Internet Censorship Continues Due to "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day"

reply to post by UberL33t


I agree, and offered to respect his opinion as an opinion and nothing more than an opinion pages ago.

To me this is a morality issue as much as it is a conspiracy issue, but I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Traditional Drummer just has a hard time understanding his opinions aren't fact.

He has trouble respecting other's opinions too based on a sliding scale of evidentiary standards that he fails to employ in consistent and reliable ways.

He is in no better position to prove these events aren't a conspiracy than I am currently able to prove they are.

The difference simply is that he will never be one to ever uncover a conspiracy, while I am someone who will.

He will end up being a victim of manipulation, while I won't.

He will end up being twice the victim of that manipulation because he lacks the ability to consider or investigate how and why he is being manipulated.

This is what makes it a morality issue, as there is to much manipulation in the world, that is aimed at making people confrontational for divide and conquer warfare purposes, and 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, the Constitution in the Trash, and at war for 10 straight years, with unfettered immigration, and dishonest political parties, and predatory corporations bankrupting the nation and tearing us apart at the seems, we really can't take much more divide and conquer manipulation.

So it's an important issue, and an important point to illustrate as far as getting people to open up their eyes, and stop being so darn trusting, in things that are in fact manipulated by mass media and the big corporations, and everything involved in Draw Mohahmed Today has been a mass media manipulation and promotion.

Pretty basic stuff really.

I will always cordially agree to disagree with someone who has the ability to honestly and cordially do that.

Thanks.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
By the way, I started playing the drums at 8 in the Third Grade, I started the class 12 weeks into the school year, and finished that years class 2 and a half books ahead of the rest of the class that had a 12 week head start.

That's really cool, dude. Do you still play? I do. Back in the 90s I was in a moderately successful band that I still get fan mail from. I have two bands now and occasionally do some studio work with some of the guys in Sugarland (I grew up with one of the guys, neither of us really like country music). I can't seem to quit playing.

That's me your debate opponent, and it's truly no shame to agree to disagree, and you might also notice, you aren't exactly talking to a Jihadist!

Visible Technologies Gets Funding To Help The CIA Monitor Social Media

Given that social networks, particularly Twitter, have quickly evolved into conduits for breaking news about civil unrest, terrorist attacks and other major events, it’s a no-brainer to think that the C.I.A. would want to invest in an existing listening platform, or perhaps license the technology to create one of its own. So In-Q-Tel’s choice to invest in Visible Technologies, over competitors like BuzzLogic or Overtone, could be a nod to the company’s superior technology. (That, or the government made Visible Technologies an offer it couldn’t refuse).

paidcontent.org...

David J. Moore Chairman and Founder of 24/7 Real Media

Mr. Moore is a compelling speaker and seasoned executive with expertise in all facets of the digital advertising industry. He currently serves as Vice Chair for the Interactive Advertising Bureau and has been a member on the board since 2002. Throughout his career, Mr. Moore has held positions at companies such as Turner Broadcasting and Viacom. He co-founded Petry Interactive, which eventually became 24/7 Real Media. Mr. Moore has served as a director of Local Matters, Inc., a provider of internet, voice and wireless technology solutions, since March 2004 and as Chairman since March 2006. He also serves on the board of Our Stage and Auditudes, both early stage internet companies, the boar

www.visibletechnologies.com...

CIA Media Manipulation

Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation's businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950's. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the "Skull and Crossbones" Society. Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures.

The first tier of the nine giant firms that dominate the world are Time Warner/AOL, Disney/ABC, Bertelsmann, Viacom/CBS, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation/Fox, General Electric/NBC, Sony, Universal/Seagram, Tele-Communications, Inc. or TCI and AT&T. This is just the head of the octopus which has its second and third tier tentacles working together in unison or feigned division. This would include The Washington Post/Newsweek, The New York Times/Weekly Standard, Tribune Co., US News, Gannett/USA Today, Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Knight-Ridder, etcetera. Media propaganda tactics include blackouts, misdirections, expert opinions to echo the Establishment line, smears, defining popular opinions, mass entertainment distractions, and Hobson's Choice (the media presents the so-called conservative and liberal positions).

www.the7thfire.com...

