Print 127 comment(s) - last by Fly1ngSqu1rr3l.. on Mar 29 at 2:31 PM

A defaced image of the website promoting the film, which was removed by ISP Network Solutions.  (Source: Klein Verzet)

The current notice appears when visiting  (Source: DailyTech)

The video and the site sparked a large protest Saturday in Amsterdam.  (Source: Fred Ernst / AP)
Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders faced with possible removal by his ISP may seek possible alternate distribution means for his radical film

The Netherlands is becoming the surprising center of conflict over the extent of free speech, religion and allegations of racism.  The debate centers around an upcoming film by a local politician, which expresses strong criticism against Islam faith. 

Several Islamic government have sought to ban materials criticizing Islam.  The most recent example of this was when Pakistan blocked the website YouTube for promoting non-Islamic or anti-Islamic materials, inadvertently crippled the country's internet traffic.

Nearby Denmark found itself in the center of a similar controversy when a Danish newspaper aired cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the most important Islamic historic religious figure, in an embarrassing light.  The cartoon led to protests worldwide outside Dutch embassies, death threats and at least one murder.

Now Holland is back in the limelight.  Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, head of a reactionary party which controls 9 seats in the 150-seat Dutch Parliament, promoted his new film which portrays Islam in an extremely critical light, only to find his website taken down amid a storm of criticism.  The film was promoted on the site which formerly had a simple title image, the words "Fitna" ("Coming Soon"), and an image of a gilded Qu'ran. 

The website has since been taken down, and a note is posted stating that Network Solutions, the U.S. based service provider, is investigating whether the site violates its terms of service.  The note about Wilder's site states, "Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation."

Network Solutions hosts the website of Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based organization labeled by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. 

While the company could not be reached for comment, its terms of service do include a broad provision banning, "objectionable material of any kind or nature."  While the former website gave scant details about the upcoming 15-minute film, to be released on March 31st, it is certain to be found objectionable by some.  Filmmaker Wilders says the film will underscore his belief that the Islamic holy book is "fascist."

Wilders prepared to distribute the video over the internet after being met with refusal from television stations unwilling to grant it airtime.  Wilders, who lives under police protection due to death threats, refuses to be deterred, and was quoted Dutch news agency ANP on Saturday stating, "How many ways are there left for me to be worked against?  If necessary, I'll go hand out DVDs personally on the Dam." The Dam is a colloquial name for Amsterdam's central square.

On Saturday protesters crowded the Dam to voice their distaste for Wilders.  Amid sleet and heavy wind, between 2,000 and 3,000 protesters of mixed ethnicities assembled "Netherlands Shows Its Colors" in an advanced reaction against the film.  Protesters carried signs such as "Standing Together Against the Right-Wing Populist Witch-Hunt." 

One protester, Elisa Trepp, said, "I'm very much against Geert Wilders and racism in general.  I think it's really important to show not only Holland but the rest of the world that there's a lot of people who do not agree with his ideas."

Hassan Iaeti, another demonstrator, traveled for hours to make it.  He states, "The government could really do something. That's in the interest of the country - stop him, just stop him."

Dutch officials fear that the film may spark violent protests worldwide.  Free speech in the U.S. is currently solely limited against making statements that would incite imminent lawless action (riots) as defined by the case Brandeburg v. Ohio.  Similar limits to free speech exist throughout much of Europe, much to the chagrin of free speech advocates.  As the video may spark worldwide lawlessness, the government may see it fit to block the video. 

However the government remains relatively apathetic to the situation by all indications.  No prominent politicians showed up at the protest.  Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has said previously that he did not agree with Wilders views, but supported his right to free speech.  Balkenende did add that the video could threaten Dutch interests worldwide.

In Afghanistan protesters burned effigies of Wilders and demanded the withdraw of NATO-deployed Dutch troops from the country.  A Dutch court will hear complaints against the film lodged by Muslim groups, on March 28th, however Wilders can elect to release the film before then. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A dangerous precedent
By masher2 on 3/24/2008 12:24:48 PM , Rating: 5
I'm extremely disappointed that free speech has once again been abrogated to avoid offending a particular group of people.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By geeg on 3/24/2008 12:28:17 PM , Rating: 5
When it comes to religious matters, one's free speech might become one's free curse..

RE: A dangerous precedent
By lompocus on 3/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: A dangerous precedent
By ShaolinSoccer on 3/25/2008 7:39:13 AM , Rating: 1
What you said doesn't make sense. If an athiest did something violent, would you blame it on him being athiest? It would seem that the majority of religions teach peace. Except for maybe Satanism. There are millions of Islams living on this planet and not going out commiting any violence. Same thing goes for all the other religions. You know how they say guns don't kill people. People kill people. Same with religion... I admit there are people who would kill for their religion but that's what you call an "extremist"...

RE: A dangerous precedent
By therealnickdanger on 3/25/2008 9:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you don't need religion to shut down a website. Apparently Mr. Castro has some problems with people complaining on blogs about the living conditions in "paradise".

RE: A dangerous precedent
By wien on 3/24/2008 12:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't corporations perfectly free to decide what customers they want to serve? As long as the government stays out of it, free speech shouldn't really enter into it.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By masher2 on 3/24/2008 12:34:16 PM , Rating: 5
Until and unless ISPs are adjudged to be common carriers, you are correct -- there is no constitutional issue here.

However, I question the ethics (as well as the common sense) of a US company which sees fit to host the website of the terrorist group Hezbollah, but takes down a site for saying Islam is associated with terrorism.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By eye smite on 3/24/2008 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
I have made reference to a site on here before explaining human behavior and how we are more animals than we realize. This type of selective behavior really doesn't surprise me. Have a read on this site and see if you can apply what I'm talking about....

Here's a paragraph from the site if it helps your interest any:
"Desmond Morris also looks at some of the damaging consequences that can be seen when we try to deny our animal heritage: how territorial fights erupt when the tribal systems within our overcrowded cities break down, and how human relationships disintegrate when natural social or sexual patterns change."

RE: A dangerous precedent
By charliee on 3/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: A dangerous precedent
By eye smite on 3/24/2008 5:34:21 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't make my post as an alternative to religion. If anything the link I posted shows why man cannot control his emotions and act like a civilized, rational creature of God, and why man is constantly backstabbing each other in the name of religion. It shows we're all just primates.....albeit sophisticated primates, but still just primates. That happens to be the reason why I was rated down so badly and bashed for asking if anyone had thought about the motivations behind Hitlers heinous acts. Many could not control their emotions and immediately perceived what they wanted to from that question instead of reading it for the question it was and trying to give a sensible answer. Very much like you just did here with the post I made. There's honestly alot of you I have no hope for.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By freaqie on 3/25/2008 4:39:51 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with Geert WIlders is that he is just being a sensationalist. he is just saying stuff to get attention the more the better.
also he does not care how people might be affected. he could say i dislike Islam... however he states :
which is obviously false and he gets attention...

and it obviously works.....

RE: A dangerous precedent
By ShaolinSoccer on 3/25/2008 7:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
lol reminds me of the Stephen King movie The Mist. But ya, you're absolutely right.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Ratinator on 3/25/2008 3:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but I would guess only within the bounds of the constitution. You could be held accountable if your company is found in violation of any points within the federal constitution of which your business runs under.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 3/24/2008 12:30:35 PM , Rating: 5
Freedom is NOT free.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By boogle on 3/24/2008 12:56:12 PM , Rating: 5
Freedom is NOT free.

Too many people seem to forget this :(
If you want freedom you have to fight for it, or else you lose it all.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By tjr508 on 3/24/2008 3:04:05 PM , Rating: 3
Or a buck o five

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Segerstein on 3/24/2008 9:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
In vino veritas! I guess this is why Muhammad has banned alcoholic beverages...

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Polynikes on 3/24/2008 12:30:48 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. Criticism doesn't equate to outright hate. Now, if the film was advocating persecution of Muslims, it would be a different story.

