This is kind of an FYI for people who might be interested. I stumbled across this stunner of a Website by following a comments link at Alternet. I don’t know what to make of it. I thought some of the folks here might have some thoughts.
I’m not convinced it is what it appears to be, which is a disgrace to the Islamic religion and its Allah. Not for the faint of heart. It wouldn’t surprise me if the mods rip this one down. I won’t argue.
Here goes:
press-release.blogspot.com
:loco:
Yes it’s hateful, and interesting from a legal perspective. Here’s a typical excerpt:
[quote]Assassinating one of al-Dajjal army’s elements in al-Muaallemeen quarter region on Friday 17/11/2006, all praise and gratitude be to Allah .
A sniper attack at two crusader soldiers in al-Mafrak region on Friday 17/11/2006, all praise and gratitude be to Allah .
A sniper attack at one of the apostate police in al-Katoun region, on Saturday 18/11/2006, all praise and gratitude be to Allah[/quote]
From my brief glimpse, it doesn’t appear to be aimed at organizing efforts for future violence so much as applauding past violence, which others have done to a much lesser extent on forumosa from time to time. People have applauded the assassination of President Kennedy and attempted assasination of Reagan on forumosa.
If the language is illegal, a government could force removal of it from the website (and US law is probably most relevant because it’s posted on Blogger which is a US company, etc), but I believe under US law it’s perfectly legal to applaud past violence; it’s only illegal to use language (a) intended to incite violence (b) which is likely to incite imminent violence. I may be wrong about that, but that’s my off the cuff recollection. An argument can be made that this is not intended to or likely to incite violence, it’s only celebrating past events. On the other hand, it seems a reasonable argument can be made that this IS intended to and likely to incite further violence, although I don’t know about hte imminent part. In summary, I don’t know if its legal or not under US law and it would make for an interesting court decision.
But of course there’s not just the law. A private company such as blogger has no obligatoin to allow postings that violate its rules (I don’t know what those are). And, I suspect they could arbitrarily yank offensive postings any time they want, even if it doesn’t violate specific pre-stated rules, without suffering legal liability in most cases for yanking it.
If they yank someones blog that is earning that person some business revenue perhaps the person could sue for lost revenue, but if these hateful posters get their blog yanked what can they sue for? In every lawsuit there are two components: liability (i.e. did they violate your legal rights) and damages (how much $ harm did you suffer as a result). Even if Blogger would face potential liability for yanking this blog, I don’t see how the hateful blogger could put together a case for $ damages suffered as a result.
It is interesting the way Blogger dealt with the subject. Instead of yanking it or just leaving it as is, they prefaced it with a page one must click through that reads:
[quote]CONTENT WARNING
Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog’s content is hateful. In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any blog. For more information about this message, please consult our FAQ.[/quote]
Maybe that’s a reasonable way of dealing with it. That’s the “we’re all grown ups, some stuff may be offensive, if you don’t like it don’t look at it” approach. I applaud them for their integrity in sticking up for free speech in that regard. :bravo:
But on the other hand, if a closer examination reveals the language IS intended to and likely to incite imminent violence (or whatever the legal standard is), they may soon remove it and I would applaud that decision as well.
Government is probably very interested in keeping the site up and having a good look at who’s logging on to it. Why is it in English?