Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Censorship Youtube News

Google Blocks 'Innocence of Muslim' Video In Indonesia and India 484

Posted by samzenpus
from the not-in-my-country dept.
hypnosec writes "Google has blocked the anti-Islamic video, which was posted on YouTube, in Indonesia as well as India. YouTube has already denied a complete removal of the clip 'Innocence of Muslims' that mocks Islam and Prophet Mohammed. The video has led to protests and violence across the Arab world. The foreign ministry spokesperson of Indonesia and India have confirmed that Google has blocked access to the video. Indonesia has also asked RIM to filter the video on its smartphones."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Blocks 'Innocence of Muslim' Video In Indonesia and India

Comments Filter:
  • by Adult film producer (866485) <van@i2pmail.org> on Monday September 17, 2012 @05:08AM (#41360041)
    http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ [zombietime.com]

    Pass it around, Free Mohammad.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 17, 2012 @05:15AM (#41360079)
    87% of Indians are not Muslims, and are not going to care one way or another about this movie. What was the need to block it here? Let them block it in dar ul Islam, which includes Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh & Fuckistan, but does NOT include India.
  • Election Year People (Score:5, Informative)

    by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Monday September 17, 2012 @05:16AM (#41360085)
    "Muslim world rising against America" is your shock doctrine [youtube.com] for this election, please vote accordingly and against your own interests.
  • by wienerschnizzel (1409447) on Monday September 17, 2012 @06:05AM (#41360283)
    Don't understand. If anything your remark only supports the point that companies should comply with the law.
  • by miketheanimal (914328) on Monday September 17, 2012 @06:15AM (#41360327)

    England already has Sharia courts.

    This is technically true but grossly misleading: England also already has Jewish courts. They have exactly the same standing, which is they have no standing in law. They operate purely where the plaintiffs agree to abide by their judgement. Really, they are no different from say two people going to a mutual friend and asking the friend to adjudicate on a disagreement.

  • by kokoko1 (833247) on Monday September 17, 2012 @06:28AM (#41360379) Homepage
    This still not blocked in Pakistan. Google should block it in all the Islamic countries.. India is not Islamic country however after Indonesia it has the 2nd largest Muslim population.
  • by nospam007 (722110) * on Monday September 17, 2012 @06:43AM (#41360445)

    "so surely this insult to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism will have the members of respective religions storming embassies and murdering people all over the place? "

    I suspect you're too young to remember the deaths that 'Christians' caused after having seen the movie 'Jud Süß'
    The film premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 8, 1940 and received rave reviews, earning the top award.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F_(1940_film) [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032653/ [imdb.com]

  • by jlar (584848) on Monday September 17, 2012 @06:47AM (#41360465)

    "Frankly, these provocations won't help anyone."

    I agree that the Mohammed film in question is terrible. But it does address some important issues with Islam. And that will help us non-believers in the long run. For example the issue of child marriage. Aisha, one of Mohammeds wifes were 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. And we should of course (also as non-muslims) be free to debate if that is behaviour befitting for a prophet. Another example is the glorification of violence against non-muslims. At least as long as the main schools of Islam argue that the behaviour of Mohammed is perfect and should form an ideal guideline on how muslims should live in the 21st century.

    Another point is that this film is only one pearl in a series of incidents where muslims are threatening fellow muslims or non-muslims over perceived blasphemy. The last example was a documentary on Channel 4 (examining the historical roots of Islam) where a planning screening was cancelled due to threats to the historian behind the film:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/channel-4-cancels-controversial-screening-of-islam-the-untold-story-documentary-after-presenter-tom-holland-is-threatened-8125641.html [independent.co.uk]

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Monday September 17, 2012 @07:26AM (#41360645)

    Wow. That was a little harsh? In case you haven't realized this, there are groups, right here in America, that do that sort of thing too - boycotting books, TV shows, movies, or anything that has content they don't agree with. Why was it necessary for the bigoted slur on Muslims?