So much for free speech.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By FITCamaro on 3/24/2008 12:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'll bet you though if it was a video by a black person talking about the evils of the white man, it'd be perfectly acceptable.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By wien on 3/24/2008 12:37:34 PM , Rating: 1
That's all silly speculation from your side, and is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. How about you produce some proper arguments instead of trying confuse the issue.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By masher2 on 3/24/2008 12:53:19 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, Network Solutions hosts quite a bit of such material, including the Nation of Islam's site (, when one can find copious reams of material criticizing the "evil white man".

RE: A dangerous precedent
By JustTom on 3/24/2008 1:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sir, please do not confuse the situation with facts.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By baldman on 3/24/2008 1:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oh really?

I suppose that kind if stuff is "perfectly normal" in your opinion. So much about confusing the facts Sir...

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Master Kenobi on 3/24/2008 1:14:33 PM , Rating: 1
It's perfectly normal in the radical muslim sects. I'm surprised the moderate muslims who do not share this view have not stepped in and done anything about this.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Ryanman on 3/24/2008 3:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
they never react to this stuff. They let those who allow stereotypes to be formed have a free rein.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By wien on 3/24/2008 3:59:54 PM , Rating: 4
They haven't? I've seen bucket-loads of statements made and educational meetings held by moderate Muslims to try to combat this stereotype. They just don't get any press. "Muslims are actually all right" doesn't sell papers for some reason.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By headbox on 3/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: A dangerous precedent
By almared on 3/24/2008 7:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a Muslim and you are correct in a way. There is no such thing as moderate Muslims because all Muslims are simply Muslims or not. But there are those who kill in the name of Islam and I fail to find a name to call them but I'll adobt the term Radical-Muslims as many call them. These people don't really understand what Islam is because there is no one place in the Quran where it says go slaughter or punish non-Muslims. Islam, like any other religion, forbids killing another human soul unless there is a war or for self-defense.

I really can't say why these people come and kill or threating others by name of Islam. Maybe it's because where they come from. Take Afghanistan for example, who made Osama ben-Laden? Isn't it the Americans when they wanted to "free" his land? Who created HezboAllah? Isn't it Israel when attacked Lebanon and the Palestinians?

There is always a cause for people's actions but Islam isn't always the one.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By lompocus on 3/24/2008 11:49:57 PM , Rating: 1
And what made the need for an israeli state? Mebbe it was:
-Jews being persecuted and MURDERED in teh holocaust
-Jews being kicked out of Arab countries
-Jews being bombed IN arab countries
-Jews having to where else to go

And what made the need for America to invade? Mebbe it was:
-Arabs bombing our towers
-Arabs blowing other arabs up
-Osama blowing other arabs up
-Saddam blowing up, electrocuting, killing, etc. other arabs
-Arabs natural suicidal attitudes being an obvious danger
-Arabs love to hijack planes and hold everyone for ransom
-Sunni Vs Shiite muslims blowing each other up
-Lots of oil in the place that you guys are blowing yourselves up in
-Maybe we should stop people from killing themselves? (deaths in Iraq are far, far lower than they were during saddam, believe it or not. It's 0.5 americans a day and 5 iraqis a day, if you want statistics, which, while not perfect, is better than some loon suddenly wanting to shoot up his neighbor's family)
-Mebbe it was the fact that the arabs were getting invaded by the Soviets a while back?
-Mebbe is was the fact that some arabs thought to use American supplies meant to kill Soviets to subdue other arabs?
-mebbe it was the fact that osama just lost his evil grip on the middle east?

And there is a part in the koran that says kill your neighbor. I've posted it around here before too many times to count. You have a korean. look them up!

Oh but no, all those awesome Jews and us awesome Americans are ALWAYS the cause of hunger, chaos, disease, and your soretooth :P

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Strunf on 3/25/2008 8:36:18 AM , Rating: 3
There is no country made for Atheists... we are and have been prosecuted for years, in some countries the atheists were even burned alive... I want a country where all the atheists can go and be free from all the religious folks...

RE: A dangerous precedent
By DeathSniper on 3/25/2008 11:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
There's called the Moon! Meet you there in 10 years ;)

RE: A dangerous precedent
By wien on 3/24/2008 1:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
What on earth does that have to do with my post? Stating that there would be no controversy if the opposite happened was pure speculation on his part ("I bet") and irrelevant to this particular issue. How your link is relevant to that I have no idea.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By glennpratt on 3/24/2008 2:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
... completely irrelevant ...

This isn't a court of law, it's a public forum. The standards for relevance here are a little more lax. He has an opinion about a similar, theoretical situation, while it may not be totally apt, I think his opinion is relevant enough -- and possibly even true enough as others have pointed out.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By almared on 3/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: A dangerous precedent
By wien on 3/24/2008 12:44:25 PM , Rating: 5
Insult is all in the head of the "insultee". There is no firm definition of that is insulting. As long as your statements are factually true you can say more or less anything you like, criticism of religion most definitely included.

The fact that people get insulted shouldn't have any bearing on the issue. In fact, as soon as we start to limit free speech to prevent people from getting insulted, we're going down a very dangerous road. Where the hell do you stop? That train of though is so naive it scares me shitless.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Manch on 3/24/2008 5:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
insult: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt

also : to affect offensively or damagingly

Yup doesn't give specifics on what's insulting.

One point though. Your statements don't have to be factual. Of course that can make you libel. Still you can say it at your own detriment!

RE: A dangerous precedent
By geeg on 3/24/2008 9:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
As long as your statements are factually true

There are matters where the words fact, factual, true have no meaning. For example:
1. There is God.
2. There is no God.
Can you tell me which one is factually true? One of them must be, right?
So that is why we invented the word "taboo". There are some matters you do not talk like you talk about daily matters.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By boogle on 3/24/2008 12:46:13 PM , Rating: 5
So if I insult you or any member of your family then you should do nothing according to your free speech. You can't insult other people's religion and call it free speech!!! Religion for Muslims is as important as their families.

Free speech means exactly that, you can insult any one or any thing. You can say ANYTHING you like. That is free speech!

Free speech has two sides, you can say anything you want about anything. You can insult other people. On the other side, people can do the same, and insult you.

In my humble opinion, if you can't take criticism of your beliefs, then maybe you're not very strong in your faith? If someone criticised what I believed I would be happy to explain/elaborate or even just ignore the jab. But I certainly wouldn't murder you or try to have you censored. That would be fascism.

Heh, I guess you could put free speech down as 'I disagree with what you say, but I'll die defending your right to say it'. I agree with that whole-heartedly.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By mmntech on 3/24/2008 1:17:31 PM , Rating: 3
This post deserves a 6. Very well said. In my opinion, free speech is an inalienable right. One of two, the other being the right to life. As far as I know, there is no provision in any bill of rights that states that people are guaranteed freedom from criticism. What happens when you start placing limits is what we have in North America (both Canada and the US) right now. People are afraid to seriously debate "sensitive" issues. It's no wonder there is such division.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By abzillah on 3/24/2008 2:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on free speech, but there is a difference between the general population's free speech and that of a government official.
This is a congressmen who has made a video saying that all Muslims are terrorist because terrorism is part of Islam, while at the same time governing over a large population of Muslims.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By glennpratt on 3/24/2008 3:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
This is only a difference for the people who elected him and his fellow politicians, certainly not Network Solutions.

A politician shouldn't revoke their right to free speech, only accept that there is increased responsibility and risk when invoking the right.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By fic2 on 3/24/2008 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting that you know what the film is all about and yet it hasn't been released.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By abzillah on 3/24/2008 5:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well, maybe you should read more.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By clovell on 3/24/2008 5:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
I may be mincing words here, but you've got it wrong. Protected free speech in the USA does not allow you to simply insult other people at will. Factual claims that happen to be insulting are another matter.

I'm not sure if that's what you were saying, but too many people take that viewpoint, and it's not what was intended at all.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Rob Pintwala on 3/24/2008 12:46:29 PM , Rating: 3
The issue at hand is, the movie is critical of - not insulting (though, we'll see to what extent). Nothing is above criticism - not government, not religion, not even God himself.

I understand that the Islamic religion is as important as family, but it is an ideal; a concept, and it can't be offended or upset. Unless you can hurt Islam's feelings, I don't see a reason why criticism of it should be restricted.

