So one might ask as to what has changed in recent years? Why is the Muslim reaction so much stronger and more global than ever before? The answer is that the availability of the Internet, and particularly Google-owned Youtube, has made it possible for hate material to reach its intended target much more quickly than Dante's Divine Comedy or Voltaire's Mahomet could in the past.
The latest flare-up has so far claimed dozens of lives including the life of Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya. As if to add fuel to an already intensely burning fire, a French magazine has published fresh batch of insulting cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. And such western provocations from hateful bigots are almost certain to grow in number and intensity in the future.
Free Speech or Hate Speech?
It appears that the US President Barack Obama and the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton understand the extremely dangerous implications for the United States of this ongoing escalation of hostility in the Muslim world. In fact, the White House asked Google to remove the offensive Youtube video, a request that was denied by Google as violation of the right of free speech. New York Times reported that Google's "policy is to remove content only if it is hate speech, violating its terms of service, or if it is responding to valid court orders or government requests. And it said it had determined that under its own guidelines, the video was not hate speech."
To defuse the situation, the US government has run ads in Pakistani media which show President Obama and Secretary Clinton denouncing the video and condemning the violence in response to it. Google's refusal to remove the offensive video from Youtube raises significant questions about the definition of free speech....a debate that is already raging for a different reason since the US supreme court's Citizens United decision which has opened the floodgates of big money to influence US politics and policies by the rich and the powerful for their own advantage.
Free Speech and Money:
The questions of money and free speech are closely tied in America. Google removes thousands of Youtube videos everyday for commercial reasons. Like any other big corporation, Google decisions are guided more by its commercial interests than any other considerations. Here's how Tim Wu, the author of Master Switch, describes it in an article in The New Republic:
YouTube, to be clear, isn’t an open forum (even if it sometimes seems that way). For one thing, Google uses an ingenious sex-detecting algorithm to preemptively yank porn. It also employs a complicated system to help copyright owners (mainly Hollywood) locate their works. Finally, the firm bans a long list of other content, including: “animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, bomb-making, graphic or gratuitous violence, gross-out videos, hate speech, predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, inciting others to commit violent acts, and spam.”
Regardless of whether the latest offensive video constitutes hate speech or not, US legal discourse often makes references to Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. Here's what Justice Holmes wrote in his opinion:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
So the question now is whether the mass distribution of such material via the Internet presents "clear and present danger" that "will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent".
Why the Violence?
The violent reaction in the Muslim world also raise serious questions. For example, can the Muslims demand tolerance of their faith from others when they show such intolerance against minorities in their own countries? Do Muslims have a right to ask others to control their undesirable behavior without showing any restraint themselves?
Let me end this post by paraphrasing a Syrian activist's tweet:
The only thing that seems to enrage the Muslim world today is a movie, a cartoon or an insult, but not the pool of blood of their own fellow citizens shed by fellow Muslims in their own countries.
Here's a video clip of a recent discussion on the subject:
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
Growing Intolerance in Pakistan
Exposing Congressman King's Hypocrisy
FBI Entrapping Young Muslims
Fighting Agents of Intolerance in Pakistan
Muslim Scholars Must Fight Hate in Pakistan
South Asian Christians Celebrate Christmas in Fear
Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's Vision
Pakistan Must Defeat Agents of Intolerance
Celebrating Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah's Birthday
29 comments:
Riaz,
Great blog. Thanks
I hope someday Muslims masses will realize that protest which results in deaths and destruction of
property in Muslim countries pleases those ignorant producers of anti-Islam material.
Well said.
According to one authentic Shia Hadith, Rasool-e-paak (P) was walking with Aisha (R) when a bunch of jews started to make fun of the Rasool (P) as to his marriage to Aisha, using words such as Majnoon, etc. Aisha(R) began to scold them. Rasool (P) said to Aisha not to do that and let them be, saying that what they thought could not change his (P) stature before God or his true followers.
I think it is all about the money if Google's economic interests are challenged then they will change the policy in a minute. I think what is needed is a policy from the majority Muslim nations to legalize the economical sactions to those companies. If a product company in those countries will run such an ad compaign they would be treated according to the law of the land. Now Google can cause all the trouble because it not physically present but their Ad monitization can be choked. From the PR angle Google or Facebook will loose the growth in a market which has more potential than West I think their Marketing department is smoking pot. If Holocaust or some say Hollow$Cost is a crime in Germany why not Crying Fire be a crime? In the end all Free Speech ends into a Dollar Sign which can't be handled by protest or killing fellow citizens.
