U S Wants The Film "innocence Of Muslims" To Be Removed From Google

[Endorphin]

It is a massively lame "movie"!

[Scott]

Please stay on-topic.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

These "demonstrators with violence" have attacked British and US property in these countries, I begin to think education and humanitarian aid means nothing to many of these thugs and the governments in these countries are so weak they are unable to do anything. Of course i am one who believes and has always believed the west is wasting its time by trying help those who are intolerant and believe their particular faith can have nothing said about it other than worshipped .

You don't seroiusly believe the west is helping to do anything but obtain oil do you ? All that "aid" is just bribes for oil contracts in the end , we are not trying to help anyone but ourselves. and from that standpoint it's not really a waste of time but has worked quite well to build pipelines and secure oil wells all over the mid east. You think when Iran gets invaded we will find the wepons of mass destruction ? Or will we just take over one more of the worlds largest oil supplys ?

How does that account for aid given to countries without any significant oil reserves and does the US really send aid to Iran?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Rajab Al Zarahni

[chooka]

Interesting interview.....

[BookMan]

Interesting interview.....

Interesting what she says about Arabs wanting democracy but not wanting western democracy.

Also, as she says, It's quite difficult to be offended by the film because its quite difficult to take it seriously

[simple1]

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Thats the Law ..... the question is does burning a Koran or other similar things "tend to incite an immediate breach of peace ? ..... it's pretty obvious they do.

I posted this to try and let the law explain the difference between being offended and fighting words. Hate is actually protected right up until this level of fighting words.

My interpretation, this example only applies to citizens in US domestic territory, not international relations. I don't believe any changes to the First Amendment, relevant to this topic, would be promoted by a US Administration or a Member of Congress as precedent has already been established by the Supreme Court (Burstyn v. Wilson). Summary of the decision "it is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine" or to protect "any or all religions from views which are distasteful to them". Does this bring further meaningful discussion on this topic to a full stop?

An excellent article discussing this topic at:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1884662.html

Edited September 16, 2012 by simple1

[chooka]

Interesting interview.....

Interesting what she says about Arabs wanting democracy but not wanting western democracy.

Also, as she says, It's quite difficult to be offended by the film because its quite difficult to take it seriously

And she is Muslim and doubts that a lot of those prostesting have actually even seen the movie..

Edited September 16, 2012 by chooka

[maidu]

Ban it because its crap.

And who decides what is crap and what is not quite crap? You? Me? Easily offended mobs in Sudan? If it was up to me, I could easily deem 70% of what's shown on internet vidoes as crap. You want me to issue a fatwa and force governments to ban all videos I don't like? Didn't think so.

[BookMan]

Interesting interview.....

Interesting what she says about Arabs wanting democracy but not wanting western democracy.

Also, as she says, It's quite difficult to be offended by the film because its quite difficult to take it seriously

And she is Muslim and doubts that a lot of those prostesting have actually even seen the movie..

Yes, an important point.

[BookMan]

Ban it because its crap.

And who decides what is crap and what is not quite crap? You? Me? Easily offended mobs in Sudan? If it was up to me, I could easily deem 70% of what's shown on internet vidoes as crap. You want me to issue a fatwa and force governments to ban all videos I don't like? Didn't think so.

That is one of the problems of course. Who decides what is 'crap' and what is not. It is a subjective area based on many inputs.

[Para]

Most of my posts are more about direct insults like the cartoons or burning of Korans then this absurd movie I couldn't watch more than 10 seconds of before realising it was a complete waste of my time.

If only more TV posters had the same maturity these general forum would be a lot better place!

I agree if you don't like it don't watch it!

[impulse]

What I get out of this is:

1) The White House has asked Google to take down the video.

2) Google has declined.

3) Nobody in the White House has called Google unpatriotic, or a traitor

4) The Attorney General doesn't seem to be concocting reasons that it was perfectly legal for the White House to take down the video on their own. They could easily have it done.

5) There doesn't seem to be a move afoot to add hateful videos to the Patriot Act's list of terrorist acts that can get one tossed into jail- or worse.

Perhaps this is progress?

There's a diplomatic game afoot that goes way beyond my simple mind's ability to understand.

I'll wait and see before I condemn the White House for merely "asking". Not that I'm an Obama fan, but I have to wonder where we'd be if the Bush administration was still in there.

Edited September 16, 2012 by impulse

[theblether]

Under no circumstances......what has happened to the US? They used to be the World leaders when it came to Free Speech!!

If you bow to ignorant uneducated bigoted mobs then one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them.

"one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them."

I fear we're almost there already

Much more of the craven surrendering we've seen recently and there will be no doubt about it.

[BookMan]

Google blocks access to the film on YouTube in Indonesia

http://www.smh.com.au/world/google-blocks-antiislam-film-in-indonesia-20120916-260qr.html

[thaibeachlovers]

Under no circumstances......what has happened to the US? They used to be the World leaders when it came to Free Speech!!

If you bow to ignorant uneducated bigoted mobs then one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them.

Well said. The White House has proven itself to be devoid of any intent to support free speech.

