The first time, I was censored by Photobucket; the second time, by Pic Tiger.
I was shocked enough when Photobucket censored me. They replaced the images of the prophet they found offensive with their banners, stating that their terms had been violated. But it was not only the cartoons of the prophet that were removed, one picture depicting an angry Muslim in a London demonstration calling for the beheading of any infidel who disrespected Islam had also been removed for having fallen foul of their terms!
I'm sure you can imagine that I was even more shocked to find that within two days of finding a new hosting company, PicTiger, that they, too, had censored me. They also replaced the two cartoons of the prophet with their own banners.
I was dumbfounded!
Right now, I am in the States on vacation from the UK. These two hosting companies are American companies as far as I know. Yet they find it necessary to censor my weblog in this underhand manner.
This does not augur well for the future freedom of the West. It also begs the question: What's going on here that ordinary people don't know about? Why is everyone so silent about this censorship? I can't be the only one that's been censored. There must be hundreds of others who have suffered the same fate.
Why was I censored like this? Was it because the image-hosting company was afraid of being sued? Or was it because the tentacles of Muslim-Arab money already reach far and wide into the US economy?
I'd like to read your thoughts on this most important of matters. For one has to ask oneself a further question: If things go on like this, for how much longer will America be the land of the free?
©Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander is the author of The Dawning of a New Dark Age: A Collection of Essays on Islam
20 comments:
We live in a world of political correctness. PC is just another term for censorship. It is not political correct to show those pictures ergo they are removed.
In Sweden they used the secret service and the foreign minister to threaten the ISP of a legal registered political party to shut down their webpage with cartoons of Mo.
In many other countries you are simply freezed out, if you are deemed to be extremist. Saying the truth is being extremist in a PC society.
In the UK the editor of a magazine withdrew the publication of the Mo cartoons after a small "wink" by the police. The police simply told the editor that they could (would) not protect him, his employees and their families.
The PC crowd will tell you it is a question of being correct, sensitive and not hurting peoples feelings in this multicultural world.
You raise some good points that are important to discuss at length. Many individuals, groups, and even governments are caving in to threats ...
Before going into that, however, a quick thought: I have been using Flickr for a while. While I would imagine they would also censor some things, several people have posted the original 12 cartoons in several public groups-- a few users posted coments saying they found them offensive, and there was some discussion-- but they stayed up. I'm not sure how far one can go (there are certainly pictures that are much more "critical of Islam" then the original 12 cartoons-- but some of these have been posted...)
If you get a chance, take a look at Flickr-- sign up is quick & easy (its free). You can upload your own pictures and mark each one as private (no one can see them) or public-- people can look at all your photos marked public.
Also, you can post photos to groups-- or start your own group. Anyone can attach a comment to any public photo, which often starts discussions-- also, there are topics for discussions in groups. (some groups merely have photos, others are like a discussion forum).
Take a look at these (I believe you have to sign up to see them):
1. Secular Blasphemy: http://www.flickr.com/groups/secular_blasphemy/
2. Anti-semitism in Arab Media (New-- I started this one-- haven't had time to post much there yet):
http://www.flickr.com/groups/16007295@N00/
3. Controversial: http://www.flickr.com/groups/36521959118@N01/ (This group is an interesting mix of liberals & conservatives).
Some people never enter into discusssions, or post comments-- they merely use it as a place to store their photos. It also has some other useful features (for example, I use it to re-size banners for my blog).
Aside from personal use, I believe it has potential to augment what many of us are doing with our blogs-- getting the truth out-- presenting facts to "the masses" that the MSM doesn't cover.
Getting back to your original point (the assault on free speech) here's a brief post on this; What They Don't Want You to Know. I agree with you-- there should be more public discussion of these issues-- I think I will post more on this.
It seems to me that there are mainly three reasons the media (& governments) are supressing free speech, and/or making statements against it:
1-Ignorance. Much of the MSM is actually ignorant-- Islamic propaganda (taquiyya) has sucessfully fooled them
2-"Political Correctness", leading them to support all sorts of total nonsense. (Actually, this is another form of ignorance. I suppose government appeasement would also fall into this category.)
3-Fear. The fear of physical attack if they say or publish something offense to Moslems (or that even might be interpreted as offense) is a real one.