Its kind of like high school bullying the more you react the more fun the bully gets and the more bullying happens.
There are many many movies made hurtful to Hindu sentiments:The temple of doom:Indiana Jones,The Love guru etc etc the fact that Hindus don't react much is the reason these movies usually flop in the box office and such ideas don't find new 'investors'as even with regular popular negative stereotypes 'Apu' in simpsons Hindus don't react if anything they laugh at this...Simpsons is available in India with no editing of the Apu character...
Muslims on the other hand forget everything and go crazy at any provocation.If they hadn't not more than 0.00001% of people would have watched this cheap rubbish movie made by a lone looser in the US.But the 15 mins of fame has actually given idea to many lonely loosers with handycams to do the same.
THE COCLUSION IS ABSOLUTELY A TRUTH
" If Holocaust or some say Hollow$Cost is a crime in Germany why not Crying Fire be a crime? "
German has laws against denying holocaust only in their own country. They have no problems Pakistanis denying it in Lahore or Karachi. What you muslims except is that other should accept your demands. As Charlie Hebdo (the French Cartoon) owners explain "our cartoons follow French laws. I don't think we have to bother ourselves to care about following laws in Riyadh or Islamabad". Do you disagree?
Riaz: very well written thoughts.
Dr. Haq,
I would like to note the following legal points for the interest of your blog readers:
-----
Yelling "Fire" in a theatre and people dying in the resulting stampede is not protected under Free-speech.
Why? Because the emotional response is visceral (unconditional response) and the time to respond to the speech is immediate.
Therefore, the shouting of "Fire" (ACTION) is indeed the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the stampede (REACTION) that caused the deaths (END-RESULT).
SUMMARY: Someone shouts "Fire" (PROXIMATE ACTION) --> Panic (UNIVERSAL, IMMEDIATE) --> Stampede (VISCERAL REACTION) --> Deaths (END-RESULT)
The person who shouted "Fire" should be prosecuted.
-----
Making this movie and circulating it on the internet, while in extremely poor taste, is certainly NOT THE SAME as (1).
Why? Because people were NOT rioting because they happened to see the movie (most of them would not have even seen it anyway); they were rioting in response to the fiery sermons of the rabble-rousing Mullahs who control their tiny-minds.
If anyone should be held responsible for the deaths (END-RESULT) resulting from the rioter's violence (REACTION), it is the incendiary Mullahs who made the provocative rabble-rousing speeches (ACTION).
If there should be restrictions of speech on grounds of public safety (i.e. the "fire in the theatre" example), it should apply to the incendiary speeches of the Mullahs as they are the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the riot-deaths. The immediate visceral response (unconditional response) was to the provocative sermons and not the stupid movie that most rioters would not have even seen anyway.
SUMMARY: Provocative Movie (DISTANT ACT) --> Time passes (NOT IMMEDIATE)--> Some Mullahs gather some followers (NOT UNIVERSAL)--> Mullahs say "Kill, Burn" (PROXIMATE ACTION) --> Riots (VISCERAL REACTION) --> Deaths (END-RESULT)
The Mullahs who make the inflammatory speeches should be prosecuted.
-----
If we compare the two "Summaries" above, it becomes clear that American Law distinguishes between distant or removed causes and the PROXIMATE CAUSE (in space and time) of the bad-result.
Thank you.
Since one of the previous commenter’s here has raised these issues:
1) I agree that European Muslims are perfectly justified in asking why it is criminal to question the Holocaust. I am convinced that European Laws are wrong when they criminalize Holocaust-denial. I have heard Ahmadinejad on this topic on ABC, and also on many other Iranian anti-American positions, and I agree with him 100% on almost all the positions that Iran takes w.r.t. history, and I do so without any reservation whatsoever.
Iranians tried hard to build a genuine democracy and the Anglo-American Alliance tore it down on the command of their Oil Companies. Therefore, historically speaking, the Iranian view is in the right, the US/UK view is in the wrong. No question whatsoever.
And no, I am not Shia.
