Innocence of Islam film controversy.

[Rabbit_Fighter]

Another perspective....

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

WABAM!

That sums up most of what I was thinking way better than I could have (which one of us is a professional writer, eh?).

[Jaeger]

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.

I find this… troubling. I mean, yes, your logic is sound, but as a Yankee I find it distressing that someone I “know” and like not only must suffer restrictions that I don’t trust, but that you accept them and have grown accustomed to them. It’s a function of what assumptions one makes as a citizen and as a culture.

You (the Krauts) have a slightly more complicated history on that front, but you’re hardly unique in that perspective. Don’t believe me? Ask an American Injun… oh, wait, you can’t because we killed off most of them and herded the rest onto “reservations” where they can let their culture circle the drain. Most Americans do not recognize the injustice that was done to them – we’re too busy living on their land – and yet we don’t have any restrictions on speech about Injuns.

All that said, I appreciate your candor. It’s very interesting (though not surprising) that you view it that way. Again, given Germany’s history, I can see where a culture would say “we abso-fucking-lutely must prevent this happening ever again.” I respect that, even if the methods required for implementing it leave me a bit uncomfortable.

Hmmm.

And…

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

Yeah, these pretty well sum up my attitude and the reality of the situation: that antagonizing the West (and America in particular) will only harden our resolve. While Yankees may underestimate the brains and resourcefulness of the AMH, I suspect that the AMH underestimates the resolve of Yankees. To quote Japanese Admiral Hirohito following the bombing of Pearl Harbor: “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve.” He was very much right.

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.

Sure, but ultimately that’s not my problem – and I cannot let it be my problem lest I (and the rest of the West) be dragged into the same quagmire. That is the apologist mentality that says “oh, gosh, I’m sorry you don’t get to go to the circus because you don’t have a ticket, so I won’t go either in case you get angry and kill me.”

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.

Oh, but I can! In fact, that’s the very point of America and the American Constitution! What the fuck is the point of having fought for independence et al if we don’t get to exercise the freedoms for which we paid so dearly? Why the fuck do I pay taxes, for that matter, if the U.S. Government won’t stand up for my rights?

Your short-term logic is sound: “don’t pick a fight.” However, the long-term consequences of appeasement is that you don’t solve the problem. If the AMH wants a fight then so be it, I suppose, but it’s certainly not what I (or anybody with half a brain) would want. Anybody who deliberately seeks open war/conflict with a sovereign nation – ESPECIALLY America – is an idiot, or should expect to be on the receiving end of a great deal of Hate.

Pick a fight with the biggest kid on the playground, but don’t whine when he leaves you in a puddle of your own excretions, and for the love of fuck, don’t be surprised when the same thing happens every time!

What’s really needed is for Islam (or Islamic countries) to self-police. To wit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785
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

This, of course, is encouraging. More of this sort of thing will be much more effective in reigning in the religious wingnuts. It's certainly a sad state of affairs that it requires a bloodthirsty mob to drive the point home, but... well, that's the world in which we live. If the language of the discussion is going to be violence, sometimes the only way to respond is with violence.

It’s also an example of the “Louisville Slugger School of Social Reëducation”; i.e., vigilante justice that is ultimately more effective than either domestic policing or external enforcement (e.g., carpet bombing.)

Besides, I'm sure the Libyan people are very much aware that if America decides it's time to "fix" the problems in Libya due to the actions of a few hyper-religious fucktards they will get squashed in the process. They're not stupid.

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;

See, there needs to be more of that. It’s too easy to lump all the Muslims in the same group. The vast majority of Muslims are NOT the AMH – they’re just Average Joes (Average Ahmeds?) who want to live their lives and get on with it. I respect that and would love to do likewise.

There is little doubt that there’s an ultra-violent component of Islam; anyone who disagrees is either insane, stupid, or has been living in a cave for the past decade (which, ironically, many Afghanis apparently do!). Islam as a whole needs to self-assess and figure out how to bring itself into the 21st Century before their ill-behaved brethren get more innocent folks killed.

--Jaeger

[Zer0]

And now we read of the backlash in the events in Libya--counterprotests against the violent temper tantrums thrown by these narrow-minded manchildren. And the counterprotesters far outnumber the nutjobs.

