Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am in two minds over the Facebook page. There are plus points and negative points to what is happening. I will adress some issues as I see them.

1. Highlighting the chaotic nature of the internet.
A huge plus point, but very disturbing nonetheless. The internet is too carefree and chaotic, freedom without responsiblity leads to destruction as the society involved sinks toward the lowest common denominator. I find this controversy 'helpful' because it points out just how wrong things can get. Most societies need an element of order, while order itself causes problems not as many as a chaotic space. People are not mature enough to deal wirth excessive amounts of freedom, this after all is why we have such things as law and government to begin with.

2. Boot is on the other foot.
In thie UK and elsewhereat least people can get away with shutting each other down just by pointing out what someone else is doing/saying wearing as 'offensive'. People seem to demand a right to take offense, and Islamics are really near the top of the list here. Offering no tolerence and demanding much. Frankly I must atmit an element of shaudenfreude that is atypical for me, I had to hold back, I was enjoying this a bit more than I ought to. I think Mattyrm supports this movement for exactly those reasons. I wont go this far, but I will say that I dont mind the object lesson.

3. This offends those who need not be offended.
As per reason #2 above uncompromising militant Islam that makes demands of western culture to accomodate them but offer no compromise themselves. However what about the moderate moslems without this particular attitude problem, they too are offended, some might even be radicalised, at the very least they will grow a dimmer view of the west and our highly hypocritical values.

4. The targets also spread.
Again given the chaotic nature of the internet the target of the group tends to spread. While the initial purpose of the group is plausible, make lampooning of Islam so widespread that it becomes difficult to single out anyone for punishment. I can see merit in that, but this is not necessarily what you get. Many pictures are offensive for the sake of being offensive. Many of the carttons can only be descrivbed as hate speech, something that many people seem to be against most of the time. Also the group is in danger of being hijacked by larger anti-relgious sentiments nothing to do with the purpose of the group. Of late the site contains a large number of images of other relgious figures including Jesus and Buddha, other use the group as a platform for atheism or worse atheist hate speech.

5. Cultural divides deepen.
One of the recurring themse in the group is the implication that Mohammed was a paedophile. This at first glance seems plausible, as many images portray Mohammed had some severly underage wives. However the group fails to notice some important factors. Mohammed lived fourteen centuries ago, at that time marrying girls under the age of sixteen, the modern cut off for statutory rape in most western countries was normal. In fact to be unmarried at sixteen was unusual. I am all but certain each and every one of us comes from familes that in those days married older men to teenage girls, are we the spawn of paedophiles? No. Partly because this was normal, partyl because for important persons marriage was poltical and above all a means of security. So one of Mohammeds wives was only six, this at first value is even more unusual and 'proof' of paedophilia. What we so casually forget is that there was no welfare state in the sixth century, one way to secure a future for a young girl was to marry her off, often at a very early age. Even now this sort of things occurs and there are various stages of weddings, what we might call betrothals. Mohammed did nothing unusual, the unusal thing is for peole to now assume he slept with her at that age. Sorry no.
The end result is that a lot of ignorant arses are denegrating a religious leader from very long ago based upon our own very recently developed Western standards, what more evidence do Moslems need to say that they are more in cultural danger from us than we are from them. Here people from the 'west' pass judgement on an ancient culture according to our own very modern values rather than their own now or contemporary to the life of Mohammed. Are we niot telling them that we intend to rewrite thier culture according to our values? Are we not telling them that they should resist?

6. Poorly executed out angry backlashes.
So now that many in the west have effectively declared a cultural war on Islam, some angry and offended Moslems are responding in kind. One of the new groups to open uses Holocaust denial as a counter. Are they Holocaust deniers, likely not but as Holocaust denial is illegal in a lot of western countries doing so is an act that is likely to put some backs up and untimately call for action from authorities in accordance with existing laws. The inital concept is quite clever, but like most viral campaignsd on the internet, call for an end to this group in accordiance with our laws and the Moselms have a good position to call fro protection of their prophet. However the group t is bodied by a multitude that do not see the subtlety of this move and are venting in no less an ignorant way as those who depict 'paedo bear' in a turban.
The end rsult more and more people get their backs up.

