Freedom of speech once again takes a beating.

[Andrew]

Recent news concerning a small war on terror front. Freedom of speech. Once again Islam has used its death threats to censor media.

There was a trailer made for a movie that criticizes Islam. It was hosted on youtube and liveleak. Pakistan blocked youtube because of this so youtube removed the video in order to be accessible in Pakistan (profit over free speech?). Liveleak had the video here, but had it removed because of credible death threats. They replaced the video with a video of their own explaining why they removed it.

The only safe place on the internet for this video was wikileaks. Wikileaks went through 164gb in less than 24 hours and so had to shutdown because it couldn't handle the traffic.

Huge interest brings Wikileaks offline

Now I definitely want to see this trailer to see what causes certain Muslims to kill. The filmaker targets extremist Muslims, and extremist muslims target anyone who will show the video.

The film Fitna, directed and produced by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, has caused controversy for its presentation of Wilders' negative view of Islam as being committed to world domination and acts of terrorism.

And once again extremist Muslims prove the film-makers point. Any bets on when the director has to go into hiding or is killed like Theo van Gogh?

EDIT:

Looks like wikileaks is back up

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks

They also have some info on tibet that you wont see on the news.

EDIT:

Watched most of the 16 minute trailer. Mostly shows extremist muslims saying they will take over the world and kill non believers. So I guess it is the same old story. Someone reports or says extremist muslims are terrorists, and extremists respond with terrorism.

[Anathema]

Yay!

I'm so happy. Not because of the movie itself, mind you. But because this movie has been a subject of "debate" (a term I'm using very loosely here) for months, ever since the news of this upcoming "film" (again, a term I'm using very loosely) leaked. Maybe now it will pass.

You'd think that there isn't much to discuss about it, since Wilders' was well within his rights to make and upload this film. Yet our prime minister has repeatedly urged Wilders to cancel his film, has had his staff explore if there's any legal way to stop it, and has made a fool out of himself by acting as if the apocalypse is coming in front of the world press.

Side note, Wilders originally registered a domain name for this film, but the registration company (Network Solutions, USA) gave in (look here) while this same company has been hosting Hezbollah's website for years!

[Andrew]

Yah, I find it interesting that the ISP will not host it.

I do not see how it can be controversial. The creator is showing Muslims saying that they want to kill infidels etc. And the creator shows parts of the Koran (which he did not make up). The movie does not depict non muslims saying that muslims want to kill them (in a racist/discriminatory way). It shows video of Muslims saying they want to kill people. I think it is perfect proof that minority of Muslims want to kill infidels, because they admit to wanting to kill infidels. (duh)

How is showing footage of Muslims saying they want to kill infidels a bad thing? The media doesn't seem to have a problem showing videos of Osama Bin Laden saying he wants to kill infidels. So how is it any different showing other Muslims saying they want to kill people?

The media seems to have lost their spine, for fear of suicide bombings and death threats. What next?

I really don't know how Europe is dealing with this. It seems quite bad at times. Canada so far is getting along fine (I would say because most have assimilated). But Canada still has terrorists of all religions etc including Islam. In fact the last Muslim terrorists in Canada are almost getting away with planning to blow up building and murder people. Even though there is lots of proof, even with a mole (undercover). They will be stuck in court for many years to come before any results.

2006 Toronto terrorism case

It also seems that the media is afraid to report on individual or groups religious background when it comes to terrorism, such as the Toronto case in which they were all Muslims from the same mosque. The Toronto Star claimed that it is "difficult to find a common denominator" among them. Which of course was BS.

[Timenn]

As a Dutchman, I feel I owe the world, and especially Denmark, an apology. I think a clarification is in order.

First of all, this politician is an right winged extremist, who is obsessed by his fear of muslims. I think there is little doubt all of his actions can be explained by this fear. Because of his blunt remarks he is threatened and has round the clock protection. Mind you, that is not usual in the Netherlands. Only a few party members and a few ministers are under protection, and most of that is new since the terrorist attacks (WTC, Madrid, London) and the murder of a politician (Pim Fortuyn) several years ago.

This Wilders is spreading this fear among the people, I don't know if he does that knowingly or not, and practically all of his "arguments" are based on this.

