Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 213 posts

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#131

Post by andreasvc »

lotharbot wrote: post #103
saalweachter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I Am Not A Lawyer, let alone an International Lawyer, but the article seemed to imply that it was blocked in some countries (eg, India) to comply with local blasphemy laws (related news: Indian Skeptic Charged With Blasphemy For Rationally Explaining Miracle: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indi... ), but Libya and Egypt were just special-cased. Does anyone know if Libya and Egypt have blasphe…

Just a heads up on your link: The guy wasn't charged for pointing out "this isn't a miracle". He was charged for following it up with a series of accusations -- claiming that it was a scam set up by local priests (defamation), and making comments about how religious people are "gullible", "regressive", "irrational", etc. (provocation). He went well beyond debunking and into the realm of conjecture/speculation, and en…

And what was the verdict?

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#132

Post by [deleted] »

lotharbot wrote: post #103
saalweachter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I Am Not A Lawyer, let alone an International Lawyer, but the article seemed to imply that it was blocked in some countries (eg, India) to comply with local blasphemy laws (related news: Indian Skeptic Charged With Blasphemy For Rationally Explaining Miracle: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indi... ), but Libya and Egypt were just special-cased. Does anyone know if Libya and Egypt have blasphe…

Just a heads up on your link: The guy wasn't charged for pointing out "this isn't a miracle". He was charged for following it up with a series of accusations -- claiming that it was a scam set up by local priests (defamation), and making comments about how religious people are "gullible", "regressive", "irrational", etc. (provocation). He went well beyond debunking and into the realm of conjecture/speculation, and en…

[deleted]

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#133

Post by [deleted] »

lotharbot wrote: post #103
saalweachter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I Am Not A Lawyer, let alone an International Lawyer, but the article seemed to imply that it was blocked in some countries (eg, India) to comply with local blasphemy laws (related news: Indian Skeptic Charged With Blasphemy For Rationally Explaining Miracle: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indi... ), but Libya and Egypt were just special-cased. Does anyone know if Libya and Egypt have blasphe…

Just a heads up on your link: The guy wasn't charged for pointing out "this isn't a miracle". He was charged for following it up with a series of accusations -- claiming that it was a scam set up by local priests (defamation), and making comments about how religious people are "gullible", "regressive", "irrational", etc. (provocation). He went well beyond debunking and into the realm of conjecture/speculation, and en…

[deleted]

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#135

Post by rdl »

roboneal wrote: post #129
rdl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very pro free speech, but I actually wouldn't mind if the video went down for a couple of days ("under review") while security at embassies was improved, and for time for the mobs to settle down a bit. I would absolutely be against pulling it, but delaying or putting it in context wouldn't hinder free speech and would potentially save lives. I'd also like to see Google run a clickthrough redirect preroll or ads o…

"I'm very pro free speech, but...." Let's expand on your thought process a bit....how about we just suppress all video that criticizes Islamic sensibilities just on the anniversary of 9/11? Well and maybe through Ramadan too. Just temporarily of course. Until "they" settle down and we get our security stuff straightened out. Yeah, that's what the framers of the Constitution thought when the wrote the FIRST Amendment.

No, I meant that Google would be within their rights as a private company (who is doing business in Egypt, etc.) to pause a video for a few days. The government wouldn't be the one compelling this.

The government not restricting free speech doesn't mean private companies are compelled to rebroadcast, republish, and distribute anything.

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#136

Post by roboneal »

Steko wrote: post #106
tokenadult wrote: post #100

As I commented on this issue earlier, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4511247 "As we read news reports about violent responses to the video, from people who seem to be quite confused about who produced the video, it's important for all of us to remember the basic issue here. The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speec…

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences. You can go all Fred Phelps and tell some marine's family he's in hell now at his funeral and that they are inbred hillbillies that could never have invented the internet but don't expect shock on my part if his dad and brothers decide that would be a good time to beat the shit out of you.

How riled up will they be when they see the White House-approved full length feature film of the killing of Bin Laden? Will same principles apply?

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#137

Post by bilbo0s »

guelo wrote: post #13

Good for Google. Unlike Visa, Paypal, et al. who blocked payments to Wikileaks at the government's request.

In fairness to Visa and Paypal...

The government was a good deal more serious about the WikiLeaks thing. This is a one off film... WikiLeaks was going to keep releasing the 'news' for as long as it existed. The nature of that threat merited more robust action.

The US Government, Google, Visa and Paypal are no worse than any of the world's other governments or corporations. Little better... I grant you that... but no worse.

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#138

Post by sharjeel »

malandrew wrote: post #63
salimmadjd wrote: post #35

YouTube should have removed the video based on their own guidelines. This can be classified as a hate speech. http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines : 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 orien…

I haven't spent the time to watch the video, but from what others have said, the video is about a person (Mohammed) and not about a group of people. That being said, I don't see how it could be hate speech. The most it could be is slanderous/libelous. A similar video about Jesus or any other individual, involved with a religion or not, would be the same. Were the video about a group of people with some common identif…

There is a huge difference. Saying that the video is just about a person and not about a group of people is incorrect in this particular context. Muslims have a huge affection, emotional attachment and love for their prophet which you wouldn't observe in followers of other religions. Unfortunately western cultures don't understand these deep ties and consider mockery here equivalent to any other common mockery. Although there are some other sensitive topics, such as Holocaust, which are treated responsibly in the west, but for some reason the topic under question is always given free hand in the name of freedom of speech rather than classifying it as hate speech.

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#139

Post by fungi »

rictic wrote: post #122
Steko wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences. You can go all Fred Phelps and tell some marine's family he's in hell now at his funeral and that they are inbred hillbillies that could never have invented the internet but don't expect shock on my part if his dad and brothers decide that would be a good time to beat the shit out of you.

... and that would be illegal for them to do, and for good reason. The solution to bad speech is not violence. It's more speech.

feed the trolls?

Re: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

#140

Post by roboneal »

rdl wrote: post #135
roboneal wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm very pro free speech, but...." Let's expand on your thought process a bit....how about we just suppress all video that criticizes Islamic sensibilities just on the anniversary of 9/11? Well and maybe through Ramadan too. Just temporarily of course. Until "they" settle down and we get our security stuff straightened out. Yeah, that's what the framers of the Constitution thought when the wrote the FIRST Amendment.

No, I meant that Google would be within their rights as a private company (who is doing business in Egypt, etc.) to pause a video for a few days. The government wouldn't be the one compelling this. The government not restricting free speech doesn't mean private companies are compelled to rebroadcast, republish, and distribute anything.

Google already has a Terms of Service and felt that this video did not violate it. A position the Obama administration disagreed with. Ultimately, I'm glad that they had a broader view of free speech than the current Administration.

And for the record, delaying or shifting speech is "hindering" it.

Post reply on HN