4 ms·

Hm, I don't know. This video is clearly hate speech, and I'm not sure Google should be required to keep content online that has literally caused the deaths of s

Hm, I don't know. This video is clearly hate speech, and I'm not sure Google should be required to keep content online that has literally caused the deaths of several people. A 'slippery slope' argument doesn't hold up for me in this particular case. EDIT: alright, maybe not literally. But I maintain that the video is hate speech, and that a different standard on "censorship" should apply here.

andreasvc 14y ago
That 'literally' is much too strong. The video was used as a convenient excuse for an attack which was probably already being prepared. Cf. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-was-really-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-w...
Dirlewanger 14y ago
I think this is indeed a slippery slope. This is a VERY slippery slope because of the aftermath. A normal situation of censorship would have a platform (in this case, Google) censoring some sort of content released through them that was critical of the platform. This is almost the opposite; Google clearly is trying to assuage the seething anger for greater good. How far does one go though? What if you have someone release a highly critical video of a massively corrupt leader of a country and its citizens begin to rage over it when the rest of the world knows they are just uneducated and don't know any better? A farfetched situation, but still. This is essentially what is happening: masses of uneducated people in somewhat-developing countries are upset over others desecrating their sacred religion. How much longer is this kowtowing to animals going to continue?
nhebb 14y ago
I understand that it's anti-Muslim, but is that "hate speech"? If it were an anti-Christian video that showcased Jesus as a pedophile and philanderer, would it be labeled as such? It's free speech.
- DanBC 14y ago
  In the UK: Yes, it probably would be labelled as hate speech. If someone was subject to violence and were called insults based on their Christianity the crime would be dealt with as a hate crime and the sentence would be more severe. Also: The UK for years[1] had laws dealing with Blasphemy (a crime that could only be committed against the Christian church) and laws that dealt with racial prejudice. Since Islam is not christian, nor a race, muslims were left unprotected. You may argue that Christians and jews should not have those protections. I hope you'd agree that it's iniquitous for one group to be left out of the protection of the law. [1] This was changed in 2006 with the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Blasphemy was later repealed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act...)
  - kbolino 14y ago
    The iniquity of failing to punish blasphemy against Islam is far outweighed by the injustice of punishing blasphemy in the first place. No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      I'd agree. But the fact remains that there was a discrepancy where one group was left without any protection. > No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others. Let's not forget that 3,500 people died (and 47,000 were injured) during "the Troubles" which had sectarian religious aspects. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)
  - bliving 14y ago
    In Canada, the slope is very slippery. Hate speech, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, is anything "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt". For better or worse, it certainly has a chilling effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
theorique 14y ago
This video is clearly hate speech, Is that true? The video is alleged to insult Muhammad who is revered in Islam, but does it slander individual, living human beings or classes of human beings. In other words, while so-called "hate speech" is indeed offensive, not everything that offends some people is "hate speech".
dak1 14y ago
The idea that somebody shouldn't say something because it may elicit a violent reaction by somebody else seems to have dangerous logical conclusions that could include actually encouraging violent reactions to speech in order to silence it. For example, the recent mural by the Taiwanese businessman in Oregon (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833952-china-asks-city-in-oregon-to-scrub-mural-for-tibetan-taiwanese-independence?lite http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833952-china-as...) is clearly protected political speech, and obviously nobody died because of it. However, if it led to violent reactions in China that resulted in some deaths, should it be suppressed? Now, religion could be argued to be in a different category; however, I have a hard time accepting that argument due to the politicization of religion. As long as a religion has political implications, speech critical of it should be protected in the same way other political speech is protected. That doesn't mean you should be able to explicitly encourage violence against members of a religion, but it does mean that Southpark and a Danish cartoon should be allowed to parody religion to make a political point.
Robin_Message 14y ago
I'm not sure you can say the video literally caused several deaths. Obviously the middle east is very complicated place, but ultimately even people in a mob should be held accountable for their actions [1], so the blame lies with the killers, not the makers of a film; nor the leaders who espouse a hateful philosophy [2] that justified the killing, although I'd certainly blame them more than some film. [1] See the widespread rioting and looting in the UK last year, some of which was justified by the perpetrators as political, but all of which was prosecuted as criminal. [2] I mean, if one American does something you don't like, how does that mean you can (and should) kill another one (or more)? I want to think it's more nuanced than that, but I don't see how.
ppod 14y ago
Videos don't cause people to die, and definitions of 'hate speech' are difficult. Mocking Islam seems pretty hateful, since it is at the core of the belief system of a large proportion of the world's population. But what about mocking Scientology, or Mormonism? When is a belief system so ridiculous or unpopular that it no longer deserves protection? You say that it should be taken down because it 'caused the deaths of several people' - the implication is that belief systems deserve more protection if their adherents are more willing to commit murder in retaliation.
- dbecker 14y ago
  I agree that the murderers are obviously to blame. But the film is like a kid who pokes a beehive with a stick with all his friends around. We know you can't control all the bees once you get them riled up, so you're still an asshole if you intentionally put others at risk. Free speech may give the film-maker the right to be an asshole, but it doesn't change the fact that he's an asshole.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
LostInTheWoods2 14y ago
I'll say it, because no one else seems to want to: It's time for muslims to grow the f--- up already. We have something in America called freedom of speech, its a cornerstone of our society. Sometimes people use that right to say stupid and hurtful things. It doesn't mean all Americans agree or condone what was said.
mbell 14y ago
How is that video hate speech? I only saw the trailer but it struck me as a really poorly done comedy. If that video is hate speech then I can think of a large number of movies and documentaries released in the past decade that must also be hate speech (which is silly).
tomjen3 14y ago
The video has not caused the death of a single person. Muslims have (I could say religious extremists, but the killers are mulims) caused the death 6 or 7 by now, plus insane property damage. And Google should not be required to remove or keep the video online. It is their service, which means it is their property. But removing it means that the next time somebody else can claim that 'you did it with this movie' which could result in bad PR.

andreasvc 14y ago

That 'literally' is much too strong. The video was used as a convenient excuse for an attack which was probably already being prepared. Cf. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-was-really-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-w...