Using Wilders to protect the freedom of speech is like saying Stalin was a good man because he helped stop Hitler. In essence it is true, but it is better to fight for someone who proves to be a better icon. That's why I made the remark about Denmark, the cartoonists' motives was to protect the freedom of speech. Which is much nobler than the motive of this Wilders.

Myself, I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech. And I think this is one of the most important universal rights. A phrase you keep hearing nowadays is "We have freedom of speech, but not the freedom to insult." (or "... but we shouldn't be out  offending people) No! There is no but to freedom of speech. I have the right to insult someone. I admit it isn't a nice thing to do, and people may dislike or even hate me for it. They too have the right to insult me back. One shouldn't refrain from offending people because it isn't allowed, but because it is an inefficient method.

If you start creating boundaries for freedom of speech, you will be creating the first seems in the dike, and the freedom will slowly wash away with every new "for your own safety" measure that is taken. There are already limits to what one can say; e.g. threats and intimidation are not allowed because they actually limit one's freedom.

You can guess from this that I don't think this movie should have been forbidden.

As for that, I haven't seen it and I don't think I would want to. I have seen fragments and reviews of it, and I think Wilders could have done a much better job. Instead of attacking muslims in general, he should have attacked their weak points. There are the issues of emancipation, extremism, feeling of superiority (which are found in other religions as well ofcourse, and outside them too) that pop up every now and then. But then, it is in the nature of extremists not to be subtle and effective, but to be blunt and completely missing the point.

[Acriku]

Does Freedom of Speech (an ominous term nowadays ;)) span over privately-owned company websites? I kind of think that their removal of it reinforces their own right to speech within their properties.

[Edric O]

Does Freedom of Speech (an ominous term nowadays ;)) span over privately-owned company websites? I kind of think that their removal of it reinforces their own right to speech within their properties.

If the owner of a website (or any media or means of communication in general) had the right to censor anything he wished on his "property," that would render freedom of speech meaningless for all people who don't have their own media outlet - which is to say nearly everyone.

Now, as for Wilders, he is a paranoid right-wing extremist and, from what I've heard, rather close to being an outright fascist. His views are repugnant, and the irony is that he is just as intolerant as the Muslim extremists he hates.

However, of course he should be allowed to show his movie. Not only is it a matter of freedom of speech, but it's also a matter of pragmatic policy towards attention-seeking extremists - the best course of action towards them is to ignore them. The attempts to stop the film being published generated a huge amount of attention directed at Wilders, which is exactly what he wanted.

[Caid Ivik]

Recent news concerning a small war on terror front. Freedom of speech. Once again Islam has used its death threats to censor media.

There was a trailer made for a movie that criticizes Islam. It was hosted on youtube and liveleak. Pakistan blocked youtube because of this so youtube removed the video in order to be accessible in Pakistan (profit over free speech?). Liveleak had the video here, but had it removed because of credible death threats. They replaced the video with a video of their own explaining why they removed it.

wtf, who are you working for? why do you spread dutch nationalist propaganda on FED2k and why do you expect that the dictatorship in Pakistan should be allowing it to air freely?

[Edric O]

I think it's pretty safe to say that Andrew simply didn't know about the nationalist credentials of the film, rather than that he is "working for someone." :)

[Andrew]

Nationalist credentials? Someone made a movie showing Muslims talking about killing non mulsims. The trailer was banned by most of the media for fear of muslims killing them. Seems simple to me.

[Edric O]

Yes, but the man who made the movie is a right-wing nationalist extremist who hates all Muslims probably as much as Islamic extremists hate other people. The trailer was banned by most of the media for the same reason they would probably ban a movie showing Israeli soldiers talking about killing Palestinians and concluding that all Jews are evil.

[Timenn]

However, of course he should be allowed to show his movie. Not only is it a matter of freedom of speech, but it's also a matter of pragmatic policy towards attention-seeking extremists - the best course of action towards them is to ignore them. The attempts to stop the film being published generated a huge amount of attention directed at Wilders, which is exactly what he wanted.

This is problematic because of two reasons. It is hard to ignore such extremists. If the "wise" media ignore them, then the tabloid-like media will bring them to the foreground because they like to score stories. There is not one media, so trying to control it like that is very hard.