Man, I could go on and on with this. Yes, I have been manipulated to provide data. So what. What this is showing us is that the conspiracy as laid out by Proto is very real indeed. Can we really believe that this event was carried out by some unknown on a whim that she got from watching Viacom's Southpark?

Edit to add, not to beat a dead horse but I did this while the truce was called. So disregard if you must but it is still interesting.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by jackflap]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
That's me your debate opponent, and it's truly no shame to agree to disagree, and you might also notice, you aren't exactly talking to a Jihadist!

Hey, good playing, bud! Love that Ludwig 4-piece. Very Buddy Rich of you. Keep up the good work

Your bass player's last name isn't "Jiles" by chance is it? He looks just like someone I know.

reply to post by jackflap

Man, I could go on and on with this. Yes, I have been manipulated to provide data. So what. What this is showing us is that the conspiracy as laid out by Proto is very real indeed. Can we really believe that this event was carried out by some unknown on a whim that she got from watching Viacom's Southpark?

Not without ignorning the very strong circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy involved here.

We have motive, we have opportunity, and we have the Big Six's fingerprints all over this puppy.

Chances of it not being all pre-planned, pre-orchestrated, and carried out following a well thought out plan that originated even before the South Park episode are slim to none in my estimation.

Might have been a little more believable as a random occurence had the 'artist' in question already had a well established identity on Face Book, but she didn't.

She simply turned to it, to create a Face Book identity for the very reason of promoting the plan.

I think it's a cute touch with her saying she was surprised by the reaction and disavowing herself from the campaign at the end.

But that too fits the mold as a throw away identidy can't really stick around now can it?

After all once James Bond kills the bad guy, and beds the damsel in distress he splits town doesn't he?

Thanks for posting that information.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
That's me your debate opponent, and it's truly no shame to agree to disagree, and you might also notice, you aren't exactly talking to a Jihadist!

Hey, good playing, bud! Love that Ludwig 4-piece. Very Buddy Rich of you. Keep up the good work

Your bass player's last name isn't "Jiles" by chance is it? He looks just like someone I know.

Actually it's a 5 piece with 16 and 18 inch floor toms with a 26 inch base drum John Bonham style.

No the bass players name is Billy, who is a frustrated Country Musician at heart, who thinks that everyone in America longs to dance to Brown Eyed Girl.

It is the Bass Players of the world that are the real threat to artistic freedom.

I could whole heartedly support a Draw a Bass Player Cartoon Day!

Thanks.

[edit on 24/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Death threats against the president is not a protected form of free speech.

Bad analogy.

''Protected free speech''. Did I hear that right ?
Speech is either free or there's regulations on it.
If you believe that death threats against the president should not be allowed, then you do not believe in free speech.
You believe in regulated speech, which rather makes your point regarding freedom of speech/expression in terms of the drawing of prophet Mohammad redundant and hypocritical.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Death threats against the president is not a protected form of free speech.

Bad analogy.

''Protected free speech''. Did I hear that right ?
Speech is either free or there's regulations on it.
If you believe that death threats against the president should not be allowed, then you do not believe in free speech.
You believe in regulated speech, which rather makes your point regarding freedom of speech/expression in terms of the drawing of prophet Mohammad redundant and hypocritical.

Incorrect. I believe in the freedom of speech, expression and press granted in the First Amendment. Death threats against the president are not protected under this clause. Drawing cartoons of Mohammed is.

Bad analogy.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Incorrect. I believe in the freedom of speech, expression and press granted in the First Amendment. Death threats against the president are not protected under this clause. Drawing cartoons of Mohammed is.

Bad analogy.

You believe in government and judicial rules and laws. You are not actually interested in the concept and principle of free speech.