(Like that old joke: "Islam is a religion of peace-- if you say otherwise I will kill you"-actually, not very funny. Last time I checked, I believe that so far 17 people have died because of the cartoons).
This operates on an individual level (editors who won't print cartoons, etc out of fear for personal safety). It also operates on a larger scale: some politicians are trying to keep the media from publishing them out of fear that if even one newspaper prints soething "offensive" to Moslems-- the entire country may be subject to attack-- embassies, boycotts, their citizens assaulted).
JMJ, good points!
News from Lybia. 11 dead and wounded by security forces, after rioters torched the Italian Consulate.
Maybe they will autodestruct?
This is not a good development indeed. I'm thankful that Krishna introduced me to Flickr right away, that was a major step in being able to post for me but also I see now the right company to go with!!
The riots in Lybia are about the Italian Minister and his t-shirt supposedly with one of the cartoons on it. CNN does not mention it. Just as it does not show the 12 cartoons. How can people watching CNN make any informed opinion? This is censorship and it is outrageous!
You've all made EXCELLENT points. This is an excellent discussion as far as I am concerned.
This censorship, even if it is only self-censorship out of fear, is, as far as I am concerned, a very, very troubling development.
It means that WE are afraid of THEM! Now that's very troubling! Very troubling indeed!
Hello!
Just to say that I am a cartoonist and that I had a cartoon (a very good one!) censored once on my cartoon blog by ImageShack!
No e-mail to explain it, they just removed the cartoon hypocritically...
And the cartoon was not really offensive!
You can see the page where I talk about it here :
http://acecartoonpilot.blogspot.com/2005/09/censorship-bombs-my-cartoons.html
There is a link to Deviant Art where I placed the cartoon (a very good one!) if you want to see it.
Censorship is often blind, brutal, ignorant and not very intelligent!
Mark,
What happened at your site does not bode well for the future of freedom of expression. The implications take my breath away!
Is any image server removing the cartoons which are offensive to Jews and Christians? Or are only images offensive to Muslims the ones being removed?
And you ask two good questions here:
1. Was it because the image-hosting company was afraid of being sued?
2. Or was it because the tentacles of Muslim-Arab money already reach far and wide into the US economy?
If the answer to that second question is yes, the trouble has just started.
Muslim investment in various of the media, both here in America and abroad, may well be increasing. Think Prince Alaweed's recent investment in the Fox Network. Think CAIR's pr campaign in our libraries and public schools. Think real-estate developers such as Edgemoore Land.
But it was not only the cartoons of the prophet that were removed, one picture depicting an angry Muslim in a London demonstration calling for the beheading of any infidel who disrespected Islam had also been removed for having fallen foul of their terms!
That was a news picture, not a caricature. Again, think of the implications!
My final thought...Today, pictures are being removed. Tomorrow, words?
In 1978, in a city where 1 of 6 citizens was either a holocaust survivor, or a direct relative of one, I learned the meaning of free speech.
The american Nazi party picked Skokie Ill for a march.
I was surprised there was an american nazi party
WHen I learned of the demographics of Skokie, I was sure that the city council of skokie would never allow such an offensive thing.
They didn't but the ACLU, with a lawyer named David Goldberger took the city council to court where a federal judge ruled in favor of the ACLU, and against hte city. They lost 30,000 members, but I joined that week when a member explained to me - we protect our own freedom of speech by protecting that of the most obnoxious and loathesome among us.
The actions of these sites in such censorship is reprehensible, worse for having removed the pictures of muslims holding beheading and blasphemy signs, unable to recognize that their freedom to preach 9:29 and the Stone and the Tree, to effect salafism is an abhorrent blasphemy which we tolerate in the name of religious freedom, and freedom of speech.
Those of us who understand beneath the level of words what is at stake, and HOW it is at stake have a large body of articulation to perform to open eyes.
Perhaps we had better begin not by explaining how our freedoms are being abrogated by dhiimitudinal behavior and physical cowardice, but by going directly to having banned these hate filled, and racist teachings, within what is called the perfect and immutable word of God.
Perhaps when muslims are faced with a threat to what can be taught as the word of God, they will only THEN understand what freedom of speech is worth.