Oh, and, by that "particular group of people" he was talking about, he meant the Muslims in the world who would be offended, as not all Muslims will be outraged. In fact, I spoke with several of my Islamic friends, and none of them said they found this insulting or offensive. Their imams (I believe is the correct term) encourage them to criticize Islam, because through criticism and free through they can strengthen their own beliefs.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Grast on 3/24/2008 4:20:40 PM , Rating: 2

I believe everyone understands that no all muslims are terrorists. In fact, the frields that you have which are muslim would be hanged and beheaded with us non-muslims if the extreamist had any say in the matter.

RE: A dangerous precedent
By theapparition on 3/24/2008 12:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm extremely dissappointed I had to look up the word "abrogated". :P

RE: A dangerous precedent
By AnnihilatorX on 3/24/2008 12:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
me too

RE: A dangerous precedent
By Rhaido on 3/24/2008 1:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
Clever wordsmithing or lucky. I'll give Mike the benefit of the former :) Abrogation is a term used within Islam that explains the belief that the writings of Muhammad supercede one another chronologically speaking. That is to say, if something in writing #2 is contradicted by something in writing #4, then the writing #4 applies and overrules/replaces writing #2. In my opinion, it is somewhat lazy from the perspective of psychological rationalization but I guess it saves some time by foregoing an Ecumenical Council ;)

RE: A dangerous precedent
By deadbolt2002 on 3/24/2008 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 4
The Islamic religion has evolved into 2 sects (most likely many more, but from an outsiders point of view, and for the purpose of this post lets stick with 2 groups). From an outsiders view we predominantly see the Islamic terrorists, and the violent nature "inherent" in that religion. But we predominantly see this because its the only thing that receives mass publicity, and offers a threat to other people. The vast majority of Muslims are incredibly respectful, mostly peaceful people who value wisdom. It is these muslims that would encourage intelligent and respectful criticism and discussion of the Islamic faith. Any intelligent individual should be able to discuss their faith, regardless of which one they choose, in a calm and respectful way and be open to criticism.

Now, this Wilders guy SEEMS like an ignorant, disrespectful, biggot, incapable of having an intelligent discussion. BUT, I have never seen his work, nor heard him speak, so how can I judge him? As a result of all that I have read, I already have a distaste for him as a person, and believe that if the allegations of biggotry are true he should be removed from office, but what I would like to see more than anything is him have a calm, intelligent, rational discussion with a peaceful muslim leader.

But the specific issue at hand is freedom of speech, not the Islamic religion. I believe the video should be publicly released so that the public may judge it and him for themselves. I believe that many people are ignorant enough, or unintelligent enough to accept what he has to say as fact, but that is a shame that we must accept. Many documentaries are released, such as Michael Moore's work, and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that address hot topics with factual inaccuracies, or stretched truths, but it is up to the viewer to be skeptical. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. I agree with one poster's famous quote "Though I may disagree with what you have to say, I would die for your right to say it."

RE: A dangerous precedent
By pav2pav on 3/24/08, Rating: -1
By josealexandrecroca on 3/24/2008 7:29:32 PM , Rating: 2

must see (being very serious)

RE: A dangerous precedent
By P4blo on 3/25/2008 7:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. like most people I'm sick to death with how these people deem it right to burn flags, riot and murder people (or call for them to be murdered). But it's wrong for anyone to express a negative view about them or their extremist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic ways. (Sounds like a fascist organisation to me!)

We are being bullied into keeping our views quiet because these children will cry and burn flags if we don’t. Sadly, they are just destroying their own faith's reputation. Nobody cares about the wise, kindly, helpful Imam, all they remember is the extremist fool with bombs strapped to him screaming 'god is good' before calling for the deaths of all infidels. Why, because someone picked up a pencil and sketched Mohammed with a bomb on his head? Sounds like fair criticism to me. If they choose to align themselves so closely with martyrdom and encourage followers to blow themselves up WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?

Some of these people are so brainwashed and clueless they're close to worthless. I dont like extreme anything, most of all religious types. It's their twisted faith, yet they think we all have to respect it? Well ha ha. Methinks they presume too much. They will have to learn the hard way...

RE: A dangerous precedent
By nah on 3/25/2008 9:26:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yet this is exactly what happens at DT--if a particular group of people ( in this case DT readers) like a post--it's rated up--if it offends them, it's rated down--if someone gives another persons post a negative rating and its hidden from view--does this abrogate the posters freedom of speech ?

Dutch Christians & Muslims Were Against the Film
By umsami on 3/24/2008 1:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
First off, A Danish, not Dutch, newspaper first published the Prophet Muhammad cartoons (as misstated in the article.)

Secondly, with regards to Free Speech, most Western nations do have laws that restrict hate speech, discriminatory speech, etc. I think the problem with Geert's film is that it was viewed to be beyond the level of a critical look at Islam or the Qur'an. This guy has a very very bad reputation in Europe... think of him as the Dutch David Duke, if that helps. .. which could have led to NS dropping his site.

I think it's important to note that Dutch Muslims and Christians came together on wanting Geert's film banned. I don't think that unless you live in the Netherlands you'll truly understand just what a racist bigot this guy is.

As for NS hosting Hezbollah, no doubt that is not the only site with questionable material on it that they do host. I think NS was trying to do the responsible thing by hoping to avoid any sort of demonstrations like those that did occur regarding the Danish cartoons that led to the deaths of roughly 50 innocent people. Don't worry, I'm sure Geert will find another distributer. The Theo Van Gogh film is on YouTube, perhaps he'll just put his film there as well.

By Master Kenobi on 3/24/2008 1:18:05 PM , Rating: 3
I think NS was trying to do the responsible thing by hoping to avoid any sort of demonstrations like those that did occur regarding the Danish cartoons that led to the deaths of roughly 50 innocent people.

I really have to question why people fear demonstrations so much. If some group wants to demonstrate and protest something, who cares. If they get violent, well the riot police with tear gas, rubber bullets, and tasers get sent out to deal with the problem. This "don't want to offend anyone" attitude is flawed because someone will ALWAYS be offended by something no matter how minor.

By wien on 3/24/2008 1:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
And the lower to set the bar for what is acceptable, the more easily people will get offended. Eventually you can't even greet you neighbor without attracting a lynch mob.

By hcahwk19 on 3/24/2008 1:56:26 PM , Rating: 5
I think the issue with the Muslims against the film, is that they won't go out and simply protest, like civilized people would. They will carry out bombings, probably suicide bombings, in order to show their feelings. They need to grow up and take criticism like adults. There is no right to not be offended. So someone drew a cartoon making fun of Islam. The best comedy always has truth in it, and there is no difference here. You don't see Catholics, Protestants or Mormons trying to kill off the creators of South Park for their hilarious depictions of those denominations. I am Catholic, and while there are times I cringe when South Park or Family Guy rip into the Church, I also end up laughing my @ss off because it is funny. It might be a little sacriligious, but it is also pretty funny at times. Just the other day, there was a depiction of Christ being crucified in the fetal position, instead of with outstretched hands. There were no bombings or killings, just because someone drew Christ that way. But it is okay to make fun of Christians, but not Muslims. That would be politically incorrect. Yeah, Christianity was criticized, but no one was killed over it. Muslims need to wake up and smell the couscous, grow up, and get over it. If you don't like the way someone portrays how they see Islam, then prove them wrong. Don't prove them right by carrying out the exact actions they show Islam doing. If Islam is such a "peaceful" religion, as the liberals claim it is, then Islam needs to PROVE IT TO THE WORLD. Because all that is seen is their killing of innocent people, even innocent Muslims day in and out. Rocket attacks here, roadside bombs there, beheadings over there, the list goes on. Until proven otherwise, Islam is a very violent religion.

RE: Dutch Christians & Muslims Were Against the Film
By wien on 3/24/2008 2:24:34 PM , Rating: 3
Please don't try to pin this on Islam as a religion. Islam is not inherently more violent than any other religion. It goes far deeper than that and focusing exclusively on the religion itself is incredibly narrow minded.

