If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   We should censor the Muhammad YouTube video because the First Amendment is clearly less important than capitulating to a strident, unbending Bronze Age religious ideology which can't handle the occasional punch on the nose   (slate.com) divider line 469
    More: Asinine, First Amendment, Muhammad YouTube, United States, muslims, marketplace of ideas, free speech, identity politics, ideology  
•       •       •

3570 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 3:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



469 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-26 11:48:54 AM
Fine they can have it their way. We can start by outlawing slate.com
 
2012-09-26 11:49:21 AM
We should tell then, using our unalienable right, that they need to STFU and GBTW, they have some catching up to do, climbing out fo the stone age and being accepted as human beings.
Treating women the way they do.
They ought to be ashamed.
Invisible sky wizard notwithstanding, they need to grow up, grow some skin, and figure out how te be acceptable members of society.
Frikkin' morans.
 
2012-09-26 11:51:56 AM
How about this:

1. Don't touch the 1st Amendment
2. Don't be a douchebag
 
2012-09-26 11:52:04 AM
Bronze Age, huh.
 
2012-09-26 11:55:04 AM
There's consequences to acting like a total sh*tcock?

Who knew?
 
2012-09-26 11:55:43 AM
They hate us for our freedoms
 
2012-09-26 11:56:32 AM
FTA: This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world-and not just Muslims-see no sense in the First Amendment.

Then it's a good thing the First Amendment doesn't apply anywhere else in the word.

This is the liberal equivalent of conservative derp.
 
2012-09-26 11:58:24 AM
So ~570-632 CE is now considered the bronze age?
 
2012-09-26 11:58:44 AM
The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.

wow what a farking doucebag, just go be an editorialist in a country that doesn't allow free speech if it more your speed.
 
2012-09-26 11:58:49 AM

vudukungfu: They ought to be ashamed.


intlxpatr.files.wordpress.com

The sooner we all stop assuming they are all alike, the sonner this crap stops.
 
2012-09-26 11:59:21 AM
What a load of shiat.

I suppose the inverse correlation between despotism and free speech is pure chance, too?
 
2012-09-26 11:59:53 AM
Portrayals of Mohammed can make regular, friendly, peaceful westernized Muslims offended and uncomfortable as well, depending on their particular faith tradition. So regardless of the idiotic overreactions of Muslim fundies elsewhere in the world, you have to right to portray Mohammed but you're a jerk if you do.
 
2012-09-26 12:00:36 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: This is the liberal equivalent of conservative derp.


I don't see this as liberal/conservative issue, in the sense of American sociopolitics.

As for the article: Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
 
2012-09-26 12:01:14 PM
Not an expert on the internet or the ME but mightn't it be helpful to have regional blocks on some material? A lot is flagged for adult content already. Would it be difficult to block access to some things outside the US or in particular countries or regions?

I have to say I haven't given much thought to the international aspects of the 1st Amendment.
 
2012-09-26 12:02:04 PM
If every day someone in the world posted something different but equally rude towards a particular religion, you would never have a reason to suddenly become overwhelmingly outraged.

In India, they had massive riots at a cinema because the couple kissed at the end. If every movie had a kiss, you would never have a riot because of a kiss.

I think industrialized countries should double-down and have something equally outrageous released every day. Last thing you want to do is let the next moment of outrage build-up and explode.
 
2012-09-26 12:02:24 PM
www.agnostic-library.com
 
2012-09-26 12:10:19 PM

Aarontology: [mohammedbombhead.jpg]


farm3.static.flickr.com

obligatory  Slate is wrong if they suggest what headline claims...
 
2012-09-26 12:12:13 PM
Bronze age? Perhaps if tardmitter knew what the fark he was taking about, people might take the rest of his argument seriously.
 
2012-09-26 12:12:44 PM

Diogenes: I don't see this as liberal/conservative issue, in the sense of American sociopolitics.


the actual issue of free speech isn't a liberal/conservative issue but, oddly enough, the people I see defending social conservative religious nuts rioting because of a cartoon or movie have been the liberal type. I think it is in the name of tolerance of other cultures...
 
2012-09-26 12:12:52 PM

Aarontology: [www.agnostic-library.com image 450x563]


Thanks buddy, you've just fatwah'd us all!
 
2012-09-26 12:15:14 PM
But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world-and not just Muslims-see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.

no.

look, if you believe that speech should be regulated and 'yield to other values and need for order' than you missed the point of this country. I don't say this often but, if you cannot understand why unrestricted speech is ESSENTIAL to maintaining good government (among other things) then you really don't belong here. either take a refresher course in the 1st amendment or pack your bags and move somewhere else because the Bill of Rights is there for a very good reason.

now, have we always lived up to our higher ideals? of course not. But we've always tried to do our best to live up to those higher ideals, and that's really all you can ask of any government - that they find a higher standard of behavior worth aspiring too and then try their best to reach it. to demand that citizens in THIS country censor their speech to calm the fears and concerns of someone half a world away is not only insulting it's asinine. I will not do it, and I will not censor anyone else. In fact, I might even go out and specifically offend those people in another country JUST to rile them up...and you can't stop me. My words might inspire riots and chaos around the globe...and you can't shut me up. Because that's the law in this country, my speech is protected. I can say pretty much anything I want (Mohammad is a piker! Jesus Christ was a pot smoking hippie! Yaweh isn't the One God, he's just one of many, PC is better than Mac!) and nobody can stop it.

so yeah, the rest of the world needs to suck it up and just deal with it. sorry if you are offended but that's entirely on you guys, not me. Try not to riot and murder one another today, ok?
 
2012-09-26 12:17:05 PM
...But enough about Christianity...
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 12:18:30 PM

Headso: Diogenes: I don't see this as liberal/conservative issue, in the sense of American sociopolitics.

the actual issue of free speech isn't a liberal/conservative issue but, oddly enough, the people I see defending social conservative religious nuts rioting because of a cartoon or movie have been the liberal type. I think it is in the name of tolerance of other cultures...


That's odd; I haven't seen anyone defending rioters at all. I doubt you have either, but you seem to have a different relationship with reality than I do.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 12:20:05 PM

cretinbob: Bronze age? Perhaps if tardmitter knew what the fark he was taking about, people might take the rest of his argument seriously.


Yes, the Iron Age makes all the difference.
 
2012-09-26 12:22:07 PM
Dear Eric Posner of Slate.com,

Whether they understand it or not, our support of freedom of speech does not equate to agreement with the speech...just the support of an individual's freedom to exercise it. I, for one, refuse to capitulate our freedoms to appease another country out of fear of their reactions to citizens exercising our freedom. That being said, I'm going to exercise my First Amendment rights to tell you to kindly go fark yourself. I'll further add if other nations don't like our right to freedom of speech, they can kindly go fark themselves as well.
 
2012-09-26 12:23:21 PM
img685.imageshack.us

I dont remember riots in the streets over this. Did the Koran change in the last 11 years? Is there a NABRE version of the Koran no one told me about? A major American tv program turns Mohammad into a equal of Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Buddha and no one died. A Youtube clip about Mohammad causes blood in the streets.

Or was it just some crazy idiots looking for a reason? Nope, can be that. It would take too much courage for a world leader to point out this inconstancy.
 
2012-09-26 12:28:43 PM
Fine with me, as long as you apply it equally to all strident, unbending Bronze Age [sic] religious ideologies that can't handle the occasional punch on the nose.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-26 12:44:04 PM
I have no respect for those who do not respect a human's right to free speech.

Yes, that means people can say hateful, offensive things and be douchebags about it.

/However, those same people should not be able to use the government to limit the rights of others about whom they say hateful, offensive, or douchey things.
 
2012-09-26 12:50:50 PM

vartian:
[intlxpatr.files.wordpress.com image 403x403]

The sooner we all stop assuming they are all alike, the sonner this crap stops.


You mean all plucky and sharpied under the Hijab?
 
2012-09-26 12:54:11 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: [img685.imageshack.us image 220x212]

I dont remember riots in the streets over this. Did the Koran change in the last 11 years? Is there a NABRE version of the Koran no one told me about? A major American tv program turns Mohammad into a equal of Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Buddha and no one died. A Youtube clip about Mohammad causes blood in the streets.

Or was it just some crazy idiots looking for a reason? Nope, can be that. It would take too much courage for a world leader to point out this inconstancy.


It wasn't the crazy idiots looking for a reason. It was the smart leader looking for a way to use the crazy idiots for his own political gain. The crazy idiots probably don't pick up South Park or spend much time on YouTube.
 
2012-09-26 12:54:21 PM
Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School

Someone needs to review his credentials.
 
2012-09-26 12:55:27 PM
The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.
 
2012-09-26 12:55:41 PM

Pocket Ninja: Bronze Age, huh.


places.designobserver.com
 
2012-09-26 12:57:03 PM

unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.


so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?
 
2012-09-26 01:04:08 PM

Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?


youtube is google's front yard.
They're not required to let you post signs there.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 01:04:41 PM

Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?



Well, yes. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are required to publish or broadcast your speech for you.
 
2012-09-26 01:07:11 PM
I'd say the US undervalues freedom of speech since we've got tards willing to give it up.
 
2012-09-26 01:09:41 PM

Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?


I wouldn't say its cool, but it is their house their rules.

Do you get upset that Fark won't let you post pancake recipes in this thread?
 
2012-09-26 01:10:01 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?

youtube is google's front yard.
They're not required to let you post signs there.


so i'm a telcom corporation and I decide that hey - f*ck those Occupy people. I think they're asshats. so I have my techs work some mojo to make it difficult for Occupy people to use my section of the intertubes and make it damn near impossible for them to talk to one another. oh, and I find a way to charge them extra to boot, because f*ck you, i'm evil. is that ok too? hey, congress isn't involved so it's totally cool, right?
 
2012-09-26 01:10:16 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'd say the US undervalues freedom of speech since we've got tards willing to give it up.


