6 ms·

South Park creators warned over Muhammad depiction

45 points by shrikant 17y ago

lionhearted 17y ago
Ah man - I'm in China, and I've gotten used to Youtube and Blogspot not working, but the BBC is banned? This is bloody ridiculous. Anyone got a way through it that still works? When I was here five years ago the translate-English-to-English thing worked, but no more. I tried a good 20 or so proxies I knew as well before giving up... probably Hotspot Shield would work, but it slows down everything and there's nothing so important I need to do. Thoughts?
- cturner 17y ago
  Set up ssh on a server outside china. Run sshd on port 443. You may be able to just ssh to it. Or you can set putty up to tunnel to over HTTP, and because of the port choice it won't be blocked, unless they've made a specific rule for that IP. Tunnel all your operations through that link. In time, authoritarians will start profiling internet activity to sniff out people who do this (assuming they're not already). If you're a Chinese citizen then you might want to think about this. Other readers - what's a good way to set up squid or another proxy to complement this arrangement?
asnyder 17y ago
Absolutely outrageous. There was no depiction. They merely suggested that Mohammed was inside the bear costume, this too is ridiculous and the point of this aspect of the episode. 1. It's a cartoon, there is no Mohammed. If I draw a stick figure and suggest it's Mohammed it's unreasonable to suggest that this is a depiction of Mohammed, it's a stick figure. 2. It's a bear costume, just because someone says Mohammed is on the inside no way depicts Mohammed. The only thing that suggests this is dialog, if one mutes the audio there's no more suggestion. 3. It's likely that in the rendering program there is in fact nothing inside the costume, so all this fuss is over the imaginary depiction of Mohammed. So crazy...
- ajju 17y ago
  Well, even if there was a depiction, so what? The issue is crazies threatening to kill someone over a cartoon. What the cartoon depicted or did not depict is moot.
- mapleoin 17y ago
  3. It's likely that in the rendering program there is in fact nothing inside the costume, so all this fuss is over the imaginary depiction of Mohammed. Wait. So you mean you think there's a possibility that they drew Mohammed under that 2D bear costume and that layer of pixels is the only thing preventing us from seeing the Prophet?
- jheriko 17y ago
  I think you misunderstand depiction - depiction with words is depiction all the same. There is no question that they depicted Mohammed - although I agree that the fuss is completely disproportionate.
- PG-13 17y ago
  They already had an actual depiction of Mohammed several seasons ago. His full body and face were shown. He was a superhero. Nobody cared. If they depicted Mohammed now, nobody would come after them. The networks won't allow it now. People seem to forget that a big part of the controversy surrounding the cartoons in Denmark wasn't just that Mohammed was portrayed, but that he was portrayed as a terrorist and performing lewd acts.
  - gizmomagico 17y ago
    People seem to forget that a big part of the controversy surrounding the cartoons in Denmark wasn't just that Mohammed was portrayed, but that he was portrayed as a terrorist and performing lewd acts. Really? Were these the cartoons portraying Muhammad as a terrorist and performing lewd acts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoo... ? From the article: This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in a total of more than 100 deaths),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. - Now, how fucking insane do people have to be, to have that kind of reaction to a fucking cartoon, even if it actually had been "lewd"?
cturner 17y ago
I love this game. What they do is hacking on a different format. If I were them, I'd put an unnamed character in an episode, and have it on television and let it go by. Then I'd refer to that character in a subsequent episode and point out that it had been Mohammed. Build it up as a three-part who-shot-JR-style episode series with no viable plot conclusion except one where the depicted character is 'the prophet', in order to strongarm the network into putting the revelation episode on TV.
tome 17y ago
Perhaps the way to get these stupid and illiberal threats to stop is a massive DDoS attack. If a large proportion media outlets and content creators make a point of "portraying" Mohammed then there's no way these criminals could make all of them "probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh".
- anthonyb 17y ago
  I can see big full page ads with some bearded guy and "C'est nes pas une Prophet Mohammed" underneath it...
  - tome 17y ago
    That's brilliant! Perhaps this is an idea that will catch on like the atheist bus campaign.
tamersalama 17y ago
