GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Muslims shut down American blogger (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=687996)

Splum 12-18-2006 04:44 PM

Muslims shut down American blogger
 
So much for free speech.

Quote:

A local blogger who bills himself as the ?right wing howler? has apparently been silenced by his Internet service provider after a Muslim advocacy group complained about content that encouraged the killing of Muslim children.
http://www.hernandotoday.com/MGBD642GRVE.html

Scott McD 12-18-2006 04:46 PM

Muslims. Don't ya just love them...

who 12-18-2006 04:48 PM

Yeah! How fucked up is THAT!! Everyone should be allowed to kill muslim children !!


/sarcasm (incase you're a dumb muslim)

Agent 488 12-18-2006 04:50 PM

omfg did someone call fox news yet!?!

directfiesta 12-18-2006 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11548882)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

look at hatrid laws ... Advocating killing is illegal.

Picking is slim .... :1orglaugh

Splum 12-18-2006 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by who (Post 11548896)
Yeah! How fucked up is THAT!! Everyone should be allowed to kill muslim children !! /sarcasm (incase you're a dumb muslim)

Everyone should be allowed to say what they fucking want to say. Surely someone with as big a mouth as you would agree. This is America after all. Somehow if Christians had shut down a porn site I think you would be absolutely enraged. :2 cents:

Splum 12-18-2006 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 11548910)
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh look at hatrid laws ... Advocating killing is illegal. Picking is slim .... :1orglaugh

Its spelled HATRED you inbred. And NO it is not illegal to say in a sarcastic way you should "kill all muslim children" to prevent further terrorism.

Lazonby 12-18-2006 05:01 PM

Soooooooo, when are the Qur'an and Hadiths going to be banned, since they call literally for the death of all atheists, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, homosexuals, adulterers, etc and the enslavement of all Christians and Jews?

I suppose the difference is that that website was joking but the Islamic 'holy' :1orglaugh books aren't.

Pleasurepays 12-18-2006 05:04 PM

"Free Speech" doesn't mean "say anything you want"

Pleasurepays 12-18-2006 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11548914)
Everyone should be allowed to say what they fucking want to say. Surely someone with as big a mouth as you would agree. This is America after all. Somehow if Christians had shut down a porn site I think you would be absolutely enraged. :2 cents:

you're right. lets test the idea that you should be able to say anything you "fucking want"... try running through a major airport screaming over and over -- "i have a bomb!!!"

let us know how it goes... and be sure to report back to the GFY Brain Trust about your ideas on "Freedom of Speech" and let us know the lessons you learned with your experience.

Splum 12-18-2006 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11549011)
you're right. lets test the idea that you should be able to say anything you "fucking want"... try running through a major airport screaming over and over -- "i have a bomb!!!"

Ahh I see so according to the constitution of Pleasurepays freedom of speech only applies on a selected basis.

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

MattO 12-18-2006 05:18 PM

A webhost shutting down a website that violates their TOS by engaging in hate speech or threats is not a freedom of speech issue.

StarkReality 12-18-2006 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattO (Post 11549062)
A webhost shutting down a website that violates their TOS by engaging in hate speech or threats is not a freedom of speech issue.

Right, it's not about free speech or censorship, encouraging to kill innocent children, no matter if black, white, christian or muslim is certainly a good reason to take down a site...

Pleasurepays 12-18-2006 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11549041)
Ahh I see so according to the constitution of Pleasurepays freedom of speech only applies on a selected basis.

dude... are you seriously going to sit here and try to make the asinine arguments of an 8th grader?


:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

biftek 12-18-2006 05:28 PM

i think you'll find that the constitution, freedom of speech have long since gone ,
while the law does say you might have freedom of speech , there are other laws that says you can say you want as long it doesn't contain topics from this list

Splum 12-18-2006 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11549084)
dude... are you seriously going to sit here and try to make the asinine arguments of an 8th grader? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Is it juvenile to argue that free speech should apply to EVERYONE in the United States and not on a selective politically correct basis?

Sly 12-18-2006 05:31 PM

Calling for the killing of other beings is not acceptable nor is it free speech. Free speech comes with a price, its called responsibility.

Find me a US based host that allows any terrorist groups, regardless of intentions, to call for the death of other people.

_Richard_ 12-18-2006 05:31 PM

useless bad press on the muslims part.. trying to keep hate down is one thing, but this seems a little extreme

R

Sly 12-18-2006 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11549124)
Is it juvenile to argue that free speech should apply to EVERYONE in the United States and not on a selective politically correct basis?

Do you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater that incites a stampede and kills 2 small children?

WarChild 12-18-2006 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11549124)
Is it juvenile to argue that free speech should apply to EVERYONE in the United States and not on a selective politically correct basis?