Because of this video, the Libyans are being forced to reckon with their newfound freedoms, and all the messiness it brings.

Had we supressed the release of this vide3o, maybe the radicals would have had time to organize deeply, but now that they've exposed themselves now, maybe the Libyans have had a taste of religious fundamentalism, and want no part of it. Maybe this is the impetus the Libyans needed. Maybe.

[Rabbit_Fighter]

Regarding the Holocaust issue, I understand why Germany has those restrictions, but I think it is ultimately counter-productive. If something is true, why would a government need to threaten people with imprisonment for saying otherwise? If anything, that just feeds the conspiracy theorists paranoia.

What would you think if it became illegal in the United States to say that 9/11 was an inside job?

[DerGolgo]

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.

I find this… troubling. I mean, yes, your logic is sound, but as a Yankee I find it distressing that someone I “know” and like not only must suffer restrictions that I don’t trust, but that you accept them and have grown accustomed to them. It’s a function of what assumptions one makes as a citizen and as a culture.

They are restrictions, true, but never in my life have I personally run up against them. And there is plenty, plenty of legal hate literature around in which "dirty foreigners" and the like are derided and so forth.
As long as you don't point to a specific group for your hate speech, say a little bit more than "just hate them already!" and don't call for people to break the law, in violent ways in particular, it's all legal. You can actually get pretty specific even, ravings about "dangerous Islamists" and "Islamification" are commonplace in certain corners of the press. Disagreeing, warning, making jokes about 'em, it's all fine. You can attack what others do and say all day long, to any extend, and don't run into any legal trouble. The line is actually, actively rallying hate against specific groups, based on who they are and not what they do or say. You stick to making that distinction clear, that the target of your bile is not "the dirty muslim" but "the wicked proponent of inhumanist religious principles who happens to be a muslim, only him and not the other muslims, mind" and you can get away with a fucking lot. I don't like any restrictions on speech, but these are, as I said, necessary. And considering how much bile the right wing still manages to fire off about "dirty foreigners" etc., it doesn't seem to affect even the racist bastards that much. If you want to read newspapers that reinforce your mortal fear of all things foreign, you actually can. Only the stuff that actually urges people to hate, to actively discriminate, to become violent, that is illegal. All other forms of debate, whether it's okay for women to wear the hijab, even voluntarily, whether second generation immigrant kids should be allowed to marry a girl from the old country and bring her over, whether it's okay for mosques to be built and operated wherever, all of that can be and is debated openly, forcefully and often with contempt and bigotry in abundance. Just the hate, taking away human rights and human dignity with your language, of a specific group, which is defined not by deeds but by ethnicity or religion, that is illegal.
I don't like restrictions of expression, but then again, I don't like fire-truck sirens, either, but at some point, they are an ugly necessity. They must be constantly watched and those that enforce them must be watched very, very closely indeed, but with our history, we have no excuse not to have them.
Also, were this a country where one could legally publish something in which they openly advocate to hate people because of their skin color or the like, I think I would vote to have that changed. The state shouldn't and mustn't legislate civility, but not calling to abuse your fellow man because they were born far away is beyond civility. I lack the language to properly phrase this now, but if you wanna attack someone not for what they do but for who their parents were, you are sabotaging the framework on which rests a society that respects the dignity of all men. Whether you're a muslim or a nazi, if you can't live without spouting hate like that, you can't live in my neck of the woods.
Furthermore, I don't really trust these restrictions, nor do I trust their enforces. I distrust them vehemently. When I hear about them being enforced, it pretty much always gets my attention. They are NOT trustworthy laws or trustworthy people, IMO, but they are necessary, so rather than trusting them, we should (and do) scrutinize them closely.

BTW, last I heard I think the public showing of the film won't be prohibited after all. At least that's what the news sounded like. The politicians are still trying their darndest to stop it, they might go a different legal route, while technically legal speech, they have some stuff about disturbing the peace (which, I think, is a lot more dangerous than restricting hate speech, this sort of thing has many, many possible abuses open for it and I absolutely hate the idea that the law would give them that power). What they did manage to do was to prohibit Terry Jones, who had been invited to present the film, from entering the country.