Muslim Here - I don't know the full story (a bit late). Before this gets any hotter - just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam is prohibited [wiki: Aniconism, Idolatry, Islamic Art, ...]. I personally don't watch any episode/movie/play with Jesus, Muhammad, Noah, Moses (PBUT) drawn or acted (I don't feel comfortable - Silly Me). Religion is the only boundary that some have left. It encapsulates things as simple and beautiful as ethics and manners. What's wrong with a little of these? freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values. I don't like Southpark (but I'll be waiting Futurama) :)
- gort 17y ago
  "freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values." Actually, it is. I have read the Qur'an, all of it. Page after page it tells me that people like myself deserve to be tortured for zillions of years. I find it pretty offensive and hateful. But I don't call for it to be banned.
  - tamersalama 17y ago
    That was quick.
  - ivenkys 17y ago
    This is absolutely spot-on. I have seen debates on T.V where respected Muslim scholars agree on and defend this interpretation - its the duty of a Muslim (Mu'min) to kill or convert an unbeliever (Kaafir). I don't understand why this argument(of banning the Qu'ran) is not made whenever this topic comes up.
- xenthral 17y ago
  > "just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam" Hold on there, don't go speaking for all of Islam, in Sunni Islam, yes, its considered a sin by all major schools of thought, but thats not really the case in the shia tradition. Until not that long ago you could buy posters of Mohammed in Tehran (saw it done in a british documentary... Mo looked like he went heavy on the make up). > "freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values." Freedom of speech/expression isn't merely the right of saying what _you_ want, it is also the right for others to hear/see it, so when asking for people not to express their views because some can be offended, you have actually attacked my values, because maybe (and in this case, definitely) I'm very interested. So I do hope you'll condemn a campaign of whispered threats of horrible violence for people who just want to express themselves, rather than condemning southpark (which granted you didn't, just said you didn't like them).
jheriko 17y ago
Should Muslims be upset about this? Probably not. Muslims themselves have depicted Mohammed in art in the past, although usually covering the face - nobody knows what he looked like so it is not possible to depict his face accurately... so I have always assumed it was just a mark of respect. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg Besides that, I think retaliating with violence is pretty unacceptable if you truly live by the Koran - It says nowhere inside of it that such depictions are forbidden - but it does say in plenty of places that unlawful killing (by the law of the Koran) is forbidden and that it displeases Allah. Since depictions of Mohammed break no law in the Koran, how can murder be justified in retaliation? (Koran 4:29, 5:28-32 etc.) In his own lifetime, Mohammed offered shelter and guidance to those who had defamed him public, removed him from his home, chased and persecuted him and his people... I wonder what he would think of all this today?
- tome 17y ago
  Who cares whether violence is or is not permitted in the Koran? Retaliating with violence is completely unacceptable for any person who values sense.
  - jheriko 17y ago
    Muslims care - that was why I took that line of argument. Its much easier to convince people on their own terms.
    - tome 17y ago
      I see. I hope you're right, but I fear you're wrong. The culture of physical intimidation and oppression is just that, a culture. Religion is used to justify it, but never stands up to scrutiny. I don't think there's such a thing as a resonable muslim, or indeed reasonable christian, there are just reasonable people, independent of their religion. Either someone can see that threats of murder are unacceptable or they cannot. Rereading of their holy book is not going to change what's formed in them due to the culture which they have been exposed to their whole lives.
JCThoughtscream 17y ago
The fact that they're facing death threats for it is made doubly hilarious in light of the episode's content.
guelo 17y ago
Seems they took down all their content including their 404 page, http://www.revolutionmuslim.com http://www.revolutionmuslim.com You can still see the post in google's cache.
- jk4930 17y ago
  No, they were taken down. Them and some like-minded sites. Now guess...
sharpn 17y ago
I think South Park may have been alluding to this sad story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7112929.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7112929.stm
acg 17y ago
I did not see the episode but it could be satire: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7119399.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7119399.stm