As well as others abusing it, knowing full well the dangers it poses. It's one thing to say something that will get you killed. It's quite another to say something that will get others killed. I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe in personal responsibility. With any right comes the responsibility to use it for good, not for harm, otherwise you risk losing that right you fought so hard for in the first place.
 
2012-09-26 01:10:51 PM

gilgigamesh: Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?

I wouldn't say its cool, but it is their house their rules.

Do you get upset that Fark won't let you post pancake recipes in this thread?



Ingredients

1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
3 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon white sugar
1 1/4 cups milk
1 egg
3 tablespoons butter, melted

Directions

In a large bowl, sift together the flour, baking powder, salt and sugar. Make a well in the center and pour in the milk, egg and melted butter; mix until smooth.
Heat a lightly oiled griddle or frying pan over medium high heat. Pour or scoop the batter onto the griddle, using approximately 1/4 cup for each pancake. Brown on both sides and serve hot.
 
2012-09-26 01:10:54 PM

Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?


Not cool, per se. But as a private enterprise, Google/YouTube is under no requirement to suffer the consequences of someone else's freedom of expression. But they've thus far chosen to honor the spirit of the First Amendment and I say good for them. They're also not required to coddle someone else's sensitivities. The point is, it's their choice.
 
2012-09-26 01:10:55 PM

Weaver95: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?

youtube is google's front yard.
They're not required to let you post signs there.

so i'm a telcom corporation and I decide that hey - f*ck those Occupy people. I think they're asshats. so I have my techs work some mojo to make it difficult for Occupy people to use my section of the intertubes and make it damn near impossible for them to talk to one another. oh, and I find a way to charge them extra to boot, because f*ck you, i'm evil. is that ok too? hey, congress isn't involved so it's totally cool, right?


And this is why I belive in Net Neutrality.
 
2012-09-26 01:11:18 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'd say the US undervalues freedom of speech since we've got tards willing to give it up.


We always have. That's why I am so proud of our first amendment. Its suffered successfully through nearly a century and a half of fools like this trying to take it apart over the outrage du jour.
 
2012-09-26 01:13:08 PM

WorldCitizen: Ingredients

1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
3 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon white sugar
1 1/4 cups milk
1 egg
3 tablespoons butter, melted

Directions

In a large bowl, sift together the flour, baking powder, salt and sugar. Make a well in the center and pour in the milk, egg and melted butter; mix until smooth.
Heat a lightly oiled griddle or frying pan over medium high heat. Pour or scoop the batter onto the griddle, using approximately 1/4 cup for each pancake. Brown on both sides and serve hot.


BANHAMMER!! BANHAMM-...

Ooo. That sounds delicious. Say, do you cut back on the milk if you add blueberries to the mix?
 
2012-09-26 01:14:38 PM

Pocket Ninja: Bronze Age, huh.


I think that is the shortest thing you have ever posted here. It's the "Jesus wept" of all great Pocket Ninja comments.
 
2012-09-26 01:14:38 PM

WorldCitizen: gilgigamesh: Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?

I wouldn't say its cool, but it is their house their rules.

Do you get upset that Fark won't let you post pancake recipes in this thread?


Ingredients

1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
3 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon white sugar
1 1/4 cups milk
1 egg
3 tablespoons butter, melted

Directions

In a large bowl, sift together the flour, baking powder, salt and sugar. Make a well in the center and pour in the milk, egg and melted butter; mix until smooth.
Heat a lightly oiled griddle or frying pan over medium high heat. Pour or scoop the batter onto the griddle, using approximately 1/4 cup for each pancake. Brown on both sides and serve hot.


mentalfloss.cachefly.net

Hmmmmm....sacrilicious.....ahhrrrrllllgghhh....
 
2012-09-26 01:15:07 PM

CommieTaoist: So ~570-632 CE is now considered the bronze age?


As a modifier for "religious ideology", sure. Let's face it: Islam is Judiasm (founding of the Second Temple, c. 535 BCE) with the serial numbers filed off, and the worst parts of Arab culture bolted on the side.
 
2012-09-26 01:16:53 PM

Diogenes: Hmmmmm....sacrilicious.....ahhrrrrllllgghhh....


Hey is that Mohammad in that pancake?

*prepares to light Diogenes on fire*
 
2012-09-26 01:17:23 PM

unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.


That's right, but the title of the article indicates that the author thinks we overvalue free speech, and does advocate limits. It also says that the rest of the world sees "no sense in the first amendment" and we shouldn't impose the value on the world.

That's not unreasonable on the face of it, but what with the Internet and all, there is no way to avoid the situation under current discussion without infringing free speech in the US. It's been accurately pointed out here that this is not really the result of the video, but the result of leaders actively attempting to stir up outrage and discontent. Google blocking access to the video in foreign countries will have little effect on those people. Hell, the more restrictive a government is with the internet, the more of their population will have access to alternative means to get to the unfiltered internet.
 
Displayed 50 of 469 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report