• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

But Free Speech isn't going to be a casualty of these attacks.

Harshaw said:
You see, I refuse to bow to people's attempt to delegitimize proper criticism of the President.

This isn't a copyright violation. This is pressure from the White House to take down a video they find troubling for its content, and for no other reason. It doesn't matter who's in office when it happens.
Click to expand...

See, and I'm not willing to jump the gun. If YouTube comes back and says "yes, it violates rule x and we're going to take it down", that's not a problem to me. That's YouTube following its own rules. If YouTube says "no, it doesn't violate any rules" and the administration accepts their position, still no problem. It's only when YouTube says no and the administration tries to force the issue that this becomes a problem. If that happens, then I'll get upset. Until then, there is nothing to be freaking out over. It's YouTube's own rules.
 
Harshaw said:
Right. If the White House called YOU and asked you to do something, you'd feel no pressure to do it.




Well, that shows the seriousness with which I should take you here.
Click to expand...

Says the man dodging the question. What consequences will Youtube suffer by refusing?
 
Paschendale said:
See, and I'm not willing to jump the gun. If YouTube comes back and says "yes, it violates rule x and we're going to take it down", that's not a problem to me. That's YouTube following its own rules. If YouTube says "no, it doesn't violate any rules" and the administration accepts their position, still no problem. It's only when YouTube says no and the administration tries to force the issue that this becomes a problem. If that happens, then I'll get upset. Until then, there is nothing to be freaking out over. It's YouTube's own rules.
Click to expand...

Why is it the White House's business what YouTube does on its own site according to its own TOS?
 
Deuce said:
Says the man dodging the question. What consequences will Youtube suffer by refusing?
Click to expand...

As you didn't bother with my answer ("chilling effect"), I can't take your saying I'm dodging seriously, either.

Come back when you have some clue as to the issues involved around free speech.
 
Harshaw said:
As you didn't bother with my answer ("chilling effect"), I can't take your saying I'm dodging seriously, either.

Come back when you have some clue as to the issues involved around free speech.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask a question. If you want to discuss the issues, bring them up. You're being evasive so that you don't have to actually commit to any issue in particular. That way, you can't be wrong.
 
Gardener said:
More than a little naivete' and blind partisanship on your part.
Click to expand...

I'm just not going to worry about something that I need not worry about. SOPA, and PIPA are a much more severe and present danger to our free speech than a request to see if a website will take down a video under the websites own guidelines.
 
Deuce said:
No. Stop right there. That is a ridiculous leap you made.
Click to expand...

Just because you lack the ability to understand the issue and are so blindly partisan that you judge an action, not by the actual action, but by who is performing it, that does not make me the ridiculous one. It just makes you the unthinking.
 
Deuce said:
You didn't ask a question.
Click to expand...

You are deeply confused. I never said I did.


If you want to discuss the issues, bring them up.
Click to expand...

I have been doing so throughout the thread.

You're being evasive so that you don't have to actually commit to any issue in particular. That way, you can't be wrong.
Click to expand...

Really? Hmmm. I referenced "chilling effect," you made a crack about your refrigerator, and I'm the one being "evasive."

Why are you bothering? This is just straight-up trolling at this point.
 
Your Star said:
I'm just not going to worry about something that I need not worry about.
Click to expand...

If you were not so blissfully ignorant about the nature of Islamism, you would be plenty worried.

That we are taking a step to modify who we are by becoming more like them is a BIG issue.
 
Harshaw said:
You are deeply confused. I never said I did.




I have been doing so throughout the thread.



Really? Hmmm. I referenced "chilling effect," you made a crack about your refrigerator, and I'm the one being "evasive."

Why are you bothering? This is just straight-up trolling at this point.
Click to expand...

You mentioned the concept. You didn't discuss it.

If you wanted to discuss something, you wouldn't be continually ranting about how everyone else "just doesn't understand."
 
Deuce said:
You mentioned the concept. You didn't discuss it.

If you wanted to discuss something, you wouldn't be continually ranting about how everyone else "just doesn't understand."
Click to expand...

Thanks for your complete lack of any meaningful contribution to this thread.
 
Harshaw said:
You are deeply confused.
Click to expand...

Many thoroughly dogmatic people arrive at their positions, not by any sort of rational method for examining an issue, but by framing it according to their partisanship. Can you just imagine how some of these same hypocrites would rail against the government had, say, the Bush administration approached youtube over some of the anti-Christian stuff? They would be wailing like banshees. Heck, I just went to youtube, typed in "pisschrist" and had no trouble at all finding something designed to offend Christians.

If the administration is to approach youtube over this one, why not be consistent and do so for all? It doesn't pass the smell test here, since they HAVEN'T made such inquiries over material offensive to other religions, so this is nothing but a naked attempt at appeasing Islamists.
 
Gardener said:
Many thoroughly dogmatic people arrive at their positions, not by any sort of rational method for examining an issue, but by framing it according to their partisanship. Can you just imagine how some of these same hypocrites would rail against the government had, say, the Bush administration approached youtube over some of the anti-Christian stuff? They would be wailing like banshees. Heck, I just went to youtube, typed in "pisschrist" and had no trouble at all finding something designed to offend Christians.

If the administration is to approach youtube over this one, why not be consistent and do so for all? It doesn't pass the smell test here, since they HAVE'T made such inquiries over material offensive to other religions, so this is nothing but a naked attempt at appeasing Islamists.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that, which is why I've asked people whom I think are actually thoughtful to consider it from that point of view -- a president making a similar request about something the content of which they'd defend.