omarqureshi 17y ago
One crazy bastards death threat does not represent what the entire Islamic community believes in, remember that there are crazy people from all religious backgrounds.
- tome 17y ago
  Sure, there are crazy christians and crazy hindus and crazy athiests. I don't think anyone here is jumping to the conclusion that all muslims are horrible. I -- and others I think -- are reacting to the horrific example of intolerance regardless of where it came from. This level of intolerance is one thing that a liberal permissive society should indeed not tolerate itself.
- gizmomagico 17y ago
  Islam has a very special kind of Crazy though: http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/this-is-an-outrage.jpg http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/this-is-an-outrage.jpg This guy looks like he just might get all worked up about South Park too.
maxklein 17y ago
Different cultures is not about food that is a bit more spicy or that smells different. There are real differences that, even though they may not be important for you, are important for many people in the world. We are no longer living in places with closed borders - this stuff is now global. South Park is global entertainment, it's not American entertainment. Respect other cultures, particularly with things that cause no hurt to anyone else. If you are against FGM as a cultural practise, I can understand that. It causes harm to other people. But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this.
- confuzatron 17y ago
  I'm afraid I have 'negative' respect for any culture (actually, we're talking about some bigoted crazies on a website) that threatens death to those who claim that a historical figure is inside a cartoon representation of a bear suit.
  - maxklein 17y ago
    What parts of your own culture do you have 'negative' respect for?
    - confuzatron 17y ago
      Glib answer: an honest desire to respect other cultures that can unfortunately degenerate into cultural relativism and soft racism. Actually I hate lots of things in my culture. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the question to be honest. (btw I came back to delete my original comment, because I thought it didn't contribute that much to the discussion and was verging on a flame. From my experience HN commenters seem more able than others to keep it civilised. But I was too late :))
      - maxklein 17y ago
        What I'm trying to show is this: It's easy to see the flaws in another person or another culture, but it's much more difficult to see it in your own. Everybody has their own weird things that are annoying to other people. But when you're going to criticize others, first look at yourself, and see your own flaws. If you cannot see your own flaws, then do you really think it is because you do not have any?
Devilboy 17y ago
I'm so glad that SOMEONE is standing up for our rights - threats of violence be damned!
simplegeek 17y ago
I'm a Muslim and I've never read anywhere about killing someone who draws Muhammad (Peace be upon him). But drawing Muhammad(PBUH) is definitely considered as a disrespect. Moreover, it definitely upsets people(muslims in this case) so why just keep doing it? On the other hand, my own study of Quran is limited, however, I've yet to come across any study that says something about killing someone who draws Muhamamd (PBUH). People shouldn't draw Muhammad because it hurts Muslims. Whereas, muslims should be silent in this case, imho. There is a story about Muhammad (PBUH) visiting Taif (city of Saudi Arabia) and people of Taif threw stones and tortured him(PBUH)and Allah sent a messenger asking Muhammad for the permission to crush people of Taif. And Muhammad said something along the lines of "No, I forgive them" (this isn't the exact story probably as I'm recalling from memory). My point is that, if Muhammad can forgive people insulting him then why cannot, being beloved followers, we be quite in this scenario. On the other hand, I guess non-muslims should be tolerant of our views and shouldn't do things that makes us sad (and same applies to us).
known 17y ago
"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain
secret 17y ago
For the defenders of censorship, this recent ruling should give you a perspective on how strongly free speech is protected in the US: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMolK4XY7Lqi7gsN4g_W1Ija1mfQ http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMolK4XY7...
grrrr 17y ago
I never understood why people actually get so angry when they take offence to something. Consider what happens to someone who is offended, absolutely nothing. If your offended by something, it's not as is something really bad has actually happened. It's not as if you've physically been hurt, or someone you know has been hurt. The world is still exactly the same place it was before you took offence. Offended? So what, get over it.

