Hacker News Reader

Comment by locopati | Hacker News Reader

And a well-stated counterpoint http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26...

I don't think this piece goes anywhere near "well-stated", to me it read more like a hysterical outburst. Look, I don't know who Douthat is, he's not one of the NYT writers I read (I'd rather read Dowd for her dazzling word games). And I don't care. All I care is the column he's written and that's the way it should be, I think.

Now, the Salon essay's main point seems to be to argue that "threat-induced censorship" is not "a uniquely Islamic practice". I totally agree with that, other groups also dabble in such threats (and sometimes carry them out, too, e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence). However, carrying-out a unified agenda of world-wide censorship through political influence (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cf...) or down-right intimidation when that doesn't work, is quite unique to Islamic countries.

I know, because I'm a Muslim and I come from such a country.

This particular brand of 'worldwide censorship' is not unique in this day and age - Scientology practices something very similar, using the threat of copyright to discourage talking about their practices.

In any event, it's only recent globalization has made this approach a possibility. Go back two decades, and the Soviet Union practiced similar censorship within their own territories. Go back a few hundred years, and the catholic church threatened excommunication if you didn't toe the party line.

It's the same idea - just the techniques have gotten more refined.

"the catholic church threatened excommunication"

How dare they threaten to remove someone from their own organization!

Except that excommunication simply let you know you had removed yourself from the Church, and was a call to repentance. (Same today, though it's rarely used.)

No physical threats, no violence, just a formal reminder from the Church that by your actions you're essentially cutting yourself off. If that didn't bother you, so be it.

You must be joking.

The church's excommunication back in the day went far beyond that.

For example, when the Catholic church excommunicated Martin Luther, "It also made it a crime for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. It permitted anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther)

Many excommunications were of the form "vitandus", where the excommunicated was to be shunned by fellow Catholics. That's a pretty severe penalty when _everyone_ was Catholic.

No, the Church didn't do that--the state (Emperor) sentenced him thusly. Read the article more carefully.

"carrying-out a unified agenda of world-wide censorship through political influence or down-right intimidation when that doesn't work, is quite unique to Islamic countries."

What about the war on drugs? What about the millions of people we killed because they preferred communism?

Millions? Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

It's interesting to note that both wars were actually started by the communists. I'm all for killing people if they try to forcibly invade otherwise peaceful countries to convert them to communism. It may have been imprudent or wasteful for the US to get involved in Asian wars, but it wasn't a simple matter of killing people over their preferred political system.

I don't think the counterpoint is as valid as you say it is. Receiving some hate mail and phone calls about a "gay Jesus" character is a lot different than killing someone.

There are some small similarities between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims. Bombing of abortion clinics comes to mind, however, let's not pretend that a strongly worded email or phone call is anything like killing a cartoonist because he drew the wrong picture.

"Receiving some hate mail and phone calls about a 'gay Jesus' character is a lot different than killing someone."

Threatening to burn down the theatre, kill the staff, and kill the director strikes me as more than a strongly worded email. See fundamentalists like to use what I'd call the sandwich method. First you threaten to kill someone, then you kill them, and then you take credit for killing them. These threats seem pretty clearly like step 1.

I'm just drawing the distinction between threats, which many crazies are known to leave, and actual killing. Had the theatre actually been burned down, actors/directors killed, you might have a better point.

Doesn't that just mean that the really crazy ones in each religion are pissed off at different things?

Yes. But the important difference here is in the actual murders -- the act of going beyond threats. I have a hard time taking that as a minor distinction.

Almost all of Greenwald's counterpoints referred to situations in which public resources were involved: public funding of an art exhibition, public funding of a play via a university, use of public airwaves.

What's somewhat frightening about the South Park censorship is that cable is not regulated by the FCC for indecency as it's not a public resource. What's really frightening is that the cable company was able to censor the Internet "broadcast" of the episode.

I don't have a problem with Janet Jackson's breast on CBS, but I respect the complaints of those who do. Spectrum is a scarce national resource, so we should democratically allocate it. Cable, and especially the Internet, should be afforded a much greater degree of freedom of expression.

We no longer live in an open and free society when a man with a web site gets to decide what millions of people can and cannot watch.

But this is not a "well-stated counterpoint". The article from your link justified the action with listing all successful censoring actions in the past. It like pointing out how many nations in the world has the Internet censorship and conclude that it is correct thing to do. A list of all actions in the past cannot prove the correctness of the action at all.

Besides, I don't like the pop-out in the link.

the point of listing them all wasn't to justify it but to show that such threats are not uniquely muslim, as claimed in the original piece.

Consider me disappointed. That was merely a weak "tu quoque" argument, or even a rousing round of "what-aboutery", but it was no counterpoint. (Definition of "what-aboutery": http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-har...).

I'm disappointed, personally. I would have loved to read someone actually argue that satirical depictions of Muhammed should be censored. (Well, someone who isn't threatening to kill people for it at least.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com