Btw, I don't mean to say that Flickr is "perfect"-- its just that so far they seem pretty fair. I did put one photo into a group that caused me to get kicked out of that group. (However, I didn't really mind-- the photo is still with my collection, it hasn't been deleted by Flickr. And is still up in other groups I posted it in. The group moderators have a lot of arbitrary power there, but thats OK-- you can join other groups, or start your own). Also, if anyone is interested in posting in Flickr, I would recommend posting more moderate things at first, until you get a feel for the place.
I just had a thought-- if there are any restrictions on free speech in the US, the ACLU should jump in to defend free speech.-- that's what the group is supposed to be about. As mentioned here, they have even defended some pretty far out cases.
It will be interesting to see what they do with the issue of free speech and cartoons that offend Islam-- might be quite a conflict for them!
Only time will tell, but my guess is that, despite a lot of silly, entrenched political correctness (as well as fear), ultimately free speech in America will prevail. There are still many Americans who will not be intimidated-- and will fight for democratic principles!
Ali Sina believes, as do I, that Islam must be humiliated and mocked. This gives courage to those Muslims with doubt that they can leave Islam.
Personally, I am all for banning Islam period. That won't happen for many years; perhaps I will be dead of old age, but that is the ultimate separation. Let Islam survive on its own. Islam has been a parasite on the productive and enlightened world for almost 1400 years. The billions we have spent on these unthankful, hateful and deceitful Mohammedans have been a waste. All forgot at the slightest 'offense' to Islam.
While complete separation is not possible, we can certainly end all Muslim inbound immigration and institute restrictions on Islamic teachings. Of course, the joke is, if you take out all the bad verses in the Qur'an, you're left with a pamphlet! It's a great joke.
This is really sending a bad example out to other CULTS that if you instill fear through violence, you can have the governments and businesses of the world
shaking in their boots.
Today, its Islam, tomorrow , who knows what cults are watching these world events and decide to copy the muslims??
If we give in to one religion, we'll end up having to give into all of them.
Maybe a bit OTT, but this is setting a
precedent that is making me exremely
nervous.
I dunno. What would any of us do if your choice is between not running some guy's photos and running the photos and then having the Muslims riot outside your building?
What would happen if people started saying, "We could run the cartoons, but then the Muslims would kill us"? If the "moderate" Muslims want to disagree, they can say so.
Uncle Pavian: What would happen if people started saying, "We could run the cartoons, but then the Muslims would kill us"?
Already happening, I think.
I prefer the running of the cartoons. But, if the media refuses to run them they should be honest and say that they are not due to the threats.
At this point, running the cartoons is beginning to run out of steam. The message has also been watered down by those inflicted with the PC Virus. Making the statements regarding the threats would have an additional impact that is missing when the cartoons are run.
krishna109 - we need a govt ruling here that it would be a hate crime to publish, then comes the ACLU. I donk think that such a ruling would ever happen. The enemy here is fear, and PC 'good taste'. The thing is, so many muslims are HERE to ESCAPE THIS VERY MADNESS we see so many other places.
It's hyprocrisy of the 1st order for the NYT to not publish the cartoons, but do so for pictures of the virgin mary smeared with shit, and christ pissed on. Has CNN ever shown South Park's Jesus (who not only celebrated Xmas with a turd, but also was 'packing' and offed some guys)
I feel a shrieking Howard Beale moment coming on
The strange thing when they took mine down was this: The one I thought was the most offensive was the one that made Muhammad look like Lucifer. For some inexplicable reason, they left that one up! Go figure!
Always On Watch observes that it may be already happening that the media are saying "We're not going to run the cartoons because we're afraid that the Muslims will kill us and burn our building." I'm not so sure.
So far, most of the explanations for suppressing the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy have been framed in terms of cultural sensitivity, respect for religious sentiment and a desire to avoid causing offense. Although its obvious that the real reason is fear of being murdered by an angry mob of the Sons of the Prophet, no one has actually come out and said so.
My point was, if anybody did say, "Yes, we could publish the cartoons, but if we did, the Muslims would kill us", it would redefine the debate. The Muslims would then have to either admit that they are thugs and hoodlums and their religion is based on the violent suppression of opposing viewpoints (which is what we've been saying all along), or they would have to actually distance themselves from the Islamo-fruitcake element (to the extent that there actually is such a thing existing as a distinct element within the Religion of Peace).
Happy motoring...
Post a Comment