45 points by shrikant 17y ago

Ah man - I'm in China, and I've gotten used to Youtube and Blogspot not working, but the BBC is banned? This is bloody ridiculous. Anyone got a way through it that still works? When I was here five years ago the translate-English-to-English thing worked, but no more. I tried a good 20 or so proxies I knew as well before giving up... probably Hotspot Shield would work, but it slows down everything and there's nothing so important I need to do. Thoughts?

cturner 17y ago
Set up ssh on a server outside china. Run sshd on port 443. You may be able to just ssh to it. Or you can set putty up to tunnel to over HTTP, and because of the port choice it won't be blocked, unless they've made a specific rule for that IP. Tunnel all your operations through that link. In time, authoritarians will start profiling internet activity to sniff out people who do this (assuming they're not already). If you're a Chinese citizen then you might want to think about this. Other readers - what's a good way to set up squid or another proxy to complement this arrangement?

asnyder 17y ago

Absolutely outrageous. There was no depiction. They merely suggested that Mohammed was inside the bear costume, this too is ridiculous and the point of this aspect of the episode. 1. It's a cartoon, there is no Mohammed. If I draw a stick figure and suggest it's Mohammed it's unreasonable to suggest that this is a depiction of Mohammed, it's a stick figure. 2. It's a bear costume, just because someone says Mohammed is on the inside no way depicts Mohammed. The only thing that suggests this is dialog, if one mutes the audio there's no more suggestion. 3. It's likely that in the rendering program there is in fact nothing inside the costume, so all this fuss is over the imaginary depiction of Mohammed. So crazy...

ajju 17y ago
Well, even if there was a depiction, so what? The issue is crazies threatening to kill someone over a cartoon. What the cartoon depicted or did not depict is moot.
mapleoin 17y ago
3. It's likely that in the rendering program there is in fact nothing inside the costume, so all this fuss is over the imaginary depiction of Mohammed. Wait. So you mean you think there's a possibility that they drew Mohammed under that 2D bear costume and that layer of pixels is the only thing preventing us from seeing the Prophet?
jheriko 17y ago
I think you misunderstand depiction - depiction with words is depiction all the same. There is no question that they depicted Mohammed - although I agree that the fuss is completely disproportionate.
PG-13 17y ago
They already had an actual depiction of Mohammed several seasons ago. His full body and face were shown. He was a superhero. Nobody cared. If they depicted Mohammed now, nobody would come after them. The networks won't allow it now. People seem to forget that a big part of the controversy surrounding the cartoons in Denmark wasn't just that Mohammed was portrayed, but that he was portrayed as a terrorist and performing lewd acts.
- gizmomagico 17y ago
  People seem to forget that a big part of the controversy surrounding the cartoons in Denmark wasn't just that Mohammed was portrayed, but that he was portrayed as a terrorist and performing lewd acts. Really? Were these the cartoons portraying Muhammad as a terrorist and performing lewd acts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoo... ? From the article: This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in a total of more than 100 deaths),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. - Now, how fucking insane do people have to be, to have that kind of reaction to a fucking cartoon, even if it actually had been "lewd"?

cturner 17y ago

I love this game. What they do is hacking on a different format. If I were them, I'd put an unnamed character in an episode, and have it on television and let it go by. Then I'd refer to that character in a subsequent episode and point out that it had been Mohammed. Build it up as a three-part who-shot-JR-style episode series with no viable plot conclusion except one where the depicted character is 'the prophet', in order to strongarm the network into putting the revelation episode on TV.

tome 17y ago

Perhaps the way to get these stupid and illiberal threats to stop is a massive DDoS attack. If a large proportion media outlets and content creators make a point of "portraying" Mohammed then there's no way these criminals could make all of them "probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh".

anthonyb 17y ago
I can see big full page ads with some bearded guy and "C'est nes pas une Prophet Mohammed" underneath it...
- tome 17y ago
  That's brilliant! Perhaps this is an idea that will catch on like the atheist bus campaign.