I'm assuming that there was a legal case in regards to incitement or threatening to kill that challenged the First Amendment. You then presumably believe that the violation of free speech is acceptable, if it is authorised by law, because I can't see anything in the First Amendment that regulates the concept of free speech ( I'm not American ).

What would be your opinion if a law was passed that said that mocking and inciteful depictions of religious figures was an offence ?
Would you suddenly change your tune and believe that these images shouldn't be posted ?

I can't fathom why someone would change their beliefs and principles to mirror the legal position in that same issue.
Free speech, as a principle, is something I strongly believe in; whether that means death threats against the president or saying things against religious figures.
However, expediency and responsibility should override any ideological principles.
I wouldn't make death threats towards the president of the USA because there may be some delusional person that responds to them.
I wouldn't publish a cartoon of the prophet Mohammad because there may be some delusional person that responds to it and kills someone because of it.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Free speech, as a principle, is something I strongly believe in; whether that means death threats against the president or saying things against religious figures.

By all means, feel free to exercise that perceived principle of issuing a presidential death threat. Be sure to yell "fire" in the crowded theater too. Let us know how that works out for you.

Otherwise, the wiggle room you're searching for is not going to justify that bad analogy.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
By all means, feel free to exercise that perceived principle of issuing a presidential death threat. Be sure to yell "fire" in the crowded theater too. Let us know how that works out for you.

Otherwise, the wiggle room you're searching for is not going to justify that bad analogy.

What ?! You cannot be serious !
There is no ''wriggle room''. You are arguing along the lines of free speech, so I remind you of your previous comment:

Most westerners DO respect the right of muslims to have their beliefs. But many muslims DO NOT respect our tradition of free speech and the right to question and critique religions.

So you were defining free speech in the context of Westerners, yet now you are defining it by the laws of The USA.


You are just proving my point when you say: ''By all means, feel free to exercise that perceived principle of issuing a presidential death threat.''

There are two reasons I wouldn't do so;
1( Because some delusional person may follow up my threats.
2( Because it's regulated by law, and I may get arrested for it.

You're attempting to justify this on the grounds of free speech, when in reality you are just interested in upholding government and judicial controlled speech.
Not very ATS, if I may say so.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

What ?! You cannot be serious !
There is no ''wriggle room''. You are arguing along the lines of free speech, so I remind you of your previous comment:

Most westerners DO respect the right of muslims to have their beliefs. But many muslims DO NOT respect our tradition of free speech and the right to question and critique religions.

Exactly. We have the right to question and critique religions. It was you who brought up death threats, which generally aren't considered a "right" anywhere in the West.

You are just proving my point when you say: ''By all means, feel free to exercise that perceived principle of issuing a presidential death threat.''

There are two reasons I wouldn't do so;
1( Because some delusional person may follow up my threats.
2( Because it's regulated by law, and I may get arrested for it.

Oh, I see. So the principles you strongly believed in before and admonished me over are now something you're not interested in exercising because you recognize and respect the legality of its judicial constraints.

You're attempting to justify this on the grounds of free speech, when in reality you are just interested in upholding government and judicial controlled speech.
Not very ATS, if I may say so.

And you're desperately trying to find a way to make your bad analogy stand true by whatever means necessary, which is very ATS if I may say so...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Exactly. We have the right to question and critique religions. It was you who brought up death threats, which generally aren't considered a "right" anywhere in the West.

I brought up death threats because we were on the subject of free speech.
Essentially what you are saying is that ''free speech'' is speech that is allowed by any relevant government. That is completely different to the concept of free speech.

If we follow your argument that ''free speech'' is actually government regulated speech, then how can you have a problem with some Muslims complaining about this ?
Surely they are involved in the correct and appropriate procedure of attempting to get Western governments to redifine their ''prohibited speech/expression'' laws to include renditions of the prophet Mohammad ?

Oh, I see. So the principles you strongly believed in before and admonished me over are now something you're not interested in exercising because you recognize and respect the legality of its judicial constraints.