Social issues like lack of education and wealth combined with external interference over the course of centuries are the real causes of most of these problems. Shifting the focus away from these issues are a sure fire way of ensuring there will be no end to the problems. It's very easy to sit here in the western world and be the bigger man.

By Master Kenobi on 3/24/2008 3:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Islam is not inherently more violent than any other religion.

Correct. Yet we see the other religions have for several hundred years or more not performed the violent acts currently being employed by radical's of Islam. Take a good read of the "Old Testament" and it's just as violent, but do we see any Christians actually doing this sort of thing? No.

Islam really needs to grow up, reform, and enter the modern era. They can't keep pointing to the past, thousands of years ago, for guidance.

By wien on 3/24/2008 3:25:37 PM , Rating: 3
Now? No, not very often. But most "Christian" nations are located in the western, rich and well educated parts of the world. You just can't ignore that part of the equation. You don't have to go that far back in time to find equally violent behavior motivated by Christianity either. There are also quite a few extremist cults based on Christianity that at least share much of the rhetoric you find in extremist Muslim cults.

You're right Islam needs to enter the modern era, but saying it just isn't enough. For change to happen you need to look at the core causes of this increasing polarization and fix them. Just blaming Islam is a cop out.

By Ajax9000 on 3/24/2008 10:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Be careful what you wish for, it may just happen.

It is not just westerners who call for Islam to reform, there are a number of Muslims who have called for a Reformation/Enlightenment/new ijtihad (a new "sustained reasoning") akin to what the Christian church went through. E.g:

However ...
Given how bloody the Christian reformation was, can you imagine how bad an Islamic refomation could turn out due to modern communications, transport, and weapons ... ?

And even after all that, there would likely still be the case (just as with Judaism and Christianity) that there would be radical & violent fringe sects.

RE: Dutch Christians & Muslims Were Against the Film
By djade on 3/24/2008 4:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
are you saying that those in predominantly Muslim countries are backwards because of centuries steeped in suppressing women due to cultural factors and are less educated? In any case, social issues don't make fundamentalism, fascism and fatwas on your head right or acceptable. Should people be forced to cater to the not-so-up-to-speed, or shouldn't we work on getting the not-so-up-to-speed up to speed. In the meantime, let's look at the bigger picture of important topics, China is giant but small when it comes to issues of Tibetan autonomy. They had little use for Tibetans for so long, now that they've realized it could be a huge cash cow, it has made inroads (pun intended) to get in on the action. Let Tibetans live. As for Muslims, I don't have a problem with getting a mat out and praying five times a day wherever need be but again, the killings have got to stop. you're right, we need to educate people but not at the expense of cowering and kowtowing to radicalism. The Internet host that removed Wilders site is doing just that, obviously afraid extremists are out there and could do fundamental damage to not just their site but to its people. And according to your logic, we in the west should just sit back and let the freaks take over? I think it's crazy we, westerners alike chastized Mel Gibson for a pro-Jesus movie. Pro Hezbollah is ok, but pro Jesus is not, go figure.

RE: Dutch Christians & Muslims Were Against the Film
By wien on 3/24/2008 5:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be projecting a lot of opinions on to me that I can't even begin to identify with. I'm not saying any of this behavior is acceptable. Where on earth did you get that idea?

What I'm trying to do is getting people to recognize the real reasons for radicalism instead of making huge sweeping statements about the religion as a whole. This isn't some inherent evil in the religion itself. It's about people acting like people do when stuck in certain situations. I'm just sick and tired of having everyone up the contrast on these issues until everything is black and white. The world doesn't work like that.

By masher2 on 3/24/2008 5:31:01 PM , Rating: 3
I recognize what you're trying to do, but I believe you're missing the crucial point. You're saying that the root cause of extremism in these nations isn't Islam, but rather poverty, lack of education, etc, yes?

However, I submit that the endemic poverty and poor education are a result of the religion. They're inextricably tied, and not simply coincidental.

At one point, the Muslim world was at least as scientifically and technologically advanced as the Christian one. But the spread of humanism in the Western world allowed us to throw off the yoke of Fundamentalism and progress to the modern age. Heavily Muslim nations, however, are still trapped in the past...due in large part to their religious beliefs.

By nah on 3/25/2008 2:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
the spread of humanism in the Western world allowed us to throw off the yoke of Fundamentalism and progress to the modern age.

that is slightly vague---the Western world clicked off with the Renaissance--but learning and human rights were not coupled together. France in the 1700s had a pretty dismal record of human rights, yet people like Diderot and D'Alembert were compiling the Encyclopadie .Also all Western nations did not achieve the same levels of political freedom --eg women were not allowed to vote in England until the 1920s. The colonial empires of the Western nations subjugated the colonised peoples pretty ruthlessly--Leopold III of Belgium pretty much used the Congo as his personal fiefdom, depopulating entire villages to get money to biuld his palaces---unless of course by humanism--you mean subjugation of 'inferior' races by 'superior' one ;)

By abzillah on 3/25/2008 5:13:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think you need a reality check. The majority of Muslims here in the united states are middle class citizens. Many of the engineers, doctors, computer software and hardware engineers and other professionals are Muslim. I myself have eight brothers, I have four brothers in collage and three who have already finished. I have six sisters who have finished collage. My religion tells me to get educated and be a global citizen. As a Muslim, your point has no base of evidence.
You talk about "Humanism", what humanism are you talking about with 80000-500000 Iraqi's killed from this war with Saddam, who we, gave weapons to in 1979 to fight Iran.
So, please learn about Islam first before you open your mouth.

By robinthakur on 3/25/2008 7:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly you haven't been to Dubai recently have you? That is a much more relaxed form of Islam (and Turkey too) which while still inherently Muslim, understands that business, enterprise and tourism are better ways to promote the muslim culture instead of suicide bombing and suppression of free speech. Even in Dubai, Abu Dhabi etc. there are limits. Overt homosexuality is illegal (kissing publicly, holding hands etc.) and if you were to criticise the Sheikhs (rulers) or really badly criticise Islam you would probably be thrown in jail or deported. However for a Muslim country, that's actually pretty reserved, and the good points outweigh the bad. There were so many westerners there and it was so full of life I just want to go back now :(

Other more backward (Yes they are backward and still literally interpretting a book written hundreds of years ago, much like some christians) states in the region should take a leaf out of Dubai's book. Listen and learn Saudi Arabia, Iran and others. I think they are just bored personally. It gets really hot out there, and if you're not educated in anything other than religion/don't have a proper job/knowledge of the outside world then I'm not surprised that they get really worked up when someone offends their religion. They've got nothing better to do!

The solution is not self censorship here in any way shape or form, because that takes away more of our hard fought rights. This Dutch politician might represent many Dutch people's beliefs and feelings and many more worldwide. Who is to say that their feelings shouldn't be articulated? They don't live in Saudi Arabia! Stopping people from speaking freely only creates a bottleneck of emotion. From what we see in the media in the west, this violent image is what Muslims create for themselves, it is not simply imagined. Remember the director Theo van Gogh and that he was skewered to the pavement for daring to make a film about Islam. Unfortunately too many people are terrified of what will happen if they criticise Islam in public, its not that they don't want to offend. I respect his fortitude to lay his life on the line for his beliefs if nothing else.

As an ironic aside, America's ignorance, naivette and gung ho attitude in the middle east has hurt its economy far more seriously than 9/11 or Al Q, ever could have hoped to. Maybe that was their plan all along, they do seem pretty smart for people living in caves...