Secondly, it is not a good idea. As seen with Belgium (Flanders, to be precise) - their extremist party was generally ignored - but still this has lead for a strong support for this party. People felt ignored, and voted for the party that was supposed to get rid of the "old" politics (a common argument of such parties). Ignoring extremist themselves might be wise, but it is not wise to ignore their supporters. Debate should be sought with extremists, not to convince them, but to show their supporters there is an alternative way. This way the supporters might feel that their arguments (read: Their party's arguments) are taken seriously.

Andrew, like I said before, I wouldn't use this movie to promote freedom of speech. It is just a bad example, that will only take the focus away from real issues. Think of the Danish cartoons, or the censored prophet Muhammed's image in the South Park episodes "Cartoon Wars".

[Acriku]

I still say YouTube has a right to what goes on their private website. They have no affiliation with the government, so they are not infringing on other peoples' right to freedom of speech. It's like having the CEO of CNN news telling the reporters to not show the story of an old man saving the life of a badger in order to not have his ratings crash. Media outlets do filter stories out and it is their right.

[Andrew]

Media outlets do filter stories out and it is their right.

That is the problem. The media is censoring certain aspects of news. When all of the media jumps on the censoring bandwagon, how are citizens supposed to get factual data on topics?

It would be similar with China censoring everything it does not want its citizens to know. Is that right?

[Edric O]

I still say YouTube has a right to what goes on their private website. They have no affiliation with the government, so they are not infringing on other peoples' right to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not limited to government outlets. Freedom of speech involves the ability to communicate your ideas to other people. Anything that restricts your ability to communicate with other people restricts your freedom of speech. The government is the only institution that has the power to shut you up completely, but private companies also have a lot of power to shut you up to a greater or lesser extent. To use an extreme example, if all the means of communication (newspapers, radio, TV, internet hosting) belonged to one company, that company would have just as much power as the government to restrict your freedom of speech. As it is, ownership is divided between several companies so that no single one of them can shut you up completely - but each of them can cut off your speech partially, and all of them could still come together and agree to shut you up.

It's like having the CEO of CNN news telling the reporters to not show the story of an old man saving the life of a badger in order to not have his ratings crash.

...or like Rupert Murdoch telling FOX News to only show stories that support a conservative point of view.

Media outlets do filter stories out and it is their right.

Yes, FOX News in particular loves to filter stories and spin the news to reflect their point of view. Media outlets should not have the power to filter stories however they see fit. It should be possible to take them to court for bias or inaccurate reporting.

[Acriku]

Andrew -

The difference there, though, is the government forbidding the outlets from telling the news. The outlets are privately owned, and show what they want (usually based on ratings or "hits" like why YouTube is removing the video to keep Pakistan). But there will always be outlets who do show the news other outlets don't show - like wikileaks.org.

Edric -

Lest we forget that the freedom of speech is not only the freedom to say anything, but also to not say anything.

[Edric O]

The difference there, though, is the government forbidding the outlets from telling the news. The outlets are privately owned, and show what they want (usually based on ratings or "hits" like why YouTube is removing the video to keep Pakistan).

Yes, that is the current state of affairs, but I disagree with the current state of affairs.

But there will always be outlets who do show the news other outlets don't show - like wikileaks.org.

We are talking about discrimination (in this case, discrimination against a relevant news story). Saying that discrimination in major media outlets is okay as long as someone doesn't discriminate is like saying it's okay for major corporations to refuse to hire blacks as long as someone is willing to hire them.

Lest we forget that the freedom of speech is not only the freedom to say anything, but also to not say anything.

For individual citizens, yes. For major media outlets, no. Ownership is power, and with power comes responsibility. Whoever owns a major media outlet has the responsibility to report the news - all the news - with reasonable accuracy and no intentional bias. Failure to report a major development should be judged based on the kind of content that the outlet is focused on. If a media outlet is reporting international incidents but fails to mention the Tibet riots, that is bias by omission. If, on the other hand, a media outlet does not report international news in general, they cannot be expected to cover the Tibet riots.

[Acriku]

I didn't say it was ok, just that there will always be outlets who will show stories others won't. People's need for information will fix itself eventually. And this "discrimination" analogy is bogus, because the story is not something that has rights. A story is a story, and major news corporations should show what they want to show, like Fox should be able to show conservatively-tilted stories. It is in fact you and others who are trying to tell Fox (or YouTube in this case) what to say. They do have power and a responsibility to not misuse that power, but what would you like to do in other to enforce that responsibility? Have the government step in and tell Fox/YouTube what they are allowed to report and not report? I think the result of that is obvious.

