Yea – thanks for admitting “some Muslims” – I would contend that “some Muslims” are actually a tiny few “Muslims” in a population of 1.5 billion!

I have never implied that – but “criticism of Islam” from Islamophobes implies that Islam itself is a problem and that “some Muslims” don’t cause problems — but ALL Muslims cause problems. Yes – its a security problem when some abuse free speech to provoke rioting in other countries – and do so to work toward a world of conflict based on “clash of civilizations.” I suggest you read Huntington’s book — and anyone who actively promotes a world order based on “Clash” is, indeed, a threat to world peace!

As for WHO cannot take criticism – you should know that it’s Geert Wilders, the so-called Champion of Free Speech – that cannot take criticism – and people have been silenced and/or Wilders claims “I’m being threatened” and people are prosecuted.

Free Speech in the Netherlands – PVV style!
http://yellow-stars.com/blog/2011/07/08/free-speech-in-the-netherlands-pvv-style/

Like to talk about “Danish cartoons?” Let’s talk about “Wilders cartoons” and how threats to the newspaper Joop over a cartoon with Wilders as a concentration camp guard forced the newspaper to remove the cartoon.

Ilisha – I would insist that we place things in perspective, and that includes how much some in the media like to jump on “troublesome Muslims.”
There is already study and work underway to place “Muslim riots” in some kind of proper context (as the link shows).

It would be a worthy study to compare the estimated number of “rioters” to the national population, as well as the number of peaceful protesters and people who did not “riot.” The peaceful protesters probably outnumber the riotors…

Now – Free Speech Martyrs – come back and say that “they” have no right to protest, or that even peaceful protests “say something about Them.”

Furthermore – isn’t the EDL a constant threat for riots when they hold one of their “demos?”

Well – when making claims of who is actually troublesome for “riots”- the radical right Islamophobes, EDL, especially, should not be leftout. We do have numerous videos of EDL riots, including property damage and policemen being hauled off on stretchers…

Also see -
It is interesting to observe how media images of the crowds at Tahrir square in early 2011 were presented in wide-angle format, while the current spate of protest images are closely cropped around smaller, violent groups of people, giving the impression that the crowds are large and menacing. Just do a Google image search, for example, on “protest ‘Arab Spring’” and compare the results with the Google image search, “protest ‘Muslim,’” and limit it to the September 10-September 16, 2012 period. The diverse, multi-generational, multi-faith, crowds of both genders that brought about the downfall of authoritarian regimes throughout the region are massive compared to the smaller crowds of young, frustrated men rioting near U.S embassies and businesses in recent days. The recent crowds are pathetic, by comparison, but we would never know that without the same wide-angle perspective. The emphasis of the narrative presented by newcasters and pundits on cable news and by reporters and experts in the mainstream print media would have us believe that the current protests are larger and more serious than those of the Arab uprisings. Given that the U.S. is the target of this anger, this disproportionate emphasis is not surprising, but it discounts the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not protesting the film, U.S. values, or even U.S. policy. Furthermore, the incredulity with which the media and commentators respond to the expression of anti-American sentiment in light of ongoing drone strikes alone, not to mention the history of American policy in the region, further undermines our image. Muslims will increasingly view Americans as naive, if not hypocritical, if we think that selective support of the Libyan opposition and a few other pro-democracy movements makes us the new champion of freedom in the Muslim world while we avoid decisive action in Syria and ignore demands for freedom in places like Bahrain, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, as well as the results of free and fair elections when we do not like the winners.

Pro-democracy “Arab Spring” crowds were much larger than those involved in the current protests in the Middle East and North Africa; lack of media objectivity about geographic scope of socalled “Muslim Rage” has dangerous implications – http://tinyurl.com/98ey3fj

@Tinka – on my bookshelves somewhere you could find Lolita (which describes a sexual liaison with a very young girl) and The Dialectic of Sex by Shulamith Firestone (which advocates, AFAIR, such relationships). These are quite different from images procured by forcing or coercing children into illegal sexual acts and are not banned. Neither should images of Muhammed be banned, even highly offensive ones.