    Typical Muslim equivocation. Other groups boycotting stores means that it is OK to drag people out of embassies, torture, and murder them. "We are just doing what those Catholics who said 'don't buy the davinci code' did'". I say no it is not the same, if Muslims said "don't watch youtube" then I would not have a problem with it. Its because they react in their traditional manner of killing, rioting, etc.

  • by slim (1652) <john AT hartnup DOT net> on Monday September 17, 2012 @07:42AM (#41360709) Homepage

    I found this condemnation of the current riots within 30 seconds of searching. http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=501 [mcb.org.uk]

    I'm certain you'd find similar condemnations for the cartoons episode, if you looked.

  • by Ash Vince (602485) * on Monday September 17, 2012 @08:06AM (#41360853) Journal

    England already has Sharia courts.

    Please stop repeating this crap. You might be able to dump a village elder in a local community centre and pretend it is a court but it carries no legal weight. The only way it can work is if both parties decide to forgo their normal entitlement to a real legal court and agree to an independent tribunal with no legal weight.

    England does not have sharia courts with and legal weight. Just because some dickhead can sit in a room and pretend it is a court does not mean it carries and legal weight. If I do not like what a Sharia court says it has no legal right to force me into it unless a real court also agrees following normal legal precedent.

    England does not have Sharia courts with any legal standing.

  • by slim (1652) <john AT hartnup DOT net> on Monday September 17, 2012 @09:18AM (#41361569) Homepage

    You realise, I hope, that The Life Of Brian was the subject of many protests (albeit not violent as far as I know), and was banned in many places?

  • by psiclops (1011105) on Monday September 17, 2012 @09:29AM (#41361667)

    Jews are one of smallest groups in the world, Muslims one of the biggest.

    Jews don't hijack aircraft.

    if you want to compare entire races you might want to read up on Igrun [wikipedia.org] you'll find them in the wiki page regarding The History of terrorism [wikipedia.org]

    Irgun sought to aggressively defend Jews from Arab attacks. Its tactic of attacking Arab communities, including the bombing a crowded Arab market, is considered among the first examples of terrorism directed against civilians.

    From later in the same page:

    Lehi [wikipedia.org] (Lohamei Herut Yisrael, a.k.a. "Freedom Fighters for Israel", a.k.a. Stern Gang) was a revisionist Zionist group that splintered off from Irgun in 1940

    and then:

    After Israel's 1948 founding, Lehi was formally dissolved and its members integrated into the Israeli Defense Forces

    see, it's easy to pick any race and make them all out to be the bad guys.

    Muslims are fleeing muslim controlled countries, then trying to convert their new country to be run the same way.

    you've never met a Muslim who's actually fled their home country have you? hell i'd bet 50/50 you've never had a real conversation with one of Islamic faith. everyone i know certainly does not want to turn this country into something like where they came from (hint: there's a reason they fled.) generally those with enough power who's anti-west statements you hear did not need to flee their home country, and those on the streets inciting violence are just lapping up what they say (and like do not know what their hometowns are like)

  • by AlphaWolf_HK (692722) on Monday September 17, 2012 @09:51AM (#41361887)

    The thing with muslims is they consider any belief system other than their own to be unacceptable, so mocking theirs is fair game. However mocking islam is completely unacceptable.

    If you read the qu'ran, it is full of stuff like this. Muslims may not lie to other muslims, but they are allowed to lie to non-muslims. Muslims are allowed to claim non-muslims as slaves. Sure not all muslims believe this, but it is written in their book. Don't take my word for it, read the qu'ran for yourself.

    Also the idea that islamic terrorism is a result of poverty and lack of education is a farce. Osama bin laden himself was very rich, and had a college education. ALL of the 9/11 hijackers had college degrees, and could have gotten very nice careers if they wanted to. Al-Qeada's current leader is a surgeon.

    The idea that muslim terrorists are reacting about being oppressed is also false. Buddhists have seen far worse treatment from the chinese, have been slaughtered in the millions, even had their land (Tibet) blatantly annexed, had certain forms of worship banned, and been told that reincarnation is forbidden. Yet where are the buddhist suicide bombers?

