http://news.yahoo.com/google-
http://worldaffairs-
Apparently Google/YouTube refuses to censor it unless it violates local laws. I find it interesting, because when copyrighted material appears on YouTube, and Viacom, HBO, or other big corporate entities protest (or threaten to sue), of course Google blocks the video. But now when "free speech" is causing violence and anti-Americanism, then they tolerate it and even defend it. I know it's part of their terms of use, company vision, and all. Money over lives again I guess.
I am not a fan of censorship, but I find it so stupid when people produce hate or slander speech designed just to offend others. It's not political, educational, or meant to sway opinions - it's just to provoke irrational people who are already overly-sensitive about their religion. And they don't care about the blowback to innocents (in fact they may have even anticipated this outcome and were apparently OK with it). Do I approve of the violent protests? Of course not, and you'd think that someone in those nations would stand up and remind the protesters that most Americans do not disrespect Islam, and burning a KFC won't make it better. In fact those retaliations make Muslims look even worse to the world, which sullies the reputation of their prophet whom they claim to defend.
We don't celebrate free speech if we use that freedom to disseminate the lowest, most vile, most worthless forms of speech. So when people don't treat their freedoms responsibly, we could consider taking them away (as we do with bad drivers, criminals, etc.).
And of course Romney has to put his foot in his mouth yet again over this. While Stevens' corpse was still warm he just had to take a cheap shot at Obama. No one on the right but the talk radio jerks are supporting Romney on this, so you know he went too far. Everything Obama does hurts America's standing abroad apparently. No one is "siding" with the protesters or condoning the killing of Americans who had nothing to do with the video. Shut the F up you moron. I wouldn't cry over taking away Romney's free speech rights. We should denounce the makers of that video, as well as those who committed violence in response to it. Romney and the Reps think that Obama just wants to take every opportunity possible to make America look weaker and "embolden" our enemies. For the first time in decades, the Dems are slightly stronger than the GOP in terms of voter perceptions on defense and foreign policy, so Romney is really grasping at straws to try to level the game. He claims that he will never apologize for America. Well Reagan apologized for Japanese internment, LBJ apologized for Vietnam, and W Bush apologized for Abu Ghraib and slavery (I guess better late than never). It's not just weak appeasers who apologize. Humble people who are in touch with REALITY apologize when it's warranted. Arrogant, delusional pricks don't.
--------
True (so far), but what is the value/point of such an image (apart from raunchy humor)? :) Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. And by restraining ourselves from doing stupid (but legal) stuff, does that really make our lives worse? In fact it often makes us better. We could exercise "free speech" and tell off our boss, hit on hot girls (with unstable muscular BFs), and act offensively in public, but probably we will suffer for it. That is why we SELF-CENSOR about 60% of our speech (or 10% if you're lucky enough to be a comedian - these aren't official stats, just for argument's sake). But when we don't directly suffer for our speech (and others do), well that is the classic moral hazard, negative externalities problem. And we all know that causes dysfunction and makes some extremists embrace even riskier speech. So if only the perpetrators suffer, then by all means make speech universally free. But the perpetrators are cowards who hide behind their money, status, insanity, or human shields.
So most of us can handle our speech responsibilities, but for the few degenerates who don't have the ability to self-censor, how does society step in? There are some laws, like those banning hate speech. Does this video qualify? It's debatable. Hate speech laws are even stronger in Germany, and I don't think many Germans are complaining that they feel so restricted. And I guess the law may not even be necessary for most Germans because they don't see any value in denying the Holocaust or other crap.
Below are some comments from a Lebanese friend of mine who has seen a lot of stuff in the Middle East. He makes a very good point: now with instant viral info dissemination, what about speech that directly endangers the interests and people of the US (like when Ahmadinejad blurts out stupid stuff about Israel, it hurts Iranians)? Freedoms are supposed to make us stronger, not hurt us right? If people are exercising their freedoms too selfishly and detrimentally, then how do we deal with that? Again, the violent retaliations are clearly the bigger crime here. But if you knowingly provoke someone into committing a crime (and from history and common sense you know there is a high probability of them doing so), I think you bear some responsibility there. I'm fairly sure there are laws about that stuff. We should "fix" violent, fundamentalist Islam too, but for now the "easier" fix is censoring some rare, especially dangerous hate speech before it does harm.