7. Other powderkegs.
As more 'draw day' groups open up often as revenge from previous ones where will it lead. Atheists are largely tolerant of cartoons lampooing them, partly because there is little to actually lampoon, Christians also more or less mostly because the Bible teaches that this is to be expected, Jesus has always been ridiculed by his attackers since when he walked the earth. Now of course manty excations exist, but thast is due to the individual not the faith. Most Chrisitians are of the opinion that Jesus will have the last laugh, Islam and Judaism do not have a culture of this particular type of persecution, normally their history of peresecution involves a purely physical or ideological threat that in a round about way shows an element of rerspect to their faith as a 'dangerous threat' rather than something to be mocked. Thus both religions dont eactly know how to take it when their central leaders are blasphemed.
Buddhism and Hinduism is hard to mock because its outside most western perceptions, militant extremism from both religions exists, but it is relatively rare or at least we dont get to hear about it much. Also in the case of Hinduism especially there is a difficulty in pinning down someone to mock, the relgion has about 300 million gods and counting.

8. How about the US President?
One way to force the issue that thankfully the Islamists havent cottoned onto is to point out that the US has its own protection laws, and Facebook is US based. It is illegal to call for the death or harm of a US president, yes wishing Obama dead can quite literally land you in jail despite any rights of free speech Americans might have and technically even if they did not actually mean to carry out any attack. So what happens if 'International Shoot Obama Day' is launched, does the US government force Facebook to remove the page and thus grant Moslems the opportunity to point out the hypocrasy. Or let the matter slide and thus break all manner of laws. Either way even highlighting this law exists is a way to show that even in the west and depite all the free speech comments made in defence of 'Draw Mohammed Day' we do not resally live under freedom of speech in its entirity. Many subjects are in fact still taboo or even outlawed.

Well thought out post there, Orlanth.

it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)

mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)

You are right however you might colloquially want to 'shoot' politicians without meaning to do so. In the US this is a crime regardless of level of intent. Besides many of the cartoons in the group are as offensive as that even when they do not directly call for anyones death. Some are calling for Islam to be destroyed, others so hateful that it is not unfair to question if it is safe for Moslems to be around those people.
This after all the concept behind our accusatory stance towards hate speech. Cross the line too far with racist commentary and you are lumped in with those who actively seek to do harm. Take the BNP and equivalent, only a small number would actually go out and hunt down minorities for a beating, but they all come under the same heading as violent racist scum if they say the same stuff and by and large most use the same or similar terminology.

Anyway the actual point remains that in western societies free speech is not an absolute, even in the US and countries with similar Constitutions. Trying to draw analogies is difficult but doable, the above is one of them. Some protection for relgious figures is a reasonable stance to take. Getting to the kernel of it I do beleive Mohammed should be off limits completely due to the culture of him not being imagable in Islam. Other religions without this doctrine should also not be lampooned in this way, but imagery is acceptible if not done in a disrespectful way. I have seen professional comic carttons of Jesus and Moses etc that offend noone, partly because we are not like that when noone is trying to offend, but would a newspaper depict Jesus having sex with a pig, no they would not. Would there be upset if someone did dio that, yes there likely would be. On aside here I am not usually offended by pretty much anything I see, but if I saw some of the carttons from that site in a newspaper I would be. A newspaper doing that much more so than an individual, because to me that is an indicator of moral decay. Individual comments are like online graffitti, you can chalk up a lot to ignorance and write it off as same. Its when people in the professional media cross the line that standards are threatened. However cartoons of priests monks etc that fine, although normal societal rules for any cartton should apply still, but in no greater way than regarding a polticians or celebrity.