Here's a simple and often used example that sometimes helps simple people understand free speach.

Do you think you should be able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Think about it for just a little bit.

WarChild 12-18-2006 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 11549142)
Do you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater that incites a stampede and kills 2 small children?

Haha great minds. :1orglaugh

Splum 12-18-2006 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biftek (Post 11549109)
i think you'll find that the constitution, freedom of speech have long since gone, while the law does say you might have freedom of speech , there are other laws that says you can say you want as long it doesn't contain topics from this list

Understandable, but there are plenty of hate spewing websites online, Black Panther Party website, Nation of Islam website, ACLU, DailyKos.com etc yet none of these violate supposed "TOS" agreements?

I am simply worried about muslim groups gaining "sympathy" and be yet another burden on the American system of equality by being overly sensative.

Pleasurepays 12-18-2006 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11549124)
Is it juvenile to argue that free speech should apply to EVERYONE in the United States and not on a selective politically correct basis?

not all speech is protected speech... hate speech being among that which is not.

"selective" and "politically correct" are your characterizations of the situation. further, a host has its own TOS and can do whatever it wants within the law and TOS you agreed to.

anymore questions that should have been answered for you in junior high? or are you gonna finally go back to playing Warcraft with your virtual friends

Sly 12-18-2006 05:38 PM

Though situations like that are extremely fuzzy as to what should or shouldn't be allowed. Free speech is a very gray line.

Anyone see the T-Shirt Hell shirt about killing black babies?

Splum 12-18-2006 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 11549142)
Do you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater that incites a stampede and kills 2 small children?

Yes in America I have the right to say "FIRE" in a crowded theater. I wouldnt obviously but thats not the point the point is my speech is protected. That does not even in the slightest compare to what is going on here anyways.

What that blogger posted is "protected speech" regardless of TOS agreements the Muslim group targetted this blogger because of his speech not because of his TOS status. I am not faulting the webhost I am faulting the Muslim group.

Splum 12-18-2006 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 11549167)
Though situations like that are extremely fuzzy as to what should or shouldn't be allowed. Free speech is a very gray line. Anyone see the T-Shirt Hell shirt about killing black babies?

T-Shirt hell, as fucking disgusting as I find it, I should think is and should be protected under freedom of expression.

Sly 12-18-2006 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11549181)
Yes in America I have the right to say "FIRE" in a crowded theater. I wouldnt obviously but thats not the point the point is my speech is protected. That does not even in the slightest compare to what is going on here anyways.

The people that agree with you can be counted on one hand.

I would expect you to be charged and fined for all damages. If anybody dies, manslaughter. Using "free speech" to be cute when it is designed to inflict great harm against another is not acceptable and you'll find that the majority believe this. There's a reason people get charged for false alarms, why do you think that is?

tenletters 12-18-2006 06:31 PM

I do hope that the islam people that had the site shut down spend as much time having all the muslim sites taken down that preach hate and the death of white people. /pipe dream

DjSap 12-18-2006 06:35 PM

if somebody wants to risk their lives islamporn.com is available...maybe it can be a fully clothed porn sites with women posing in burkas with suggestive glances in their eyes...

WarChild 12-18-2006 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11549181)
Yes in America I have the right to say "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

As a matter of fact, no you don't.
You can't incite violence, either.

interracialtoons 12-18-2006 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11549011)
you're right. lets test the idea that you should be able to say anything you "fucking want"... try running through a major airport screaming over and over -- "i have a bomb!!!"

let us know how it goes... and be sure to report back to the GFY Brain Trust about your ideas on "Freedom of Speech" and let us know the lessons you learned with your experience.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Splum 12-18-2006 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 11549845)
As a matter of fact, no you don't.
You can't incite violence, either.

Back up your "claims".
I think you are confusing the American constitution with the Costa Rican constitution.

Agent 488 12-18-2006 07:49 PM

save it for the comments section of little green footballs.

KaLi 12-18-2006 07:54 PM

Im Muslim, but I dont take that shit to heart ;)

I'm also white. Maybe thats why? lol...

Let him say whatever he wants, its his life. Hes just an idiot for wanting to kill anyone period, whether muslim, christian, jewish or whatever. None of my business though, I didnt even read it haha...

Zarathustra 12-18-2006 08:00 PM

Free speech never existed at anytime in human civilization. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is an example of something you're not protected from saying

You also cant say something like:

"Tommorrow im going to hijack a plane and crash it into the white house"

without getting arrested

WarChild 12-18-2006 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11549972)
Back up your "claims".
I think you are confusing the American constitution with the Costa Rican constitution.

No. I'm thinking of the standing US Supreme court decision 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio. I can't be expected to teach you all the details, but you can go ahead and google it.