It would be foolish to partake in any activity that would lead to your own personal harm.
I wouldn't say anything unneccessary that could land me in jail, because that we be stupid; that does not mean that I agree with that legislation.
I'm not ''admonishing'' you at all ! I'm pointing out that your free speech argument is flawed, because the concept of free speech you're using is a government regulated one.

Free speech is really an unambiguous concept; you can say whatever you like, when you like.
Your definition is not free speech, though.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And you're desperately trying to find a way to make your bad analogy stand true by whatever means necessary, which is very ATS if I may say so...

No ! You originally brought up the concept of free speech in this thread, without actually defining the context.
It is now abundantly clear that what you describe as ''free speech'', is in fact government regulated speech.
You appear to not appreciate how the phrase ''free speech'' can be interpretes; your own personal interpretation is what is defined by the laws of USA - that is not free speech !

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Exactly. We have the right to question and critique religions. It was you who brought up death threats, which generally aren't considered a "right" anywhere in the West.

I brought up death threats because we were on the subject of free speech.
Essentially what you are saying is that ''free speech'' is speech that is allowed by any relevant government. That is completely different to the concept of free speech.

Nice try. Free speech is that which is governed by law and that is what I argued.

If we follow your argument that ''free speech'' is actually government regulated speech, then how can you have a problem with some Muslims complaining about this ?
Surely they are involved in the correct and appropriate procedure of attempting to get Western governments to redifine their ''prohibited speech/expression'' laws to include renditions of the prophet Mohammad ?

Oh, so threats, violence, murder and intimidation are "correct and appropriate procedures"?

It would be foolish to partake in any activity that would lead to your own personal harm.
I wouldn't say anything unneccessary that could land me in jail, because that we be stupid; that does not mean that I agree with that legislation.
I'm not ''admonishing'' you at all ! I'm pointing out that your free speech argument is flawed, because the concept of free speech you're using is a government regulated one.

I never argued on the absolutes of freedom. You just insisted I did.

No ! You originally brought up the concept of free speech in this thread, without actually defining the context.

True, I didn't realize I'd be spending my time trying to explain that my argument on free speech wasn't about the extreme absolutism of freedoms just because someone made a bad analogy that I called them on. Most people reasonably assume the freedom covered by legal statute, I guess, unless someone makes a bad analogy, gets embarrassed when it's pointed out, then desperately tries to explain themselves but continues looking even more foolish as the threads pass.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Nice try. Free speech is that which is governed by law and that is what I argued.

Freedom of speech is the concept of saying whatever you like... freely.
ATS is an international community, and it's erroneous for you to use the phrase ''freedom of speech'' when in fact you're just using your country's law as the definition.

In my country ( UK ) we have legislation criminalising race/religious/homophobic hate speech.
I don't know whether printing cartoons of the prophet Mohammad would go against these rules, but I certainly wouldn't declare my country's laws on ''free speech'' as definitive.
The UK and USA's laws on free speech are not the same as the actual concept of free speech.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Oh, so threats, violence, murder and intimidation are "correct and appropriate procedures"?

Your initial comment was along the lines of ''In the west, we respect the right of Muslims to practice their faith, but not all Muslims reciprocate these feelings our culture that includes freedom of speech''.

Nowhere did you say anything about threats, violence and intimidation.
I would not condone that kind of behaviour, as it is totally disproportionate to the matter at hand.

The ''appropriate behaviour'' that I was mentioning, was protesting against these cartoons and ( legally ) kicking up a fuss in the attempt to outlaw these incendiary images in future.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I never argued on the absolutes of freedom. You just insisted I did.

Then what's the point of free speech if it isn't free ?
Why not just call it what it is ? My country's government regulated speech.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
True, I didn't realize I'd be spending my time trying to explain that my argument on free speech wasn't about the extreme absolutism of freedoms just because someone made a bad analogy that I called them on.

It's not a bad analogy !
You are arguing on the grounds of free speech, when it actually turns out you were arguing on the grounds of your country's government regulated definition of free speech.

You can't blame me for the confusion, as you did not make it clear that you were defining ''free speech'' as the US government's definition of it.