I'd also like to add that bias in itself is speech and they should have the freedom for it.

[Edric O]

I didn't say it was ok, just that there will always be outlets who will show stories others won't. People's need for information will fix itself eventually.

No it won't. People do not go out of their way to find more details than they read in the paper or see on the news unless they have a specific personal interest in the story. If Geert Wilders goes on a major TV station saying all Muslims are evil terrorists and no one contradicts him, most people will not go out of their way to read opposing views somewhere else. Add to that the fact that media companies have a direct financial interest in telling people what they want to hear - not necessarily what is true - and we have a serious problem.

And this "discrimination" analogy is bogus, because the story is not something that has rights.

The story in itself, no. If a media outlet covers a story about, say, a comet hitting the planet Jupiter, and for some odd reason decides to spin this in a positive light and talk about how great it is for comets to hit Jupiter, we have a case of bias, but the bias does not involve people and there's nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, when a story is about people, the way a media outlet presents the story can help or harm people. Therefore people's rights or legitimate interests have to be taken into account. A story may not have rights, but the people in it do - and so do the people who wish to tell the story. To use my discrimination analogy again, suppose a major television station ran a story claiming that Jews have a secret plan to take over the world, but refused to give any airtime to anyone speaking out against that claim. Is that ok, since stories don't have rights and private companies should be able to say anything about anyone? If a major TV station was openly anti-Semitic, would that be fine as long as some other, minor stations spoke out against it?

A major media outlet is not the same as a single citizen because the media outlet has far more power and influence than the single citizen. An individual has the right to be prejudiced - for example racist or anti-Semitic. A TV station does not. Corporations are not people.

(note: I am not saying that we should ban racist or anti-Semitic material from television; I am saying a station that shows such material should be under obligation to give an equal amount of airtime to the other side. I demand balance, not censorship. And I am saying that balance should be achieved within the same media outlet, rather than relying on different outlets to balance each other.)

A story is a story, and major news corporations should show what they want to show, like Fox should be able to show conservatively-tilted stories. It is in fact you and others who are trying to tell Fox (or YouTube in this case) what to say.

This is a case of Fox or YouTube using their power to deny certain people the freedom to speak and have their ideas heard. YouTube is trying to tell Geert Wilders what he can or cannot publish, and I am telling YouTube to stop their internal censorship. Which one of us is more on the side of free speech?

They do have power and a responsibility to not misuse that power, but what would you like to do in other to enforce that responsibility? Have the government step in and tell Fox/YouTube what they are allowed to report and not report? I think the result of that is obvious.

I already mentioned my proposed solution a few posts earlier: Make media bias and private censorship a civil offence. So the government cannot tell the media what to publish, but individual citizens can take media outlets to court if they believe the outlets refused to publish their stories out of prejudice, or if they believe they were portrayed unfairly in a news story. If it can be proven in court that the media outlet decided which stories to run and how to present them based on political considerations, the outlet should be fined, its bias should be made public, and it should be forced to run the story it had previously refused.

I'd also like to add that bias in itself is speech and they should have the freedom for it.

Individual citizens, yes. Powerful media outlets, no. The more power you have, the more your freedom of action should be restrained to prevent abuse of that power.

[Edric O]

This is problematic because of two reasons. It is hard to ignore such extremists. If the "wise" media ignore them, then the tabloid-like media will bring them to the foreground because they like to score stories. There is not one media, so trying to control it like that is very hard.

Secondly, it is not a good idea. As seen with Belgium (Flanders, to be precise) - their extremist party was generally ignored - but still this has lead for a strong support for this party. People felt ignored, and voted for the party that was supposed to get rid of the "old" politics (a common argument of such parties). Ignoring extremist themselves might be wise, but it is not wise to ignore their supporters. Debate should be sought with extremists, not to convince them, but to show their supporters there is an alternative way. This way the supporters might feel that their arguments (read: Their party's arguments) are taken seriously.