2) In addition, European Muslims ask why they cannot make Cartoons of Jews when it is "free speech" to make cartoons of Muslims. This is a perfectly valid question and an excellent one at that. I agree with the Euro-Muslims 100%. Banning cartoons (or threating the cartoonists with prosecution) of Jews as illegal "anti-Semitism" and "hate-speech" is hypocrisy on part of the Europeans. And I am not surprised by this at all. If there is one thing at which the pseudo-liberal Europeans are really good today, it is hypocrisy.
PS: I am still waiting. Where is that analysis of Pakistan's Macroeconomic Flaws and how they can be fixed? Where is that Riaz Haq's "Grand Plan" for Pakistan?
Here's a Wall Street Journal report on deadly violence in Pakistan on "Love the Prophet" Day:
The Pakistani government called a national holiday Friday so people could protest the video peacefully. It didn't turn out like that in Karachi, one of the world's most violent cities, where on average five people have been killed a day over the past few months.
Many of those deaths are linked to ethnic conflict and wars over land. Friday's protests were organized by Islamist political parties many of whom have links with pro-Taliban militants based in the city, said Hasan-Askari Rizvi, an independent political analyst based in Lahore.
Criminal gangs that have thousands of armed cadre and regularly fight the police in the city likely provoked the protests, making them more combustible,he added. "Criminal gangs join them for their own agenda."
Security was tight in Islamabad, the capital, and city where most foreigners live, after protesters on Thursday tried unsuccessfully to get inside the highly guarded diplomatic enclave. A hospital official said 45 people were wounded in Islamabad—28 protesters and 17 police. Police and protesters also clashed in Lahore. Police fired tear gas and warning shots to try to keep protesters from advancing toward U.S. missions in the cities.
Opinion polls show a majority of Pakistanis view the U.S. as an enemy. Many people in the country believe conspiracy theories about the U.S. working to steal Pakistan's nuclear weapons or funding ethnic insurgencies against the state.
That makes it hard for the U.S. administration to persuade Pakistanis that it had nothing to do with the anti-Islam video. This week the State Department took out advertisements in Pakistan media to distance the U.S. government from the video—a strategy that didn't appear to have had much effect.
The clashes in Pakistan came on a day when thousands protested in Indian-controlled Kashmir, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia.
In Malaysia, thousands demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy, burning U.S. and Israeli flags. "Our message to the U.S. is very clear—stop it!'' said Nasruddin Hassan Tantawi, youth chief of the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party, which played a large role in organizing the protest. "You cannot allow Americans to insult our Prophet, to insult Islam." Mr. Nasruddin said that the Islamic party didn't condone the burning of the U. S. and Israeli flags, which he called a "provocation" that organizers had stopped from getting worseU.S. diplomatic missions in neighboring Indonesia were also closed.Several hundred protesters demonstrated without violence in the capital Jakarta as well as in Surabaja. Officials had expressed concern over potential violence after a clash Monday in Jakarta between police and demonstrators ended with thrown rocks and Molotov cocktails.
The publication by French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo of cartoons making fun of Muhammad has also angered protesters. In response to the protests,France said it closed its diplomatic missions in Indonesia, Malaysia and in several countriesIn Iraq, about 3,000 protesters condemned the video and caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in a French weekly.The protest in the southern city of Basra was organized by Iranian-backed Shiite groups.Police estimated that 2,800 to 3,000 people took part in the protest. They chanted, "Long live Islam'' and "Destroy America.'' Officers formed a cordon in front of the embassy, which was closed. There were no clashes and no arrests.
In Kashmir's main city of Srinagar, police fired tear gas to disperse nearly 30 women who were marching Friday under the banner of the radical Islamic women's group Dukhtaran-e-Millat chanting "Down with the U.S."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578009841792957684.html
"In addition, European Muslims ask why they cannot make Cartoons of Jews when it is "free speech" to make cartoons of Muslims."
Can you point out some European law which bans making cartoons of jews. For that matter they don't make cartoons of Hindu gods too.
Cartoon makers know that only muslims will bend over their back and make a complete ass of themselves. Try making cartoon of judaism or hinduism. You will hardly find anyone responding the way muslims are doing it.
Mel Brooks makes fun of Jews all the time.
Check this out to find as to who is exploiting the ignorant and the naive among us ,
http://en.avaaz.org/783/muslim-rage-protests-newsweek-salafists
^^^^
"Can you point out some European law which bans making cartoons of jews......
......Mel Brooks makes fun of Jews all the time"
---------------------
1) Yes, Europe does have laws making the "expression of anti-semitic sentiments" illegal and prosecutable. For example, publishing negative-stereotype cartoons or caricatures of Jews is illegal and HAS been prosecuted and people HAVE been convicted of this crime of "expressing anti-semitic sentiments".
Please read more about it on your own.
2)Mel Brooks is an American Jew. If you read my original statement, I said that the Euro-Muslims were asking why **THEY** (i.e. European Muslims) cannot make negative-stereotype cartoons or caricatures of Jews in the name of Free Speech. Please read part(1)above again.
Please READ my original comment carefully before you respond by tossing in the name of Mel Brooks.
HJW
I expect *YOU* to show proof, not pass some vague home work to me. Truth is, there isn't any law in Europe declaring criticism of Judaism as illegal. You represent the problem with muslims. When confronted with facts, they resort to lies.
The west, even when allowing free speech, also puts some limits when it sees civil disorder. American radio talk show host Michael Savage has been banned to enter in UK because of his rabble rousing talk. Strangely not one muslim seem to appreciate that.
It is funny PM of Turkey wants criticism of Islam declared as a crime against humanity. This coming from a country which still whitewashes Armenian genocide and gets enraged when others acknowledge it.
You are going to see more of this, perhaps with even more frequency and vehemence, since they know damn well what will happen in Islamabad. Learn to live with it, that is, if possible.
Pls note that even though I am not a muslim, I am least interested in anti islam movies or cartoons. I have other things to worry about.
this should teach islam a lesson of how it feels when u hurt religious sentiments of christians,hindus,sikhs,jains and buddhist.....islam for centuries has been showing disrespect to other religions however it resort to violence when someone humiliates prophet....i think terry jones did a fine job as a revenge of millions of non muslims who are crushed by the atrocities of muslims
^^^^^^^^I expect *YOU* to show proof, not pass some vague home work to me. Truth is, there isn't any law in Europe declaring criticism of Judaism as illegal. You represent the problem with muslims. When confronted with facts, they resort to lies.
The west, even when allowing free speech, also puts some limits when it sees civil disorder. American radio talk show host Michael Savage has been banned to enter in UK because of his rabble rousing talk. Strangely not one Muslim seem to appreciate that.
-----
We are not discussing "criticism of Judaism" as you say. It is not Islam that is being criticized in the controversies. It is the publishing of negative-stereotype caricatures & cartoons of Muslims (including Muhammad) that is the issue. The only issue under discussing in this blog article is this:
1) **IF** it is Legal Free-Speech for White-Europeans to publish a negative-stereotyped cartoon of a Muslim riding a pig with a bomb in his turban; **THEN**
2) **WHY** is it Illegal (and not Free Speech) for Euro-Muslims to publish a negative-stereotyped cartoon of a malicious-looking Jew, rubbing his hands together in glee as he salivates over a pot of money?
You speak in generalizations of the "West". I do not. I am ONLY speaking of European countries like France & Germany and some others. America has no such selective laws. America has no such hypocrisy. It is the European countries that have such laws and are, therefore, hypocrites.
Here is a starter proof for your much-needed Homework:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/designer_galliano_faces_anti_semitism_VY39856lv6aae7cbdlGdEM
Note: Making anti-Semitic statements in NOT illegal in the US. In France, however, as the news article confirms, "Making anti-Semitic remarks is illegal in France, and can bring up to six months in prison. Some public figures have been convicted on such charges in the past..."
Even as you speak of that Michael Savage fellow, do you realize that he was banned only because the UK FIRST BANNED Louis Farrakhan and was forced to make “equivalent actions” by the law. So why was Louis Farrakhan banned in UK? After all, Farrakhan openly works and speaks in the US? What was the rationale that the UK used when they banned him? Do you know?
These discrepancies were the only things that were being discussed. We were *NOT* discussing informed criticism of religion, which is perfectly acceptable and is a separate issue altogether. You are clearly not as smart as you imagine yourself to be when you ignorantly conflate them. Do your homework before you go about polluting the internet with your ill-informed statements.
--------
Here is a brief list of people CONVICTED of the "thought crime" of Holocaust-Denial. The actual number is MUCH higher, especially when we include the Eastern EU countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_Holocaust_denial_offenses
Note the following:
1) Not one of them was convicted in the United States. Zero.
2) ALL of them were convicted in Europe.