Following your logic, then a Pakistani could rightfully complain about any drawings of the prophet Mohammad in the US, because it violates their laws of free speech.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

It's not a bad analogy !
You are arguing on the grounds of free speech, when it actually turns out you were arguing on the grounds of your country's government regulated definition of free speech.

*YAWN*

A bad analogy, then a bad argument. Well, if nothing else I'm certain you don't practice law.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
*YAWN*

A bad analogy, then a bad argument. Well, if nothing else I'm certain you don't practice law.

Sorry, but you made a boo-boo, and I pulled you up on it. You are now backtracking on your claim.
It is not my intention to come on here and argue or to score cheap points, but I needed to pull you up on your point in the interests of this debate and your erroneous or ambiguous reference to free speech.

You said:
Most westerners DO respect the right of muslims to have their beliefs. But many muslims DO NOT respect our tradition of free speech and the right to question and critique religions.

You were arguing along the lines of Western ''Free speech'' and now when I've pulled you up on your inconsistencies you have now redifined your comment to mean speech that's regulated by the US - contradicting your original comment about free speech in Western countries ( considering that all Western country's have different regulations on what speech is allowed ).
Furthermore, if by ''free speech'' you are claiming that you mean government regulated speech, then by your argument North Korea, Burma and Iran all have free speech as defined by their laws.

It's a good analogy to bring up death threats against the president, because that is free speech that isn't allowed, rendering any other complaint or comment from a supposed position of moral authority redundant - considering that none of our country's have actual free speech.

Sorry mate, It's a good analogy, and you know it.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
Furthermore, if by ''free speech'' you are claiming that you mean government regulated speech, then by your argument North Korea, Burma and Iran all have free speech as defined by their laws.

Wow. The more you try to defend your bad analogy the deeper that hole you're digging becomes. Shall I fetch you a ladder?

I'm 100% for the greatness of America's freedom of speech and I think it is very important. But I strangely want to give them kudos on banning that distasteful, insulting junk. Because that's all it is. I only wish everyone that did it would realize how pitiful that act really was. Just downright insulting with all kinds of bad undertones that aren't even worth discussing.

I don't and have never followed any religion. I think every true religious figure came from the same place with the same message. So no, I'm not some fundamentalist, but I am a human being. The idea I get is that they don't want Mohammad to turn into the cartoon character that Jesus has. My idea from the limited amount of religious material I've looked into, is that if you are worshipping the figure (Jesus, Mohammad) you're missing the point. These great people weren't for being worshipped, they were spiritual philosophers (IMO).

So they don't want to be flooded with cartoony pictures of a guy, putting a face on him, and possibly leading to idolatry. That's their religion, their beliefs, and if they feel they have reached a higher spirituality as a result, why wouldn't they want to protect their children? I don't want to insult Christianity, but one of the things that turned me off about it when I was younger is that it was always presented as some fairy tale. I've definitely changed my opinion as I've grown, but that's just my assessment and experiences.

I haven't looked or seen any images of Mohammad because I've decided I don't want that crap in my reality. And I hope I don't ever stumble across it, because I will be wishing someone had censored it if I do. It's completely silly now, but it is going to represent a lot of negativity to me so I'd rather keep it out. I can only hope that the people who chose to do that really get over the hump in their lives where they would want to take the time and do it. But if it is that important to them in Pakistan as a WHOLE (and not JUST the government, not TPTB because I see how our government does crap that we don't support), then I say let 'em do it.

But I wouldn't mind if Facebook had cut the crap out. Just wait till Roman Polanski's crew argues that child pornography is an art and that people should have the right to post it anywhere. Then what? Let's stop enabling this kind of crap, grow up, respect our fellow man, and make the world a better place.

They plan on killing him for it in Pakistan!

Pakistani lawyer petitions for death of Mark Zuckerberg

www.theregister.co.uk...

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is being investigated by Pakistani police under a section of the penal code that makes blasphemy against Muhammad punishable by death.