The Arab Spring is sputtering out (and the most critical nations are still under tyrants, apart from Egypt). People living under dictators for decades are traumatized and unsure what to do now. Their economies are broken. There is a battle for the hearts and minds between Islamists, former regime elements, and democratic reformists. Islamists thrive at filling the chaotic vacuum, especially fueled by anti-Western sentiment to exploit as a scapegoat. When Westerners pull this stuff, it just makes it easier for the Islamists to win. The people who made that video are supposedly anti-Islam, yet their actions make the Islamists politically and socially stronger in those affected nations. What folly. Meanwhile, the US is trying to help rebuild and promote good governance over there at some risk (taking off my cynic hat for a moment). It's hard, delicate, slow work. Now all their efforts since 2011 are set back a lot, if not ruined. All so a few morons can exercise "free speech"? Unacceptable. There's a lot more going on here, but the ignorants and ideologues don't see beyond their narrow agendas (not calling anyone here ignorant of course).
-----
I find it ironic that the man behind it is an Egyptian American who just sent his home country back into chaos.
I thought Google and YouTube do not tolerate hate speech, and I would think this video falls under that.
"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)."
"Hate
speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a
protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be
considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is
and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally
okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting
generalizations about people of a particular nationality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
"Google
said it had already determined that the video did not violate its terms
of service regarding hate speech, because it was against the Muslim
religion but not Muslim people."
So the video was not against a group of people, but
against the religion, which happens to have many groups of people
following? Nice lawyering work. Regardless, I don't think Google and
YouTube censoring or not censoring the video at this point will do
anything, and blocking it from countries as the violence spreads is
stupid, the people are and will still be able to view the video.I think
it is time the government steps in and tries to find a way to punish the
parties involved with making the video because it is hurting its
foreign policy.
--------
I won't try to defend the onion since it is a known satire publication but that picture is EXTREMELY graphic. Has anyone seen the video in quesiton? It is comically stupid. I had a hard time understanding where the offense came from. Did the middle east riot when indiana jones came out and made the middle east look bad?
Do you really think these riots have ANYTHING to do with
this video? I mean, at all. The video is a scapegoat at best. These
are organized demonstrations. Thousands of people. The number of
people showing up to these rallies and the demographic makes it near
impossible for a significant number of them to even have seen the video
let alone translated from English to their native language. There is
some central authority figure fomenting the masses. Plain and simple.
You could argue "why would he make the video, why
don't we all go and turn off the internal filters" but we do not self
censor out of fear for our lives. We self censor to avoid social
awkwardness, potential relationship damage, etc. And the real reason I
believe you argue to stop the film (or cartoon or fill in the blank) is
because it is so simple to do so. Would we make those arguments if
people rioted and killed every time someone said the word Muhammad
regardless of context? Would you then suggest that we should avoid
using it at all? Why is it ok to censor something that is easier to
avoid? It isn't hard to say "the prophet" or whatever instead of
Muhammad, is it still ok? It feels a little like blaming the rape
victim. What was she wearing? What was she doing alone at night in
that area? All of those things are valid in the sense they could have
helped avoid the final outcome, but it is still completely and totally
NOT the victims fault.
--------
I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.
Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.
My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back.
In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.
--------
I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.
Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.
My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back.
In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.
--------
The victim in my analogy was the exercise of free speech. Because the speech was unpopular and easy to avoid it is their fault. No, it isn't. And you say yourself that the riots became about something else and that and are barely hanging on to order. When the straw breaks the camels back how do you blame the straw? Why is it ok to go 1984 on free speech when it is a small loss or it is easy. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Small compromises all the way to the police state. I don't understand why your slippery slope arguments don't go for both sides.
Intelligence, as reported in the media, shows the deaths
of the Benghazi riots were caused either by pre-planned units (in which
case the video is completely unrelated) or opportunistic based on
the riots. Now i'm not saying riots are good but they are a whole
different thing than killing. And it appears, from what we know from
the media reporting, that the deaths are NOT a direct result of the
video but either an opportunistic response or a pre-planned attack.
And do you honestly believe that if this video was
never made nothing else would exist in the world to set these people
off? I mean seriously, watch the video. There are things spoken on fox
news regularly that are as offensive. Additionally the anger is based
on an incorrect premise that the US is backing the video in some way. I
just really really struggle to blame the film for this.
Back to your main point, where do we draw the line
on free speech. We will always struggle. Fact of life. But just
because something is easy to avoid doesn't mean one SHOULD avoid it.
Should's are important and I try to be careful when discussing them.
And I haven't heard from you (or anyone) a reason that someone SHOULD
limit their free speech because of an irrational and likely unrelated
response. If the response was rational, if it could be predicted,
there might be an argument. But what about all the other anti-Mohammad
material in between this video and 5 years ago? What about the hateful
videos in response to the Benghazi killings? How many died from
southpark? There just isn't a causal link that one can draw.
--------
Thx for your thoughts, and I can't find fault in anything you wrote. In a perfect world I wish we could all say whatever we wanted, and the worst that could happen is a few feelings hurt. There are forces out of our control that weakened the camel's back, but we actually control the straw. So yes, I do blame the straw because it is preventable. We can't turn back time and make these nations more functional. Maybe if we showed restraint here, another straw would have come along and broke it eventually, but at least by refraining this time, we bought the camel more time to hopefully heal. Wow I really milked that analogy to death.
I don't think censoring the video would ultimately lead to a police state, but I get your point. Remember that a lot more censorship takes place behind the scenes and society generally condones it (all the problems with for-profit news, special interests dictating what politicians say, PATRIOT Act stuff, etc.). I think we should fight those battles first as bigger challenges to democracy and freedom. The video arguably violates Google's terms of service as hate speech, so they have somewhat of a case to pull it. But maybe they figure if they relent now, the ACLU and free speech camp will raise even more hell (and those people are actually tied to customers than Google cares about, whereas angry poor Muslims don't buy ads with them).
Elements of violent Islam have infiltrated Arab Spring nations (again, Jihadists thrive in a power vacuum and chaos). To what extent I don't know. Maybe they were planning a hit on the US staff in Benghazi for a while. It's possible that they would have tried irrespective of the video. But now the video gave them cover, so they can say they're not the bad guys, the infidels are. And now maybe the locals tend to sympathize with them, while without the video they would have rejected their violent acts. You are right that other things may set the people off, and maybe they deserve to be mad given their situations. There could be riots, but at least they wouldn't be so anti-American. All those riots make the US more fearful and hostile to Muslims too, which erodes relations and leads to a downward spiral (revenge actions we may take in response to the US dead could lead to escalation). I wish Obama would make a statement saying that America rejects the video and respects the practitioners of Islam, but also condemns violence against Americans and the killers should be punished. There are wackos on both sides who love this and want a clash of cultures, but they do not represent the vast majority who just want to live in peace. They are the real enemy for the rest of us. I guess he could be concerned that the GOP would label him as a weak appeaser, when they want him to settle the score.
It's true that the right wing media say truly racist, prejudiced, anti-Islamic things almost every day. And mostly that goes unnoticed in Muslim nations - maybe either due to unfamiliarity or dismissal of the sources, or they're just used to it by now. But apart from free speech activities, Muslims have rioted after they learned US personnel (1) tortured-humiliated people at Abu Ghraib, (2) desecrated or did something bad to the Korans at Gitmo and elsewhere, (3) urinated on dead insurgents, (4) killed civilians in Pakistan, and other stuff. They don't take to the streets because they're bored - we've given them plenty of fodder over the years.
Yes I suppose censorship is a slippery slope. It's a matter of tolerance. Some feel we need to make a stand now, others are OK with letting their rights take a back seat to other priorities in this case. There's no way to know which path leads to a better net outcome, and better outcome for whom? You are right though, I should watch how I use the world should. I don't mean to be presumptuous. But my goal is to minimize suffering here. I am OK to sacrifice the rights of a few (who don't seem to be wielding those rights very responsibly) in order to preserve life and diplomacy for many. I don't mean I would throw them in the slammer, but if there has to be a victim, I guess I would choose their rights. But it's not my call, just an opinion. You would probably prefer to preserve their rights at the risk of some potential international hostility (and the size of the risk being unknown, but possibly nil as you argue). Though there is a track record of Muslim violence directly in response to certain Western "insults" to Islam, so it's not inconceivable. Yes not every offensive-to-Islam event has caused violence, but enough high-profile cases have occurred to warrant some belief in a causal relationship. But you may disagree, and it's hard to prove either way.
No comments:
Post a Comment