tamersalama 17y ago

Muslim Here - I don't know the full story (a bit late). Before this gets any hotter - just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam is prohibited [wiki: Aniconism, Idolatry, Islamic Art, ...]. I personally don't watch any episode/movie/play with Jesus, Muhammad, Noah, Moses (PBUT) drawn or acted (I don't feel comfortable - Silly Me). Religion is the only boundary that some have left. It encapsulates things as simple and beautiful as ethics and manners. What's wrong with a little of these? freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values. I don't like Southpark (but I'll be waiting Futurama) :)

gort 17y ago
"freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values." Actually, it is. I have read the Qur'an, all of it. Page after page it tells me that people like myself deserve to be tortured for zillions of years. I find it pretty offensive and hateful. But I don't call for it to be banned.
- tamersalama 17y ago
  That was quick.
- ivenkys 17y ago
  This is absolutely spot-on. I have seen debates on T.V where respected Muslim scholars agree on and defend this interpretation - its the duty of a Muslim (Mu'min) to kill or convert an unbeliever (Kaafir). I don't understand why this argument(of banning the Qu'ran) is not made whenever this topic comes up.
xenthral 17y ago
> "just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam" Hold on there, don't go speaking for all of Islam, in Sunni Islam, yes, its considered a sin by all major schools of thought, but thats not really the case in the shia tradition. Until not that long ago you could buy posters of Mohammed in Tehran (saw it done in a british documentary... Mo looked like he went heavy on the make up). > "freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values." Freedom of speech/expression isn't merely the right of saying what _you_ want, it is also the right for others to hear/see it, so when asking for people not to express their views because some can be offended, you have actually attacked my values, because maybe (and in this case, definitely) I'm very interested. So I do hope you'll condemn a campaign of whispered threats of horrible violence for people who just want to express themselves, rather than condemning southpark (which granted you didn't, just said you didn't like them).

jheriko 17y ago

Should Muslims be upset about this? Probably not. Muslims themselves have depicted Mohammed in art in the past, although usually covering the face - nobody knows what he looked like so it is not possible to depict his face accurately... so I have always assumed it was just a mark of respect. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg Besides that, I think retaliating with violence is pretty unacceptable if you truly live by the Koran - It says nowhere inside of it that such depictions are forbidden - but it does say in plenty of places that unlawful killing (by the law of the Koran) is forbidden and that it displeases Allah. Since depictions of Mohammed break no law in the Koran, how can murder be justified in retaliation? (Koran 4:29, 5:28-32 etc.) In his own lifetime, Mohammed offered shelter and guidance to those who had defamed him public, removed him from his home, chased and persecuted him and his people... I wonder what he would think of all this today?

tome 17y ago
Who cares whether violence is or is not permitted in the Koran? Retaliating with violence is completely unacceptable for any person who values sense.
- jheriko 17y ago
  Muslims care - that was why I took that line of argument. Its much easier to convince people on their own terms.
  - tome 17y ago
    I see. I hope you're right, but I fear you're wrong. The culture of physical intimidation and oppression is just that, a culture. Religion is used to justify it, but never stands up to scrutiny. I don't think there's such a thing as a resonable muslim, or indeed reasonable christian, there are just reasonable people, independent of their religion. Either someone can see that threats of murder are unacceptable or they cannot. Rereading of their holy book is not going to change what's formed in them due to the culture which they have been exposed to their whole lives.

