Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weyzza
It doesn't distress us

---

No no,i dont mean youtube with it

i agree, you should be able to post/upload whatever you want even if it means calling someone/something gay. It's called freedom of speech and the EU doesnt need Turkey  however Turkey wants admission to into it - so Turkey does need it.

Why is "freedom of speech" always used to justify insulting? That is just as stupid as censoring on its own.

There is also something like common sense and having respect for other cultures. Freedom of speech is used way too much to justify things like this (eg: the Danish cartoons).

---

On the other hand, there is also something like being extremely (almost stupidly) sensitive to stuff said about cultures or religion etc.

If people insult Mohammed, so be it. If people insult the Pope, so be it, ... That doesn't mean a whole nation should start banning everything else. Which is the totally opposite of freedom of speech... Extremism is never a good thing, not from the right wing, not from the left wing.

Respect must come from both sides. One should respect the sensitive nature of the other, and the other should respect the liberal view of the one.

--------

As for the EU needing Turkey , or vice versa: If one doesn't know all the political, economical and cultural implications (as in: do you have a seat in the EU parlement?), I don't see how you can judge if the EU doesn't or doesn't need Turkey and vice versa, or how far Turkey is with their implementation of the treaty, guidelines and rules given by the EU to enter...

All I think is that the EU must first get a proper eu law and working on a coherent community of nations, before letting other nations in. (first clean out the house, before inviting people, so to speak). But note that this doesn't say anything about my opinion of letting Turkey in or not. As this can both be good or bad, depending on many things. Which goes for any nation for that matter, not just because it is Turkey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6427355.stm

good article ^^
explain about freedom of speech and some EU things.

excerpts:

The European Union, which Turkey is hoping to join, has long called for an easing of Article 301 - the law which prevents insults to Turkish culture - arguing that the law places severe restrictions on free speech in Turkey.

Turkish visitors to the site are now greeted with a message in English and Turkish reading "Access to www.youtube.com site has been suspended in accordance with decision no: 2007/384 dated 06.03.2007 of Istanbul First Criminal Peace Court".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6427355.stm

good article ^^
explain about freedom of speech and some EU things.

---

It doesn't explain a thing, nor freedom of speech, nor does it explain some EU things.

Also, there is still a big difference between using the "it is freedom of speech" when someone insults someone else. And using "it is freedom of speech" when someone tries to make a political statement or want to discuss something in a civil manner.

The EU does indeed want to see easing that article a bit, but this has more todo with the proper "freedom of speech" issues and reprecautions it might have (eg: prison) than with the insulting matter of stuff...

Quite frankly I even don't understand what that paragraph of the EU wanting to ease that article, has to do with the report. Even if there wasn't such an article, then it will most likely still be ruled that those videos should be banned in one way or the other, or that repricutions should be taken...


Again, "freedom of speech" does not mean you can get away with insulting or whatever. It means you can state your opinion in a civil manner and differ from opinion withoug fearing punishment. It doesn't mean you can start insulting everybody and disrespect people/cultures.

Nor should "freedom of speech" ever be used to justify that.

And if you read that article closer you'll see that the request of the EU has got nothing todo with issues like this, but with things like

quote:

---

About 50 writers in the country have been put on trial for allegedly contravening the rule, including Nobel prizewinner Orhan Pamuk, though most cases have eventually been dismissed by the judge.

---

Aka: they didn't insulted anybody, they wrote about things going wrong or other things like that,... they didn't put insulting videos on the net.

Which is also why I think this BBC article goes a bit wrong, as they drag this "freedom of speech" thing into this with something which has little todo with it... Appart from the fact it was under the same law; the reasons behind it are completely different.

eg: Racism is in many countries illegal because it is insulting, degrading, disrespectfull, etc. Yet those very same countries have a very strong believe in freedom of speech. This simply shows that freedom of speech should never be used as an excuse for stuff like what happened.

Insulting someone or disrespecting someone is not proper "freedom of speech" at all, it is abusing "freedom of speech"....

Actually, think about it, by blocking youtube they give importance to the video( s), they could have ignored it, by banning it they give it importance and make it known, which is pretty unreasonable as they did not want that in first place.

I agree with you Cookie, freedom of speech doesn't justify criticising or insulting someone.. However, using censorship is against freedom of speech..

No matter what, I don't agree with the freedom of speech excuse, people should always be held accountable for what they say, online, offline (or on the phone )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voldemort
Actually, think about it, by blocking youtube they give importance to the video( s), they could have ignored it, by banning it they give it importance and make it known, which is pretty unreasonable as they did not want that in first place.

---

I certainly agree, up to a certain point though...

As the "importance" is given by the media I think (who sometimes jump on these thing like flies on a *beep* ) and as such, it goes around the world, etc, etc, etc....

You see this happening in many cases. Where some inside conflict or whatever is blown out of proportion because of the media attention to it.

(not to say that media attention isn't always a bad thing of course, on the contrary)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jhrono
However, using censorship is against freedom of speech..

---

very true too.... but then again censorship is not the same as removing something insulting either...

blah "on fine line walking all this is", Yoda would say... and he was a wise man

Well, they simply removed the whole website.. People should be able to make their own judgements, and thus, shouldn't be limited..

The best thing they could do while democratic regime was to release an announcement about certain specific content and their position on it.

Youtube will online this night (or tomorrow) .