By hcahwk19 on 3/24/2008 5:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
There was a time when Islam was very powerful and rich and considered very educated. Of course, that was nearly a thousand years ago. As Islam spread from Arabia into Europe, it not only brought some medical and scientific advances to Europe, but it also preserved what it found along the way. The problem during that time was that although Islam had and kept these advances, it was very ruthless in its proliferation into Europe. At one time, Baghdad was a great medical center, in middle ages terms, but still a medical center. You can see the architectural influence all over Europe (and there is still a Muslim province in Spain called the Basque Region). But as Islam spread a thousand years ago, it killed thousands upon thousands of people, both Christian and non-Christian, ruthlessly, just as it does today. When the Muslims made their way into northwestern Europe, northern Spain, Northern France, and England, they finally met resistance from Christians who could actually stand up to the power of Islam. This is what started the Crusades. The Crusades were a retaliation and counterattack to the spread of Islam into northern Europe. The Christians drove the Muslims back to the Middle East out of fear of annihilation. Yeah, it is widely taught that the Christian Crusaders were violent and ruthless, and they probably were, but that was only in response to what they were facing.
Islam is an inherently violent religion, and has been for over a thousand years. Even today, those that are bent on world domination, still look to the West as the Crusaders. The events today are merely a more modern version, kind of a Crusades 2.0, and unfortunately, most in the West do not see it. Israel sees it, because they have had to put up with the crap since 1947. Those Muslims that hate the rest of the world (and there are lots of them) are in a way envious of what We have. When Israel was created in 1947, and the Jews started moving there, that area was all arid desert. As the Jews came in, they began to irrigate the land and, alas, the region became an oasis. At first, the Arabs loved it, but as the area became more and more habitable (and consequently more and more Jews showed up), they became more envious of what the Jews brought to the area. For centuries, the land there was desert and brutal. Yet, in just a few short years, the Israelis had created a very livable environment.
Instead of really looking to the Israelis for help, learning the techniques used to improve the land, the pride of the Muslims have prevented them from progressing with the times, especially in the past 50 years. Instead of embracing what is around them, they have rejected it, and want to destroy those who brought the abundance to the land.
In a way, what we should do is to tell Israel that we are creating a new Israel here in the US (you know, give them a state like Idaho or Vermont or something). Give the current Israel over to the Muslims, along with the all the technologies there, and move all Jews to the new Israeli state. Then we will see just how "peaceful" Islam really is. We will pull all military and economic help from the region, as we won't have the need to protect Israel anymore. That way, both the Little Satan, and the Great Satan can live together, here in the US. I can guarantee 100% that the bullcrap we are going through will not end, but only shift from there to here even more, because the Muslims will have to have something to whine and fight about. It will not end until either all non-Muslims (whether part of a religious group or not) are eliminated from the planet, or all Muslims are gone. That is the only way it will happen. Islam has been trying to take over the world for a millenia, and nothing will change.

By almared on 3/26/2008 6:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Islam is an inherently violent religion" I'm sorry for you mate but you are really dumb and I can't say more because you know nothing about history. Anyway, I get one thing from all these comments, you don't know anything and you come making points and arguments. I'm tired of explaining simple things that you fail to know or even understand. You see someone blow himself and you say "hey, he was a Muslim, let's blame it on Islam" You are so Ignorant that you fail to understand anything but what you thing is correct. Go watch at least a documentary or anything that explains what Islam is and that has at least a proper name rather than the word "Anti-islam" or any other ridiculous name. Try to be fair and not base you judgments on bias information or thing you heard or felt true. This is a religion that has been around for hundreds of years and millions follow it. Do you think that 2 billion person would still follow a religion that says what you think it says.

Just try to listen to the other side instead of making judgments from one side and I'm not denying that many "crazy" people are acting in a way that makes everybody hate Islam. But again look at the real cause.

By Stublore on 3/26/2008 9:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually he seems quite right. If you cannot bother to correct someone and merely say they are wrong, it reflects more on you than it does on the person you are criticising.
What does islam mean?
It means submission, even the violence inherent in your religion is spelt out in the name!
If a person blows themselves up, and leaves a video about why he did it, and says it's because he is going to heaven to get 72 virigns, and he is doing it for allah(often also the last words he utters), where does the blame lay? First with the idiot who blew himself up for a fairytale, then with the religion which was inclculcated into him since birth, and told him that would be his reward.

RE: Cowardice
By Master Kenobi on 3/24/2008 1:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, Islam is getting special treatment. That needs to stop and people in the Western world need to grow a pair and tell them to grow up and deal with it. Unfortunately I don't see this happening for several decades.

RE: Cowardice
By therealnickdanger on 3/24/2008 1:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
By then Islam will have gained further foothold in every level of government, further repressing anti-Islamic speech (true or not), and it will be too late. The "impending" Judeo-Christian theocracy so many on the left claim to be fighting will be replaced - but not by some fruity, diverse, multi-cultural love-in, but by a Islamo-fascist regime that will sneak up behind them via the very channels of tolerance that they so virtuously uphold.

RE: Cowardice
By charliee on 3/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Cowardice
By hcahwk19 on 3/24/2008 1:39:51 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. All I have to say to these cowards who are supposedly getting their feelings hurt over criticism is welcome to the daily world of the Catholic Church. If there is a religious group that has been misconstrued as much as the Catholic Church is constantly (especially in the U.S.), I have yet to find one. I am not saying the Church is perfect, because by no means has it been historically. It has made very human mistakes in the past, as we are only human. But it does take the time every so often to step back and reevaluate what is going on within the Church, as well as the rest of the world. It is not conducive to change, but change does happen.

It is time for the Muslims to take the time to step back and reevaluate what they are doing, as the religion is an incubator of violence. Islam has been getting special treatment from liberals in the media and government the world over for the last 45 years. The world has tried time and again to appease Muslims, in efforts to create peace in the Middle East. But it appears to me (and history shows it) that the only thing Muslims understand is violence, even within Islam itself. I have come to see that until the Islamic "House of War" is either eradicated, or worse, rules the world, we will never have peace, especially in the Middle East. We have among us, a religious sect that is hell-bent on world domination, and will kill anyone, including its own, that dares to stand against it. IT is one that has declared its intention to eliminate Israel from the Earth, as well as the United States. These people are willing to kill themselves in order to accomplish their aspirations. They truly believe they will go to heaven and get 72 virgins if they kill themselves and take out even innocent people around them, because no one is innocent in their minds, except themselves. The Western world needs to wake up to the facts and history of Islam and take a stand against it. We did the same thing with Hitler and look at what happened there.

RE: Cowardice
By FITCamaro on 3/24/2008 2:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's only getting special treatment because currently those who don't like seeing it mocked are blowing things up over it and killing people.

But it's a peaceful religion....

I agree with you though.

RE: Cowardice
By kappakappa on 3/24/2008 2:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
The statement about Islam getting special treatment, I'd have to disagree.

Any muslim caught in a criminal act is punished as severely (or perhaps even more severely) than any caucasian for the same offense.

Perhaps you were referring only to this particular case, not the entire Islam.

No one has forced Geert Wilders to shut up about the movie. However, several muslim preachers that preach hateful speech have been sent back to their own country.

Point is, from someone who actually lives in The Netherlands, I'm still seeing equal treatment here.

RE: Cowardice
By Master Kenobi on 3/24/2008 3:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Islam" as a faith, is given special treatment. Not Muslims who believe in it. I think you missed the point. People do not wish to "offend Islam" and censor things, yet I see no such thing done for Christianity, Judaism, Catholacism, Mormons, Hindu, Buddhism, etc....

I'm not talking about the individual followers of the faiths, I'm talking about the faith as an entity in and of itself.

RE: Cowardice
By kappakappa on 3/24/2008 3:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
I hadn't missed the point, seems you missed mine though. I have to admit, my wording was lacking.

When I said Geert Wilders hasn't been forced to shut up, I meant that his site isn't permanently taken down, but temporarily, to see if it violates the terms of service. It says it right there in this DT article. Screaming "Censorship!" before there has been a resolve is giving in to fear, don't you think?

I'd say that the site will be back up soon enough, if it holds up in court.

I won't go into comparing religions, but all I have to say about that is.. stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage.

RE: Cowardice
By Master Kenobi on 3/24/2008 3:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say that the site will be back up soon enough, if it holds up in court.

That's kind of the problem though. Even if it's "legal" the provider might decide to censor it anyways so as not to offend it's other clients. You think the ISP that owns several of the largest radical Islamic websites really wants to piss these guys off? I will be surprised if they put it back up after the dust settles.

RE: Cowardice
By wien on 3/24/2008 3:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
But why get all riled up and worry before you know for sure what happens? Let the situation play out and if it turns sour, get upset.