We covered this topic elsewhere in religious discussion. Regarding when it is oveer the top for a theist to get upset, and for me the dividing line is lampoon the theist not the deity. Its one thing to say the/any deity doesnt exist, its another thing entirely to troll one.

Going back to the cartoons that caused this controversy. South Park crossed the line, but then South Park does, it has no discipline and mental skill to cross taboo lines its a cheap shock tactic to boost sales. Note what I said above about levels of offense, South Park can and does offend me, and not necessarily with imagery surrounding Jesus singled out. The entire culture of the show crosses the line in a dangerous way, because some lines cannot be crossed back and set the moral bar for televison progressively lower and lower. I hate to sound like Mary Whitehouse, but she had a point, this is a genuine trend. Gutter humour is both genuinely funny and easy to perform, anyone can get laughs with an offensive joke targeted at someone else, and lets admit it now the more offensive the joke the funnier it is a lot of the time. Its a force multiplier that gives mediocre shows an illusion of quality. Ask yourself why other contemporary shows such as the Simpsons lnever go that far, the answer is because they get quality elsewhere and do not need to. People in the media are gradually testing the lines harder and hader each time. The US has the same free spech rights it had thirty, fifty and a hundred years ago, but had South Park existed then what would have happened. I am in no doubt it would have been shut down at least temporarily one way or another.

Thus South Park is a poor example of professional media, however the Dutch cartoon which was actually banned in the UK to avoid causing offense was not. It showed someone, not necessarily Mohammed at the gates of heaven informing a growing queue of suicide bombers that heaven had run out of virgins. What did this lampoon? Allah? Not really. Mohammed? Perhaps so, but only if you take the unsupported mental leap to accuse the cartoonist of drawing Mohammed. Islam? Yes, but only the concept of the 72 virgins for martyrs and critically in relation of rewards for suicide bombings. Lampooning a relgious doctrine is usually acceptible, lampooning that doctrine doubly so. I remember many many cartoons in Punch with depictions of Jesus in a non offensive (to us) way that was more critical than the Dutch cartoon. Was there any anger? None I was aware of. Should there be? Certainly not. So should Moslems get angry at the Dutch cartoon? No for an accumulation of similar reasons. Should we tolerate their anger if they do? Not at all.

This is why at face value the Lets Draw Mohammed Day is valuable. That last dogma must be challenged, the trouble is we are going too far too fast.

Look us look at some cartton images now. I chose Jesus as the figure because being a Christian I can trust myself to judge whether I am crossing any lines regarding offense:






They all directly lampoon Jesus or Christian teachings in some way, to about the level of the controversial Swedish and Dutch cartoons, though such comments are hard to quantify. Here in the UK I cannot even legally post either of those two cartoons. Now if you do a search on Jesus cartoons you will notice people taking offense. What they are taking offense to are such issues as blasphemy which is now more or less restricted to showing a religious figurehead in a sexual act or as a member of an extremist political organisation. Also cartoons that lampoon as a means of proactive mocking denial of critical beliefs. For Christians this is normally restricted to the crucifixion and resurrection.
Had the above images been Mohammed or teaching of Mohammed things might be very different. This is the level of lampooning that we should be looking to protect under free speech, human decency and teaching Islam to tolerate our societal values. South Parks Mohammed in a pedo bear suit went way beyond the line, if Moselms got angry at that I wont get in their way and that attitude would not change a jot even if they never lampooned Jesus or any other relgious figure at all.

Orlanth wrote:Going back to the cartoons that caused this controversy. South Park crossed the line, but then South Park does, it has no discipline and mental skill to cross taboo lines its a cheap shock tactic to boost sales. Note what I said above about levels of offense, South Park can and does offend me, and not necessarily with imagery surrounding Jesus singled out. The entire culture of the show crosses the line in a dangerous way, because some lines cannot be crossed back and set the moral bar for televison progressively lower and lower.

