Freedom of speech once again takes a beating.

[Andrew]

but when something makes a trailer looking like a call to arms, then let they go back...

Most of that trailer shows Muslims calling to arms.

Maybe the author is calling to arms against those that have already called to arms against them? I guess they could sit back and let more people get murdered for their views and ignore that people want them dead. Maybe if Theo van Gogh kept his mouth shut he would still be alive and their would be no extremist Muslims calling to arms.

[Edric O]

Most of that trailer shows Muslims calling to arms.

Yes, and the problem is that it doesn't show any of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not calling to arms.

How would you like it if there was, say, an extremist Canadian terrorist group calling for Canadian world domination, and someone made a movie showing this group together with images of the Canadian flag and other Canadian national symbols, implying that all Canadians share similar views?

I bet you'd be angry. And then what if people used your anger to argue that all Canadians are violent?

[Andrew]

Good point Edric. Although I don't plan on burning embassies any time soon because someone said that Canadians were violent. But maybe some Canadians would become violent and burn embassies or attempt world domination, which would prove the point that some Canadians are violent. I guess we should ignore a group of Canadian terrorists bent on world domination, because if they are ignored and censored by the media, then they don't exist and pose no threat.

And yes in Canada people that showed the cartoons got lots of death threats, There was an extremely small amount of people that showed the cartoons. I think only 2 publications did (with one having all its publication removed within 3 hours after its release to avoid publicity), and one individual with them posted outside their office whom had Muslims walk up and give death threats to him personally.

I bet you'd be angry. And then what if people used your anger to argue that all Canadians are violent?

I would be angry. It is what I do with this anger that matters. If a cartoon/movie was drawn up with Canadians being violent and attempting to take over the world, and I as a Canadian then violently protested against this cartoon/movie and attempted to take over the world, I think I would be proving their point that some Canadians are violent and want to take over the world.

Take for example picture three in this set of pictures at the BBC

In pictures: Cartoon outrage

Palestinian gunmen raided the EU's office in Gaza to demand an apology.

Yep, that is the best way to get someone to apologize for portraying Muslims as violent, by storming an office violently.

This movie maker shows all the bad things about extremist Muslims and maybe skews it to somehow look like all Muslims are extremist (by showing total population levels of Muslims), and ignoring non-violent people. Someone can just as easily show all the non violent muslims in a movie and skew it to look like there are no violent muslims by ignoring violent people.

Yes the movie is one sided. So are a lot of publications (such as the anti/pro walmart movies that came out over the past couple years). Just because they are one sided does not mean they get censored.

[Caid Ivik]

Most of that trailer shows Muslims calling to arms.

Maybe the author is calling to arms against those that have already called to arms against them? I guess they could sit back and let more people get murdered for their views and ignore that people want them dead. Maybe if Theo van Gogh kept his mouth shut he would still be alive and their would be no extremist Muslims calling to arms.

The idea presented is "islam=war". He's not trying to start debates and research inquiries, solve problems, search for individuals inciting hate and so on. It is a primitive, simplified us/they view.

[Anathema]

Bleh. Of course it's a stupid film full of fallacies. So? All the less reason to torch embassies over it.

There was some speculation going on here wether or not the whole film was just an April Fool's joke. I kinda wish it was - Wilders would have made his point suprisingly well without actually showing anything provocative.

Wilders isn't really an extreme nationalist, though. His wife is Hungarian, wich would be atypical. Extremely islamophobic, yes.

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

I disagree. "Freedom of speech", as a concept, wasn't invented so that people could talk about the weather or the latest football match. The reason that modern democracies explicitly protect it in their constitutions is because you should be able to say things that other people wouldn't necessarily like. So yes, Wilders is a very good example to use when defending freedom of speech, just like Islam or Mormonism are good examples to defend freedom of religion with despite, or rather because of the fact that both religions have extremely disagreeable aspects.

(of course, none of that is a good reason to vote for Wilders.)

As a Dutchman' date=' I feel I owe the world, and especially Denmark, an apology.[/quote']

What do you have to apologize for?

[Andrew]

"I call on Muslims around the world, if you run into the maker of the film, kill him," said one of the speakers at the rally, Awit Mashuri.

Maybe this will make it into the sequel?

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkanende said the government was concerned that Geert Wilders’ film "Fitna" could provoke a violent backlash.

See, if a film criticizing Islam about violence, can provoke violence, then I think it is a serious issue that needs to be looked at.

What if the same thing happens that happened in Paris with the kids running from police and dieing? What will Dutch government do when people decide to riot? Will they bow to pressure and censure anything criticizing Islam for fear of violence?

[Edric O]

Good point Edric. Although I don't plan on burning embassies any time soon because someone said that Canadians were violent. But maybe some Canadians would become violent and burn embassies or attempt world domination, which would prove the point that some Canadians are violent. I guess we should ignore a group of Canadian terrorists bent on world domination, because if they are ignored and censored by the media, then they don't exist and pose no threat.