3) The majority of them are Research Professors of History at European Universities.
Where is the Free Thought, Free Speech that the European so loudly boast about? If they convict professors working in an environment of cherished academic freedom, can you imagine what are they capable of doing to ordinary people?
Unfortunately, the Rushdie formula for getting attention has been noticed by profit-seekers.
The offensive video has 13.5 million hits to data and Google shares have hit new high of $749.38..it seems to be helping , not hurting Google's bottom line.
All the headlines from violent reaction in the Muslim world have actually helped Google get a lot more traffic and make a lot more money than they would have if the video had been ignored.
"All the headlines from violent reaction in the Muslim world have actually helped Google get a lot more traffic and make a lot more money than they would have if the video had been ignored."
Ignore??? If history is any guide, muslims can never ignore any real or perceived insult to islam.
Are you closing your Gmail account and stop watching youtube :)
Here's MQM's Altaf Husain on Yom-e-Ishq-e-Rasool Day riots as reported by Express Tribune:
KARACHI: Issuing a strong condemnation against the Ishq-e-Rasool Day riots, Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) leader Altaf Hussain said that the people of Pakistan, to protest against blasphemy committed by others, were slitting throats of their own brothers.
“The filmmaker is sitting comfortably in America… Will you slaughter your own sister, brother, mother over blasphemy committed by someone else? What kind of love is this for the Prophet (pbuh)?”
Enumerating the losses of life and property suffered on the Ishq-e-Rasool Day, Hussain said that the “extremists and terrorists” looted everything and even had electronic cutters to cut away and steal entire ATM machines.
“Protesters had sticks in their hands. They had special ATM machine cutters. It depicts that they were not there to express love for the prophet (pbuh) or protest against the film. But instead, taking Ishq-e-Rasool as an excuse, they had left their homes to loot and kill,” Hussain stated while asking the audience if any of the looters were from Karachi. The audience replied in negative.
“We burnt down a church in the name of Ishq-e-Rasool. What if, in the name of Eshwar, Krishna or Jesus Christ, someone burns down our mosques?” Hussain asked which was followed by a heavy silence from the audience. “Blasphemy should not be committed against any prophet under the banner of freedom of speech,” he maintained.
Calling out to all “liberal, democratic, progressive and secular” people of the country, Hussain asked, “Do you want a Taliban-type, al Qaeda-type Pakistan or a liberal, educated, progressive Pakistan?
“Now is the time to come forward and break the criminal silence.”
While serving an apology for being harsh during his speech, Hussain said that his greater interest was to save Pakistan.
Karo kari
Hussain also condemned the karo kari that is practiced in the name of honour in parts of Pakistan. “If a girl marries out of her own will, according to Shariah, then she is accused of karo kari and is murdered.
“If we love Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), then we have to get rid of karo kari,” he stressed.
He added that those who bury women alive should be buried and the “skulls should be disjointed” of those who murder in the name of honour.
Absence of leadership?
The party leader said that people always complain that there is an absence of good leadership in the country, but he said that new leaders “won’t descend from the sky in the form of angels”.
“If you can’t see the right leaders, then it is not anyone’s fault,” he asserted and told the audience about how he was the first one to lodge his protest against the blasphemous film when all the others were asleep. “They were sleeping when I sent a telegram to Ban Ki-moon and the OIC that this [film] is intolerable.”
Addressing the Pakistani youth, he said, “If you don’t want to come forward then I won’t have any other choice than to back out from Pakistan’s politics… Decide and tell me today, do you want me to say goodbye forever?”
http://tribune.com.pk/story/442715/slitting-throats-of-our-own-brothers-to-protest-others-blasphemy-altaf-hussain/
Here's a story of insult to Sikh religion that shamed the ignorant person who tried it:
A Reddit user going by the handle "european_douchebag" posted a surreptitious photo of a Sikh woman with the caption "i'm not sure what to conclude from this." The user's apparent confusion stems from the fact that the woman—bound by her religion not to cut her hair or alter her body—has an abundance of dark, untrimmed facial hair. The mind of european_douchebag was SO INCREDIBLY BLOWN by the fact that women have hair on their bodies—and, yes, faces—and that some women are bold, self-assured, and pious enough not to cave to western beauty standards (and gender expectations), there was nothing for him to do but post her photo online and wait for the abuse to flood in.
