet" meets "kill your ambassador".

xtian wrote:

DerGolgo wrote: That's the reality of it, the reality we must all deal with, that millions and millions of people the world over are willing to commit mayhem and murder over a fucking video with production values that would embarrass open access channels.

I'm sorry but this is an invention of the media. a few hundreds maybe, followed by a few thousands that don't even know what they are protesting against, but millions and millions of muslims are equally embarrassed by the imbecility of the christian movie and the reaction of the muslim radicals. Most of the reactions are caused by the frustration that occidental racism generated, it has nothing to do with a religious will to impose their faith, they're just tired of being considered as the lesser ones.
How many demonstrator in european cities? never more than 150 to 200 for what I heard.
I really think that consciously or unconsciously, the image of the muslim terrorist as the new fable figure of the bad guy has deformed our perspective on the situation. When some white guy commits a crime, we take measures to avoid crimes and we think that crimes are a problem, when an arab commits a crime, we think that arabs are a problem and we take measures against the arabs.

I don't think that humanity reached the level of evolution necessary to deserve the right to free speech. You offer them free speech now and what do you harvest ? "fuck your prophet" meets "kill your ambassador".

You're right, I didn't think that one through properly. And even the few hundreds willing to do the violence probably don't give a heck about the video, it's just a convenient excuse.

ONe important point you're missing, Jaeger, is that the rights we consider self-evident, like free speech et al., don't mean jack to those people who don't have the same rights.

You can't hide behind our constitutional freedoms when it comes to international relations. We're free to piss each other off; it's in poor taste--and one could argue unwise and unsafe--to intentionally piss off radicals halfway around the world, who have the ear of the largest religion on earth.

The problem isn't just that they don't have these freedoms, in some of the affected countries they are now getting them/got them in the arab spring, if not formally at least effectively.
The problem is that, since the day these folks were born, every newspaper, radio, tv broadcast, every avenue of publishing they could access, was subject to government censorship. If it was in print, it was not just government approved, but actively approved. If it was published by a legitimate outlet of some form, it was the government line. That was their reality for the entire lives, and their parent's lives, and so forth. Like it is our reality that drinking alcohol gets you drunk and things tend to fall down when dropped, it's just how their world works, what their minds were molded to work around. They see this on a legitimate outlet, youtube, and as much as they might even have heard about freedom of speech, their gut-reaction, what their very base instincts tell them, is that it is government approved. Gotta be, right? So they hear there'll be a protest and off they go. Vicious assturds use any excuse to stir up trouble, and this one happens to work well enough, especially after the media in the concerned countries reported on it, a lot (the coptic dickheads that made it mailed it to all the tv stations and newspapers in those countries, I hear).
If all of that wasn't bad enough, think about Pakistan, where the government declared friday a national holiday so all may go and protest, reinforcing for the Pakistanis their reality of government controlled opinion.

Turn on the fucking news!!!
Just caught this on the radio:
In Libya, 30,000 people took to the streets to protest against Islamic radicalism, the violence and the militias that murdered the embassy people.
But rather than just protesting, they went one further and attacked two Salafist militia compounds, overrunning one of them armed with axes and machetes. People got dead, on the radical Islamist side this time.

Whatever is bringing these protest to violence, in Libya at least, can't just be the radical Islamic assholes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dear USA, we are very sorry about the bloodthirsty mob that killed your Ambassador, and wish to reassure you that we have convened a bloodthirsty mob to kill those responsible. Best Regards, Libya

A lot of people have been worried that the end result of the Arab spring would be radical Islamists replacing convenient dictators, like once upon a time in Iran, with the recent upheavals being symptomatic of religious radicalization.
It's nice to see the people of Libya have their own ideas.

Another perspective....

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-t ... ginary-god" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and another other perspective taken from a french article:
http://gawker.com/5943828/13-powerful-i ... uslim-rage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It came with a few facts, I cannot take the responsibility for their accuracy, but still

- an estimated 0.001 to 0.007% of the 1.5 billion muslims aroudn the world protested against the movie.
- Most of the demonstrations were pacifist, the attacks against foreign ambassadors were a plot from the salafist movements.
- Occidental and Lybian representative considered that the assassination could be linked to the 9-11 anniversary and thus would not be related to the movie.
- Outside Afghanistan and Libya, reported death linked to the movie on sept 20 : 0
- Most occidental and Muslims representative did condemn both movie and violences.
- After the attack of the american ambassy, population spontanuously gathered in the street to display excuses boards and attest that those violences do not reflect their identity or their religion.