I never said that terrorists should be ignored or that information about them should be censored (though I do believe that the terrorist threat is blown out of all proportion, given the fact that in the United States, for example, you are much more likely to be killed by a non-Muslim American than by a Muslim terrorist).

What I said was that we should speak out against people who argue that a huge population should be condemned for the actions of a few among them.

If some Canadians burned embassies, that would prove the point that some Canadians are violent. It would not prove the point that all Canadians are violent or that violence is somehow ingrained in Canadian culture.

I would be angry. It is what I do with this anger that matters. If a cartoon/movie was drawn up with Canadians being violent and attempting to take over the world, and I as a Canadian then violently protested against this cartoon/movie and attempted to take over the world, I think I would be proving their point that some Canadians are violent and want to take over the world.

See above. Also, if you saw people claiming over and over again that Canadians are violent and evil, you may eventually get frustrated enough to say "screw it, everyone thinks we're violent anyway, so let's actually become violent to give them something real to complain about." I believe that increasing numbers of Muslims feel that way.

Honestly, if a person kept yelling "F*CK you, you violent terrorist!" at you, wouldn't you be tempted to turn around and punch him in the face?

It is not at all reasonable to demand that people prove their non-violent nature to you by remaining calm while you shout abuse at them. Most ordinary people would be tempted to become violent under such circumstances.

This movie maker shows all the bad things about extremist Muslims and maybe skews it to somehow look like all Muslims are extremist (by showing total population levels of Muslims), and ignoring non-violent people. Someone can just as easily show all the non violent muslims in a movie and skew it to look like there are no violent muslims by ignoring violent people.

Yes the movie is one sided. So are a lot of publications (such as the anti/pro walmart movies that came out over the past couple years). Just because they are one sided does not mean they get censored.

Of course. I was just arguing with Acriku that media outlets should be legally required to show all sides of a controversial issue and not be allowed to censor views they don't like.

Wilders is a pathetic excuse for a human being and I would spit in his face if given the chance. But his views should not be censored and his freedom of speech should not be violated.

[Andrew]

Wilders is a pathetic excuse for a human being and I would spit in his face if given the chance. But his views should not be censored and his freedom of speech should not be violated.

Exactly. It would be most effective to disprove Wilders with facts about non violent muslims and systematically disproving each of his points. A healthy debate/discussion of the topic would be nice. The "reactionists" seem to give credit to Wilders views.

Calling Wilder a racist and then threatening to kill him, and censoring him won't solve anything.

Education will work best.

When the cartoons were released, and a guy put them outside his office, Muslims approached him and threatened his life. I think this reinforced the persons "freedom of speech", and also if he believed the cartoons were true, it gave more evidence they were. Those Muslims that threatened him I would argue are stupider than the person that posted the cartoons outside his office.

[Caid Ivik]

you think such a movie should be a part of education?

[Andrew]

No, I meant educating people on the topic. People calling Wilder a racist, censoring his movie, and threatening his life isn't very convincing that what he believes is wrong.

I would see nothing wrong with showing the movie, then showing another movie that counters the points made in the movie. Showing both sides of the topic.

Obviously showing only Wilders movie is not very educational since it is one sided. But to learn about why Wilders thinks what he thinks, you obviously would have to see his work.

That would be like claiming to know why Hitler did what he did (and his thought process) without even reading his book or anything on the topic. Same for reading the Bible or Qur’an. Education is the best thing.

[Caid Ivik]

a movie is an art, not an arena of scholastic debates, one cannot handle it like a book, simply because of different audience

[Sneakgab]

What the happened to my post!?  ???

Guess it was censored  :P ;D

Well, basically I was just suggesting that ideally the govt should provide non biased fair media that covers all sides since this is a service required by the people who pay taxes that the govt is supposed to serve and provide said services to. It's kind of.... their job right? :P :D

Of course, there are imperfections in this like govt control and corruption. I'd say that the govt should have NO control over this public media other than ensuring that it meets the guidelines such as being unbiased. The problem of course is that the govt can choose not to reprimand deviations from this when it pleases. I guess it should be a court matter where the govt is forced to reprimand its' public media if any citizen can prove that the media deviated from guide line.

[Anathema]

Ironicly, that's why I like a state-run media outlet next to privately owned ones. It could cover subjects that aren't commercially interesting, and if it starts moving towards propaganda it's immediately criticized by the rest.

About the discussion between Acriku and Edric wether news outlets have an obligation to cover anything, I don't think that sites like Youtube or Liveleak have such an obligation. The thing with all these "new media" on the internet (uploading sites, blogs) is that they have no journalistic credentials. On one hand this means that they're never as a whole representative of what's going on or necessarily accurate. On the other hand, their charm is that individuals might pick up something that the "true" media willfully ignores and that they can actually bring it to the world to view.

An obligation to show something is hard to reconcile with this usefullness. I think that it's not strictly necessary in any sense, either: if youtube censors something, people notice, and nothing stops anyone from simply uploading it again on youtube, liveleak or any other such site.