I have to dissagree with you there. While its true that South Part sometimes relies too much on toilet humor the episode in question was a brilliant piece of satiere imho. 200 and 201 were all about cencorship. And the funny thing is, at no point were they showing Mohammed. At all. They did it way back in the 4th season I think.
You also have to consider that, iirc, there was only one radical website which voiced his opinion about the episode which in turn made Comedy Central cencor the second one.
Maybe you have a point when pointing out that other religions don't have such a background when it comes to them being ridiculed, but this is the 21st century, they should be sued to it by now.

ShumaGorath wrote:A religion is nothing without people and it's rare indeed for a country to do something for a religious purpose alone. In this case the west was en masse making fun of Islam, and in reaction to something it didn't entirely understand (pakistanis elder statesmen know the internet likely less than your grandfather) they reacted overly harshly.

That's the problem, isn't it? The internet is an important part of the lives of younger generations. If the pakistani eldar statesmen reacted the way they did because they don't know better, maybe someone should tell them that. As you said yourself: a Religion is nothing without its followers.

I find South Park irretrievably crass. It's just not funny. In fact it's the nadir of American culture.

Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.

God forbid he should have a different opinion to you.

gorgon wrote:Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.

I've watched it. I've also watched a person die.


Wanna know which one filled me with more mirth?

Albatross wrote:

gorgon wrote:Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.

I've watched it. I've also watched a person die.


Wanna know which one filled me with more mirth?

Is there a third option?

Man being hit in groin with football.

Albatross wrote:Man being hit in groin with football.

Ding Ding Ding

Footballers in pain as a third option? Professional ones?

You are not exactly making the choice difficult. I would love to see footballers 'suffer' a bit. £60K a week for playing four hours footie and acting like an orangutan the rest of the time. What do they know about suffering except hangovers and falling over their tartish WAGs.

Albatross wrote:

gorgon wrote:Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.

I've watched it. I've also watched a person die.


Wanna know which one filled me with more mirth?

Is that comment meant to suggest you have a sense of humor?



Pro tip...it doesn't.

gorgon wrote:

Albatross wrote:

gorgon wrote:Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.

I've watched it. I've also watched a person die.


Wanna know which one filled me with more mirth?

Is that comment meant to suggest you have a sense of humor?



Pro tip...it doesn't.

How about this?

Albatross wrote:I find South Park irretrievably crass. It's just not funny. In fact it's the nadir of American culture.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion. I enjoy South Park a lot for several reasons, but if you don't like I won't try to convince you otherwise.

gorgon wrote:

Albatross wrote:

gorgon wrote:Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.

I've watched it. I've also watched a person die.


Wanna know which one filled me with more mirth?

Is that comment meant to suggest you have a sense of humor?



Pro tip...it doesn't.

It's not meant to. Interesting that you consider yourself a 'pro', though.

Frazzled wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Albatross wrote:

gorgon wrote:Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.

I've watched it. I've also watched a person die.


Wanna know which one filled me with more mirth?

Is that comment meant to suggest you have a sense of humor?



Pro tip...it doesn't.

How about this?

As George Carlin once said: "I wouldn't feth them with a stolen dick!"

Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.

Orlanth wrote:Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.

No, it's not famous, just from a comedy album of his I really like. Don't judge us please.

mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)

There's a cultural tradition among Australian Aboriginals to never show the dead. This becomes an issue on television, particularly on current affairs shows, as there are lots of shows about dead Aboriginals (because they often commit suicide after being raped or abused in Aboriginal communities, or are killed in prison in mysterious circumstances... we have serious problems).

We respect that tradition, but also respect the need to bring the issue to public awareness. As a result before each show there's a short message saying that the following contains images of the dead, so if that offends you can look away now. In other situations, where there's no pressing need to show the dead we simply don't.

