Live data from Hacker News

Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip

reuters.com

201–210 of 213 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Altho…

Apples and oranges.

Mohammed can most similarly be likened to Jesus or Moses, not the Holocaust.

Mohammed, Jesus and Moses, among other religious historical figures may or may not have existed. There really is no proof. All apparently were responsible for miracles in the eyes of people back in the day with little understanding of science, so it's possible that if any of those three existed, after you discount the growing of "tall tales" that what they are credited with performing are natural phenomena.

Any criticism of denial of any of those three people is very tolerated in the west. I would feel far more comfortable saying Jesus was a pedophile or Moses was a cock smoker than blurting out similar trollery about Mohammed. The reason why has nothing to do with cultural sensitivity, but with the completely irrational and sometimes disproportionately violent response from people who would be offended by such a statement (or at least the imagined expectation of such).

This isn't to say that fundamental Christians aren't capable of such asshattery. They certainly are. Photos of klan members, burned crosses and lynchings are proof of such.

The Holocaust on the other hand is historical fact, not myth, and an act of genocide. Denial of it would be similar to denying the genocide in Darfur or the Tienanmen Square massacre.

Ones degree of affection and emotional attachment to a subject largely irrelevant except insofar as how easy it makes to troll that person.

This is trollery, not hate speech. If I say something about a group of people and condemn them, it's hate speech. If I make a mockery of something that would offend that group it is trolling.

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

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Altho…

[deleted]

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

#203
post #198
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt during the uprising there. That's different than politely asking a single privately-owned website to please remove some stuff.

Not really. sort of proves the point. intention not polite.

And...look at this, what 48 hours later?

"One of the men behind an anti-Muslim film was taken in for questioning by federal probation authorities."

-- New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/man-linke...

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

#204
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I don't think we actually really disagree here at all. I was objecting mostly to the perceived sentiment that the idea of one culture being better than another is DOA.

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

#205
post #182
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He made his video specifically to cause maximum insult to a culture. Like Team America , but no cities burned over that one. I'd like to see a continuous stream of such insulting videos, so those offended finally concede to change the channel.

If you think Team America was made specifically to insult a culture then you may have missed the point of it. It has subtleties: a lot of the things that seem blatantly insulting are actually poking fun in the opposite direction.

So did the people that Team America superficially appeared to make fun of refrain from violence because they picked up on the subtly of the movie?

I think that gives those people too little credit. I think they would have refrained from physical violence even if such subtly was absent.

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

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the approved definition of terrorist that you are using? From Collins, via dictionary.com - "systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal". Seems to fit?

The key word there is systematic. A mob is not methodical in its plans nor has any regularity, therefore, it does not systematically use anything.

The mob was the specific instrument in this instance. Mobs are used regularly for similar purposes.

IMO the question at hand is whether as soon as some group threatens violence the USA kowtow. This appears to be the case here - the USA administration intervening in the free speech of a citizen in order to further the aims of a group because that group has threatened (and acted) violently.

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

#207
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn't killed because of the video. He was killed because he was representing the US, aka Big Satan. It amazes me how anybody watching the news for last 20 or so years can still talk about it being about specific video or cartoon or poem or whatever and if only it wasn't there everything would be peachy. It wouldn't. And it wasn't "just a request". It was a request from US government - the body created to represen…

>And it wasn't "just a request". It was a request from US government Which, unless there's some force of law or promise of reprisal behind it, is still "just a request".

No it is not. There is a difference between random person asking you something and US president asking you something, even if you won't be immediately jailed if you refuse. US president has an elevated stature given to him by the fact he is elected by American people as their ultimate representative, and he (and his administration) also has vast powers to benefit and hurt individuals and companies beyond direct imprisonment or other direct violent actions. Pretending not to know this does not benefit your argument but rather betrays ignorance, real or feigned.

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

#208
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn't killed because of the video. He was killed because he was representing the US, aka Big Satan. It amazes me how anybody watching the news for last 20 or so years can still talk about it being about specific video or cartoon or poem or whatever and if only it wasn't there everything would be peachy. It wouldn't. And it wasn't "just a request". It was a request from US government - the body created to represen…

Your argument would be more compelling had not the Muslim world also went crazy over a certain cartoon. Unless you're suggesting the Dutch are also the Great Satan. And no offense, the US government makes quite literally, thousands of requests to private companies every year and always have. It isn't more threatening because it is the White House instead of the FBI or State Department. Clearly Google had no problem i…

There's always something to go crazy about. In the same vain, UK and Germany embassies are under attack, though they had absolutely nothing connecting them to the film:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/witnesses-police-fire-o...

But if not film, there's always something more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7121025.stm Teddy bear named Muhammed - riot!

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132513576.html False accusation of Koran desecration - riot!

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/22/rushdie-update-its-fri... Rushdie knighted - outrage!

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008/02/seething-musli... Snack may have traces of alcohol - outrage!

http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/wikipedia-refuses-to... Wikipedia pubishes fotos of 14-th century relics - offense!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576554/posts Valentine's day - violent protest!

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2006/03/01/77857/Police-f... Playing cards - violence!

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_worl... Watching soccer? Death to you!

There's always something, and pretending it is always only the immediate excuse for violent outrage does not make much sense. The Satan here is everybody that does not conform to their very narrow, very fundamentalist, very oppressive medieval version of Islam. The reason-du-jour will be different, the cause is always the same - you should not behave in ways they do not approve, and if you do - they are justified to violently suppress you, or at least hurt somebody they associate with you.

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

#209
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And it wasn't "just a request". It was a request from US government Which, unless there's some force of law or promise of reprisal behind it, is still "just a request".

No it is not. There is a difference between random person asking you something and US president asking you something, even if you won't be immediately jailed if you refuse. US president has an elevated stature given to him by the fact he is elected by American people as their ultimate representative, and he (and his administration) also has vast powers to benefit and hurt individuals and companies beyond direct impri…

>Pretending not to know this does not benefit your argument but rather betrays ignorance, real or feigned.

If you're going to insult me, spit it out already.

Humor me. What possible negative action will the US government take against Google for their refusal to take down a video?

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

#210
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. There is a difference between random person asking you something and US president asking you something, even if you won't be immediately jailed if you refuse. US president has an elevated stature given to him by the fact he is elected by American people as their ultimate representative, and he (and his administration) also has vast powers to benefit and hurt individuals and companies beyond direct impri…

>Pretending not to know this does not benefit your argument but rather betrays ignorance, real or feigned. If you're going to insult me, spit it out already. Humor me. What possible negative action will the US government take against Google for their refusal to take down a video?

Be less sympathetic to their lobbying efforts, for example.

Google spends almost 10M per year on lobbying: http://allthingsd.com/20120123/googles-2011-lobbying-expense... obviously there are many areas where good relationships with the govt are important. If they piss off wrong people, then part of these 10M will be wasted, since they won't listen to what Google has to say.

Post reply on HN