By Roy2001 on 3/24/2008 3:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
Several Islamic government have sought to ban materials criticizing Islam
Why islam can't be criticized? Can someone tell me why?

By JustTom on 3/24/2008 4:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
Because they blow things up when they are.

By JonB on 3/24/2008 4:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
because "We" are afraid of them and their reactions.

Think of the previous world-wide bullies. An earlier post used the term "poking the bear." That has been used to describe old Soviet Russia, Israel, even the United States. The Roman Empire at its peak was unforgiving of criticism.

When a group gets a reputation for lashing out and hurting others for offenses that may seem trivial or for actions that seem wildly disproportionate to the offense, we call them bullies. We avoid them. We look the other way. We ultimately give up some of our freedoms to gain some illusory peace.

Eventually, the bully gets its *ss kicked. I hope I live to see it.

By johnsonx on 3/24/2008 5:34:03 PM , Rating: 3
get rid of bold

By johnsonx on 3/24/2008 5:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
didn't work

By just4U on 3/24/2008 6:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
hmm turned everything bold below the post to, I know I've got a post lower down and I certainly didnt make it the way it looks now. What's with that? Some error or something?

By johnsonx on 3/25/2008 11:30:28 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, I thought just putting an end-bold code in my 'get rid of bold' post would do it, but it didn't (then in the second one I tried a bold on and then two end-bolds... no help). KK or one of his minions has fixed it now, so no worries.

By FITCamaro on 3/24/2008 12:31:21 PM , Rating: 1
Network Solutions hosts the website of Hezbollah, a Palestinian organization labeled by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization

Ah so a video of one's views is offensive and objectionable but a terrorist organization is perfectly acceptable. If I had a website hosted by Network Solutions, I'd be finding a new service provider.

RE: Amazing
By omnicronx on 3/24/2008 12:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think the moral of the story here is; don't poke the bear...

Sure technically freedom of speech means you should be able to say pretty much whatever you want.. but after the trouble the Netherlands was already in from the comic, do they really need any more bad press?

This guy is probably using the situation for fame, nothing more, and putting an entire country at risk is stupid in my opinion.

RE: Amazing
By boogle on 3/24/2008 12:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
This guy is probably using the situation for fame, nothing more, and putting an entire country at risk is stupid in my opinion.

I doubt he's putting the entire country at risk tbh, the Netherlands are part of NATO therefore any official attack on them is an attack on all of NATO. The most that can be done is an Islamic extremist murdering this guy - while he's under police protection.

It's a messy situation - but the second you stop defending free speech you'll lose it. The terrorists (in this case) win. Never, ever, negotiate or bow down to terrorists or you'll become a dirty great target.

RE: Amazing
By wien on 3/24/2008 12:56:29 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, but what risk? What danger was there really because of the Muhammad cartoons when that happened? Other than some disturbance and property damage was it really that bad here in Europe? Are we so frail we can't even take that these days?

This is all media hype feeding the rampant fear of terrorism running wild these days. You're in more danger of being killed by a falling coconut than being killed by a terrorist, so why let these issues prevent you from voicing your opinion? Why do people let these comparatively minor incidents scare them so much?

RE: Amazing
By robinthakur on 3/25/2008 7:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
in more danger of being killed by a falling coconut than being killed by a terrorist, so why let these issues prevent you from voicing your opinion

Probably because a coconut won't shoot you when you're riding your bike and then skewer you to the pavement like poor old Theo Van Gogh. I think that scared alot in the media witless and since then there's been a policy of appeasement from those weak (or sensible) enough to be intimidated by this act of barbarism.

By Jaricketts on 3/24/2008 1:08:26 PM , Rating: 4
Wasn't it a Danish paper that got in all the hot water over the cartoon? I know some other countries reprinted it, but didn't it originate in Denmark?

RE: Hmm
By Master Kenobi on 3/24/2008 1:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, as has been stated here in another post, it originated in Denmark.

The Freedom of Speech argument
By kappakappa on 3/24/2008 2:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that politicians have an authoritarian role. Children watch them much like parents and teachers, therefore they have a function that shows example for children. This Wilders guy insults and uses vulgar language, which isn't what you would want your daughter to hear from her teacher, would you? At least make an attempt at professional subtilty.

But alas, back to the point.

Freedom of speech was not given the finger here, because no law disallowed the hosting, it was a provider that preferred to not do so and AFAIK they have every right to say what they host, no one can force them to do so. It is also against the law to publically speak towards something will encourage unlawful action. This might not hold in court, though, when it comes to this movie. Therefore I can see this ban being undone soon. Also, this man actually has tried to alter the first article in the constitution that protects people against discriminating acts as well as not allowing any muslim preaching whatsoever in their own language. There lies the hypocrisy in using the freedom of speech card.

This man has been voted for in politics by people with little reason. He cannot do a thing. People that voted for him want any muslim out of the country. This means altering a large portion of the constitution. One guy isn't going to accomplish such an irrational move, therefore he can't do a thing for his voters. This is pretty much why he has lowered himself to petty insults to muslims as well as theatrical appearances such as the Fitna movie.

RE: The Freedom of Speech argument
By djade on 3/24/2008 2:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
kids will see and hear what they see and hear at schools, from friends, from tv, from the internet. sorry, you're not going to be able to prevent that from happening. i wouldn't want my teacher to tell me who to hate, though this is done in some parts of the country. and as far as wielder wanting every muslim out of his country, well, that's his business to feel as he does and with the non-clout he has that you speak of, he won't be able to make that happen and his non-clout movie shouldn't be a big deal to you but it is a fact that powerful people, heads on nations in some middle eastern countries, for example, don't believe israel exists, denounce it and would like to blow it off the map! SCARY. that's the kind of scary you should protect children from.

By plaasjaapie on 3/24/2008 2:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
"Freedom of speech was not given the finger here, because no law disallowed the hosting, it was a provider that preferred to not do so and AFAIK they have every right to say what they host, no one can force them to do so."

Actually, NSI has no such right as such. If they were a purely private enterprise, I'd agree with you, but they aren't.

The domain registration part of their business, which is most of their business, they got as a single bidder from the National Science Foundation back in the late 1970's.

They're a monopoly, and what's worse, a US government created one at that. They were sold for $21 billion last year with the value of that company almost entirely due to their monopoly status. They also weathered an international challenge to their monopoly on the basis of their even-handedness.

They've just shown the world big-time that that claim was a fraud. They're going to have the devil's own time fighting off another effort at their dissolution now.

I supported NSI last time.

Unless they clean up their act, chop chop, and fire the idiot(s) who pulled this blatant piece of idiocy with maximum publicity I will be supporting their dissolution when the next such challenge come.

By pav2pav on 3/24/2008 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
I see nothing wrong for anyone to have a website showing how barbaric filthy perverted islam really is.

RE: islam
By TerranMagistrate on 3/24/2008 2:05:11 PM , Rating: 1

Most non-muslims in this world are almost totally ignorant to the true nature of Islam. And in due time, this ignorance will cost us dearly.

Religion of peace? That peace is reserved for the muslim only. That's why you don't see muslims demonstrate and riot after major terror attacks and such. Hell, many applaud and celebrate such atrocities.

The ultimate goal of Islam is world domination. To spread by the sword. That would be hell on earth and perhaps WILL be if we continue to remain complacent to this overwhelming threat.

RE: islam
By just4U on 3/24/2008 2:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
If by some chance this film was saying go out and kill every muslim you can find, Or fire them from their jobs, pull them from their homes and beat them senseless, burn the mosque's (ect ect ect)

Then I'd agree, it should not be aired and the Islamic comunity would have a right to be up in arms over it. But the film supposedly only criticizes what it believes to be a barbaric religion..

Considering that many radical islamic sects do go to the extremes it makes you wonder.. They get all bent out of shape when something minor is portrayed against them and yet are perfectly fine about preaching true hate and showing barbaric acts of their own accross the internet.. Odd isn't it? They don't play by our rules but do use them against us even in the most trivial of things.