But then something totally lovely and unexpected happened. The woman in the photo responded...
http://jezebel.com/5946643/reddit-users-attempt-to-shame-sikh-woman-get-righteously-schooled
Here's a Slate.com Op Ed titled "Hate Speech Hypocrites" by William Saletan:
Jews have too much influence over U.S. foreign policy. Gay men are too promiscuous. Muslims commit too much terrorism. Blacks commit too much crime.
Each of those claims is poorly stated. Each, in its clumsy way, addresses a real problem or concern. And each violates laws against hate speech. In much of what we call the free world, for writing that paragraph, I could be jailed.
----------
If we’re going to preach freedom of expression around the world, we have to practice it. We have to scrap our hate-speech laws.
------------
President Obama, while condemning the video, met these proposals with a stout defense of free speech. Switzerland’s president agreed: “Freedom of opinion and of expression are core values guaranteed universally which must be protected.” And when a French magazine published cartoons poking fun at Mohammed, the country’s prime minister insisted that French laws protecting free speech extend to caricatures.
----------
On Tuesday, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador, speaking for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, told the U.N. Human Rights Council:
We are all aware of the fact that laws exist in Europe and other countries which impose curbs, for instance, on anti-Semitic speech, Holocaust denial, or racial slurs. We need to acknowledge, once and for all, that Islamophobia in particular and discrimination on the basis of religion and belief are contemporary forms of racism and must be dealt with as such. Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism.
He’s right. Laws throughout Europe forbid any expression that “minimizes,” “trivializes,” “belittles,” “plays down,” “contests,” or “puts in doubt” Nazi crimes. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic extend this prohibition to communist atrocities. These laws carry jail sentences of up to five years. Germany adds two years for anyone who “disparages the memory of a deceased person.”
Hate speech laws go further. Germany punishes anyone found guilty of “insulting” or “defaming segments of the population.” The Netherlands bans anything that “verbally or in writing or image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental handicap.” It’s illegal to “insult” such a group in France, to “defame” them in Portugal, to “degrade” them in Denmark, or to “expresses contempt” for them in Sweden. In Switzerland, it’s illegal to “demean” them even with a “gesture.” Canada punishes anyone who “willfully promotes hatred.” The United Kingdom outlaws “insulting words or behavior” that arouse “racial hatred.” Romania forbids the possession of xenophobic “symbols.”
What have these laws produced? Look at the convictions upheld or accepted by the European Court of Human Rights. Four Swedes who distributed leaflets that called homosexuality “deviant” and “morally destructive” and blamed it for AIDS. An Englishman who displayed in his window a 9/11 poster proclaiming, “Islam out of Britain.” A Turk who published two letters from readers angry at the government’s treatment of Kurds. A Frenchman who wrote an article disputing the plausibility of poison gas technology at a Nazi concentration camp...
http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/09/free_speech_vs_hate_speech_why_is_it_legal_to_insult_muslims_but_not_jews_.html
Here's an Al-Arabya report on Google business in Pakistan:
Pakistan is soon to become the next market bubble for Google in Asia, according to executives at Google Pakistan who discussed their market potential at a public event earlier this week.
“Pakistan is Google’s next big market in the region,” Google’s head of Emerging Market Development, Southeast Asia, Jana Levene told a gathering of IT experts, bloggers, businessmen and reporters in Karachi.
Google has deepened its operations in Pakistan by getting involved in many projects in the country, particularly involving with the Punjab government. The Government of Punjab launched an “Innovation Punjab” campaign through its IT board with support from Google. This project is one example where Google has partnered with Punjab Information Technology Board.
The project also highlighted the case studies of successful entrepreneurs, called “innovation heroes.” It has also launched a social innovation fund – in collaboration with Pakistan Software Houses association, also their partner for the event – to support young entrepreneurs struggling to get their ideas public.
Other pundits point to Google’s success is its choosing to invest in a potentially growing number of users in Pakistan.
“To enter a market, the first thing we look at is its demographics – number of internet users in that country,” Levene told the Pakistan-based The Express Tribune, explaining why Google is interested in Pakistan.
“Twenty-two million internet users is a huge number. It’s more than Australia’s whole population. That’s why we are here,” she added.
Google is also taking into consideration the market size. “Pakistan is a $400 to $500 million market for Google,” Levene told the Tribune. Statistics shows that four of the top 10 most popular websites in Pakistan are Google’s sites.