“Wow. Governments arm-twisting private citizens. Yeah, that’s always a good idea.”

Yea, like wow, man! YouTube is a private company, owned by Google, and nations of the world arm-twist private companies all the time to meet standards to operate in the nation. This arm-twisting is also done by the European Union. If you want to do business in a country – you had better play by the rules. Pressure to a private company to change user policies on posting videos that provoke international crisis and threaten international security is sorely needed.

Are boycotts and pressure on advertisers also “violations of free speech?!”

Oh, unless YT is a “person” and companies have “freedom of speech.” Yea – I’m aware of the right trying to hang the “you hate freedom of speech” thing on people like me. Nope – I don’t hate “free speech,” just the irresponsible use of it for the purpose of advancing ethnic and religious divisions in the international system. International security comes before “free speech” – especially the irresponsible abuse of it!

Anybody that argues that “Muslims hate free speech” (Muslims DO NOT “hate free speech”) need to go and look up what happened when the Piss Christ went on display in Paris a few years ago…

I don’t believe it, I’m Muslim so I have never been the none to side with loons but freedom of speech takes precedence of all, so it is in this perspective that we find ourselves ponders the depths of just what it takes to truly fight hate speech without censorship.

I appreciate the sentiment but the means are completely wrong, I’m opposed to cenorship; it limits freedom (not to mention it propels the notion that the “MOOOZLIMZ” control the EARTH)

I forgot to post this link to an article Joshua Holland at Alternet on our “friends” who want to promote “Clash of civilizations.” Some of the arguments are like those I made in a post this past week:

6 Right-Wing Zealots (or Groups of Zealots) That Would Blow Up the World for Political Gain – http://tinyurl.com/6-right-wing-zealots

correction US was violating it’s own principles with Bradley Manning

Nobody likes heavy-handed blanket measures, BUT I think those idealists who criticize Russia are naive.

Islamophobes are using playground bully tacics >

Provocative pre-emptive attacks to obtain a reaction, & then jeering “what are you looking?” at innocently, as if butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths.

Some Muslims say > “Why don’t those who profess a love for our blessed Prophet Muhammad (saw) not follow in his footsteps by understanding how he reacted to ridicule and hostility”

With regard to Freedom of Speech & Oral incontinence,
try exercising freedom of speech to promote whatever shocks the culture of the audience (e.g. non-platonic child “love”) and see what happens!

There is LIMITED freedom of speech, not absolute. Name me one place in the world that has absolute F.O.S.?

Even the US (which I am not too familiar with), does not have absolute F.O.S. under the tribal totem fetish of the First Amendment. Tell that to Bradley Manning, Awlaki & Assange.

Can one slander, libel, break copyright laws, swear at a policeman, give false trades descriptions, use racist hate speech, publicise defense/trade secrets?

Are the self-proclaimed defenders of free speech, on principle, also defending the rights of what Western society criminalizes? (eg. pedo porn).

The silence is deafening…

I know most you kids here are young but
Anyone else remember The Beatles in 1966 comment by Lennon made in March that year launched a backlash against The Beatles from religious and social conservatives in the United States. In an interview with British reporter Maureen Cleave published in the Evening Standard on 4 March,[9] Lennon had offered his opinion that Christianity was dying and that The Beatles were “more popular than Jesus now When Datebook quoted Lennon’s comments five months later in August 1966, vociferous protests broke out in the southern United States. The Beatles’ records were publicly burned, press conferences were cancelled and threats were made. The protest spread to other countries including Mexico, South Africa and Spain; there were anti-Beatles’ demonstrations and their music was banned on radio stations. The controversy erupted on the eve of the group’s US tour, and the anger and scale of the reaction led their manager, Brian Epstein, to consider cancelling the tour.

THAT IS 1966 That is how many years ago how many people made this into all of Christianity ?

There were no protests against the movie by Muslims in Russia. Putin and his Christian supporters are using the the anti-Islam movie as a pretext to shut down YouTube and other social media because it’s popular with the supporters of the “blasphemous” punk rock group Pussy Riot and anti-Putin protesters.