provoking Islam - DPChallenge Forums

09/15/2012 06:39:02 PM · #126

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by frisca:
I think he's speaking about the idea that the provocative video should not have been allowed to be made public/aired.

I guess I'm trying to figure out where this notion of censorship originated. Art's response to Brennan included this issue of silencing free speech, but Brennan's original post didn't raise the issue. Art may also have been responding to Shannon's post, which didn't raise the issue of free speech either. So I was just wondering why Art mentioned it at all. I've also been reading tweets and articles that seem to be responding to this issue as if censorship has been seriously suggested, but I can't find anyone advocating censorship. So.... red herring?

I am not accusing anyone of advocating censorship -

-----------------
eta: Although...

Originally posted by blindjustice:

After you cause your second international incident, I think your "free speech" is starting to have a price.

I know Brennan attacked this initially but then started to side with the idea.
-----------------

...my point is WHY are any people focusing any attention on the video AT ALL??? It only serves to embolden more people to produce provocative things like that. The other thing I was pointing out is that if the video was anti-Chrisitan and Christian groups burned, looted and killed because of it, it's a safe bet those people pointing to the video in this case would be saying the video is not relevant to the reactions to it - which I would agree with and which I think is true in this case. And despite what the White House keeps claiming, the video likely has little if anything to do with any of these protests, unless the protestors are utter and complete MORONS, which is not beyond possibility.

Kudos to Google for not caving to the WH request to remove the video.

To my point that the video is irrelevant:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

"The same day, a scene from the film â�� in which an actor playing a buffoonish caricature of the prophet Muhammad calls a donkey â��the first Muslim animalâ�� â�� was broadcast on the Egyptian television channel Al-Nas by the host Sheikh Khaled Abdalla.
Video of a scene from a film mocking the Muslim prophet as shown on Egyptian television Sunday.
Last year, the Egyptian-British journalist and blogger Sarah Carr wrote, â��Sheikh Khaled Abdalla is part of a school of particularly shrill religious demagogues who turn every possible event into an attack on Islam.â�� She added that Sheikh Khaled regularly attacked Egyptâ��s Coptic Christian community.

Message edited by author 2012-09-15 22:05:21.

Now spread to Sydney.

Bring the kids on down.

09/15/2012 08:22:11 PM · #127

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/15/2012 08:45:33 PM · #128

I finally broke down & watched that video.... booooring. zzzz

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/15/2012 08:47:45 PM · #129

Seriously.

I think people everywhere should protest about that film. Mainly because it's so bad.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/15/2012 08:53:34 PM · #130

Yeah. It had a chance when Mohammed was between that chick's thighs. I was getting ready to reach for the tissues at that point. But then... nothing.

09/15/2012 09:33:38 PM · #131

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Yeah. It had a chance when Mohammed was between that chick's thighs. I was getting ready to reach for the tissues at that point. But then... nothing.

I KEEL YOU! I KEEL YOU DEAD!

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/17/2012 12:02:31 AM · #132

i think the movie producers are irrelevant. the actual provocateurs are the ones who translated it. Basically, if you want to provoke riots across the middle east and africa, just find any anti-islamic video by an American bigot, translate it into Arabic and re-release it. If you want it to happen on 9/11, say... voila!

It's sad and scary to see people so easily manipulated... not that they haven't been primed by a century of foreign "policy" by Europe and the U.S.

09/17/2012 02:44:16 AM · #133

or just draw a stick figure with a beard and title it "Mohammed" and post it on the internet. And I think it has more to do with these countries' own domestic policy than it does with any western foreign policy. High unemployment, little education, radical indoctrination from childhood, etc etc etc.

09/18/2012 01:12:06 PM · #134

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

It might not have been brought up here in so many words, but it certainly is pushed by Islamic states, specifically the Organization of Islamic Cooperation:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations

//www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=23396

//www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/09/18/357-Christian-body-warns-against-passing-global-law-on-blasphemy.html

Message edited by author 2012-09-18 13:16:56.

09/18/2012 01:13:49 PM · #135

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Kudos to Google for not caving to the WH request to remove the video.

Wow, I hadn't heard about that request.

09/18/2012 02:07:04 PM · #136

It is interesting to watch the Conservative pundit's canned outrage that the White House asked Youtube to review the video to see if it rose to the level of hateful speech that would violate the websites Terms of Service. It seems the use of this form to report potentially "hateful content" as if it compared to the firehoses in Selma.

Youtube does not show porn, because it is against its TOS. It says it will not show "hateful content" either. From the little I have seen of the video it sure looks hateful. The more the story spins out, the more it is clear that shocking and outraging the easily offended riot prone in Egypt and other Muslim countries, was the only reason to make the movie. Do you find it shocking that someone in the White House asked Youtube if the video was in keeping with this phrase from it's guidelines. "The more people treat each other with respect and report inappropriate content, the better chance people will have a positive experience while using YouTube resulting in a happier community."

So why is it shocking that the White House said " Really? You don't think that is intended to be offensive?"

09/18/2012 03:11:09 PM · #137

Seems this is the particular clause in question:

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

Seems 'hate speech' is often defined as 'speech disparaging a racial, sexual, or religious group'. From what I saw, the video does not say that Muslims have no worth, but offers a satirical view at the origins of Islam. You start down this path, and you'll have to remove a lot more than the "Innocence" video. Second to go would be Bill Maher's "Religulous".

09/18/2012 03:52:26 PM · #138

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

You start down this path, and you'll have to remove a lot more than the "Innocence" video. Second to go would be Bill Maher's "Religulous".

