Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3571 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 3:09 PM (2 years 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 03:32:22 PM  

bob_ross: Being religious should be illegal and banned worldwide.

We'd get over it rather quickly.


You and I would. Others not so much.

It's been tried, though. Not worldwide, but in very large countries. Didn't work out.
 
2012-09-26 03:33:39 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 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.


it depends. what would be the penalty for not blocking it?
beheading?
 
2012-09-26 03:34:47 PM  

mrshowrules: 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.


i whole-heartedly agree with you for the first time ever.
 
2012-09-26 03:34:48 PM  
How about banning the film as the actors in it had their lines re-dubbed and their opinions were either mangled or misrepresented?
 
2012-09-26 03:35:28 PM  

keylock71: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x322]

On Palm Sunday last year, 1,000 protesters marched outside a French gallery showing "Piss Christ," and the piece was attacked by hammer-toting vandals while gallery workers received death threats. The piece - there are 10 prints - has also been vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia and in Sweden. Link


Yes, that's totally the same thing as firing rockets at a consulate and murdering the ambassador there.

First off, let's start with stupid is stupid. Just because one mythical deity group gets upset about something offensive, it doesn't give another mythical deity group a free pass.

Second, let's stop pretending that the Benghazi attack happened just because of the Innocence of Muslims. There are plenty of good indications that this was an organized terrorist attack (on American soil, no less).

Third, the ongoing violence and threats of violence about Innocence of Muslims is intolerable. I like what Penn Jillette has been saying on the topic. Stop blaming the rape victim (not you keylock71, just in general). There is no speech that gives you the right to murder someone or call for the murder of someone.
 
2012-09-26 03:35:42 PM  

mrshowrules: 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.


You almost got it.

We need to release something outrageous every day--or even every hour if it can be managed--and realize that for a while, there WILL be riots and outrage, and we'll have to "live with it" while they're learning to "live with" freedom of expression. So far, the way this has been handled is exactly right--condemn the riots and murder WHILE STILL supporting and acknowledging free speech.

Now if people here can accept that it will take a little time for people there to "get over it", things might actually move forward.
 
2012-09-26 03:37:15 PM  

RedPhoenix122: 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.


If you really believed in personal responsibility, you would blame the killers for their own actions.
 
2012-09-26 03:37:21 PM  

skullkrusher: your online news and opinion magazine sucks



Would you say it was possibly, offensive to Freedom of Speech and the founders thereof?  Would you go so far as to say we should petition the UN to outlaw anything offensive to the Freedom of Speech and such stalwarts as John Adams?  In fact, barring a satisfactory response from Slate should we not simply storm their headquarters and noogie every editor in the place?
 
2012-09-26 03:37:58 PM  

bob_ross: Being religious should be illegal and banned worldwide.

We'd get over it rather quickly.


chronicle.uchicago.edu

looks like Tim Roth
 
2012-09-26 03:38:07 PM  

vudukungfu: keylock71: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x322]

On Palm Sunday last year, 1,000 protesters marched outside a French gallery showing "Piss Christ," and the piece was attacked by hammer-toting vandals while gallery workers received death threats. The piece - there are 10 prints - has also been vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia and in Sweden. Link

Yeah, well piss on him and his nutjob followers.
they worship a guy who was nailed to a cross and attack his image with hammers?
Farking loonies.

They need wither medicated or locked up.


I agree. Same goes for Muslims who get outraged over speech or expression they disagree with.

I think Obama summed it up nicely at the UN yesterday, actually.
 
2012-09-26 03:38:21 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Or was it just some crazy idiots looking for a reason?


No it wasn't crazy idiots. It was politicians.
 
2012-09-26 03:38:29 PM  

atomsmoosher: Second, let's stop pretending that the Benghazi attack happened just because of the Innocence of Muslims. There are plenty of good indications that this was an organized terrorist attack (on American soil, no less).


A consulate is not "American soil". Neither is an embassy.
 
2012-09-26 03:38:59 PM  

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


Must be playing on Prince level and getting their asses handed to them by Montezuma. Bastard loves to declare war on me.
 
2012-09-26 03:39:19 PM  

I_C_Weener: skullkrusher: your online news and opinion magazine sucks


Would you say it was possibly, offensive to Freedom of Speech and the founders thereof?  Would you go so far as to say we should petition the UN to outlaw anything offensive to the Freedom of Speech and such stalwarts as John Adams?  In fact, barring a satisfactory response from Slate should we not simply storm their headquarters and noogie every editor in the place?