Islam is growing though
By akram on 3/25/2008 1:45:41 PM , Rating: 1
Despite all the hatred about Islam from some people, I share with you some facts
1- Islam is the most well-spread religion in the world from Day 1 of Islam .
2- Prophet Mohamed is the most influential person ever lived on earth.
3- Prophet Mohamed is the most beloved person ever lived on o earth.

These are facts.

RE: Islam is growing though
By Stublore on 3/25/2008 2:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
Here are some facts I would like to share with you:
1)islam was spread by the sword, from almost DAY 1!, not by gentle acceptance and replacement of other religious beliefs.
2)Actually he is not, there are a great many people who have had more of an influence, i.e Copernicus,Louis Pasteur,Thomas Edison and many others have had more and a better influence on the lives of people, than a raving madman ever had.
3)As regards beloved, well anyone who extols the virtues of a Paedophile has a very skewed idea of what makes a person worthy of being loved. Personally I think that sort of person is scum of the earth, not someone to be looked up to and emulated, but someone who should be vilified and an example of what NOT to aspire to. It is amazing how many "revelations" mo the paedo had which specifically allowed him to live by a different set of rules than those around him, one rule for me, another for the rest of you does not make you beloved, if you rule with an iron fist, as he did, it makes you feared by your followers, and shows to those who are not under the hammer what a hypocrite you are.
These are some of the facts. :)

RE: Islam is growing though
By Stublore on 3/25/2008 2:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
Here are some facts I would like to share with you:
1)islam was spread by the sword, from almost DAY 1!, not by gentle acceptance and replacement of other religious beliefs.
2)Actually he is not, there are a great many people who have had more of an influence, i.e Copernicus,Louis Pasteur,Thomas Edison and many others have had more and a better influence on the lives of people, than a raving madman ever had.
3)As regards beloved, well anyone who extols the virtues of a Paedophile has a very skewed idea of what makes a person worthy of being loved. Personally I think that sort of person is scum of the earth, not someone to be looked up to and emulated, but someone who should be vilified and an example of what NOT to aspire to. It is amazing how many "revelations" mo the paedo had which specifically allowed him to live by a different set of rules than those around him, one rule for me, another for the rest of you does not make you beloved, if you rule with an iron fist, as he did, it makes you feared by your followers, and shows to those who are not under the hammer what a hypocrite you are.
These are some of the facts. :)

By ElFenix on 3/24/2008 1:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
He may actually be right. Dutch officials fear that the film may spark violent protests worldwide. This may lead them to ban its distribution. Free speech in the U.S. is currently solely limited against making statements that would incite imminent lawless action (i.e. riots) as defined by the case Brandeburg v. Ohio. Similar limits to free speech exist throughout much of Europe, much to the chagrin of free speech advocates. As the video may spark worldwide lawlessness, the government may see it fit to block the video.

This paragraph seems to wander around all over the place. The sentence about the US is out of place there.

Here is a tip: before posting the article, read it out loud once or twice.

RE: what
By Shoal07 on 3/26/2008 9:07:25 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Also "speech in the U.S. is currently solely limited against making statements that would incite imminent lawless action (riots) as defined by the case Brandeburg v. Ohio" is not an accurate statement. For one, it doesn't define itself. If I run around a public area, screaming fire, and a riot results, I am criminally liable. However, if I write a book, and a riot results from the ideas in my book, I am *not* criminally liable. It's a different type of speech, and one is protected, one is not. Finally, there are other limitations on free speech, like "fighting words" (yes, that's the legal term), which are not protected speech.

Please don't try to make broad, sweeping staements about laws you clearly don't understand and barely research. The US legal system has no bearing on this case, especially because it is a CIVIL issue between two parties, and it involves a CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. In no way is this CONSTITUTIONAL or CRIMINAL.

Freedom of speech
By Speakyourmind on 3/24/2008 1:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for freedom of speech but the Dutch government does not need to provide a racist with protection. If Wilder wants to show his movie let him face public opinion. I am pretty sure we wont have to hear from him for long.

RE: Freedom of speech
By theapparition on 3/24/2008 2:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for freedom of speech but the Dutch government does not need to provide a racist with protection.

But that's exactly what freedom of speech is supposed to protect. Freedom of speech not only protects things you like to hear, but also things you don't. That includes racist rants, flag burning and yes, even religious diatribes.

In any event, this is not about freedom of speech, it is about an ISP not allowing content on thier network. Now, if the government stepped in and demanded the content be removed, then that would be a freedom of speech issue.

free speech and criticism
By djade on 3/24/2008 1:37:17 PM , Rating: 4
So if I insult you or any member of your family then you should do nothing according to your free speech. You can't insult other people's religion and call it free speech!!! Religion for Muslims is as important as their families.

Some Muslims are radical. Some Christians are radical. Can you imagine if we had a population of people, countries full of skin heads and David Duke types calling on the Christian community to have the heads of all Muslims? That would be without a question, insane. Why is it ok for Muslims to call on its people to kill innocent people, foreigners and those more specifically not of THEIR religion. You have a right to worship whichever religion you see fit but you do not have a right to kill anyone. Death threats are crossing the line, speaking your mind isn't. It's ok to criticize and if you can't stand the criticism, get out of the kitchen - back off and let the intelligent evolved people take a stab at fighting back with words, not machetes and guns.

Freedom of insulting
By akram on 3/25/2008 1:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a quote from the Quran that this film is trying to disgrace. and here is a translation

"And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allâh, lest they insult Allâh wrongfully without knowledge Thus We have made fair­seeming to each people its "own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do"
and to this date Muslims do not insult any religion what so ever. Is this hatred or respecting? you judge

Another quote
O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done

There is a difference between freedom of speech and insulting for example if you do not like people who eat something (disgusting for you maybe) and you want to approach this issue there are to ways by insulting or by showing facts and let other judge it.
1- These who eat (something) are the most disgusting people on earth and they must not live as human being......
2- Eating (something )is a bad habit and not a healthy way of living. There are several reasons for that ....... At the end, Eating (something)is not recommended.
Who is practicing the freedom of speech. One is freedom of insulting. Two is freedom of speech. So respect your rights by not insulting.
Another quote
"And by the Mercy of Allâh, you dealt with them gently And had you been severe and harsh­hearted, they would have broken away from about you; so pass over (their faults), and ask (Allâh's) Forgiveness for them; and consult them in the affairs Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allâh, certainly, Allâh loves those who put their trust (in Him)" Please read Quran it is a beautiful book.

The film just did number one by judging Islam is evil and Muslims are terrorists. He did not put conclusion but you can draw it with ease (kill all Muslims or put them in all jail). Is this freedom of speech? It is 100% not. It is 100% insulting and carelessness = 100% spreading hate and problems. What to expect from Millions to react?

RE: Freedom of insulting
By Stublore on 3/25/2008 11:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
The film just did number one by judging Islam is evil and Muslims are terrorists....What to expect from Millions to react?

Wow! You have actually seen the film? I rather think you have not and are lying, therefore anything you say about a film no-one has seen can be disregarded. What do I expect? Based on past experience lots of irrational action, burnings, threats of violence and fatwa's!!!!
As regards your quote from the koran, can you explain the following 2 islamic concepts, Taqiyya, and Abrogation?
Here is a newsflash, just because you believe something, does not mean I have to believe it, nor does it mean I have to respect it, merely because you say so! In the West there is a long tradition of freedom of expression and satire, even of religion, and while you may not agree with it you will simply have to accept that that is how civilised people deal with ridiculous ideas, not by behadings, not by fatwa's not by stifling of debate, but rationally, peacefully, and quite often FUNNILY.
And your wild assertion that all muslims are evil and should be killed is what is called a "Strawman argrument", look it up. Nowhere is this said or implied considering the film as of this moment has not been seen by anyone . However it is a fact that the koran is a hatefilled, misogynistic,anti-semetic, barbarous, wildly inaccurate as regards facts and science collection of the wildest tales(Jinns, talking plants,sun setting in a pond,flying horses etc), attributed to what in todays term s would be a Paedophiliac Psychopath, yet in a mindblowing reversal of morals, mo is held to be the epitome of all that is good in a person, now that's perverted.