JCThoughtscream 17y ago

The fact that they're facing death threats for it is made doubly hilarious in light of the episode's content.

guelo 17y ago

Seems they took down all their content including their 404 page, http://www.revolutionmuslim.com http://www.revolutionmuslim.com You can still see the post in google's cache.

jk4930 17y ago
No, they were taken down. Them and some like-minded sites. Now guess...

sharpn 17y ago

I think South Park may have been alluding to this sad story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7112929.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7112929.stm

acg 17y ago

I did not see the episode but it could be satire: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7119399.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7119399.stm

omarqureshi 17y ago

One crazy bastards death threat does not represent what the entire Islamic community believes in, remember that there are crazy people from all religious backgrounds.

tome 17y ago
Sure, there are crazy christians and crazy hindus and crazy athiests. I don't think anyone here is jumping to the conclusion that all muslims are horrible. I -- and others I think -- are reacting to the horrific example of intolerance regardless of where it came from. This level of intolerance is one thing that a liberal permissive society should indeed not tolerate itself.
gizmomagico 17y ago
Islam has a very special kind of Crazy though: http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/this-is-an-outrage.jpg http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/this-is-an-outrage.jpg This guy looks like he just might get all worked up about South Park too.

maxklein 17y ago

Different cultures is not about food that is a bit more spicy or that smells different. There are real differences that, even though they may not be important for you, are important for many people in the world. We are no longer living in places with closed borders - this stuff is now global. South Park is global entertainment, it's not American entertainment. Respect other cultures, particularly with things that cause no hurt to anyone else. If you are against FGM as a cultural practise, I can understand that. It causes harm to other people. But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this.

confuzatron 17y ago
I'm afraid I have 'negative' respect for any culture (actually, we're talking about some bigoted crazies on a website) that threatens death to those who claim that a historical figure is inside a cartoon representation of a bear suit.
- maxklein 17y ago
  What parts of your own culture do you have 'negative' respect for?
  - confuzatron 17y ago
    Glib answer: an honest desire to respect other cultures that can unfortunately degenerate into cultural relativism and soft racism. Actually I hate lots of things in my culture. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the question to be honest. (btw I came back to delete my original comment, because I thought it didn't contribute that much to the discussion and was verging on a flame. From my experience HN commenters seem more able than others to keep it civilised. But I was too late :))
    - maxklein 17y ago
      What I'm trying to show is this: It's easy to see the flaws in another person or another culture, but it's much more difficult to see it in your own. Everybody has their own weird things that are annoying to other people. But when you're going to criticize others, first look at yourself, and see your own flaws. If you cannot see your own flaws, then do you really think it is because you do not have any?

Devilboy 17y ago

I'm so glad that SOMEONE is standing up for our rights - threats of violence be damned!

simplegeek 17y ago

I'm a Muslim and I've never read anywhere about killing someone who draws Muhammad (Peace be upon him). But drawing Muhammad(PBUH) is definitely considered as a disrespect. Moreover, it definitely upsets people(muslims in this case) so why just keep doing it? On the other hand, my own study of Quran is limited, however, I've yet to come across any study that says something about killing someone who draws Muhamamd (PBUH). People shouldn't draw Muhammad because it hurts Muslims. Whereas, muslims should be silent in this case, imho. There is a story about Muhammad (PBUH) visiting Taif (city of Saudi Arabia) and people of Taif threw stones and tortured him(PBUH)and Allah sent a messenger asking Muhammad for the permission to crush people of Taif. And Muhammad said something along the lines of "No, I forgive them" (this isn't the exact story probably as I'm recalling from memory). My point is that, if Muhammad can forgive people insulting him then why cannot, being beloved followers, we be quite in this scenario. On the other hand, I guess non-muslims should be tolerant of our views and shouldn't do things that makes us sad (and same applies to us).

known 17y ago

"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

secret 17y ago

For the defenders of censorship, this recent ruling should give you a perspective on how strongly free speech is protected in the US: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMolK4XY7Lqi7gsN4g_W1Ija1mfQ http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMolK4XY7...

grrrr 17y ago

I never understood why people actually get so angry when they take offence to something. Consider what happens to someone who is offended, absolutely nothing. If your offended by something, it's not as is something really bad has actually happened. It's not as if you've physically been hurt, or someone you know has been hurt. The world is still exactly the same place it was before you took offence. Offended? So what, get over it.