[Luis Dias]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9oI7Fd3Uec

Jesus, I'm beggining to have doubts over the whole free speech thing

[NGTM-1R]

Did you saw that movie?

I did. I'm actually something of a bad movie aficionado (I stage semiregular Bad Movie Night social events at my house for friends), so I can tell you with some certainty that as far as these things go, it's actually not a bad example of the filmmaker's art considering its budget. Even after it was redubbed to insult The Prophet from whatever the actors were originally saying, it's still a pretty good production for the money that went into it. It's certainly no Night of Horror, Manos, or Bimbos in Armageddon City. It might actually have been enjoyable in its original form.

Which is vaguely sickening over and above the content, and the fact that they went back and redubbed it to make an anti-Islamic film out of it without the knowledge or consent of the actors and original film crew.

[stinkyFeet]

Just wait until some kid edits and redubs "The Adventures of Sinbad" to be offensive.

[Dragon]

Thing is, it's easy to judge the movie by the standards of well-funded Western movies, but I've seen quite a few low-budget movies produced in the same region that were of the same quality with regards to acting and effects.

Slightly different country and a few years old, but just look at the Turkish remakes of Superman or ET for a rough example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9oI7Fd3Uec

Don't forget Turkish Star Wars! The quality of films from that region indeed leaves a lot to be desired. I guess this "movie" was clear enough for them. Also, it takes one person who sees, understands and is offended by it. The news will spread through word of mouth, even without terrorist help (though as it was mentioned, they did indeed "help" starting the riots).

Jesus, I'm beggining to have doubts over the whole free speech thing

It just hit me: Doesn't all this fall under hate speech? That would cleanly resolve the "freedom of speech" debate, as hate speech isn't protected, nor it should be.

[Flipside]

The other thing that set it all off is that the trailer was first released in dubbed Arabic just before the riots started, and the problem with that is that the all too obvious dubbing that takes place in the English language version is gone, because it's all dubbed, so there's a strong possibility that those who watched that particular trailer had no idea whatsoever that words had been put into the actors' mouths.

[Luis Dias]

@Dragon,

What is Free Speech for me will be considered Hate Speech by a ****ing moron. Who just might be in charge.

For instance, is my laughter to the silly proclamations of faith of muslims a "hate speech"? Perhaps not to you, but it obviously is for many other people.

So no, I do not believe in "Hate Speech anything". Free Speech is the freedom to say the really unpleasant things. If it was the freedom to say pleasant things, it was an unnecessary value to have.

[karajorma]

Notice that my contributions regarding this whole matter have been always about the concern that is non-trivial about censorship and lack of free-speech. This is not scaremongering: as we speak the now infamous "movie" depicting muslims as this or that has been censored in youtube, and the Obama administration has asked for Google (and others) to take out any link to that movie. So the anti free-speech movement is actually making strides on this.

And how is that anti-free speech? Obama has the right to ask Google. Google has the absolute right to tell Obama to **** off. Google has the absolute right to decide that they don't want to associated with any material they see fit. Free speech is threatened when someone is punished for what they have chosen to say. Or forced not to say it because of the threats of punishment.

The famously line supposedly by Voltaire does not say "I disagree with what you're saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it in my newspaper"

Misquoting people is cause for banning people in other forums, but here I guess it's all okay except when it's done against moderators. Here, I just bow to your authority and accept your condemnation of being pathetic. What the **** else can I do anyway.

I accidentally delete the quote line and couldn't be arsed to put it back since I figured all concerned were mature enough to be able to deal with that. Stop trying to turn this into some pathetic conspiracy.

[Dragon]

@Dragon,

What is Free Speech for me will be considered Hate Speech by a ****ing moron. Who just might be in charge.

For instance, is my laughter to the silly proclamations of faith of muslims a "hate speech"? Perhaps not to you, but it obviously is for many other people.

So no, I do not believe in "Hate Speech anything". Free Speech is the freedom to say the really unpleasant things. If it was the freedom to say pleasant things, it was an unnecessary value to have.

Hate speech is hate speech. I'd consider laughing (loudly, in a place where they can notice it) at Muslim proclamations of faith a form of hate speech, though a comparatively mild one. Ask yourself two questions: "Would you like it if somebody said something like that about you?" and "Is it an objective fact, or a subjective opinion?" before saying anything, and you shouldn't offend anyone. In general, if something has no other purpose than to offend somebody, then it's hate speech. I think it's the case with this "movie".

The other thing that set it all off is that the trailer was first released in dubbed Arabic just before the riots started, and the problem with that is that the all too obvious dubbing that takes place in the English language version is gone, because it's all dubbed, so there's a strong possibility that those who watched that particular trailer had no idea whatsoever that words had been put into the actors' mouths.

That would explain plenty of it. Now this looks like a clear attempt at provoking riots. It was either done by complete morons, or on purpose, most likely both. There's no way it could be an attempt at humor.

[Luis Dias]

Notice that my contributions regarding this whole matter have been always about the concern that is non-trivial about censorship and lack of free-speech. This is not scaremongering: as we speak the now infamous "movie" depicting muslims as this or that has been censored in youtube, and the Obama administration has asked for Google (and others) to take out any link to that movie. So the anti free-speech movement is actually making strides on this.

And how is that anti-free speech? Obama has the right to ask Google. Google has the absolute right to tell Obama to **** off. Google has the absolute right to decide that they don't want to associated with any material they see fit. Free speech is threatened when someone is punished for what they have chosen to say. Or forced not to say it because of the threats of punishment.

Obama has the right to behave contrary to the "american values" anytime he wishes, after all he is free. However, he is not a "normal human being". He is the president, and that has a lot of clout. If Google were to accept the President's admonishion, we would be in a state of affairs of outright free-speech censorship.

Glad they didn't. Glad that Google knows better. But *really* sad that the president does not, and that the vermins of anti freedom of speech reached so high in the hierarchy.

The famously line supposedly by Voltaire does not say "I disagree with what you're saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it in my newspaper"

I missed the part where Google's search algorithm's was the President's "newspaper".

I accidentally delete the quote line and couldn't be arsed to put it back since I figured all concerned were mature enough to be able to deal with that. Stop trying to turn this into some pathetic conspiracy.

An apology would suffice. Bah.

Hate speech is hate speech. I'd consider laughing (loudly, in a place where they can notice it) at Muslim proclamations of faith a form of hate speech, though a comparatively mild one. Ask yourself two questions: "Would you like it if somebody said something like that about you?" and "Is it an objective fact, or a subjective opinion?" before saying anything, and you shouldn't offend anyone. In general, if something has no other purpose than to offend somebody, then it's hate speech. I think it's the case with this "movie".

My taste should have no binding whatsoever in the ability of anyone else be free to state their own opinions on whatever matter they so choose.

Do you understand this basic precept? Do you understand the difference between being "free" and being "nice", "respectful", etc.?

[Flipside]

Must admit, my own temptation would be to say "Well, you aren't painting a very good picture of yourselves by dancing to the tune of people who are clearly morons..."

[An4ximandros]

Do YOU know the difference between *****ing banally and stating your disagreement? Should I give you an example? All right here it goes :

You like Freespace?

Exhibit A:**** you **** sucker, COD IS THE **** NOOBF**.
Exhibit B: I don't like Space Sims, I prefer FPS games such as CoD.

One makes a point, the other is being an ass for the sake of being one.

This is a stupid fallacy too many people ignore on the internet, it's dangerous to be an ignorant douche read this: Critical Thinking

EDIT: Yes, I realize the Irony on this post.

[Flipside]

You know, I'm not even certain what you're trying to say there.

If it's a response to my post, then maybe you should investigate the difference between tongue-in-cheek rhetoric and serious suggestion, and the difference between temptation and action?

If this is a response to the conversation between Luis and Kara, then don't worry too much about it, those two moderately enjoy bouncing off each other, and I'm moderately certain they are both adult enough to realise where to draw the line.

[karajorma]

Obama has the right to behave contrary to the "american values" anytime he wishes, after all he is free. However, he is not a "normal human being". He is the president, and that has a lot of clout. If Google were to accept the President's admonishion, we would be in a state of affairs of outright free-speech censorship.

Glad they didn't. Glad that Google knows better. But *really* sad that the president does not, and that the vermins of anti freedom of speech reached so high in the hierarchy.

I missed the part where Google's search algorithm's was the President's "newspaper".

Then you missed the entire point I made. Google have the right to remove any video they see fit. This isn't a free speech issue. It's their website and if they don't want to be associated with that sort of content. In fact they even state that in their terms and conditions

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we do not 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).

So yeah, Obama has a perfect right to point out that they aren't living up to their own terms and conditions if people he works with are dying because of it. The last bit is the bit you are forgetting. This video has caused issues on a global scale. It's damaged East-West relations and forced Obama to make his own adverts complaining about the video. So clout or not, this is an issue that is affecting the country.

As for Google not removing the video. To be honest I doubt it was made on moral principles. I suspect it's a business decision based on the fact that there are too many people like you who'd complain about them removing the video and not enough people who'd complain about it not being removed.

If I were to start a "Google doesn't support the troops in Afghanistan" movement, it would be gone tomorrow.

An apology would suffice. Bah.

Fine. I'm sorry. But I really did think the fact that I actually named you in that post made it clear that I wasn't replying to you in the earlier part.

[Legate Damar]

If you claim to have already answered, then surely clarifying your answer in the form of a simple yes or no response to my question should not be difficult?

If you want to get involved in the thread then read it, I'm not Google.

@Swantz, exactly, but pretending this is 'exercising freedom of speech' is simply something to hide behind, it's not 'Carrying the torch of Freedom' anywhere.

@Luis : It's the entire point, these people are trying to make out that they are 'doing good' with these cartoons, but pretty much everyone agrees they are dicks, so there's no point applauding their actions.

I am asking for a simple yes or no. You have claimed to have already answered, yet continually dodged my questions. Furthermore, your responses are so long that you could have answered my request for a simple yes or no answer hundreds of times already. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that you are deliberately refusing to answer me. Why?

A Warning was issued for this post : Repeatedly asking obvious leading questions without bothering to read the thread

++ Oh, and consider yourself fortunate, Admin had already stated that if you did this again you would be looking at time off, so consider yourself fortunate that I saw this and not Karajorma ++

[NGTM-1R]

Libyan people to Islamist Militia: We've had enough your **** and we're burning the whole thing down, right now.

[Luis Dias]

Obama has the right to behave contrary to the "american values" anytime he wishes, after all he is free. However, he is not a "normal human being". He is the president, and that has a lot of clout. If Google were to accept the President's admonishion, we would be in a state of affairs of outright free-speech censorship.

Glad they didn't. Glad that Google knows better. But *really* sad that the president does not, and that the vermins of anti freedom of speech reached so high in the hierarchy.

I missed the part where Google's search algorithm's was the President's "newspaper".

Then you missed the entire point I made. Google have the right to remove any video they see fit. This isn't a free speech issue. It's their website and if they don't want to be associated with that sort of content. In fact they even state that in their terms and conditions

I am afraid I did not miss that point at all, and I really don't like doing this "NO U", but you force me to. Look, if Google had taken down the video, it would have been out of fear and I'd have called them "Cowards", but there would have been no severe breach of "Free Speech". Here, we both agree vehemently. The Site is private, they do whatever they want to do with it. They are not obliged to have this video on their site. I hope we are clear on this particular matter.

The scandal was completely another: the fact that the president actively asked Google to censor the video. This is a whole new matter. This is the ****ing President asking for censorship. Granted, it was *asking*, not demanding. But it is clearly a step in the wrong direction. No President should ever ask a newspaper or a video site to censor itself. The job of the President is the exact opposite: to ensure and guarantee (with words and actions) the rights of Freedom of Speech.

So yeah, I think I am entitled to my amazement and concern.

Apropos, do not paint me as a republican or what not. Not only I am portuguese (so I really don't care) but I view myself as a liberal, both in the european and in the american sense (it is funny I am right wing here and left wing in the USA...).

So yeah, Obama has a perfect right to point out that they aren't living up to their own terms and conditions if people he works with are dying because of it. The last bit is the bit you are forgetting. This video has caused issues on a global scale. It's damaged East-West relations and forced Obama to make his own adverts complaining about the video. So clout or not, this is an issue that is affecting the country.

IMO, that's the wrong approach. He has to uphold the country's citizen's rights. Not ask them to forfeit those rights so that a crazy bunch can do..... exactly what? Do you really think that this censorship "after the fact" would have had any effect whatsoever? Rather than being a complete surrender of the citizen's rights to a bunch of terrorists?

You are surrendering far more than what you can possibly gain. And you seem to be oblivious to that fact.

Fine. I'm sorry. But I really did think the fact that I actually named you in that post made it clear that I wasn't replying to you in the earlier part.

Ok, sorry it dragged for so long. And no, I took the exact opposite meaning and I even spent half a minute trying to recollect some lost memory of when had I written that quote.

[Legate Damar]

A Warning was issued for this post : Repeatedly asking obvious leading questions without bothering to read the thread

Excuse me, but is there anything wrong with simply asking someone to clarify their position on a subject? I was not asking whether he thought the rioters were wrong or not as he already answered that. I was asking whether he believed the majority of blame would fall on the rioters or the provokers. If his position is that they were both wrong, but the rioters were more wrong, then all he had to do was say so.

Furthermore, this line of inquiry grew out of a question made to his statement that the attempt to spread the value of free speech in theocratic nations was equivalent to the attempt to enforce religious law in secular nations. As I strongly disagreed with this position, I was simply requesting clarification so as to more reasonably debate said issue.

[An4ximandros]

Flipside: Yeah, I was referring to their conversation, I apologize, It really angers me when I see people squabble the internet in such a pointless way, we created means to communicate through space across the planet, only to waste it in such pointless nonsense, that said, you are also right, I should have exercised more restraint and self-control while writing that post.

NGTM: That is... in all honesty, awesome news.

[Flipside]

@Legate : Because the answer was already there, in plain black and white, and you still kept asking the question and accusing me of refusing to answer.

To be honest, I think most people are arguing the same point from different angles at this stage, it's just the stupid questions like "Do you think the rioters killing people is wrong?" that really set it off course. Of course the rioters killing people was wrong, I really, really shouldn't have to answer that question because the answer is incredibly obvious. Which is why I refused to. It's kind of depressing that I actually ended up having to do so, and even more depressing that some people tried to twist my refusal to answer a question that has such an obvious answer into me in some way supporting them.

That's why I'm banning people next time I see that happening. If you have to ask a question like that, you don't belong on a discussion forum. It's a form of conversational terrorism.

Edit : I will clarify, however, that you were NOT the one accusing me of anything for refusing to answer, at least not at that stage.

@An4ximandros : No problem and no offence taken, we've had enough miscommunication in here already, so I think we're all on tip-toes at the moment

[Luis Dias]

NGTM: That is... in all honesty, awesome news.

I wouldn't call it awesome. Not yet. The irony wheels keep on turning. All I see is madness everywhere.