Saturday, March 29, 2008
Again, the "violence veto"
Geert Wilders' film Fitna has been pulled from LiveLeak, its principle internet outlet, in reaction to threats:
Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers. This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else.
It is almost impossible for responsible companies to avoid caving in to threats of violence, because they have a duty to protect their employees and stockholders. Since that duty cannot be waived by any operation of law with which I am familiar, courageous and freedom-loving media employees cannot successfully persuade their employers to defend freedom of speech even if they are willing to put themselves personally at risk to do so. The "violence veto," therefore, can and does effectively suppress any "speech" by any speaker or owner of a conduit for speech who can be found or hurt. Even individuals have families, and most will not risk a visit from jihadis over a mere principle. The only speakers truly free to criticize the body of opinions known as "Islam" are those who have found a way to transmit from some indefinite and unidentifiable place, beyond the reach of those Muslims who brook no criticism of their religion.
13 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Mar 29, 01:44:00 AM:
This invites a matching violence veto on anything favorable to Islam.
It will happen, I predict.
By 
Georg Felis, at
Sat Mar 29, 02:55:00 AM:
By davod, at
Sat Mar 29, 06:24:00 AM:
"This invites a matching violence veto on anything favorable to Islam."
The Jihadists carry out their threats.
Who would carry out the matching violence, the skinheads?
By Khaki Elephant, at
Sat Mar 29, 07:39:00 AM:
Another victory for the religion of peace?
By , at
Sat Mar 29, 08:48:00 AM:
Once we separate emotion from fact, exactly how significant is the threat of violence from radical jihadists against individuals? They've demonstrated a capability in Europe via some high profile assassinations-- but here in the U.S., a target-rich environment? Certainly, no one wants to be the first to learn the extent of their reach, but why don't we instead point at their inability to do much of anything in the U.S. since 9-11?
The jihadist threat of domestic violence in the U.S. is still running on the fumes of fear from that horrible day, 6 and a half years ago.
By , at
Sat Mar 29, 09:45:00 AM:
Once we separate emotion from fact, exactly how significant is the threat of violence from radical jihadists against individuals?
Significant enough that I can't seem to view a copy of that film on the internet here in the U.S.
By , at
Sat Mar 29, 09:49:00 AM:
It's up at my blog, TNOYF (http://www.thenoseonyourface.com)
By , at
Sat Mar 29, 10:09:00 AM:
It's up at my blog, TNOYF (http://www.thenoseonyourface.com)
Thanks.
By , at
Sat Mar 29, 10:27:00 AM:
LiveLeak did their job. The video went viral and there's no stopping it. So yes, there's a violence veto here I suppose, but at least the folks at LL had the stones to put the video out for a little while -- just long enough to get it moving.
Everyone should view this. Some of the imagery is violent and disturbing, so keep it away from your young ones (although I dare say if you have teenagers and college kids they SHOULD sit through this because you need to counteract the leftist drivel they'll be getting at school).
By , at
Sat Mar 29, 12:08:00 PM:
It shouldn't be "nearly impossible" for media companies to resist threats of violence -- in fact, their resistance should be assumed, part of the charter of the company. Such companies operating in a free market, in a society that prizes free speech, should see the protection of this freedom as paramount. On this freedom, after all, their livelihood and profits are based; without this freedom, they wouldn't exist. Employees should be made aware of the risks of working for such a company, and be required to sign an indemnification. The fact is we are at war, and this war has many fronts. The free-speech front may now be more crucial to our survival as a free society than the military front. Why should media companies and their employees, front-line soldiers so to speak, be absolved of their duty?
By Miss Ladybug, at
Sat Mar 29, 12:34:00 PM:
I watched Fitna not more than half an hour ago on YouTube. It was video captured off of LiveLeak. And the one I watch on YouTube wasn't the only one posted. As Michelle Malkin noted after LiveLeak pulled it, the "genie is out of the bottle", and you can't make it go back in...
By OregonJon, at
Sat Mar 29, 06:53:00 PM:
Saying, "The only speakers truly free to criticize the body of opinions known as "Islam" are those who have found a way to transmit from some indefinite and unidentifiable place, beyond the reach of those Muslims who brook no criticism of their religion." echoes the 'never resist' behavior that is encouraged by law enforcement when faced with a dangerous threat.
Of course once you're recognized as never resisting you become even more of a target. What you suggest is even worse, that our behavior should change because there is the threat of a dangerous threat. If that's the case, we've already lost.
By davod, at
Sat Mar 29, 08:17:00 PM:
The problem in England is the f.....g news media published details of the employees of the hosting company. What news value is their in publising this information?