Basically, in overturning a decission against a KKK leader for merely promoting hatred but not trying to invite imminent violence., The Brandenburg test was born.

"The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime). "

In a nutshell, it means you may stand on a podium and declare "all black men must be killed." but you may not incite a group of white men, holding guns and prepared to do violence in to an immediate act of violence. Doing so would not be protected under the First Amendment.

pr0 12-18-2006 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11548989)
"Free Speech" doesn't mean "say anything you want"

really? does it say in the constitution who defines what is ok?

other than a court of law & a jury made up of your peers?

Sly 12-18-2006 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum (Post 11549972)
Back up your "claims".
I think you are confusing the American constitution with the Costa Rican constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Lots of cases are listed there. Read up.

Simply put, you're wrong.

Sly 12-18-2006 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 11550082)
No. I'm thinking of the standing US Supreme court decision 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio. I can't be expected to teach you all the details, but you can go ahead and google it.

Basically, in overturning a decission against a KKK leader for merely promoting hatred but not trying to invite imminent violence., The Brandenburg test was born.

"The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime). "

In a nutshell, it means you may stand on a podium and declare "all black men must be killed." but you may not incite a group of white men, holding guns and prepared to do violence in to an immediate act of violence. Doing so would not be protected under the First Amendment.

People are going to think we're sitting right next to each other.

pr0 12-18-2006 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 11550082)
No. I'm thinking of the standing US Supreme court decision 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio. I can't be expected to teach you all the details, but you can go ahead and google it.

Basically, in overturning a decission against a KKK leader for merely promoting hatred but not trying to invite imminent violence., The Brandenburg test was born.

"The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime). "

In a nutshell, it means you may stand on a podium and declare "all black men must be killed." but you may not incite a group of white men, holding guns and prepared to do violence in to an immediate act of violence. Doing so would not be protected under the First Amendment.

correct there is a difference between free speech & inciting a riot

WarChild 12-18-2006 08:09 PM

As to your original post, it's not protected as free speech simply because an ISP is a private company able to do business with whomever it pleases. Much in the same way as you are afforded no protections under freedom of speech to stand in someone else's house and say whatever you like.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In this case, no goverment body is attempting to interefere with your rights.

WarChild 12-18-2006 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 11550098)
People are going to think we're sitting right next to each other.

HEY, it's supposed to be "puff, puff, pass.". Asshole! :pimp

Splum 12-18-2006 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 11550082)
In a nutshell, it means you may stand on a podium and declare "all black men must be killed." but you may not incite a group of white men, holding guns and prepared to do violence in to an immediate act of violence. Doing so would not be protected under the First Amendment.

Thats exactly what the blogger said "All muslim children should be killed" therefore it falls under free speech, also I take issue with the Muslim group requesting the site be shut down due to "inciting violence" instead of "TOS violation" also who made them fucking internet police?

Rochard 12-18-2006 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 11549129)
Calling for the killing of other beings is not acceptable nor is it free speech. Free speech comes with a price, its called responsibility.

Find me a US based host that allows any terrorist groups, regardless of intentions, to call for the death of other people.

:thumbsup

We have freedom of speech, but it comes with limitations.

GFY is no different. Make a death threat against someone and your banned. It's a simple legal issue - besides being tasteless, if someone makes a threat on GFY and then follows through on it, guess what - GFY will be named in the lawsuit. (You would be stunned at how many times ICS is dragged into lawsuits....)

Not to mention that talking about killing anyone - even more so children - is a horror thing to do.

NoComments 12-18-2006 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra (Post 11550056)
Free speech never existed at anytime in human civilization. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is an example of something you're not protected from saying

You also cant say something like:

"Tommorrow im going to hijack a plane and crash it into the white house"

without getting arrested

The key word is TOMORROW.

If you say:
"One day I'll hi-jack a plane and crush it into the White House",
you won't be arrested, but you surely will be watched...and maybe beaten, when and IF nobody is watching by your fellow citizens. I'll donate the 2x4.
:)

NoComments 12-18-2006 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 11550337)
:thumbsup

We have freedom of speech, but it comes with limitations.

GFY is no different. Make a death threat against someone and your banned. It's a simple legal issue - besides being tasteless, if someone makes a threat on GFY and then follows through on it, guess what - GFY will be named in the lawsuit. (You would be stunned at how many times ICS is dragged into lawsuits....)

Not to mention that talking about killing anyone - even more so children - is a horror thing to do.

1 million moslems were killed in 1947 in India during the independence carving of India into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I'm glad the site was shot down.

Webby 12-18-2006 10:03 PM

For Gawds sake somebody shut down Splum :1orglaugh

He don't qualify for any "rights"


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123