4 ms·

Good. The request shouldn't have even been made.

by IbJacked 14y ago

braum 14y ago
Exactly.
awa 14y ago
Well Google voluntarily pulled the video from Libya and Egypt
- andreasvc 14y ago
  It said in the article that it was to comply with local laws.
  - saalweachter 14y ago
    I Am Not A Lawyer, let alone an International Lawyer, but the article seemed to imply that it was blocked in some countries (eg, India) to comply with local blasphemy laws (related news: Indian Skeptic Charged With Blasphemy For Rationally Explaining Miracle: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indian-skeptic-charged-with-blasphemy-for-rationally-explaining-a-miracle/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indi...), but Libya and Egypt were just special-cased. Does anyone know if Libya and Egypt have blasphemy laws, or just volatility?
    - andreasvc 14y ago
      I didn't know that. A blasphemy law sounds very bad. On the other hand, more general hate speech laws sound much more reasonable I think (although I'd still disagree); the UK has those for example.
    - lotharbot 14y ago
      Just a heads up on your link: The guy wasn't charged for pointing out "this isn't a miracle". He was charged for following it up with a series of accusations -- claiming that it was a scam set up by local priests (defamation), and making comments about how religious people are "gullible", "regressive", "irrational", etc. (provocation). He went well beyond debunking and into the realm of conjecture/speculation, and ended up violating a number of local laws by doing so.
      - andreasvc 14y ago
        And what was the verdict?
        lotharbot 14y ago
        I don't believe the case has been tried, yet. Last I heard, he was in Finland (to avoid arrest) and his lawyers launched a series of appeals, including one attempt to have the "religious provocation" law declared unconstitutional. As far as I know, none of his appeals relate to the "scam" remarks, which even in the US would fall under defamation laws.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    The ban in Libya and Egypt is voluntary: Google said it decided to block the video in response to violence that killed four American diplomatic personnel in Libya. The company said its decision was unusual, made because of the exceptional circumstances. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/technology/google-blocks-inflammatory-video-in-egypt-and-libya.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/technology/google-blocks-i... More here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtube-blocks-access-controversial-video-egypt-and-libya https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtube-blocks-access-...

Good. The request shouldn't have even been made.

braum 14y ago

Exactly.

awa 14y ago

Well Google voluntarily pulled the video from Libya and Egypt

andreasvc 14y ago
It said in the article that it was to comply with local laws.
- saalweachter 14y ago
  I Am Not A Lawyer, let alone an International Lawyer, but the article seemed to imply that it was blocked in some countries (eg, India) to comply with local blasphemy laws (related news: Indian Skeptic Charged With Blasphemy For Rationally Explaining Miracle: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indian-skeptic-charged-with-blasphemy-for-rationally-explaining-a-miracle/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/14/indi...), but Libya and Egypt were just special-cased. Does anyone know if Libya and Egypt have blasphemy laws, or just volatility?
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    I didn't know that. A blasphemy law sounds very bad. On the other hand, more general hate speech laws sound much more reasonable I think (although I'd still disagree); the UK has those for example.
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    Just a heads up on your link: The guy wasn't charged for pointing out "this isn't a miracle". He was charged for following it up with a series of accusations -- claiming that it was a scam set up by local priests (defamation), and making comments about how religious people are "gullible", "regressive", "irrational", etc. (provocation). He went well beyond debunking and into the realm of conjecture/speculation, and ended up violating a number of local laws by doing so.
    - andreasvc 14y ago
      And what was the verdict?
      - lotharbot 14y ago
        I don't believe the case has been tried, yet. Last I heard, he was in Finland (to avoid arrest) and his lawyers launched a series of appeals, including one attempt to have the "religious provocation" law declared unconstitutional. As far as I know, none of his appeals relate to the "scam" remarks, which even in the US would fall under defamation laws.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- uvdiv 14y ago
  The ban in Libya and Egypt is voluntary: Google said it decided to block the video in response to violence that killed four American diplomatic personnel in Libya. The company said its decision was unusual, made because of the exceptional circumstances. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/technology/google-blocks-inflammatory-video-in-egypt-and-libya.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/technology/google-blocks-i... More here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtube-blocks-access-controversial-video-egypt-and-libya https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtube-blocks-access-...