Others, there's no point in trying to get them to think about it that way, because it won't happen.
 
Harshaw said:
Right. White House pressure to remove a video doesn't have any free speech concerns. It doesn't have to be an out-and-out violation to be troubling.

I have a feeling you wouldn't feel the same about a president pressuring YouTube to remove something you feel strongly about.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but what are the laws pertaining to mayhem? Does freedom of speech give someone the right to incite violent disorder, riotous confusion or havoc?

It's an interesting question, because there are actually two primary sides to it. One side involves an individual's choices of conduct and the other side involves how we view others are in their rights to behave according to the freedoms granted them.

I certainly wouldn't want to run my mouth in such a way to cause the death of another person, even if it was within my rights to do so. What if you just said something innocent enough around a psycho and it triggered a violent reaction causing his death. You can rationalize it all you want to, but wouldn't you rather it never happen in the first place? The world isn't going to be forever changed, if you just kept your mouth shut.

In this YouTube case, I acknowledge they have the right of freedom of speech, but I don't think this person is a hero for using it in that manner. I can imagine the problems growing up as a minority in Egypt. People need to get beyond their hate and anger, because it sure doesn't serve them or the rest of humanity. It's a hell of a coincidence that this old trailer just happened to get translated to arabic and present itself on the 11th anniversity of 9/11.

I've never studied that part of the Koran about Mohammed having a 9 year old wife, but I question the assumption of sex. Does the Koran specifically say there was sex involved between them or is it assumed?

I have a problem with our society and the 9th or 8th Commandment, depending on how it is enumerated: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." It seems to be the fashion of our times to just make up **** about people and pretend spreading it isn't a sin. It sure looks like a sin to me!
 
Your Star said:
Well they aren't censor's until they start censoring. They haven't done that yet, just made a request to YT to look and see if it violates their own rules. No pressure, not threat of action if they don't get the result they want. This is rather light, even though I'd rather not have them do it in the first place.
Click to expand...

It isn't technically censorship, but it is undoubtedly pressure from an authoritative and legally powerful source, to try and elicit cooperation from a private business entity, in order to help achieve a political goal, which appears to be appeasement.

Personally, I think it's better to nip this kind of approach in the bud, rather than waiting until it actually IS an encroachment of free speech.
 
Gary said:
I've never studied that part of the Koran about Mohammed having a 9 year old wife, but I question the assumption of sex. Does the Koran specifically say there was sex involved between them or is it assumed?
Click to expand...


Actually, he married Aisha when she was 5. By tradition, he had sex with her when she was 9.

There have been attempts in recent years to modify these traditionally accepted ages by claiming she was older, and several Muslim scholars argue that she had experienced her first menses at 9, so was suitable for sex, but the longstanding traditions in Islam place her age upon marriage at 5 and the time of consummation at 9.
 
lizzie said:
It isn't technically censorship, but it is undoubtedly pressure from an authoritative and legally powerful source, to try and elicit cooperation from a private business entity, in order to help achieve a political goal, which appears to be appeasement.

Personally, I think it's better to nip this kind of approach in the bud, rather than waiting until it actually IS an encroachment of free speech.
Click to expand...

All these posters really have to do is ask themselves a very easy question. How would they react were Romney to be elected and have his administration approach youtube about material offensive to Christians?

If they are capable of even the teensiest little bit of intellectual honesty, they will grasp the actual issue here by doing so. I'm betting that they won't.
 
Gary said:
I have a problem with our society and the 9th or 8th Commandment, depending on how it is enumerated: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." It seems to be the fashion of our times to just make up **** about people and pretend spreading it isn't a sin. It sure looks like a sin to me!
Click to expand...

But we aren't having a discussion about "sin". We are having a discussion about legal rights.
 
Gardener said:
All these posters really have to do is ask themselves a very easy question. How would they react were Romney to be elected and have his administration approach youtube about material offensive to Christians?
Click to expand...

There would likely be cries to impeach him.
 
Gardener said:
Actually, he married Aisha when she was 5. By tradition, he had sex with her when she was 9.

There have been attempts in recent years to modify these traditionally accepted ages by claiming she was older, and several Muslim scholars argue that she had experienced her first menses at 9, so was suitable for sex, but the longstanding traditions in Islam place her age upon marriage at 5 and the time of consummation at 9.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but specifically what is written? Accusing someone because of a tradition is a stretch.

I've had several chances to read books like the Koran or the Book of Mormon and just never had the desire to do it. I've had a course in Religion when I was in college, but we never dealt with such specifics.
 
lizzie said:
But we aren't having a discussion about "sin". We are having a discussion about legal rights.
Click to expand...

No ****, but sin does the flavor of right and wrong.

Are you saying it is right to lie about people?
 
Gary said:
That's all well and good, but specifically what is written? Accusing someone because of a tradition is a stretch.

I've had several chances to read books like the Koran or the Book of Mormon and just never had the desire to do it. I've had a course in Religion when I was in college, but we never dealt with such specifics.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of Hadiths. Much of the oral traditions within Islam have been passed down through such.

THat you would call what I say an "accusation" indicates that you might wish to familiarize yourself with many things about Islam. If Muslims believe she was 9 when they had sex, why would it be considered an "accusation" to acknowledge this fact?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom