What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
143 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+147This is a common, if somewhat stupid, misconception about freedom of speech- speech which incites violence is *NOT* protected.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+87Also it is not a first amendment freedom-of-speech issue unless the government or government agencies are involved. A private ISP may shut down whoever he likes - it's the prerogative of any private corporation to decide who to do business with.
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+55@anicejew - if the website was "Kill All Jewish Kids" would you have a problem then?
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46It's not a freedom of speech issue when it's on a private server - it can be closed at any time.
- kooft, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44And if the site promoted killing all Jews or killing all blacks, would it be as acceptable? Anyway, it's not a legal issue as the website violated the TOS of the host. From the article:
"Bedier said HostGator representative Matt Hinton, in a follow-up phone call after CAIR’s letter, told him that the company had reviewed Tavares’ site and agreed that the content violates company policy." - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -17/+51If the Council for American Islamic Relations is really interested in improving American Islamic relations, then they should also campaign for shutting down Jihadist web sites that encourage the killing of Americans. To protest this site while remaining silent on the ehotrs is hypocrisy. Do a web search for jihad sites, and you'll find quite a number of these. And if you check, some of them are based in the US.
Jihad sites are at least as much of a threat as this site they shut down if not more so. - argh44z, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Inciting violence hasn't been protected since Schenck v. United States (1919)
- kooft, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Usually special interest groups, like CAIR, are setup to help a group that lacks sufficient protection/representation. Perhaps CAIR feels that the American population in general is already protected enough from 'Jihadists', whereas the American Muslim population has been overlooked or neglected. I see plenty of anti-Muslim rhetoric bandied about, but not nearly as much pro-Muslim talk.
True, I haven't done a lot of research into it, but I don't see AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) running around defending Muslims. Why should they? After all, they weren't formed to defend Muslims. Special interest groups are just that, groups that defend/represent the interest of a specific group of people. - oskite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24And why not, anicejew? I believe we'd all like to hear your thoughts.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Just another stupid American giving me a bad name. Not even aware of the differences between "Arab," "Muslim," and "terrorist."
- AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22wow, the anti-CAIR version of this article said nothing about the blogger insighting violence against muslims. good job whichever ***** submitted that article. I support freedom of speech, but this shouldn't be protected (and isn't being protected, thank god) as it clearly insights violence and murder.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20besides, part of free speech is the right of people to complain and protest which is all the Council for American Islamic Relations (or CAIR) did.
- nameuofm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@anicejew
It's unfortunate that you don't see killing children as wrong. I supposed when you are taught to dehumanize your fellow man its easier to exterminate him/her or feel apathy towards fellow humans who are hurt or put through pain.
I saw a Nazi propaganda video on Youtube the other day, which was interesting to watch how they dehumanized European Jews. Rationalizing their prejudices by pointing out those bearded Jewish men are some kind of mongrel race that are not "true" European. Learn from history and try not to repeat the same mistakes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DniQl4h4ifw - punkorambo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20anicejew is probably an anti-semite who is trying to make real nice Jews look bad (or a 45 year old man acting like a 14 year old girl to make friends on myspace)
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21anicejew is a huge troll who's every comment has been dugg down to -20 or lower -- check his history.
Just block him and move on. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Who thinks "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" sites are OK?
If you're going to say "CAIR," please be prepared to back that statement up with facts. - battlecow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"This is a common, if somewhat stupid, misconception about freedom of speech- speech which incites violence is *NOT* protected."
It's a bit more complex than that. Merely suggesting violence is not on it's face an incitement or inducement. A lot of it has to do with intent and reasonable knowledge (mens rea). If what you suggest were the case, I can think of lots of content that would no longer be protected.
"This was ***** SATIRE, you idiots. And your reaction proves its point better than any logical argument could."
Are you basing that on the brief snippets in this article or have you read the post in question in its entirety? Just because some people don't pickup on it doesn't mean it's not satire, indeed some satirical peaces, all be they less controversial, from places like The Onion or BBSpot have had quiet a few members of Digg taking them seriously.
It really hard (almost impossible) to judge someones intent based solely on text. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16why is the bible still in publication in western democracies for that matter?
- jockser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11as a Jew and Israeli, i think this is just racist and shows only that this person is insane.
killing of innocent and kids is just crazy and really cruel even just writing that.
this is not different than saying kill all the Jews, blacks, or whoever
freedom of speech has its limits in a democrat society and this is clearly the case. - Easty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Psalm 137:8-9 (KJV):
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Kerr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Ignorance kills...and such quotes could have come from any of the holy books.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7A bit of reading suggests that a lot has happened since Schenck v. United States, namely, it was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
"the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Right. Cause there's no bloodshed in the bible. Or murder. Or rape. Or Polygamy. Or incest....
Good clean book that. Belongs in every school library... - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@Berkana: Wikipedia, like Digg, is made entirely of user-submitted information. Just like you can make a digg topic saying anything you want, you can make a wiki entry, saying whatever you want. It doesn't mean that the people running Wikipedia endorse or acknowledge any particular statement made on their service. You can make revisions to entries on wikipedia, and topics that have received extensive peer review are fairly reliable. For topics that haven't been given substantial peer review, however, the information is not reliable.
- FishPoisonCon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The whole point of religion is "belief"..."
um... no... the whole point of religion is control... the point of indoctrination is "belief"
/wake up! - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thanks for pointing this out. Wikipedia never ceases to surprise me with the kinds of articles they have.
- Clevinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@nazuraki: How do you qualify speech that 'incites violence'? Does that imply that when I create an atheist website which just so happens to incite violence in the Christian fundamentalist crowd, then my freedom of speech should not be protected? I agree that the content of the website is vile, I simply cannot see a rigorous definition of 'incite violence' anywhere that might differentiate between this situation and my hypothetical. Furthermore, people have all sorts of tastes and preferences; what might appear mundane to one individual may seem outrageous to another. How can a court account for different perspectives all the while maintaining freedom of speech?
'Free speech' is either absolute or simply a politically correct euphemism for 'conditional speech'. You might as well be frank about it because as it stands, we Americans enjoy conditional speech (e.g. speech when/if allowed by the government).
(This particular situation is not really a freedom of speech debate as HostGator has every right to control its own private property.) - fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Wonder when the Muslims who gathered in New York and chanted "Bomb, bomb USA! Bomb, bomb USA!" last year will be looked into...
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12This is sad, sorry I really feel kids should be off limits to all the crazies and punishable by death.
Jihad sites are not shut down for a reason. They are trackable and so are the people that visit them, I agree they have no right to be there, but what can you do?
And anyone thinking this is a freedom of speech topic it is not.. . - amoo3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Most of the por-jihadist websites are not based in America. Seeing that CAIR is the Council on American Islamic relations, and that most places where these websites are hosted have no problem with this, CAIR can't really do much.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7So what he did was okay because others do it too? Logic check.
- Ystig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Or, to put it another way, the argument which by extension is reduced to
"Why are you denouncing that *specific* unlawful or immoral behaviour and not *all these other* unlawful and immoral behaviours, including any even vaguely similar, anywhere on earth, perpetrated by all possible parties, throughout every era in history, in any social context ever recorded or hypothesised?"
...will always be an asinine one, and does not reflect the hypocrisy of the argument's opponent, but rather the absurdity of the argument's proponent. Yes, many advocacy groups advocate specific things which do not account for all injustices to all parties, but rather specific injustices to specific parties. Is it so irrational that a group of American Muslims should consider themselves better experts on the American Muslim experience and focus on that, rather than simply turning out a mess of media releases on everything remotely to do with Islam in current geopolitics?
Are we all hypocrits until every citizen finally accepts the necessity for a goddamn press release every time we hear about someone doing or believing something wrong? Me, I was raised a Baptist and virtually all my extended family remains Baptist - using the Muslim analogy, is my family hypocritical if it doesn't send out a newsletter every time Jerry Falwell says something idiotic? It'd strike me as a waste of time. What strikes me as less a waste of time is informing people on what they *don't* know about Baptists, rather than denouncing acts they already know about and have already made valid (i.e., condemnatory) conclusions on.
Denunciation of the obviously wrong is ideological masturbation. Information on the contraversial is progress. - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations
- Learn2Think, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4BrokenDrum: Since you insist on calling the snippets taken out of context as "fact" I will refute one of your "facts" for you.
You claim " (Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs”(2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166)"
Here is the actual translation of the lines you have quoted along with some context:
002.063: And (remember, O Children of Israel) when We made a covenant with you and caused the mount to tower above you, (saying): Hold fast that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein, that ye may ward off (evil).
002.064: Then you turned back after that; so were it not for the grace of Allah and His mercy on you, you would certainly have been among the losers.
002.065: And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.
002.066: So We made it an example to their own time and to their posterity, and a lesson to those who fear Allah.
See? the lines are saying that there were those among the Children of Israel who defied the limits of Sabbath and hence were turned into apes. A far cry from the implication of your "facts" that Quran says Christians and Jews are converted into apes.
Now those who are atheists will have an issue with the whole converting men to ape thing. This is not the point of the post. My point is that not only are you taking things out of context, your quotes are simply incorrect.
peace! - wankerface, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Do you know of any major jihadist websites out there that are still hosted in the US? It used to be the case that some were, but then there was a major crackdown, if I recall. Now it's the case that jihadist websites:
A) Aren't likely to be hosted in the US
B) Are already being watched by a huge number of government agents and therefore could be a valuable intelligence asset.
