This conversation is closed.

"Judge denies actress' bid to remove anti-Islam film" Would the judgment be the same if it was an anti-Jewish film?

It is beginning to appear as if as a nation we are becoming skewed in our judgments. Skewed by our hatred of one and guilt around the other..

The propagation of hatred seems to be permissible when we as a culture hate strongly enough that we feel that our hatred is completely justified. The Germans felt the same way toward the Jews. Shall we blindly succumb to the same ugliness?

We have violated their territory, killed their people and demeaned their religion under the false pretense of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

How would we behave if they were occupying the USA for ten years behaving as we have been behaving in the Middle East while realizing that we do have many Weapons of Mass Destruction?

  • thumb
    Sep 22 2012: Yes, the Judgment would be exactly the same. "Red State" is a very disturbing horror movie about a Christian cult. "Life of Brian", is a Monty Python film that constantly lampoons the story of the bible. We believe in free expression, for everyone, even people who think Islam is nonsense. The makers of the film are jerks... and they are free to be jerks.

    Idiots are free to make fun of your religion here, just as you are free to make fun of any other religion here. Some people, are stupid, regardless of race, culture, or gender. Here, they are free to be stupid, as long as they do not get violent.

    Adam Sandler actually made a stupid movie about being a member of the Israeli army... "You Don't Mess with the Zohan". Not worth watching, but it was made, no one died, or sued.
  • thumb
    Sep 22 2012: Freedom without discretion is an invitation to trouble.
    There are various consequences of the misuse of freedom.
    Someone may be hurt and respond with calm disgust; someone may be hurt and go beserk like a mad man; some nation may have strong feelings about democracy and decide to throw bombs at undemocratic nations; some people may have strong feelings about a religious leader and decide that the opponents of the leader should be destroyed.
    As long as we promote unbridled freedom, we must be prepared for the explosive consequences of the misuse of unbridled freedom.
  • thumb
    Sep 23 2012: I forgot... I can just prove this http://youtu.be/GuouL4WnM9A

    I endorse absolutely nothing about this video... but yes... you can put an anti semitic rant on youtube.

    Here's one about how Bush orchestrated 9/11, there were no terrorists, and people weren't even on the planes, because the planes never hit anything... http://youtu.be/yyiwOJ2pnGg

    You can say any insane nonsense you want in this country, and hundreds of thousands of people, might even be dumb enough to believe you... In the words of South Park "Are you saying 1 in 4 Americans are stupid?"... "Oh... Ya... Of course... At least one in four"
  • Sep 22 2012: "Would the judgment be the same if it was an anti-Jewish film?"

    Yes, Youtube is an American company and American law allows the publication of "anti-Jewish" material.
    • Sep 22 2012: Do you think that this would then be considered anti-Semitic?
      • Sep 22 2012: What? The anti-Jewish material? It depends on the content of the material and it really doesn't matter for the verdict because American law does not censor anti-Semitic material.

        "Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States;"

        There you go.

        "Defamation"

        Usually relates to persons, not religions

        and...

        "In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false"

        Which means religious groups cannot call on anti-defamation laws and even people cannot sue someone for calling them a "Jew" (because it's factually true).

        Neo-Nazi rallies are legal in the United States.

        Also, I don't understand where you're trying to go with this. Anti-semitism is racism, it is not the same as offending Muslims, anti-Judaism is the same as offending Muslims, but anti-semitism is not. Anti-semitism is directed at people of Jewish ethnicity, who could be atheists or even Muslims. There is no Islamic ethnicity, only an Islamic religion.

        What Fritzie is trying to say is that the anti-defamation league (which is not affiliated with the government) may want to ban anti-semitic material but they cannot, all they can do is name and shame perpetrators and hope that that will be enough to make them back now.
        • Sep 22 2012: You may check the following material and see if you still believe that anti-Semitic material is above the law.

          United States
          In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[55] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States;
          Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2012: John and David are correct in their interpretation. The laws in the United States are different than in other countries. The limits on free speech are construed very narrowly.
        • Sep 23 2012: Anti-Defamation League
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is an international non-governmental organization based in the United States. Describing itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency", the ADL states that it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all" while it "[advocates] for Israel [...] with policymakers, the media and the public" and "defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide".[1][2
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2012: Of course the Anti-defamation league fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry. And there are myriad other organizations too, large and small, that speak out against hate of all kinds.
        • Sep 23 2012: My point was,

          "Judge denies actress' bid to remove anti-Islam film" Would the judgment be the same if it was an anti-Jewish film?
  • thumb
    Sep 22 2012: I am not even sure why this is a relevant matter. It is a matter of freedom of speech and it certainly would not stop any rioters. Also if you want my personal opinion they should have every right to burn our flags as we do ((hell the flags were probably made in china so I say burn them all) that pisses me off more then the flag burning). However the problem is the violence and harming of others. That is what needs to stop and removing a video is not going to do that. Also things have come to light more and the US embassy was warned back in July that this was going to possible happen before the release of the video. Hatred is something that should never be tolerated as a form of freedom of speech. That being said I can only make that call if I saw the advertisement.
    ~ former Marine
    • Sep 22 2012: Anti-jihad 'savage' ads going up in NYC subway