Not to mention several proponents of Atheism such as Ricky Gervais and Christopher Hitchens, or for that matter Monty Python's Life of Brian, but the difference IMHO is a question of intent. If you chief intent is cause unrest, it is not a legitimate satire. Did you really get any good laughs out of your watching of the "Innocence" video? how would you compare it to Life of Brian?

We all understand that some people's ideas and opinions are going to offend other people, and that mutual exposure can round off the edges and thicken the skin. That is a good thing. But if there was a way to provide less distribution to works that have no artistic or intellectual merit, who's only goal is to offend, it would be a good thing if we could limit it, to blunt the offense.

I firmly agree that removing offensive material is a dangerous path, but it is one that every content reposter on the net has to travel every day.

09/18/2012 03:58:28 PM · #139

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You start down this path, and you'll have to remove a lot more than the "Innocence" video. Second to go would be Bill Maher's "Religulous".

Not to mention several proponents of Atheism such as Ricky Gervais and Christopher Hitchens, or for that matter Monty Python's Life of Brian, but the difference IMHO is a question of intent. If you chief intent is cause unrest, it is not a legitimate satire. Did you really get any good laughs out of your watching of the "Innocence" video? how would you compare it to Life of Brian?

We all understand that some people's ideas and opinions are going to offend other people, and that mutual exposure can round off the edges and thicken the skin. That is a good thing. But if there was a way to provide less distribution to works that have no artistic or intellectual merit, who's only goal is to offend, it would be a good thing if we could limit it, to blunt the offense.

I firmly agree that removing offensive material is a dangerous path, but it is one that every content reposter on the net has to travel every day.

Seriously, Brennan - intent? I could argue that just about anything Bill Maher produces is intended to offend and many celebrities, comedians, documentarians, etc openly admit they're intent is to offend. I realize it is politically incorrect to say it, but the issue is specifically about offending Muslims - or at least Muslim extremists. And the bottom line is that society should be focusing on THEIR REACTIONS to these perceived offenses - NOT the material that offended them. (IMO)

eta: I did watch a bit of that video in question and I did laugh a bit - I thought it was satire. Would satire be exempt from "intent to offend"?

Message edited by author 2012-09-18 16:00:15.

09/18/2012 04:17:48 PM · #140

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Ya intent is one of the cornerstones of law. Mens rea asks for intent. If you run someone over without intent, manslaughter. If you have intent, the same action is murder. And yes, satire has always been exempt for libel and slander laws because of mens rea.

Don't mistake my thinking that they guys who made this video did something wrong excuses the reactions. Furthermore I contend that the makers are partners with the rage machine of the El Nour, the political party of the Salafis, who were responsible for showing hour of hour of coverage of this stupid little video, in order to stoke the rage of the easily led. Then of course the real blame goes to those who went from protesting to rioting. but I do not think that being less to blame does not mean they have no share of guilt, and at least one of the makers has been arrested for violating his parole, which forbade him from using the internet in ways not approved by his P.O.

09/18/2012 04:38:06 PM · #141

But doesn't Mens rea have to do with criminal offenses? I'd hardly suggest that the "innocence" film is criminal. Well... criminal in the sense that it's so terribly done, maybe.

09/18/2012 04:46:46 PM · #142

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

But doesn't Mens rea have to do with criminal offenses? I'd hardly suggest that the "innocence" film is criminal. Well... criminal in the sense that it's so terribly done, maybe.

And doesn't it apply to individuals committing acts against specific victims? Also, it looks like it is used more as a defense tool:

Originally posted by Mens rea:

The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty"

...and why are so many of our legal terms still written in Latin?? What's wrong with "Guilty Mind" or more simply "Criminal Intent"??

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/18/2012 04:53:57 PM · #143

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

... Furthermore I contend that the makers are partners with the rage machine of the El Nour, the political party of the Salafis, who were responsible for showing hour of hour of coverage of this stupid little video, in order to stoke the rage of the easily led.

I skimmed over this point initially - yes, this would change my opinion somewhat. If that is found to be the case, I would say deport/exile the guy to Tahrir square with a sign around his neck that says "Me, I'm the guy that made that video" ;-)

Apple iPhone 5

09/18/2012 05:45:08 PM · #144

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

And the bottom line is that society should be focusing on THEIR REACTIONS to these perceived offenses - NOT the material that offended them. (IMO)

Well, we know what their reactions are. They go bonkers at the slightest hint of anyone 'offending' their religion. So what's the point of focussing on that?

I mean, there's not much we can do. Persuade them to re-write the Koran and take out the bad parts? - Try to convert them? - Tell their Imams to go back to Islamic school? (the 'islam means peace' version, not the 'kill all infidels' version)

09/18/2012 05:48:49 PM · #145

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And the bottom line is that society should be focusing on THEIR REACTIONS to these perceived offenses - NOT the material that offended them. (IMO)

Well, we know what their reactions are. They go bonkers at the slightest hint of anyone 'offending' their religion. So what's the point of focussing on that?

I mean, there's not much we can do. Persuade them to re-write the Koran and take out the bad parts? - Try to convert them? - Tell their Imams to go back to Islamic school? (the 'islam means peace' version, not the 'kill all infidels' version)

Kudos. All excellent suggestions. ;-)

09/18/2012 05:49:53 PM · #146

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

...and why are so many of our legal terms still written in Latin?? What's wrong with "Guilty Mind" or more simply "Criminal Intent"??

It is the lawyer full employment act. â��If there's only one lawyer in a small town he will starve. If there are two lawyers in that small town, both will prosper." Mark Twain

Obscuris vera involvens. ["Obscurity envelops truth" (Virgil)]