I see what you mean, and I agree. When I said that Wilders and extremists like him should be ignored, what I meant was that we should not make them seem important or interesting by trying to censor them. Every time people get angry at a book or film and try to censor it - whether it's Wilders' film or Harry Potter or The Da Vinci Code - the result is that it gets more publicity and attention, and more people want to read it or see it. People are attracted by forbidden things. If something gets banned, it becomes interesting.

And in addition, trying to censor a book or film will make the author get a lot of sympathy. Wilders, for example, can portray himself as a victim now. We shouldn't let that happen.

I completely agree that we should debate right-wing extremists; we should bring arguments against them, not pretend they don't exist or act as if their views are so taboo that we cannot discuss them. The problem in Belgium and elsewhere is that the mainstream parties just keep saying that nationalism is bad without explaining why it is bad. Right-wing extremism thrives on ignorance. People who refuse to discuss it are allowing ignorance to spread.

[Acriku]

The bottom line is not being understood Edric. Why should media outlets be forced to show a story? Why should they be fined? The outlets are there to tell the news as they see it. If people do not care for the outlet, the ratings will drop and the outlet will cater to them until they're back. If an outlet believes in integrity and unbiased reporting, all the more power to them. However, it should not be enforced.

[Edric O]

The bottom line is not being understood Edric. Why should media outlets be forced to show a story? Why should they be fined?

Because their purpose is to provide a public service, to satisfy a certain public need - the need for accurate information. If they are not showing relevant stories, if they are censoring debate or if they are biased in their reporting, they are not performing their function. Measures should be taken to ensure that they perform their function better in the future.

If people do not care for the outlet, the ratings will drop and the outlet will cater to them until they're back. If an outlet believes in integrity and unbiased reporting, all the more power to them. However, it should not be enforced.

No, because the purpose of the media is to tell the truth, not to tell people what they want to hear.

[Andrew]

Media companies should not be forced to show anything. But they should not censor anything either (and pretend it never happened). The media banned the cartoons, now this trailer. But they had no problem with discussing when Muslims killed the american soldiers in Iraq (the ones that were hanged on a bridge or something).

[Caid Ivik]

Nationalist credentials? Someone made a movie showing Muslims talking about killing non mulsims. The trailer was banned by most of the media for fear of muslims killing them. Seems simple to me.

things usually aren't simple, but when presented with a sophisticated simplification, they can be persuasive to simple minds

Media companies should not be forced to show anything. But they should not censor anything either (and pretend it never happened). The media banned the cartoons, now this trailer. But they had no problem with discussing when Muslims killed the american soldiers in Iraq (the ones that were hanged on a bridge or something).

don't forget you aren't referring to some great event, but to a corrupted work of art...like there are no nazi bands airing on MTV

[Andrew]

The creators intentions might be corrupt. But the video shows what it shows. He didn't make any of it up as far as I can tell. Of course he simply construed evidence it to align with his beliefs and what he wanted to portray. Not much different than say Michael Moore documentaries.

Not much different than "Jesus Camp", which showed what some extreme Christians things. They didn't make that up. They simply documented a certain case. Did that documentary mean that all Christians want to go on some crusade? Nope. But I'm sure someone (unintelligent) watched it and thought that. I'm sure it was argued when it was released that it painted a bad picture for all Christians.

I would argue that maybe a documentary team should go to some extremist mosque (school) and film what they do and think. And see if it gets aired. And if someone wants to film a mosque that denounces extremists and violence, then I'm all for it. But pretending that there are no religious extremist groups out there (such as this film which shows one group), and not allowing it to be shown or talked about in the media is absurd. People can watch it and make their own decisions.

[Caid Ivik]

I think it is of an essential importance, what are the intentions of any work. If I write a letter to somebody, telling him about how some of his relatives are dangerous for his life and he would react on it by killing them, I would feel some responsibility. Of course - no idea would have an effect without arguments. Which are one-sided. By hearing nazi-music or reading a logically coherent treatise on jewish conspiracy, you also can make your own decision (well, there must be many dangerous Jews out there); that's the goal of any propagation, to give a motive for your "free choice". You can freely hate those "dangerous groups" and anything, what can be linked to it. Like an advertiser doesn't show the negative sides of his product in short ads.

Moore's work is funny and popular, but when something makes a trailer looking like a call to arms, then let they go back...