It's their cultural value, not shared by the majority of the Australian population, we don't and probably can't understand it, but we don't have to. We respect it, compromise to avoid any possibly avoidable offence, and get on with life.

What possible good comes from intentionally offending cultural taboos? Seriously, what good do you think you're going to achieve?

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)

There's a cultural tradition among Australian Aboriginals to never show the dead. This becomes an issue on television, particularly on current affairs shows, as there are lots of shows about dead Aboriginals (because they often commit suicide after being raped or abused in Aboriginal communities, or are killed in prison in mysterious circumstances... we have serious problems).

We respect that tradition, but also respect the need to bring the issue to public awareness. As a result before each show there's a short message saying that the following contains images of the dead, so if that offends you can look away now. In other situations, where there's no pressing need to show the dead we simply don't.

It's their cultural value, not shared by the majority of the Australian population, we don't and probably can't understand it, but we don't have to. We respect it, compromise to avoid any possibly avoidable offence, and get on with life.

What possible good comes from intentionally offending cultural taboos? Seriously, what good do you think you're going to achieve?

I never knew that about the Aboriginies. I hate to hear they are still being abused in some way. (I am not pointing fingers BTW, it makes me sad is all )

It would be akin to digging up an Ancient Indian burial ground here in the States. Just leave the dead alone.

Being tasteless is part of society, most people do it to be dicks.

Orlanth wrote:IAs more 'draw day' groups open up often as revenge from previous ones where will it lead. Atheists are largely tolerant of cartoons lampooing them, partly because there is little to actually lampoon, Christians also more or less mostly because the Bible teaches that this is to be expected, Jesus has always been ridiculed by his attackers since when he walked the earth. Now of course manty excations exist, but thast is due to the individual not the faith. Most Chrisitians are of the opinion that Jesus will have the last laugh, Islam and Judaism do not have a culture of this particular type of persecution, normally their history of peresecution involves a purely physical or ideological threat that in a round about way shows an element of rerspect to their faith as a 'dangerous threat' rather than something to be mocked. Thus both religions dont eactly know how to take it when their central leaders are blasphemed.
Buddhism and Hinduism is hard to mock because its outside most western perceptions, militant extremism from both religions exists, but it is relatively rare or at least we dont get to hear about it much. Also in the case of Hinduism especially there is a difficulty in pinning down someone to mock, the relgion has about 300 million gods and counting.

Really good post, Orlanth, plenty of points well made. I don’t think Christianity is inherently more tolerant, though, through history it’s had its fair share of being hyper-sensitive to criticism. The tolerance we see now is largely a product of being part the Western secular world.

It’s also worth pointing out that the hyper-sensitivity of Islam is also not a historic constant. It’s certainly a feature right now, but over the course of history Islam really has no better or worse record of tolerance than any other faith.

I’m not suggesting Islam or any other faith managed a level of tolerance equivalent to what we see right now in Western society, but that’s because Western tolerance is a unique thing.

Oh, and just to point out again, the prohibition on drawing Mohammed is not universal to Islam. It’s a very diverse religion.

Stormrider wrote:

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)

There's a cultural tradition among Australian Aboriginals to never show the dead. This becomes an issue on television, particularly on current affairs shows, as there are lots of shows about dead Aboriginals (because they often commit suicide after being raped or abused in Aboriginal communities, or are killed in prison in mysterious circumstances... we have serious problems).

We respect that tradition, but also respect the need to bring the issue to public awareness. As a result before each show there's a short message saying that the following contains images of the dead, so if that offends you can look away now. In other situations, where there's no pressing need to show the dead we simply don't.

It's their cultural value, not shared by the majority of the Australian population, we don't and probably can't understand it, but we don't have to. We respect it, compromise to avoid any possibly avoidable offence, and get on with life.

What possible good comes from intentionally offending cultural taboos? Seriously, what good do you think you're going to achieve?

