Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 4:52 AM UTC

effinjames wrote: post #130

cwisecarver wrote: post #83

Google is a business and it has every right to operate as it sees fit. Being a company that is headquartered in the US, I can't believe it would censor this video at all in any jurisdiction. It's not out of character for them considering the lengths it went to appease China but I don't think that was the right decision either. I would hope that if I was ever faced with a similar situation I would choose based on my c…

moral and respect towards other religions. jews is backing google, i've said enuf.

[deleted]

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

#162

Post by 001sky » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 5:00 AM UTC

nico wrote: post #155

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…

> If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. Seriously? People living in fear of terrorists is actually a feat mostly of US politicians, inciting it and using it to manipulate the masses. If people were rational, and weren't purposely deceived by people on TV, they would be more scared of driving than terrorists, since more people die in ca…

If people were rational...they would be more scared of [driving] than terrorists,

This was the pre-9/11 mindset. Don't forget. Nobody wants to bother figting the terrorists. Before they came to your shores. There is a big difference between rational strategy and having your head in the sand. Its called a lack of imagination. Until flight 93, nobody bothered...just like you suggest

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

#163

Post by paganel » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 5:12 AM UTC

nico wrote: post #154

Steko wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said violence was the solution, straw man much? My point is that freedom of speech doesn't mean your speech never has negative consequences. Nonviolent, legal example: you insult a customer and your boss fires you on the spot. What is the common thread? None of this really has anything to do with freedom of speech in the west. It's a massive red herring that people keep bringing up in this thread.

Interesting, I would actually say that all of society, almost on every country in the world, is governed by violence. Why dont people break the law? Because there are consequences to doing it, and if you don't voluntarily accept the consequences, then you'll be violently forced to take them. All of society actually ultimatly depends on violence as the mode of enforcing order.

> All of society actually ultimatly depends on violence as the mode of enforcing order.

It's funny how for the last 400 years or so all men and women who have been speaking and writing about politics and about how the world should be run in general have been trying to hide Hobbes and his ideas under a very thick rug. But his ideas keep creeping back in. Maybe because he was right?

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

#164

Post by Steko » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 5:21 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #159

icelancer wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socio-economic standing. Like it always is.

How do you explain socio-economic standing causing systemic misogyny without invoking culture?

You would probably note that misogyny is/was widespread among the poor across a whole host of cultures then point out that relative affluence -> female education -> breakdown of misogyny.

"Socio-economic standing" is basically a catchall answer that's almost certain to correlate heavily with whatever the more fundamental causes are (education, women's rights, property rights, strong middle class, etc.)

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

#165

Post by 001sky » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 5:28 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #126

stcredzero wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...masses are not eager and willing to kill anyone. Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace m…

Additionally, the effects of the anonymity that mobs naturally provide even without the influence of leadership should not be ignored. I love anonymity, I really do. I think the ability to have it is vital in any free society. Even so, I cannot deny that it has its downsides, and lowering social inhibitions is one of the more serious ones.

But what do the nazis and the [x] have in common that we dont here? isn't the answer they had dictatorial/failed states? You can counter-example us southern lychings but that seems to be the exception that proves the rule. the demos in western democracies is not the mob of the [x] street.

[edit: subject is mob violence leading to murder, etc]

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

#166

Post by 001sky » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 5:32 AM UTC

azakai wrote: post #144

protomyth wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am saying that the White House tried to interfere with someone's 1st Amendment rights which is not in keeping with the oath to the defend the US Constitution.

There is no 1st Amendment right to have your content hosted on YouTube. YouTube is a private, commercial venture that can remove your content for any reasons at any time. In fact, to say that YouTube must show all content and not remove any content and otherwise people's 1st Amendment rights are "interfered with" - would ironically take away the very basic right of YouTube to do as it deems fit in its own domain, You…

You tube has 1st amendment to do what they want is the point, they are interferering via pr and public peer pressure. Why is it not like hosni mubarik asking twitter to please STFU during arab spring?

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

#167

Post by aj700 » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 5:46 AM UTC

They'd rather start WWIII and be nationalized (as many have already argued for, for different reasons, monopoly etc.) as a result than break a principle.

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

#168

Post by Steko » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 5:56 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #158

Steko wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderate Islam has been compatible with science (well scientism) in the past but you can't reason from the specific to the general. A fundamentalist/hyper-dogmatic flavor of any belief system is by it's nature an intolerant breeding ground for ignorance and xenophobia. "something is wrong" This is where people tend to, wrongly, paint with the biggest brushes.

Listen, I'm an atheist; more to the point, I am an anti-theist. I think there is a lot wrong with religion in general, and a hell of a lot with this one in particular. I mention this only to emphasise that I have no natural inclination to defend Islam. I just really don't see it being the root cause in this situation. It seems to me that the religion is more a product of an unhealthy culture. It is no coincidence tha…

I don't think we're at odds on Islam. I'm not blaming Islam was just pointing out the fallacy I saw there.

"it is culture"

Few points:

(1) Culture is a sort of catchall term for anything that's not genetics. Whatever 'this' is that we are talking about, it's going to be pretty easy to file it under culture.

(2) What exactly is 'this' we're talking about? The latest violence in Libya/Egypt and elsewhere correct? How is this fundamentally different from riots/mob violence/brutish behavior in other cultures? When we raise the flag of culture the quick litmus test should be whether other cultures (controlling for other dimensions as much as possible) also show the same symptoms.

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

#169

Post by 001sky » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 6:02 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #110

protomyth wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am saying that the White House tried to interfere with someone's 1st Amendment rights which is not in keeping with the oath to the defend the US Constitution.

The 1st amendment starts: "Congress shall pass no law..." How did the White House try to interfere with anyone's 1st amendment rights? Did the White House encourage Congress to pass a law banning the movie? No? In that case they didn't do anything against their oath. "1st amendment rights" do not mean what you think they mean.

This is deflective. You can interfere with free speech by the way laws are enforced, which is the role of the Executive. You can also create a hostile, retaliatory regulatory environment, or etc. So, while this point of protocol is apprexiatied its neither full enough nor central enough to the actual situation to be an effective argument.

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

#170

Post by nico » Sat, Sep 15, 2012, 6:07 AM UTC

001sky wrote: post #162

nico wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. Seriously? People living in fear of terrorists is actually a feat mostly of US politicians, inciting it and using it to manipulate the masses. If people were rational, and weren't purposely deceived by people on TV, they would be more scared of driving than terrorists, since more people die in ca…

If people were rational...they would be more scared of [driving] than terrorists, This was the pre-9/11 mindset. Don't forget. Nobody wants to bother figting the terrorists. Before they came to your shores. There is a big difference between rational strategy and having your head in the sand. Its called a lack of imagination. Until flight 93, nobody bothered...just like you suggest

I'm, in no way, suggesting not to bother.

But you are suggesting 9/11 is almost the only terrorist attack or activity, and you are only talking about the US. If you actually considered the rest of the world as well, you'd see that in Spain for example, people have had to deal with ETA's terrorism for a long time, yet the Spanish government hasn't terrified people with an endless discourse about war on terror, and people don't expect their freedom or privacy to be limited in the name of it.