By mollyrambo57 on 3/24/2008 2:29:54 PM , Rating: 1

By SiN on 3/25/2008 8:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
you left caps on.

By plaasjaapie on 3/24/2008 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
My jaw hit the ground when I heard that NSI had actually precensored a domain name and it's associated website. The company's whole existence over the years has depended on its acting in an even-handed manner in domain name registrations.

Once you start precensoring and censoring domain names it's impossible to stop. How can get banned and, for example, not also get banned.

The people who did this massively idiotic move need job retraining to the tune of learning how to say "do you want fries with that?"

selective enforcement:
By Manch on 3/24/2008 3:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
From the article:
The website has since been taken down, and a note is posted stating that Network Solutions, the U.S. based service provider, is investigating whether the site violates its terms of service.

Network Solutions hosts the website of Hezbollah, a Palestinian organization labeled by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.

While the company could not be reached for comment, its terms of service do include a broad provision banning, " objectionable material of any kind or nature ."

The issue here is they have taken down this site but allow hezbollah's site to continue. They are selectively applying there own terms of service.

By there very own definition: "objectionable material of any kind or nature ." Neither of those sites should be allowed.

I have some suggestions to help them outby removing any websites that have objectionable material including but not limited to:

American idol
CSI Miami
lifetime channel
Britney Spears
the Olsen Twins
people who dress up as japanese anime characters
global warming
The letter "Y" as a vowel

feel free to add your own list of things that offend you. We can send the compiled list to them!

By pav2pav on 3/24/2008 5:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
What boggles my mind is everytime muslims are offended by somthing done by the west they march in their streets pounding their heads and chest til they bleed, shoot their AK-47's in the air(which i would have to beleive what comes up must come down) the bullets they shoot in the air rain down on their own childeren killing or wounding them. Whacky religion. Allah Ahkbar?!?! Hah! Islam is 3rd world.

fitna in youtube
By josealexandrecroca on 3/24/2008 7:27:19 PM , Rating: 2

must see (being very seriuos)

By Segerstein on 3/24/2008 8:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
As soon as not "insulting" the prophet is more important than freedom of expression - welcome to living under Sharia!

They win. Sharia wins. Geert Wilders should be allowed to air his movie. Muslims can go berzerk. The sooner the better, since their share of population is only increasing. We have to tell them, that if they want to put Sharia over out constitutionally guaranteed human rights, they have to change the constitution by peaceful means. This usually amounts to getting 2/3 of votes in parliament.

But not, they want to bully us into submission. Well, islam is an Arabic word for submission.

A interesting View
By just4U on 3/24/2008 10:32:39 PM , Rating: 2

This list's all 12 parts of a series called Fitna. It might not be the one that we are reading about and discussing here on DailyTech but after being on these forums I decided to do a little digging.

It kept me tuned in right thru all parts. While I don't quite know what to make of the film it does give you alot to think about. It's laid out in a very reasonable fashion (like the documentaries your most likely usedd to watching)

1 april joke
By DingieM on 3/25/2008 5:57:14 AM , Rating: 2
It is increasingly likely that the film will be a 1 april joke.
As far as media attention goes, Geert Wilders already has the attention he wants.

But, I want a special South Park episode with him in it! And especially his hair style :-)
Maybe that is what he wants too!!

Not so bad
By SiN on 3/25/2008 8:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
ok, wso i checked Youtube an beleive i found the video, which is two part... i cant see a link in it to racism or anti-islamic hate. all i see is a clear distinction between a terrorist and an islamic person, which i think bodes well for the islamic people, as media has linked them to terrorism because of "some" "islamic terrorists". the documentry actually states that if your a terrorist your not islamic.

I dont know much about Geert wilders but it doesn't seem to be a bad video. Anyone want to clear anything up for me?

By PeanutR on 3/25/2008 8:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
There seems to be some confusion about Holland and Denmark. Two things have happened that have gotten strong responses:

- The drawings printed in a Danish newspaper (not a Dutch one as stated here: )

- The film by Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders.

I don't know whether there were actually protests outside of Dutch embassies in response to the Danish drawings (as stated here), but it makes sense that protests would primarily be directed at Danish embassies.

Sorry for nitpicking, but this whole film affair could escalate even further, so I thought I'd try to clear up the mixups now :)

islam is still not a race!!
By Stublore on 3/25/2008 9:50:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm very much against Geert Wilders and racism in general.

Somebody should tell that idiot that islam is not a race!
Race inasmuch as it exists is a genetic factor, religion is always a choice, therefore cannot ever be considered racial. But then such obfuscations and hijacking of meanings are typical of the religious.
As regards taking down the site, it seems another example of pandering to the (violent) muslims. It seems they(Network Solutions) have no problem with with islamic hate, but criticising, or even the idea that islam should or could be criticised, it seems is too far beyond the pale to be countenanced.

Truth or Consequences
By twnorows on 3/25/2008 12:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
"... objectionable material of any kind or nature."

To arbitrarily lump "objectionable material" and "TRUTH" together is an abomination. TRUTH should ALWAYS trump OBJECTIONABLE, otherwise we allow ourselves to be victims of censorship.

And what, exactly, is 'objectionable'? Does it mean that the 'wholier-than-thou' ragheads can't take the heat of others who truthfully and honestly identify their hypocracy so these grovelers resort to whining and complaining about the truth of the situation being broadcast to a wide audience -- and all they can say is that they find "objectionable"??

(notice that nowhere did they say it was untrue, just "objectionable").

Well HOO-RAH! live with it you sand fleas. When you start acting like real human beings, instead of suppressing women, and trying to kill everyone else who doesn't share your myopic, cranial-rectal ideology,... then - just maybe, you'll start getting some respect from the rest of us who are clear thinkers.

But until that happens, I have no compassion or tolerance for religious zealots who strap bombs on children to wage a RACIST holy war with everyone else on the planet. You're all just a bunch of racist, bigoted pieces of camel dung, and frankly -- I find you all ... (what's the word?), oh yes:


As Shakespeare said in one of this works, "me thinks that thou protests too much". Maybe because it's true? And their doctrine/ideology HARDLY qualifies as a true religion. Their deity is in his grave as a collection of rotting bones. However, the grave of Jesus Christ is empty. Nobody else's "god" has EVER come back from the grave. Not only are they hypocrates, they also have been swindled with lies and falsehoods about their so-called "god".

And to put "objectionable" into perspective, I consider Al G(wh)ore's fictional movie to be "objectionable material" because opinion - rather than truth - has been used to manipulate people. This guy [(wh)ore] is the ultimate hypocrate who has a wooden castle for a house and uses more electricity in a month than most readers use in two years. Further, he flies on a polluting private jet (instead of regular air) to promote his visual lies. Pretty Objectionable to me. How about you??

10th century religion
By phxfreddy on 3/25/2008 11:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
talk about backwards. I'm atheist so I think all religions are similar to talk about Santa Claus. Even with FEDEX Santa can't get the job done. Neither can Moohamhead. Only problem is Islam is the only religion where they're going around cutting off peoples farkin heads. Thus I brand it a backward silly fake religion more made up than Mormanism!

By Fly1ngSqu1rr3l on 3/29/2008 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Complaint: Posting videos about Muslims being involved in beheadings, terrorism, and violence is simply not true...and if you do so, we're going to put out a death notice on you and cut your f**king head off!

I don't see any crowds of otherwise peaceful Muslims protesting the clearly violent, angry, riot-inciting statements made by people claiming to be Muslims. However, as soon as a cartoon, video, etc points out the evil deeds done by these self-proclaimed Muslims, you sure do see a lot of people from both sides coming out to protest.

I'm putting this on my short list of recent stupidity...

Crude Oil prices are skyrocketing, so we're sorry, but we the oil companies are forced to pass these costs along to you. I hope you understand and good luck in Iraq. Oh, by the way, we're posting record profits in the BILLIONS this year. Sorry about the high gas prices.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller
Related Articles
Pakistan Unblocks YouTube
February 27, 2008, 10:01 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki