Google Approves App For Muslims To Report People Who Commit BlasphemyOnly in Indonesia or another Islamic nation, right?
A new Android app has launched with the focus of allowing Muslims to report individuals who commit blasphemy, or insult Islam.
No, this is not a joke. The app, “Smart Pakem”, which launched in Indonesia last month at the request of the Indonesian government, will allow users and government officials to uphold Sharia law and target and report people who hold “misguided” beliefs in violation of Islamic law, which forbids insults of Islam, insults against the Prophet Mohammed, or the recognition of any other religion besides Islam....
Not exactly. Technology transcends borders, and criticizing Islam can get an American muzzled, too:
On November 29, 2018, investigative journalist Laura Loomer handcuffed herself to Twitter HQ in NYC after she was banned from Twitter for criticizing Sharia law. While handcuffed, Loomer argued “Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Google, Instagram, they are essentially upholding Sharia. Silicon Valley is essentially upholding Sharia when they decide to ban me for posting facts about Islam, when they decide to ban me for posting facts about Sharia law and criticizing an anti-Jewish Muslim Congresswoman.”Read the rest HERE.
More creep: TIME names Muslim Brotherhood pal of Osama bin Laden their Person of the Year 2018. Brief excerpt:
In high school, Jamal Khashoggi had a good friend. His name was Osama bin Laden.Read the rest HERE.
“We were hoping to establish an Islamic state anywhere,” Khashoggi reminisced about their time together in the Muslim Brotherhood. “We believed that the first one would lead to another, and that would have a domino effect which could reverse the history of mankind.”
When corporations own the public square, they can do what government cannot: Shut down free speech
ReplyDeleteThat was the intent of the 1996 Communications Act... to create a family friendly internet.
DeleteNot while you can still host your own content. The search engines have the greatest power to bury disruptive speech, but even there competition exists (i don't think google is as dominant as it was a decade ago, nor does it deserve to be).
DeleteJez, Good luck hosting your own video content free of YouTube and Vimeo!
Delete...and when the bigs like Go Daddy throw you off, you're effectively silenced.
Hasn't all this controversy erupted by a perceived need for government regulation of Internet companies?
DeleteThe “App” is an amazingly clever marketing strategy. First, the techno’s pretend to care about the effect of disruptive speech, and then they design an App that allows you to report such speech to people who are known not to have a sense of humor but is pretty much a guarantee of a more violent effect on free speech. Next, perhaps, they’ll develop an App that will allow beheaded individuals to report their grievances. As this trend continues, my guess is that at some point, people will be running around trying to silence one another with machetes. Not me, though. I have far too much respect for my fellow man. I will never carry a machete; guns are much cleaner, quicker, and easier to obtain.
DeleteSam
Sam,
DeleteUp votes for that comment.
SF,
DeleteIt's all about tyranny -- be it corporation or government.
WHATEVER the LEFT advocates, –– no matter how "humane" or "benign" it may seemon the surface ––, you may be sure the only TRUE motive behind their initiatives is to acquire ever greater amounts of POWER and CONTROL.
DeleteLeftists are "TYRANNISTS" by their very nature –– whether they recognize it or not.
THE question, hwever, is this:
Does it make US "Tyrannists" too, if we wish to stifle and suppress the "rights" of those who would stifle and suppress "our" rights given half a chance?
It's all about tyranny -- be it corporation or government.
DeleteBut is it the same tyranny, when we're willing consumers of it? For example, I can't really sympathize with one who may rail against Facebook as tyrannical or invasive....yet is a consumer of Facebook.
Isn't that similar to if not cin gruent with the argument so-called Democratic-Socialists use when asserting that the populace is 'perfecty free' to VOTE them OUT if they don't like Socialism?"
DeleteIf so, why does it rarely-if-ever happen, when the MISERY of mutually shared POVERTY dominates the majority of SociaLost countries?
In other words what IS it abut human beings that makes so many of feel inclined to embrace authoritarian-totalitarian regimes?
What is it about FREEDOM that seems so unduly challenging –– even frightening?
Freedom scares many people. They don’t like to be scared because they’re weak, and like sheep.......surrender their autonomy for blissful servitude.
DeleteFew people are born leaders. Most by nature are followers. The majority are not espcially bright, and often this are EXCEPTIONALLY bright live in litle worlds of their own making beause they find it all-but-impossible to relate to thse who neither undersand nor appreiate them.
DeleteAs I'm sure you know there's a vast difference between INTELLIGENCE and WISDOM.
Odd as it may seem many of ordinary intelligence may be extremely wise, kind, generous, helpful, etc. while many very brigt individuals may be aloof, antisocial, abrasive, impatient, inconsiderate and egocentric.
Things don't fall neatly into measured categories an people rarely conform to "norms." That's why I believe there are no absolutes –– except in theory –– and that's why One-Size-Fits-All regulations are rarely helpful to the advancement of Civilization.
Though we humn beings have many features and characteristics in common we are a vast collection of unique individuals. I guess that must be why we always find ourselves in the midst of turmoil of one kinr or another, and why we have never been able to find a truly equitable form of governance acceptable to all who are not ciinically insane.
I STILL WISH SOMEONE WOULD AT LEAST TRY TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION:
DeleteDoes it make US "Tyrannists" too, if we wish to stifle and suppress the "rights" of those who would stifle and suppress "our" rights given half a chance?
It's a very serious question, and deserves more than a simple yes or no response.
Though troubling, it’s an expected symptom of technology intersecting with a culture of seeking to be offended.
ReplyDeleteI’m more concerned at how we’ve allowed our law enforcement agencies the ability to rip and store our digital information off our our devices (such as CPB’s Automated Targeting System).
CI,
DeleteI’m more concerned at how we’ve allowed our law enforcement agencies the ability to rip and store our digital information off our our devices (such as CPB’s Automated Targeting System).
I can see that as a huge threat. But we are also seeing technology intersecting with a culture of seeking to be offended and, at the same time, law enforcement picking up a unified mantel. **sigh** Snowflakes of all types abound. **sigh again**
Social Media and Silicon Valley provide tools to totalitarian regimes that enable them to spy, censor and punish.
ReplyDeleteIf the un-American globalists in Silicon Valley were suddenly swallowed in a giant sinkhole, the US and the world would be immediately improved.
I don't see why we can't sit down with Muslims and discuss our differences over beer and ham sandwiches.
ReplyDeleteTC,
DeleteHoney Baked, please!
I'll have a bacon sandwich, please. And can I wear a plastic pig nose while I'm eating it?
DeleteSam
I do think burying Islamaniacs –– i.e. manifest ISLAMIC TERRORISTS –– in ground saturated with PIG MANURE or in mass unmarked graves situated under the soil of public DOG PARKS throughout the nation –– should be MANDATORY under Federal Law.
DeleteANYTHING that wold make these wholly undesirable elements feel UNWELCOME, UNCOMFORTABLE, THREATENED, FEARFUL and EAGER to LEAVE "our" lands would make perfect sense IF we cared at all about OUR survival –– as a People, –– as Christians, –– as FreeThinking Agnostics, –– and as a Nation.
Really AOW? Honey baked? I like them too but given the choice, I want the classic Farmer John [at least out west] whole ham.
ReplyDeleteBut either one is better than the canned variety I grew up with. Complete with finger slashing turn key to open the thing.
Dave,
DeleteActually, I prefer a good smoked ham.
I admit to liking the crust on the Honey Baked. We indulge in one 1-2 times a year here in this household.
@ Dave Miller " Complete with finger slashing turn key to open the thing."
ReplyDeleteNo kidding! I remember taking smaller cans like that camping, and the results of opening one is a formidable razor-sharp weapon!
Thumbs Up Silver...
DeleteDIDADIN!
ReplyDeleteWhy the focus strictly on Khashoggi? The purpose was to highlight the threat to journalists through four separate covers.
ReplyDeleteThe question is not whether or not he was Muslim Brotherhood but whether we support our "Saudi allies" brutally assassinating their critics.
Real investigative reporters risked their lives in a brutal year for journalist's deaths and we are supposed to get excited about a Project Veritas hack, Laura Loomer, losing her Twitter account.
Sad.
DIDADIN!
DeleteDuck,
DeleteYour comment is lame. Better to keep silence than to make such a lame comment, which is such an inane reach.
Nevertheless, I'll address your comment.
Why the focus strictly on Khashoggi?
Because his inclusion as Person of the Year is a travesty as explained in the last link in the body of the blog post.
As for Laura Loomer, she's only one of many having their accounts suspended by social media for going against certain narratives. Do social media have the right to ban users? Yes. What is interesting is how the head honchos of certain social media sort out whom to ban or not to ban.
For the record, I do not assert that social media as private entities do not have the right to run their business the way they see fit. SF put it well: When corporations own the public square, they can do what government cannot: Shut down free speech.
So what’s the solution? Government regulation? Outraged blog posts?
DeleteWhy the sudden importance placed on Time’s cover? It can’t be a travesty and a washed up dying, print dinosaur at the same time. I don’t get the emotion expended on what a magazine does.
End corporate shareholder liability protection. Sue the tech shareholders for 1st amendment violations.
DeleteSue a non-government entity for 1st Amendment violations? Plan on tearing the Constitution and starting over?
Delete"The U.S CONSTITUTON is NOT a SUICIDE PACT."
DeleteI don't know who said it first, but I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment behind it.
No nation can live under a rigidly enforced set of codified "instructions" not subject to interpretation by duly-elected representatives and the supposed "experts" those representatives appoint.
IF we COULD so live, government and the courts would be rendered moot, and only a fully empowered POLICE force would be needed to "guarantee" strict compliance with the "instructions" as written.
The Constitution limits the scope and power of the Federal government, not private entities and Citizens. If you aren’t happy with that, there are three options: leaving the country, a Constitutional Convention, or armed insurrection.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteIt’s rather confusing why any “professed” Conservative would willingly surrender their Rights and Liberties to the State.......because make no mistake, Leftists know what precedence is, and will use it against those THEY identify as “subversives”.
A BIT OF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
DeleteFrom an article in SLATE by David Corn:
"... In 1949, Justice [Robert] Jackson –– not the chief justice –– finished a fiery dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) with these words: “There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
In the case, a fellow named Terminiello ... gave a hate-filled public speech blasting “Communistic Zionist Jews, FDR, "Queen Eleanor” Roosevelt –– “one of the world’s communists” –– and others.
Protesters demonstrated against him, violence broke out, and Terminiello was charged with disorderly conduct. At the trial, the judge told the jury Terminiello could be found guilty if the jury concluded his speech brought about a condition of unrest.
Terminiello was convicted and appealed. The Supreme Court eventually ruled for Terminiello in a 5-4 decision, saying the judge’s instruction had infringed upon the defendant’s right of free speech.
In his dissent, Jackson insisted that Terminiello’s agitprop had gone beyond the bounds of protected speech and the state had the right to lock him up.
Robert Jackson’s point was the same as John Ashcroft’s point: Extremism in the name of civil liberties could lead to the destruction of the nation."
________________________
Obviously this was one of several cases that led to the initiation by Leftists of of "Hate Speech Laws."
Today, Terminiello would undoubtedly be found guilty, subject to Official Ostracism, and sentenced to a stiff term in jail –– just as they've been doing in much of Europe where ANY form of CRITICISM of JEWS, however slight, has been considered punishable by heavy fines and a prison term since the Nuremberg Trials at the end of WWII.
The recent treatment of the passionate Anti-Muslim, Nativist-Activist TOMMY ROBINSON in Britain is another case in point. If by any chance you've forgotten, Tommy Robinson was summarily thrown in GAOL –– WITHOUT a TRIAL! –– simply for speaking his mind in a public venue.
Obviously defining "Hate Speech" now depends entirely on whose ox is being gored in a world where suddenly MINORITY "RIGHTS and INTERESTS" supersede, the rights and interests of EVERYONE ELSE.
When we encourage official FAVORITISM for desgnated MINORITIES, the fundamental concept concept of Equality Under the Law becomes null and void.
CI... wouldn't you consider a Constitutional Amendment another option?
DeleteFranco... you said... "No nation can live under a rigidly enforced set of codified "instructions" not subject to interpretation by duly-elected representatives and the supposed "experts" those representatives appoint."
I'm confused... isn't the interpretation you suggest the exact opposite of Scalia's "Strict Originism" the belief that the document can be easily understood as it was written, as opposed to open to interpretation that can change over the years based on culture, mores, politics, etc.?
Franco... please understand... it's not a "gotcha" question. I've just never seen a conservative make your argument before.
DeleteI'm not a "Conservative," Dave, at least not in the sense the the word has come to mean in latter years. I consider myself a LIBERTARIAN-CONSERVATIVE"" ––– in other words a MAVERICK. };^)>
DeleteI believe whatever I am most closely resembles what used-to-be-called a PALEO-Conservative. I'm sure I irritate a great many because of my adamant refusal to let myself be "pigeon-holed."
Though I don't believe they used the term I believe the Founding Fathers were in essence LIBERTARIANS. What they hoped to establish would have been a nation with maximal Liberty for the Individual with Minimal Restraint by Government.
The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, SHOULD have been ALL that was necessary to establish the basis for our system of Law and Justice.
Federal Law limits the rights of individual citizens and private entities to those prescribed in the US Constitution (14th Amendment) all the time. You can't discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc.
Delete..if you engage in interstate commerce. Corporations are interstate commerce "personified."
DeleteShare's of stock represent an individual's "interest" in interstate commerce.
DeleteSo sue them!
It's been clear for a long time that First Amendment Rights should NOT be extended to Muslims, Marxists or other professional and semi-professional troublemakers of ANY variety.
ReplyDeletePeople who make a holy show of identifying with and JOINING manifestly SUBVERSIVE groups SHOULD be DEPRIVED of their RIGHTS.
That would help quell the aura of perpetual turbulence, truculence, dissidence that now dominates commuications
"DIVERSITY" __ as it has been FIStED on the country by Marxists –– has functioned as a de facto term for DIVISIVENESS for decades.
People IN the United States of America who DO NOT WANT to BE Americans should be given a one-way ticke t the foreign hellhole of their choice –– REGARDLESS of their status as CITIZENS ether natural-born or naturalized.
American citizenship should be regarded NOT as "RIGHT," but as an "HONOR" and a "PRIVILEGE"and should be REVOCABLE under the law.
FOISTED not FIStED.
Delete(:-o
SORRY!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI’m trying to decide if this right wing trend toward authoritarian diktats is merely sad......or if true colors of Statism and servitude are vomiting to the surface.
DeleteWho needs Leftist boogeymen, when you have homegrown knockoffs.....
Egg-Zack-Lee!!.
Delete
ReplyDeleteRashida Tlaib Will Wear a Palestinian Gown As She´s Sworn In to Congress
CNN Politics
by Nadeem Muaddi
US Rep.-elect Rashida Tlaib will be sworn into office next month while wearing a traditional Palestinian gown. The Michigan Democrat announced on social media Friday that she intends to wear a thobe to the ceremony. "Sneak peek: This is what I am wearing when I am sworn into Congress," she wrote on Instagram, including the hashtags #PalestinianThobe and #ForMyYama (Arabic for mother). (Snip) Following that win, Tlaib appeared at a celebration rally where she was draped in a Palestinian flag and her mother broke out in ululation, a high-pitched vocal sound many Middle Eastern women make in celebration. ...
After THIS would you STILL deny the CRYING NEED for DIDADIN?
If so, you DESERVE to lose your country, your culture, your religion and your SOUL.