Regulatory framework is another area of Google’s interest.
“The laws regarding internet censorship, the security of our employee etcetera are the things we take into account. Aside from the 22 million internet users that include two million broadband users, seven million Facebook users, one million Twitter users and 1.2 million LinkedIn users. Of the total mobile phones sold in Pakistan 6 percent are smart-phones,” Levene said.
As a result, the government was able to reach 800,000 people.
The most search topics by Pakistanis are related to finding solutions for social problems, political debates, business establishments, entertainment, as well as social networking groups. Meanwhile, Pakistanis used Google Earth and Google Maps to track which areas were affected in 2010 floods.
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/12/237573.html
Here's another Salon.com piece on Islamophobia in the West:
Three hurtful words, scrawled in black circles under the eyes of a ballplayer named Yunel Escobar: Tu ere[s] maricón. The message, conveyed in the eyeblack of the Toronto Blue Jays shortstop during a recent game, means, You’re a faggot. That’s hate language, and reaction was swift and stern. Major league baseball launched an investigation, the Blue Jays suspended Escobar for three games and enrolled him in “sensitivity training,” and he gave the obligatory apology in front of the microphones. Few if anyone publicly complained that, hurtful or not, homophobic or not, Escobar’s free speech rights trumped the concerns of others wounded by his words. No one said Escobar should be able to continue displaying the slur.
“Given the reaction of the offended community, Escobar’s punishment was absolutely justifiable and necessary to maintain order in society,” wrote Stacie Brown on policymic. In other words, the community came together and shut Escobar up, due to a collective sense of mutual respect for the rights of others not to be hurt by hateful speech. Society has forged standards of respect and unacceptability about racial, ethnic, anti-Semitic and homophobic slurs. Rightly or wrongly, the message is: use certain hateful words in public, and you’ll pay the price. So why is there a different set of values at work when it comes to the hurt caused Muslims by hateful, Islamophobic characterizations of the Prophet Mohammed, or denigrations of Islam?
----------
Here in the States, try advocating assassination, running an explosives seminar, defending the 9/11 attacks, or even making a charitable donation to the wrong group in the wrong conflict zone, and see how far you get. Some of these restrictions emanate from the USA Patriot Act, but others have been in place for decades. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1919, argued that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” As Sarah Chayes points out in an LA Times op-ed titled “Free Speech or Incitement?”, “The Innocence of Muslims” was provocative by design, and therefore may fit U.S. case law that prohibits “specifically advocating violence.” She quotes Anthony Lewis, former New York Times columnist and eloquent free speech champion: “If the result was violence, and violence was intended, then it meets the standard” for a criminal act.
The second problem in the blanket free speech defense is its unequal application to Muslims and Arabs. “I come from a land, from a faraway place, where the caravan camels roam,” went the Disney film “Alladin”’s opening song, “where they cut off your ear if they don‘t like your face. It‘s barbaric, but hey, it‘s home.” Is there any other group in America for whom this kind of slur would not be roundly condemned, its offenders forced to apologize before being sent into the corner like Yunel Escobar?
----------
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/02/first_amendment_isnt_a_license_to_insult_muslims/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/conservative-pamela-geller-to-expand-anti-jihad-campaign-with-new-bus-ads-in-nyc-see-exclusive-images/#
I don't understand why the Muslim destroy there own neighborhoods. The film was not good I agree, but why riot destroy property and kill your own people. Makes no sense. Sure there was outrage, but what was accomplished. Dead muslims, buildings set on fire, police shooting at protesters. Its like looking in the mirror and beating your self up/ The rest of the world looks at you like savages. You know they make movies that mock and say bad things about Jesus. I do not like this. I dont kill people or riot. I hate it, But Jesus say pray for these people they may change and turn to him. If they dont change and ask for repentence God will avenge Jesus not his followers. God's wrath is more horrible than what any human can do to them.
Here is another example of the FREEDOM the European Hypocrites always lecture the world about...
http://alturl.com/qfz2y
This kind of law would have been unthinkable in the US.
QUOTE: "If Muslims kill non-Muslims, they seem strangely unconcerned; when Muslims kill Muslims, as in Sudan, they turn their eyes away. It is only when non-Muslims kill Muslims, that they wake up and start complaining and pointing to their general state of victimhood."
READMORE: http://alturl.com/bupmv
Post a Comment