Dirlewanger 14y ago

I think this is indeed a slippery slope. This is a VERY slippery slope because of the aftermath. A normal situation of censorship would have a platform (in this case, Google) censoring some sort of content released through them that was critical of the platform. This is almost the opposite; Google clearly is trying to assuage the seething anger for greater good. How far does one go though? What if you have someone release a highly critical video of a massively corrupt leader of a country and its citizens begin to rage over it when the rest of the world knows they are just uneducated and don't know any better? A farfetched situation, but still. This is essentially what is happening: masses of uneducated people in somewhat-developing countries are upset over others desecrating their sacred religion. How much longer is this kowtowing to animals going to continue?

nhebb 14y ago

I understand that it's anti-Muslim, but is that "hate speech"? If it were an anti-Christian video that showcased Jesus as a pedophile and philanderer, would it be labeled as such? It's free speech.

DanBC 14y ago
In the UK: Yes, it probably would be labelled as hate speech. If someone was subject to violence and were called insults based on their Christianity the crime would be dealt with as a hate crime and the sentence would be more severe. Also: The UK for years[1] had laws dealing with Blasphemy (a crime that could only be committed against the Christian church) and laws that dealt with racial prejudice. Since Islam is not christian, nor a race, muslims were left unprotected. You may argue that Christians and jews should not have those protections. I hope you'd agree that it's iniquitous for one group to be left out of the protection of the law. [1] This was changed in 2006 with the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Blasphemy was later repealed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act...)
- kbolino 14y ago
  The iniquity of failing to punish blasphemy against Islam is far outweighed by the injustice of punishing blasphemy in the first place. No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    I'd agree. But the fact remains that there was a discrepancy where one group was left without any protection. > No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others. Let's not forget that 3,500 people died (and 47,000 were injured) during "the Troubles" which had sectarian religious aspects. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)
- bliving 14y ago
  In Canada, the slope is very slippery. Hate speech, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, is anything "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt". For better or worse, it certainly has a chilling effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

theorique 14y ago

This video is clearly hate speech, Is that true? The video is alleged to insult Muhammad who is revered in Islam, but does it slander individual, living human beings or classes of human beings. In other words, while so-called "hate speech" is indeed offensive, not everything that offends some people is "hate speech".

dak1 14y ago

The idea that somebody shouldn't say something because it may elicit a violent reaction by somebody else seems to have dangerous logical conclusions that could include actually encouraging violent reactions to speech in order to silence it. For example, the recent mural by the Taiwanese businessman in Oregon (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833952-china-asks-city-in-oregon-to-scrub-mural-for-tibetan-taiwanese-independence?lite http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833952-china-as...) is clearly protected political speech, and obviously nobody died because of it. However, if it led to violent reactions in China that resulted in some deaths, should it be suppressed? Now, religion could be argued to be in a different category; however, I have a hard time accepting that argument due to the politicization of religion. As long as a religion has political implications, speech critical of it should be protected in the same way other political speech is protected. That doesn't mean you should be able to explicitly encourage violence against members of a religion, but it does mean that Southpark and a Danish cartoon should be allowed to parody religion to make a political point.

Robin_Message 14y ago

I'm not sure you can say the video literally caused several deaths. Obviously the middle east is very complicated place, but ultimately even people in a mob should be held accountable for their actions [1], so the blame lies with the killers, not the makers of a film; nor the leaders who espouse a hateful philosophy [2] that justified the killing, although I'd certainly blame them more than some film. [1] See the widespread rioting and looting in the UK last year, some of which was justified by the perpetrators as political, but all of which was prosecuted as criminal. [2] I mean, if one American does something you don't like, how does that mean you can (and should) kill another one (or more)? I want to think it's more nuanced than that, but I don't see how.

ppod 14y ago

Videos don't cause people to die, and definitions of 'hate speech' are difficult. Mocking Islam seems pretty hateful, since it is at the core of the belief system of a large proportion of the world's population. But what about mocking Scientology, or Mormonism? When is a belief system so ridiculous or unpopular that it no longer deserves protection? You say that it should be taken down because it 'caused the deaths of several people' - the implication is that belief systems deserve more protection if their adherents are more willing to commit murder in retaliation.

dbecker 14y ago
I agree that the murderers are obviously to blame. But the film is like a kid who pokes a beehive with a stick with all his friends around. We know you can't control all the bees once you get them riled up, so you're still an asshole if you intentionally put others at risk. Free speech may give the film-maker the right to be an asshole, but it doesn't change the fact that he's an asshole.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

LostInTheWoods2 14y ago

I'll say it, because no one else seems to want to: It's time for muslims to grow the f--- up already. We have something in America called freedom of speech, its a cornerstone of our society. Sometimes people use that right to say stupid and hurtful things. It doesn't mean all Americans agree or condone what was said.

mbell 14y ago

How is that video hate speech? I only saw the trailer but it struck me as a really poorly done comedy. If that video is hate speech then I can think of a large number of movies and documentaries released in the past decade that must also be hate speech (which is silly).

tomjen3 14y ago

The video has not caused the death of a single person. Muslims have (I could say religious extremists, but the killers are mulims) caused the death 6 or 7 by now, plus insane property damage. And Google should not be required to remove or keep the video online. It is their service, which means it is their property. But removing it means that the next time somebody else can claim that 'you did it with this movie' which could result in bad PR.