    The problem with islam is what it teaches.

    FWIW I am an atheist, and I see islam for what it is. Also, another poster above stated that nobody who has ever worn a uniform of the US military would say what I just said; well, once upon a time I wore such a uniform.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 17, 2012 @10:44AM (#41362539)

    including the firebombing of cinemas who were showing the movies (and by showing I mean they were showing the films at the precise point they were being firebombed.)

    One theater. In France, by a bunch of excommunicated people who followed a far-right teaching bishop. 13 people were injured. No one died. (That doesn't make it correct, just less severe)

    Compare that with the protests going on right now. The storming of the US embassy in Cairo, and the killing of US diplomats in Libya. Look at the rioting going on outside the US consulates in most countries where this is going on and say with a straight face that the Scorsese film garnered this much hate. And the movie we're talking about came out on youtube FFS.

  • by JDG1980 (2438906) on Monday September 17, 2012 @10:54AM (#41362665)

    You are entitled to free speech, but in most civilised countries, there is a line drawn between free speech, and incitement.

    In the United States, the relevant case law is Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org] (1969). Under this interpretation of the First Amendment, speech can only be banned if it is intended to incite "imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so. The classic case would be the leader of an angry mob telling them to attack or kill someone. Does the Innocence of Muslims video qualify? Almost certainly not. While Nakoula may well have intended it to rile up the Islamic community in the US and overseas, it did not pose an imminent threat of lawless action. The reactions of hostile third parties cannot be used as a justification to prohibit free speech; as the Supreme Court put it in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), there is "no heckler's veto".

    The innocence of muslims has crossed that line by a very long distance indeed, and imho, it's on a par with Westboro Baptist Church turning up to protest at a dead soldiers funeral. [...] The people who created the video should not be able to hide behind the claim of 'free speech'. It isn't free speech, it's hate speech plain and simple.

    The WBC protests are also protected free speech [wikipedia.org] in the United States under the First Amendment. You mentioned that you are posting from the UK, so one thing that may be confusing you is that in the US, there is no such legal category as "hate speech". It's all protected by the Constitution. The idea is that if you allowed the government to decide that certain speech was "hate speech" and suppress it, there would be a slippery slope that would inevitably lead to the repression of open and free political discourse.

  • by fifedrum (611338) on Monday September 17, 2012 @11:14AM (#41362903) Journal

    Just for the record, I want to know this.

    You do understand that the world wide Christian response to the move The Last Temptation of Christ, a major motion picture, is nothing, no where, not even close to the world wide Muslim response to a shitty low budget attrocity of an amateur film by a no-budget nobody, right? That the vast majority of radical Christians maybe, maybe considered picketing and a boycot as a valid response?

    That the two responses two the two movies are not just orders of magnitude different, but on completely different planes of existance different?

    That if a major motion picture studio published the same level of movie about Muhammed that the studio would likely burn?

    One story, of one attack? Versus how many hundreds of deaths, and thousands of attacks in the past week?

    Hell there were death to america marches when a completely different country published CARTOONS.

  • Re:Dhimmitude (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Monday September 17, 2012 @11:44AM (#41363261)

    dhimma is a form where you are put into a lower class, receive less legal and other rights, are TOLD that you are INFERIOR to the 'master race' (yes, I used that wording on purpose) and your lands and rights could be snapped away at a moment's notice if you displease the rulers or religious folks.

    ie, just a notch above slavery.

    nice, huh?

    btw, they see ALL of us as being in this role sooner or later.

    religion of pieces, indeed.

  • by dwpro (520418) <.dwpro777. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Monday September 17, 2012 @12:16PM (#41363703)

    well polls suggest that the vast majority of Muslims support strict enforcement of sharia law. I think there's enough evidence of to confirm the GP's statement that we'd need counter evidence to infer anything else.

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf [worldpublicopinion.org]

Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.

Working...