It would be nice to have heard them say something to the effect that it's the American way of life ( and a RIGHT ) and they will fight to the death to support it, but what we have is an administration running away from principle as fast as it can.

So it's OK to kill people without due process ( drone strikes ) and crow about how they murdered Bin Laden, but if people in other countries get upset and burn some embassies it's oh so terrible. If Americans don't like their officials getting murdered, perhaps they shouldn't murder so many people in other countries.

[KKvampire]

These "demonstrators with violence" have attacked British and US property in these countries, I begin to think education and humanitarian aid means nothing to many of these thugs and the governments in these countries are so weak they are unable to do anything. Of course i am one who believes and has always believed the west is wasting its time by trying help those who are intolerant and believe their particular faith can have nothing said about it other than worshipped .

You don't seroiusly believe the west is helping to do anything but obtain oil do you ? All that "aid" is just bribes for oil contracts in the end , we are not trying to help anyone but ourselves. and from that standpoint it's not really a waste of time but has worked quite well to build pipelines and secure oil wells all over the mid east. You think when Iran gets invaded we will find the wepons of mass destruction ? Or will we just take over one more of the worlds largest oil supplys ?

O dear same s""T "its all about Oil." blah blah blah"

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

Under no circumstances......what has happened to the US? They used to be the World leaders when it came to Free Speech!!

If you bow to ignorant uneducated bigoted mobs then one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them.

Well said. The White House has proven itself to be devoid of any intent to support free speech.

It would be nice to have heard them say something to the effect that it's the American way of life ( and a RIGHT ) and they will fight to the death to support it, but what we have is an administration running away from principle as fast as it can.

So it's OK to kill people without due process ( drone strikes ) and crow about how they murdered Bin Laden, but if people in other countries get upset and burn some embassies it's oh so terrible. If Americans don't like their officials getting murdered, perhaps they shouldn't murder so many people in other countries.

Surely there is a distinction between killing a ruthless and wicked murderer and killing innocent professional diplomats!

[thaibeachlovers]

These "demonstrators with violence" have attacked British and US property in these countries, I begin to think education and humanitarian aid means nothing to many of these thugs and the governments in these countries are so weak they are unable to do anything. Of course i am one who believes and has always believed the west is wasting its time by trying help those who are intolerant and believe their particular faith can have nothing said about it other than worshipped .

Why do you believe that the governments are "weak"? They are almost certainly involved with the protests behind the scenes, or at least give permission for the attacks to take place.

If they were actually "weak", they would have been replaced long ago.

[catweazle]

Even though this B-Movie appears blunt and unprofessional, I believe that anyone has the right to display his perspective on any issue, be it religion, sexuality, etc. in the open without being censored and being hushed up.

The biggest problem for our planet lies in the fact that muslims by now managed to reach a status quo in the world (created and supported by leftist dogooders and other people without backbones) that allows them to feel offended by and revolt against anything a non muslim says, writes, sings or produces while international courts and aforementioned dogooders will prevent that his retaliations - even murder - will be punished. Muslims, in this century, are holding a wild card they can play at any time, anywhere, all over the world without receiving the "go to jail" card. And that is a frightening fact.

Instead of putting the murderers of the killed diplomat and co-workers in front of a court, there are discussions about whether or not the video should be removed from the internet? What is this? The Muppet Show????

Btw... I also don't believe that the whole thing is a coincidence, looking at the timing... Of course there will be people and institutions who will profit from this mess and they - most likely - are non muslims... Think about it. Its a sick world we live in and it gets sicker by the day...

[bigbamboo]

I don't want to start a byzantine debate here, just a simple question

What is the point behind making such movie?

For every action there is reaction.

Regards.

I guess the same reason Bin Laden's boys attacked America.

Religion inspired hatred.

[NomadJoe]

Google has complied to the internet censorship requests of the Chinese government - so why the double standards when the US is undoubtedly concerned about the security of American citizens

Complied? No. They left China voluntarily because they wouldn't comply.

[ayayay]

You and other people on this forum do not understand how strongly Muslims feel about their religion .In countries like Singapore Malaysia and others with responsible leadership, racial and religious slurs are against the law because they can cause riots and death. This film was apparently made by an Israeli Jew in order to stir up trouble. But if anyone makes slurs against Israel and questions the Holocaust it is not acceptable especially in the US. There should be limits to free speech. The maker of the film is totally responsible for the death of the US ambassador and should be held accountable.

How often do you see jews crashing into buildings, blow up innocent people with bombs, publically order death threats on people that critize their religion, and take hostatges, hijack planes, mutilate, behead people, etc?

[Scott]

Post deleted. Please stay on-topic.

[Soutpeel]

Religion inspired hatred.

"All religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry"

Edgar Allan Poe

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

Under no circumstances......what has happened to the US? They used to be the World leaders when it came to Free Speech!!

If you bow to ignorant uneducated bigoted mobs then one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them.

Well said. The White House has proven itself to be devoid of any intent to support free speech.

It would be nice to have heard them say something to the effect that it's the American way of life ( and a RIGHT ) and they will fight to the death to support it, but what we have is an administration running away from principle as fast as it can.

So it's OK to kill people without due process ( drone strikes ) and crow about how they murdered Bin Laden, but if people in other countries get upset and burn some embassies it's oh so terrible. If Americans don't like their officials getting murdered, perhaps they shouldn't murder so many people in other countries.

Surely there is a distinction between killing a ruthless and wicked murderer and killing innocent professional diplomats!

If the US government launched drone strikes in the US ( or Mexico ) against <ruthless and wicked murderer(s)> of which there are many, would that be OK? I think the public might have something to say about that!!!!!!

But they seem to accept that it's OK to kill people in other countries without a trial. Even countries that have banned the death penalty in their own countries seem to think it's OK to kill without due process in other countries. Is that the ultimate racism?

Anyway, what about all the completely innocent people and children that are murdered as "collateral" ( a dispicable term ) damage? No wonder so many people hate the US.

I can't deny that there is a lot of truth in what you say. Most of us would probably want to see the due process of law but are limits to the possibilities of remedy within the law.

I think there was every likelihood of people at a high level in Pakistan being well aware he was living there and I don't think there was the remotest hope in hell that they would have arrested him and put him on trial.

[NomadJoe]

Under no circumstances......what has happened to the US? They used to be the World leaders when it came to Free Speech!!

If you bow to ignorant uneducated bigoted mobs then one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them.

Well said. The White House has proven itself to be devoid of any intent to support free speech.

It would be nice to have heard them say something to the effect that it's the American way of life ( and a RIGHT ) and they will fight to the death to support it, but what we have is an administration running away from principle as fast as it can.

So it's OK to kill people without due process ( drone strikes ) and crow about how they murdered Bin Laden, but if people in other countries get upset and burn some embassies it's oh so terrible. If Americans don't like their officials getting murdered, perhaps they shouldn't murder so many people in other countries.

Surely there is a distinction between killing a ruthless and wicked murderer and killing innocent professional diplomats!

Realize that your quote if written by the other side would sound like this:

Surely there is a distinction between killing a savior of our religion and freedom fighter and killing a white devil infidel bent on dominating the world with his prurient, greedy capitalist ways.

Man is fallible. You can convince anyone of anything.

"Good people can do good and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

Under no circumstances......what has happened to the US? They used to be the World leaders when it came to Free Speech!!

If you bow to ignorant uneducated bigoted mobs then one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them.

Well said. The White House has proven itself to be devoid of any intent to support free speech.

It would be nice to have heard them say something to the effect that it's the American way of life ( and a RIGHT ) and they will fight to the death to support it, but what we have is an administration running away from principle as fast as it can.

So it's OK to kill people without due process ( drone strikes ) and crow about how they murdered Bin Laden, but if people in other countries get upset and burn some embassies it's oh so terrible. If Americans don't like their officials getting murdered, perhaps they shouldn't murder so many people in other countries.

Surely there is a distinction between killing a ruthless and wicked murderer and killing innocent professional diplomats!

Realize that your quote if written by the other side would sound like this:

Surely there is a distinction between killing a savior of our religion and freedom fighter and killing a white devil infidel bent on dominating the world with his prurient, greedy capitalist ways.

Man is fallible. You can convince anyone of anything.

"Good people can do good and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."

I certainly agree with this bit: " But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion"

[simple1]

Google has complied to the internet censorship requests of the Chinese government - so why the double standards when the US is undoubtedly concerned about the security of American citizens

Complied? No. They left China voluntarily because they wouldn't comply.

Up until 2010 Google did comply

[thaibeachlovers]

Under no circumstances......what has happened to the US? They used to be the World leaders when it came to Free Speech!!

If you bow to ignorant uneducated bigoted mobs then one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them.

Well said. The White House has proven itself to be devoid of any intent to support free speech.

It would be nice to have heard them say something to the effect that it's the American way of life ( and a RIGHT ) and they will fight to the death to support it, but what we have is an administration running away from principle as fast as it can.

So it's OK to kill people without due process ( drone strikes ) and crow about how they murdered Bin Laden, but if people in other countries get upset and burn some embassies it's oh so terrible. If Americans don't like their officials getting murdered, perhaps they shouldn't murder so many people in other countries.

Surely there is a distinction between killing a ruthless and wicked murderer and killing innocent professional diplomats!

Realize that your quote if written by the other side would sound like this:

Surely there is a distinction between killing a savior of our religion and freedom fighter and killing a white devil infidel bent on dominating the world with his prurient, greedy capitalist ways.

Man is fallible. You can convince anyone of anything.

"Good people can do good and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."

Well said.

Too few western people look at things from the other side's view point. As they say, walk in their shoes.

[simple1]

Re my post# 256 -

I don't believe any changes to the First Amendment, relevant to this topic, would be promoted by a US Administration or a Member of Congress as precedent has already been established by the Supreme Court (Burstyn v. Wilson). Summary of the decision "it is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine" or to protect "any or all religions from views which are distasteful to them". Does this bring further meaningful discussion on this topic to a full stop?

An excellent article discussing this topic at:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1884662.html

Anyone like to comment?