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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Why is it newsworthy to show the video? The video wasn't what made the news, it was the fact that people died because of it. People can seek the video out if they want to, it's not the job of the news to give platform to specific political views, especially ones repugnant and inflammatory enough that they've already caused deaths.

Well, here's what I'm thinking. They can't talk about how something is inflammatory without actually showing the thing. Presuming the job of the news is to educate it's viewers*, how can it do so unless it provides all the facts?

Do you think that when the Mohammed bomb-turban image was going around, and people were incensed about it, that news outlets should not have shown the image?

*I know that's not really how it works, but lets play pretend here.

Well, here's what I'm thinking. They can't talk about how something is inflammatory without actually showing the thing. Presuming the job of the news is to educate it's viewers*, how can it do so unless it provides all the facts?

The job of the news is to inform, not educate (there is a lot of overlap between these things). Their duty in this instance is to inform people about the situations in libya and egypt and the situation at home with the pastor. Showing the video does not inform, it gives experience of the video which itself is a propaganda tool designed to misinform and breed hatred. It does not truly enhance peoples understanding of the situation in a way that in my view would make it worth airing. It would further inflame peoples misconceptions about both America and Muslims and it would only serve to be informative or useful to people who already have a deep understand of the story and the social systems that caused people to react in the way they did. The vast majority of people would just be insulted or bemused by it, would learn wrong things, or wouldn't care.

That air time is best left given to platforms that provide a social service or which enhance the telling of news.

Do you think that when the Mohammed bomb-turban image was going around, and people were incensed about it, that news outlets should not have shown the image?

Having the freedom of expression doesn't mean you should express everything. It would have kept a couple of people from dying and the reporting on it didn't serve any social or educational good. It was just a shock story to drum up ad revenue.

Russian Roulette for the rating

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Well, here's what I'm thinking. They can't talk about how something is inflammatory without actually showing the thing. Presuming the job of the news is to educate it's viewers*, how can it do so unless it provides all the facts?

The job of the news is to inform, not educate (there is a lot of overlap between these things). Their duty in this instance is to inform people about the situations in libya and egypt and the situation at home with the pastor. Showing the video does not inform, it gives experience of the video which itself is a propaganda tool designed to misinform and breed hatred. It does not truly enhance peoples understanding of the situation in a way that in my view would make it worth airing. It would further inflame peoples misconceptions about both America and Muslims and it would only serve to be informative or useful to people who already have a deep understand of the story and the social systems that caused people to react in the way they did. The vast majority of people would just be insulted or bemused by it, would learn wrong things, or wouldn't care.

That air time is best left given to platforms that provide a social service or which enhance the telling of news.

Do you think that when the Mohammed bomb-turban image was going around, and people were incensed about it, that news outlets should not have shown the image?

Having the freedom of expression doesn't mean you should express everything. It would have kept a couple of people from dying and the reporting on it didn't serve any social or educational good. It was just a shock story to drum up ad revenue.

I see what you're saying on the first issue. I think I disagree though. My feeling, especially on the latter, is that when we refuse to show things like that, we legitimize the violence of extremists. We make it more effective by being afraid. I don't think we should do that. You say "it would have kept a couple of people from dying", but the picture didn't murder anyone, religious fundamentalists did, and we need to stop acting like we have a responsibility for the actions of lunatics.

To give an analogy, about a year ago the "Piss Christ" image was damaged. You'd be hard pressed to find a news story about this that did not include an image of the art in question. When the media refuses to show art that a group considers offensive because they might behead someone, then we're empowering them. That's not what America is all about.

I'm late to the thread but I wanted to toss out a couple of things...

The first is the demonstrations were not 'spontanious'. Just like the demonstrations about the Dutch cartoons a few years back professional agitators found the clips and whipped up a frenzy among the population. This does not relive anyone of responsibility but we need to understand it's not as simple as make video/draw cartoon -> murderous riots. People make this happen.

Second, the video, like Jones' burn the Koran Day were apparently meant to provoke a reaction like this. This is not a case of someone writing a critique of modern Islam, it's a group of provocateurs looking to toss gasoline on a flame. It could be argued that when that's the intent these videos fall outside free speech and are incitements to immanent violence. It would be a tricky case but it's possible.

Third the attack in Libya appears to be a pre-planned militant attack on the Consulate. It was not demonstration that got out of hand. The attackers opened fire on the Libyan guards (who shot back) and had RPGs.

Finally the Libyan government condemned the violence (though the Egyptian did not).