It's also worth pointing out: who calls on a major Jewish group like AIPAC or the ADL to shut down sites like masada2000, which support and advocate the positions of terrorist groups (Kach, banned in Israel as a party and on the State Department terrorist group list)? Instead, major anti-CAIR bloggers even link to them: http://sadlyno.com/archives/3584.html - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow, -1 for a paranoid blaming of liberals. You sure it isn't really the Jews? Some advice: don't start blaming the liberals the next time you get a traffic ticket.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Instead of posting a bunch (and yes there are a bunch advocating everything from killing gays to owning and raping slaves) of bible verses that may or may not have been taken out of context to prove just how foul Christianity really is (much like you did in your original post), I'm just going to dig you down like everyone else.
- ybisme, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5 “As responsible parents and possible future parents, we have to make sure our children don’t have to deal with the terrorism that plagues us now,” the piece reads. “The only way to do that is to kill all the Arab kids. If you support America and children, then you should be for murdering Arab kids. Many Arab kids will grow up to be terrorists who will then blow up our kids who will now be adults (but not any longer after they get blown up).”
Above the posting, Tavares added this comment: “Makes sense to me. After all, if Muslims are raising their little crumb-snatching, curtain-climbing, ankle-biting rug rats to strap on bombs in order to kill us, it is logically correct to assume that in order to stop that from happening, we need to kill all Muslim kids. Starting now.”
I feel like putting that ***** through each and every SAW movie trap. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Jihad sites are not hosted in the US. You must be pretty naive to believe that they can be shut down.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oops should have been a another line between
"Are you basing that on the brief snippets in this article or have you read the post in question in its entirety?"
and "Just because some people don't pickup on it doesn't mean it's not satire, indeed some satirical peaces, all be they less controversial, from places like The Onion or BBSpot have had quiet a few members of Digg taking them seriously.
It really hard (almost impossible) to judge someones intent based solely on text."
but my time to edit it expired. - carrio110, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Erm, did anyone actually read the original Frank J article? This is just a maddoxian rant (and not satire). There is no serious belief behind it, it's just for fun and pretty funny it is too, speaking as a hypothetical future parent.
- wonderboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ever heard of this saying: Your rights end where my nose begins
- scottelloco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If this guy had made more subtle threats like the one's Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultier and Bill O'Reilly specialize in then he would still be a free man.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't get the free speech argument. His provider is a private company. They choose the content on their machines at their own disgretion. That's why the internet isn't really all about free speech. You're always paying someone to say what you want, and they can yank that away.
- Glendz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I believe generalizing people based on religion is not really right. I am not a Muslim and I am a Catholic. And I think the same thing applies with this rule:
Catholics: There are good people and bad people.
Muslims: There are good people and bad people.
Any religion: There are good people and bad people.
But if one person, no matter who he is, a practitioner, religious leader, a president of the country, if he/she is good or bad, does not dictate the goodness or badness of the whole religion and it's practitioners.
Just my opinion. - ozziegt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Some argue that children are not old enough to understand and comprehend the complex philosophies that are used to compare religion. In addition, most habits and customs that people have as adults are learned as children. Finally, just about every religion includes the requirements that parents raise their children with the values and morals of that religion. Only an athiest would really agree with your suggestion.
And actually the whole point of a religion varies with the religion. - MonkeyMCSE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Just like you and many others on this site, you fail to grasp the hypocracy throughout the whole thread. Why is it OK in your minds that the Muslims who hate us are of no matter, but when someone like the guy who ran this site does it, all of a sudden it's blame America and blame this and that? Why don;t you comment about the BS going on via the Muslim hate sites, you apparently have no problem with them as you didn't even mention it. No it's not right to post crap like this, but I don't see hardly any of you bitching and whining nearly enough about the other sites that say murder us infidels and the likes. All I see is a bunch of whining about something 1 guy wrote on his website, and though you may not believe in it, he is entitled to his own opinion, as is everyone else. When it becomes wrong for both sides of the fence to be posting ***** like this, then you all might have a point. While you seem to disregard others opinions about how it's the same as they do and completely reem this guy over the same tactics you show your own ignorance towards it. This goes both ways and yet alot of you seem to condone the Muslims doing it.
I guess in short, remember it goes both ways, though I may not agree with it, I see it coming from both sides. You can either agree with it or disagree with it. I don't see how this guy is doing any different than the Muslims who want all the infidels killed and it's their duty to kill infidels. I do see everyone seem to be saying it's ok for one side and not the other though, and yours by far is the worst showing of that.
Disclaimer: by Muslims i mean the idiot jihadist, not Muslims as a whole. - AhmedB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Berkana, unfortunately Jihad (the real meaning of it) vs. what the media tries to show what Jihad is (major exaggeration and changing the meaning of the word) vs. what 'some' extremists try to interpret for their own personal gains (mostly real terrorists). It's too bad there isn't really one word equivalent for the word in English, however with that said, I am personally against *ANY* site from any religion that suggests or motivates against the killing of innocent people.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@capitapf
Cause some mentioned incitement of violence, even though as you suggest it has little to do with a decision by a hosting company. -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is