I think this last suggestion deserves some consideration.
 
2012-09-26 03:39:24 PM  

I_C_Weener: skullkrusher: your online news and opinion magazine sucks


Would you say it was possibly, offensive to Freedom of Speech and the founders thereof?  Would you go so far as to say we should petition the UN to outlaw anything offensive to the Freedom of Speech and such stalwarts as John Adams?  In fact, barring a satisfactory response from Slate should we not simply storm their headquarters and noogie every editor in the place?


you bring the beer, I'll bring the knuckles.

www.judiciaryreport.com

/first result in a GIS for "noogie"
//pretty funny
 
2012-09-26 03:40:17 PM  
This more of a Gawker troll than what Slate usually dishes up.
 
2012-09-26 03:40:21 PM  

enry: How about banning the film as the actors in it had their lines re-dubbed and their opinions were either mangled or misrepresented?



And open up the lawsuit-alarity of body and butt doubles suing for more royalties or banning of the films?
 
2012-09-26 03:40:29 PM  

keylock71: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x322]

On Palm Sunday last year, 1,000 protesters marched outside a French gallery showing "Piss Christ," and the piece was attacked by hammer-toting vandals while gallery workers received death threats. The piece - there are 10 prints - has also been vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia and in Sweden. Link


Yeah? What's the death toll on that publicly-funded artistic piece of hate speech?
 
2012-09-26 03:41:29 PM  
I think I just watched somebody jack their own brain off. WTF was that article?
 
2012-09-26 03:41:35 PM  

qorkfiend: I_C_Weener: skullkrusher: your online news and opinion magazine sucks


Would you say it was possibly, offensive to Freedom of Speech and the founders thereof?  Would you go so far as to say we should petition the UN to outlaw anything offensive to the Freedom of Speech and such stalwarts as John Adams?  In fact, barring a satisfactory response from Slate should we not simply storm their headquarters and noogie every editor in the place?

I think this last suggestion deserves some consideration.


Seconded.
 
2012-09-26 03:41:56 PM  

skullkrusher: I_C_Weener: skullkrusher: your online news and opinion magazine sucks


Would you say it was possibly, offensive to Freedom of Speech and the founders thereof?  Would you go so far as to say we should petition the UN to outlaw anything offensive to the Freedom of Speech and such stalwarts as John Adams?  In fact, barring a satisfactory response from Slate should we not simply storm their headquarters and noogie every editor in the place?

you bring the beer, I'll bring the knuckles.

[www.judiciaryreport.com image 400x301]

/first result in a GIS for "noogie"
//pretty funny



Nice.
 
2012-09-26 03:42:30 PM  

Weaver95: 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 tod ...


Actually that part isn't entirely true. While I agree overall with your statements that we shouldn't infringe on free speech in this country, it's only "protected" in this country in the sense that for the most part you cant get arrested or have legal action taken against you for stuff like this. Libel and slander are still forms of speech and you can be prosecuted for both. But more to the point, the consequences of running your mouth don't ever go away.

Ever.

There are people out there now, in this country and all over the world, who will f*ck you right up if you offend them enough. These people will always exist, and the so will the consequences to our actions in the exercising of our "free" speech. So guys like the ones who made the movie are sure allowed to distribute their hate-speech on celluloid, even if it is protected in the U.S,. and we respect their right (however despicable and tasteless) to do so.

But let's not be so arrogant as to think that the people we offend won't ever tell us what they think of what we've said with a brick to the face, or a few hundred riots worldwide. Take that for what you will when you think about free speech and how "protected" it is.
 
2012-09-26 03:42:46 PM  
What good will censoring it in the US do? The trouble isn't occurring here.
 
2012-09-26 03:43:26 PM  

Weaver95: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Weaver95: so i'm a telcom corporation

Within the law, you can do what you want with your own company.

so i'm totally cool with being an oppressive motherf*cker? I can shut down dissident political views, charge 'liberals' more than anyone else, throttle bandwidth at will and for no reason at all...its ALL good stuff?


There's a difference between something that is morally good and something that is within legal limits. Life isn't fair.

/this message brought to you by Dungeons and Dragons
 
2012-09-26 03:43:34 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?


Did you really just say that? Really?
 
2012-09-26 03:43:48 PM  
Eric Posner is an authoritarian. That's all you really need to know.
 
2012-09-26 03:43:59 PM  

enry: How about banning the film as the actors in it had their lines re-dubbed and their opinions were either mangled or misrepresented?


I'd also like to ban flip flops, and men wearing scarfs in the summer.
 
2012-09-26 03:44:15 PM  
The Bill of Rights does not apply to private corporations. Please just ignore Weaver, he's an idiot troll.

I mean this is basic civics 101. Elementary shiat.
 
2012-09-26 03:44:50 PM  
The far left: Where conservative religion is bad, but Islam is...awesome? Even though majority Islamic countries are almost wholly unfair to gays, women, and minority religions within them?

It makes so much sense.
 
2012-09-26 03:45:18 PM  
people in the USA are still getting arrested for selling porn to consenting adults under "obscenity statutes", some get jail time, a guy here in Dallas is now a "convicted sex offender" for selling some printed hentai to an off duty non-vice cop a few years back. While this is all an injustice... if THAT can still occur on a regular basis AND withstand court appeals...then surely we can pull one piece of shiat video to appease some violent out of work meat heads across the globe?
 
2012-09-26 03:45:25 PM  

Super Chronic: If hate speech is outlawed, only outlaws will use hate speech.

I'm being facetious there, but what I believe we've learned from European countries, where free speech protections are less absolute, is that if you ban hate speech it won't do a damn thing to eliminate hate groups from spreading, and if anything it will just make them seem more exciting, taboo and, yes, outlaw-ish, with a veneer of victimhood to boot.


In Canada you can pretty much say what you want but there are provisions against hate speech, I think it's worked out pretty well for us.
 
2012-09-26 03:45:55 PM  

keylock71:
I think Obama summed it up nicely at the UN yesterday, actually.


Yup.
We have our rules and history shows we will kill, even Nuke the shait out of anyone who tries to take them away. You people ( and when he says "you people" you know who he means) need to pull your heads out of the sand or your asses and start acting right. We don't fark around with threats.
 
2012-09-26 03:46:59 PM  

unexplained bacon: enry: How about banning the film as the actors in it had their lines re-dubbed and their opinions were either mangled or misrepresented?

I'd also like to ban flip flops, and men wearing scarfs in the summer.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-26 03:47:29 PM  
Yes Weaver, if you have your own company, you can discriminate on anything that isn't a protected status. The hard part is getting people to patronize your business under those conditions.

Glad you learned something today, idiot.
 
2012-09-26 03:47:52 PM  
t2.gstatic.com
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
~George Washington

/they'll get over it
 
2012-09-26 03:48:43 PM  

Russky: Super Chronic: If hate speech is outlawed, only outlaws will use hate speech.

I'm being facetious there, but what I believe we've learned from European countries, where free speech protections are less absolute, is that if you ban hate speech it won't do a damn thing to eliminate hate groups from spreading, and if anything it will just make them seem more exciting, taboo and, yes, outlaw-ish, with a veneer of victimhood to boot.

In Canada you can pretty much say what you want but there are provisions against hate speech, I think it's worked out pretty well for us.


Okay I'm with you. Do these videos constitute hate speech under those Canadian laws? Show your work. Then you'll realize why such laws are subjective, and stupid. They can never be enforced consistently because hate is a subjective term.
 
2012-09-26 03:49:11 PM  

justtray: The Bill of Rights does not apply to private corporations. Please just ignore Weaver, he's an idiot troll.

I mean this is basic civics 101. Elementary shiat.


I thought corporations are people, my friend?
 
2012-09-26 03:49:16 PM  
First they came for the 2nd Amendment, and I said nothing for assault rifles are scary.
Then they came for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments and I said nothing for 9/11 was scary.
Then they came for the 1st Amendment and I said nothing for fundamentalist Christians and Muslims were scary.
Finally they came for me and I was scared.
 
2012-09-26 03:49:24 PM  
syracusethenandnow.org

Any you fools come in my kitchen and get any of that fatwa in my pancake batter and I'm gonna put a foot up your ass
 
2012-09-26 03:49:26 PM  

vudukungfu: keylock71:
I think Obama summed it up nicely at the UN yesterday, actually.

Yup.
We have our rules and history shows we will kill, even Nuke the shait out of anyone who tries to take them away. You people ( and when he says "you people" you know who he means) need to pull your heads out of the sand or your asses and start acting right. We don't fark around with threats.


You'd think, after what happened to that poor old Saudi who was trying to live out a quiet retirement in Pakistan, that people would generally realize this.
 
2012-09-26 03:50:41 PM  

Stratohead: people in the USA are still getting arrested for selling porn to consenting adults under "obscenity statutes", some get jail time, a guy here in Dallas is now a "convicted sex offender" for selling some printed hentai to an off duty non-vice cop a few years back. While this is all an injustice... if THAT can still occur on a regular basis AND withstand court appeals...then surely we can pull one piece of shiat video to appease some violent out of work meat heads across the globe?


1) the video would still exist and be available online
2) we'll need to set up a department that monitors for offenses to violent meat heads to catch these things before they spread.
3) If that's how we're gonna do it, I'm about to get pretty violent and meat-heady about the evening line up on TLC.
 
2012-09-26 03:50:49 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: atomsmoosher: Second, let's stop pretending that the Benghazi attack happened just because of the Innocence of Muslims. There are plenty of good indications that this was an organized terrorist attack (on American soil, no less).

A consulate is not "American soil". Neither is an embassy.


Oh, so sorry, extraterritorial concern. That makes it not terrorism then. Whew! What a relief!

Too bad Diplomatic Immunity doesn't extend to manufactured mob violence.
 
2012-09-26 03:50:51 PM  

busy chillin': justtray: The Bill of Rights does not apply to private corporations. Please just ignore Weaver, he's an idiot troll.

I mean this is basic civics 101. Elementary shiat.

I thought corporations are people, my friend?


Even if they were, that wouldn't change my post in the slightest. All that would do is allow them the same Bill of Rights protection status that they already have to abide by, and nothing more.
 
2012-09-26 03:55:05 PM  

Stratohead: people in the USA are still getting arrested for selling porn to consenting adults under "obscenity statutes", some get jail time, a guy here in Dallas is now a "convicted sex offender" for selling some printed hentai to an off duty non-vice cop a few years back. While this is all an injustice... if THAT can still occur on a regular basis AND withstand court appeals...then surely we can pull one piece of shiat video to appease some violent out of work meat heads across the globe?


No we can't
we ought to spam their internet cafe's with it until they STFU and join the rest of the world.
 
2012-09-26 03:56:23 PM  

atomsmoosher: Philip Francis Queeg: atomsmoosher: Second, let's stop pretending that the Benghazi attack happened just because of the Innocence of Muslims. There are plenty of good indications that this was an organized terrorist attack (on American soil, no less).

A consulate is not "American soil". Neither is an embassy.

Oh, so sorry, extraterritorial concern. That makes it not terrorism then. Whew! What a relief!

Too bad Diplomatic Immunity doesn't extend to manufactured mob violence.


The host country has an absolute obligation to prosecute those who attack a consulate or the consulate staff. Which Libya is doing. Diplomatic immunity is not a magical shield against criminal acts.
 
2012-09-26 03:57:07 PM  

vudukungfu: Stratohead: people in the USA are still getting arrested for selling porn to consenting adults under "obscenity statutes", some get jail time, a guy here in Dallas is now a "convicted sex offender" for selling some printed hentai to an off duty non-vice cop a few years back. While this is all an injustice... if THAT can still occur on a regular basis AND withstand court appeals...then surely we can pull one piece of shiat video to appease some violent out of work meat heads across the globe?

No we can't
we ought to spam their internet cafe's with it until they STFU and join the rest of the world.


Exactly. We will not pull anything. Like Southpark said, either it's all ok, or none of it is. There is no middle room for free speech. Everyone gets to be offended and no one gets to silence it.
 
2012-09-26 03:58:02 PM  
You know, we could just create 100's of videos/cartoons every day and inundate them with it. They will eventually learn to not care anymore.
 
2012-09-26 03:58:47 PM  

I_C_Weener: enry: How about banning the film as the actors in it had their lines re-dubbed and their opinions were either mangled or misrepresented?


And open up the lawsuit-alarity of body and butt doubles suing for more royalties or banning of the films?


Depends on how the contracts are written. I'm sure that butt-doubles are mentioned in a film contract. I'd say re-rubbing your opinion to be different than what you mean without that being in the contract is libel.
 
2012-09-26 03:59:02 PM  
That dude's from Chicago Law? Yeesh. Sounds like the crazy is leaking over from their school of economics.
 
2012-09-26 03:59:13 PM  

unexplained bacon: 3) If that's how we're gonna do it, I'm about to get pretty violent and meat-heady about the evening line up on TLC.


I just want to know when The Learning Channel became the Sideshow Freak Channel.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report