I never knew that about the Aboriginies. I hate to hear they are still being abused in some way. (I am not pointing fingers BTW, it makes me sad is all )

They still have a lot of serious problems in the present day. Petrol-sniffing is common in the outback communities and they're vastly outnumbered (I see more Africans than Aboriginies around here, although Tasmania's native population was massacred over a century ago).

Stormrider wrote:I never knew that about the Aboriginies. I hate to hear they are still being abused in some way. (I am not pointing fingers BTW, it makes me sad is all )

The issue is a lot more complex than my post. There's abuse, but there's also a whole lot of resources being dedicated to solving the problem, it's just that it's somewhat ineffectual. Going into any more detail would get the thread sidetracked really quickly.

It would be akin to digging up an Ancient Indian burial ground here in the States. Just leave the dead alone.

Being tasteless is part of society, most people do it to be dicks.

And the right to be tasteless is something we need to protect. I think there's a lot of value in South Park, it's funny and makes some good points at times, but as this thread has shown other folk think it's simply crass. So I do recognise we need to protect speach and art against charges of tastelessness.

But there's still an obligation on the artist, to consider if there's really anything to gain other than to cause offence.

lol, people arguing about facebook in Pakistan.

sebster wrote:

Stormrider wrote:I never knew that about the Aboriginies. I hate to hear they are still being abused in some way. (I am not pointing fingers BTW, it makes me sad is all )

The issue is a lot more complex than my post. There's abuse, but there's also a whole lot of resources being dedicated to solving the problem, it's just that it's somewhat ineffectual. Going into any more detail would get the thread sidetracked really quickly.

It would be akin to digging up an Ancient Indian burial ground here in the States. Just leave the dead alone.

Being tasteless is part of society, most people do it to be dicks.

And the right to be tasteless is something we need to protect. I think there's a lot of value in South Park, it's funny and makes some good points at times, but as this thread has shown other folk think it's simply crass. So I do recognise we need to protect speach and art against charges of tastelessness.

But there's still an obligation on the artist, to consider if there's really anything to gain other than to cause offence.

Yes, however heinous their speech, it's got to be protected. Free Speech or expression is utterly vital. However, they shouldn't expect a free pass from the public, ridicule and scorn are ways to coerce someone's language.

South Park is surprisingly intelligent (if you get past the potty humor of course) with the way they talk about issues, another show that does it the same way is the Boondocks.

Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:lol, people arguing about facebook in Pakistan.

Thread gains +1 Constructive Post!

mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)

Actually there is more on this issue. Because there is a form of 'death to Obama' group on You Tube, and it to has got its own petitions moving to ban it. The group title is very carefully labelled:

DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN.

Notice that it doesn't actually call for Obama's death directly, though it is refered to as a Pray for Obamas death site. apparently, though I have no idea how anyone knows this the site has been monitored by the Ohio branch of the Secret Service. Now as the site only calls for Obama to be prayed out of office, and no doubt my fellow Dakkatites of atheistic leanings will be swift to point out that will likely come to nothing. Nevertheless it is potentially an illegal site by US law. I suppose it depends on what people post inside. Then you have to ascertain if a page is culpable for its open contributory content.
In any case the page is very small, with lots of likers but few contributors, and is very likely a spoof. I am yet to figure out if it does even go as far as to pray for Obama's death, theologically it doesnt.
The oddity is the large number of pages protesting against it. often around the recurring theme that it is 'hate speech'.

So 'praying' for Obama to drop dead is Hate Speech but drawing pcitures indicated that Mohammed is into bestiality or paedophilia is Free Speech.......

Fixed.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:lol, people arguing about facebook in Pakistan.

Thread gains +2 Constructive Post!

Orlanth wrote:
Fixed.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:lol, people arguing about facebook in Pakistan.

Thread gains +2 Constructive Post!

>_<'



Hmm, better say something constructive quick...
In New Zealand this poster was banned.

Does that help your arguement, Orlanth?