It is very easy to fall into the narrative of 'crazy fanatic Arabs killing over Youtube' but there is more to the story.

 Frazzled wrote:

Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.

Freedom of speech relates only to the restriction of speech by the state, it has nothing to do with what private citizens might attempt.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.

Freedom of speech relates only to the restriction of speech by the state, it has nothing to do with what private citizens might attempt.

Excellent use of restating the obvious.

 Frazzled wrote:
Fire in a theater represents the potential for immeidate harm in that vicinity. To make the claim that a movie causes the deaths of people of a similar nation several thousand miles away lacks merit.

And if we were talking about trying him a court that would mean something, but again, not calling for censor or arrest. One can recognize that the film-maker was purposely trying to provoke violence and call him a jackass for doing so, while also recognizing that the idiots that were stupid enough to take the bait are also being jackasses. One group acting horribly doesn't absolve another group from acting horribly. While I think a video like this may be akin to yelling fire in a theater, it certainly isn't exactly the same, or else I would call on the Westboro Baptist Church to be arrested, which I haven't either. I can think about the moral and ethical implications of a thing without simplifying it down to 'is it illegal or not'.

 Jihadin wrote:

I think most of you are cool but I doubt in all seriousness I let you all know I'm about to freaking die soon.

EVE is serious business man.

I'm not even joking, if he was a prominent member of GoonSwarm then he spent a lot of time with that game.

 Frazzled wrote:

Excellent use of restating the obvious.

So obvious, apparently, that this event that's totally not about freedom of speech is being discussed as though its about freedom of speech.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Fire in a theater represents the potential for immeidate harm in that vicinity. To make the claim that a movie causes the deaths of people of a similar nation several thousand miles away lacks merit.

And if we were talking about trying him a court that would mean something, but again, not calling for censor or arrest. One can recognize that the film-maker was purposely trying to provoke violence and call him a jackass for doing so, while also recognizing that the idiots that were stupid enough to take the bait are also being jackasses. One group acting horribly doesn't absolve another group from acting horribly. While I think a video like this may be akin to yelling fire in a theater, it certainly isn't exactly the same, or else I would call on the Westboro Baptist Church to be arrested, which I haven't either. I can think about the moral and ethical implications of a thing without simplifying it down to 'is it illegal or not'.

Agreed on all points actually. There is scuttlebutt there is no actual movie, just the teaser. Yep thats bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

I think most of you are cool but I doubt in all seriousness I let you all know I'm about to freaking die soon.

EVE is serious business man.

I'm not even joking, if he was a prominent member of GoonSwarm then he spent a lot of time with that game.

 Frazzled wrote:

Excellent use of restating the obvious.

So obvious, apparently, that this event that's totally not about freedom of speech is being discussed as though its about freedom of speech.

there are calls to try the producer on criminal charges of some unspecified nature. Free speech is a definite issue.

 Frazzled wrote:

there are calls to try the producer on criminal charges of some unspecified nature. Free speech is a definite issue.

If the charges are unspecified then we don't know if speech is why he's being singled out.

I stole this...

I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.

I'm angry that the Administration's paltry response to a region-wide attack on America, which is, incidentally, what this is, is to deploy 50 Marines/some ships to Libya and jet-off to a Vegas fundraiser while preparing a top-ten list for Letterman's show. Don't you remember the media's demand that the RNC suspend their convention because of Hurricane Issac? Where's the same urgency by the Media towards Obama? This double-standard is staggering...

I'm angry that the cornerstone freedoms of speech and religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution are so routinely dismissed and mocked by this Administration. 1st Amendment freedom of speech? "Not if it hurts feelings" we are told. Freedom of religion? "Not if it stands between our Administration and giving Sandra Fluke a free abortion should she want one" we are hectored.

I'm angry that his initial reponse was "while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants" and yet he coined the phrase "bitter clingers" referencing the religious Americans...

But with four Americans dead, our flag burning, and our embassies trashed, you know what really makes me angry?

Our president isn't.

Think about that fact...

Our president isn't. He read a bland and bloodless set of prepared remarks for 10 minutes, took no questions, and then thought the best thing he could do would be to hit the Vegas strip.

The truth is this: yesterday I read that the President's team came out swinging against the "2016:Obama's America" movie... an over the top anti-Obama movie.

They didn't like the way the president was portrayed. So they attacked Dinesh D'souza (the film's producer) and, for some reason, Tea Partiers.

Here is the language they used on BarackObama.com:

“It should say enough about D’Souza’s credibility that a movie catering to the Tea Party attacks someone for allegedly ‘anti-colonial’ views,” the entry reads. “His attempts to hide his lies behind pseudo-scholarly presentation and glossy production values cannot withstand basic scrutiny. The facts show that 2016: Obama’s America is nothing more than an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the President by giving intellectual cover to the worst in subterranean conspiracy theories and false, partisan attacks.”

That's tougher than anything Obama said in response to the death of an American ambassador, his staff, or the attack on our embassy grounds. So, it isn't that he's incapable of "tough talks"... ugh...

 Seaward wrote:
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.

Because people live there. Only homicidal lunatics think nothing of killing people, and fortunately we're not homicidal lunatics.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.

Because people live there. Only homicidal lunatics think nothing of killing people, and fortunately we're not homicidal lunatics.

Seb... he was sarcastic there...

Watching the video on youtube....the really need to shot....seriously bad acting....

 Frazzled wrote:
How's that Arab Spring turning out?

About as well as everyone expected. Some countries are undertaking difficult steps towards modern representative states, and it's unknown how many will get there. Some people are expressing surprise that people don't suddenly become western liberals the second they're handed democracy. Others are surprised at how difficult and often dangerous the path can be, probably because they've never read history in any depth. And some people are constantly talking down the achievements, because they hate the other and think the only answer is to have him controlled by 'our man in the region'. And others are just talking it down because it a Democrat happened to be in the White House when the whole thing kicked off, and somehow in their brains that means they have to oppose it, even though it's got stuff all to do with the actions of any particular president.

 Jihadin wrote:
Watching the video on youtube....the really need to shot....seriously bad acting....

Yeah... it's ridiculous. Still doesn't excuse the attacks/killings on embassy/American.

 Henners91 wrote:
Where are all dem Liberals who embraced democratic values, western ways and apple pie at? Y'know, the majority of the Arab population that was totally leading the way?

Oh, wait, it was all imagined by the Western Media... at least the dictators before were secular dictators. Say hello to Islamic extremism!

And here is case one for 'our man in the region'. With a little bit of 'wow so they don't just all become western liberals overnight'.

 Seaward wrote:
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer

Take a look.

Its not going to be a democratic government we're use to. Either they're going to declare Sharia Law or come close to it.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer

Take a look.

Yeah... the Libyans do seem to be "doing/saying" things right. A

Also, MGS, i'm pretty sure he was sarcastic.

 English Assassin wrote:
Sad to say, you're probably right. It's not, for different reasons, a fashionable view on either the left or the right nowadays, but stable democratic government didn't come into being in first world nations in isolation, but rather as the culmination of a sequence of processes which began with the Enlightenment, something the majority of the states in the Arab world have not yet passed through. (There are, I should stress, exceptions which are at least on their ways to establishing stable democracies of a kind: Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain, for instance.) Western commentators predicting peaceful transitions to stable democracies were indeed ludicrously optimistic, and did so in ignorance of the lessons of five centuries of European history.

My point has always been that having a dictator in place won't make that journey happen. What we're seeing now is the best, most likely path to one day having a healthy, modern state. It isn't pretty or safe, but history rarely is.

One of the more interesting explanations for the failure of mature democracy to take root in the Middle East is the "resource curse". Most Middle-Eastern states are funded principally through state monopolies on resource extraction (in this case oil), meaning that they impose little or no personal or business taxation. And as any American knows, a people taxed will demand - and deserve - representation; it is essentially a precondition of the contract between government and governed in a democracy. Moreover, despite rising oil prices, these states have experienced remarkably low economic growth, and an even lower rise in living standards, because oil prices artificially push up exchange rates, making other export industries uncompetitive.

In addition, if the path to wealth is through business and skilled profession, then people will become educated in order to compete. Education being what it is, it will expose many people to ideas of equality and other values, which will in turn form and strengthen such movements.

Whereas in these resource rich countries with single, highly lucrative industries that are almost always state owned, the best path to wealth is through attaching yourself to it, normally through nepotism.

It's worth noting that Australia is going through a fairly mild version of this right now. Mining has pushed up exchange rates, making other businesses difficult. And kids in school are now saying 'why do I need to learn this, I can just go get a job on the mines.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
To give an analogy, about a year ago the "Piss Christ" image was damaged. You'd be hard pressed to find a news story about this that did not include an image of the art in question. When the media refuses to show art that a group considers offensive because they might behead someone, then we're empowering them. That's not what America is all about.

I think there's a difference between not showing an image because you're afraid of violence, and not showing an image because you don't want to offend a large number people who don't need to be offended.

For instance, here in Australia many aboriginal groups find it offensive to show images of the dead. This makes it hard to talk about issues in which one or more aboriginal people have died. Now, I don't agree with a government coming in and telling people they cannot show those images, but I do believe media outlets need to show some restraint, and some consideration for whether that image really needs to be shown.

I think much the same of images of Mohammed, or of anything else really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings.

No, but it is where personal responsibility starts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
You bankrolled the dictatorships in Egypt and Lybia? Since when?

1951 through 1967. Well, not so much bankrolled, but US and particularly UK support was essential to the emerging state during this period.

Not that US and UK involvement directly led to the downfall of the Kingdom, but nor is completely removed from us. History is a lot more complicated than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The point being that it isn't your responsibility as President to reject "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others".

No, absolutely not. It is absolutely part of the job of the figurehead of that country to embrace and support its core values. And the US is open, pluralist society that believes it is wrong to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Damn right Obama should comment that video was wrong. It's not as wrong as killing someone, obviously, but then he said that as well.

 whembly wrote:

Also, MGS, i'm pretty sure he was sarcastic.

This is the country in which my friend's brother was attacked because he had a bumper sticker that said 'Proud to be Iroquois' that some absolute imbecile thought meant 'Proud to be Iraqi'...

Good read...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/conservative-muslims-respond-to-islamist-violence-over-anti-muhammad-film-islam-needs-to-come-into-modernity/

Ervin lambasted the actions taken oversees and said that it showcases how the West is “failing to bring the Islamic world into the 21st century by catering to the lowest denomination.”

“I call it ‘cultural imperialism’ — that many, especially the left in this country, are catering to the lowest denomination,” she said, going on to claim that liberals don’t expect Muslims to understand free speech, so they end up protecting extremists and allowing the backwardness to continue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings.

No, but it is where personal responsibility starts.

What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.

Is that what you meant by "responsibility?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The point being that it isn't your responsibility as President to reject "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others".

No, absolutely not. It is absolutely part of the job of the figurehead of that country to embrace and support its core values. And the US is open, pluralist society that believes it is wrong to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Damn right Obama should comment that video was wrong. It's not as wrong as killing someone, obviously, but then he said that as well.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.

Because people live there. Only homicidal lunatics think nothing of killing people, and fortunately we're not homicidal lunatics.

Seb... he was sarcastic there...

What makes you think that? Every post he made in this thread implies he has a casual disregard for the lives of muslims in that region as well as the motivations to hate them.

Dumb people exists everywhere dude...

So stop defending them in every thread and maybe there'll be less.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.

Because people live there. Only homicidal lunatics think nothing of killing people, and fortunately we're not homicidal lunatics.

Seb... he was sarcastic there...

What makes you think that? Every post he made in this thread implies he has a casual disregard for the lives of muslims in that region as well as the motivations to hate them.

His phrase, "We always need more off-site parking"... I read that as a tongue-in-cheek comment. Maybe my sarcasm-meter is broken?

Dumb people exists everywhere dude...

So stop defending them in every thread and maybe there'll be less.

 whembly wrote:

I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.

I also hold 'our' supposedly fundamental values in contempt. Apparently a middle class kid from the Chicago suburbs is not American anymore.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.

I also hold 'our' supposedly fundamental values in contempt. Apparently a middle class kid from the Chicago suburbs is not American anymore.

um... what? o.O

Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.

I also hold 'our' supposedly fundamental values in contempt. Apparently a middle class kid from the Chicago suburbs is not American anymore.

um... what? o.O

Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?

I think he's countering your own irrational anger and societal angst with his own.

 sebster wrote:
My point has always been that having a dictator in place won't make that journey happen. What we're seeing now is the best, most likely path to one day having a healthy, modern state. It isn't pretty or safe, but history rarely is.

You say that like you're sure of it. The truth of the matter is, we have no idea how to bring about a healthy, modern state in the Middle East, or even if it's possible. The only non-Israeli example that actually functions is Turkey, and they still flirt with theocracy more often than anyone should be comfortable with, not to mention they've been on Europe's doorstep for centuries and have some pretty important cultural differences with the rest of the states in the region.

The notion that they're going to vote for theocrat extremists now, but will be electing their version of Benjamin Franklin in the future, is nothing more than hope, and predicated on the notion that democracy's going to stick around once the extremists get in power.