      Thursday - 9/20/2012, 8:32pm ET
      In this undated photo provided by Pamela Geller, an example of an advertisement that equates foes of Israel with “savages” is shown. Geller, the anti-Islamic blogger behind the ad campaign, said she is not concerned that the advertisements could spark protests when they appear at 10 New York City subway stations on Sept. 24, 2012. (AP Photo/The American Freedom Defense Initiative, Pamela Geller)

      By KAREN MATTHEWS
      Associated Press

      NEW YORK (AP) - A provocative ad that equates Muslim radicals with savages is set to go up in the city's subway system as violent protests over an anti-Islamic film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad sweep over much of the Muslim world.

      A conservative blogger who once headed a campaign against an Islamic center near the Sept. 11 terror attack site won a court order to post the ad in 10 subway stations next Monday. The ad reads, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."

      The ad was plastered on San Francisco city buses in recent weeks, prompting some artists to deface the ads and remove some of the words, including "Jihad," or holy war. The blogger, Pamela Geller, said she filed suit Thursday in the nation's capital to post the ad in Washington's transit system after officials declined to put up the ad in light of the uproar in the Middle East over the anti-Islam film.
      • thumb
        Sep 22 2012: Looks like we are killen them Injuns again. If we were truly a civil society we would not have advertisements that clearly are an internal hatred of her own self image. As well as not wage wars or occupy another country with our military. We would be more like a peace corp not a war corp. In many ways I would say that the Native Americans of the past were more civil then the concurring europeans of the time. Last time I check our country was not military occupied by any other country. And if it was and or citizens responded they way that this minority group has across the globe I am pretty sure Americans as a whole would support these radicals. That being said these advertisements should have never went up that act alone would of shown that we are more civil then the so called "savages"(thank you Washington).
  • Sep 22 2012: This has just been followed by a judgment in DC that anti-Islamic advertizing posters calling Muslims savages are permissible for posting in twenty five subway stations. I posed the above question because this judgment in DC on advertizing seems to indicate that this hatred is becoming a cultural trend.
    • thumb
      Sep 22 2012: It's far from becoming a cultural trend, John. You'll have to enlighten me on what "the judgement in DC" refers to. What judgement? Who made the judgement?

      It's not like 90% of the entire population has lined up and is posting anti-Muslim posters on every wall/pole/subway station in the country. And the percentage of the population wanting to do that can themselves be called "fundamentalists". It's really no different then the KKK saying they are Christians and invoking the Bible as their need to conduct discrimination against a certain segment of the human race.
      • thumb
        Sep 22 2012: Rick,

        Did you see where the ACLU is defending the KKK for the adopt the highway program. Very interesting times.

        http://rt.com/usa/news/american-court-kkk-missouri-830/
        • thumb
          Sep 22 2012: Yes, I'm aware of that case. Freedom can be a slippery slope to navigate sometimes.

          The ACLU isn't arguing whether the "message" the KKK is depositing on people's cars is right or wrong. The case is going to be presented questioning whether the city's restriction in allowing ANY organization to deposit messages on someone's car is Constitutional or not.

          I have reservations about both side's claims. Even thought the KKK is saying the cars are parked in public parking lots, to me the VEHICLES are still private property. I don't think it should be allowed for ANY organization to "advertise" on someone's personal property without their consent first. So even though my car is parked in a public parking lot, I would like to see ALL advertising prohibited from being allowed to get stuck under my windshield wipers. Once someone touches my car, it doesn't seem any differnt then if they were allowed to walk through my front yard and stuff an advertisement in my front door. That happens all the time where I live...and it annoys me to no end.

          Do I agree with the advertisement the KKK wants to stick on my car? No...but THAT doesn't really matter. The court case arguments are going to be if other organizations are allowed to do it, should the KKK be prevented from doing it just because of the content of the advertisement? And does the city have the Constitutional authority to enact a statute that prevents any organiization from doing it in the first place?

          Freedom is rarely without confrontation on what the appropriate restrictions should be concerning someone's freedoms.
  • thumb
    Sep 22 2012: I wonder why these magazines have suddenly jumped on the rollercoaster? sales projection? it feels like two animals squaring off.It does look skewed.
  • thumb
    Sep 22 2012: It's too early to make a statement like yours about the totalitarity of ONE judge's ruling. Individual Judge's have historically made "personal" judgements of their own at lower levels, only to have those judgements reversed through our (U.S.) appeal process.

    That's why we have Appeal Courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. No ONE Judge gets to make the rules all by him/her self.

    Let's see what happens with the first Judge's decision before we condemn the entire system.
    • Sep 22 2012: This has just been followed by a judgment in DC that anti-Islamic advertizing posters calling Muslims savages are permissible for posting in twenty five subway stations. I posed this question because this judgment on advertizing seems to indicate that this hatred is becoming a cultural trend.