Google Blocks the E-Mail Address of a European Politician Who Offers Anti-Religion Stickers

Mmmmm. Interesting. I cringed when I saw the first bumper sticker but shrugged when I saw the second. Obviously I need to check myself in regards to biases.

Is printing stuff like this effective though? Will it actually accomplish something positive? Obviously the author is well within their rights at least here. So is google although I’d have to question whether the company is being consistent.

My thoughts are the same either way. I know certain “right wing” types in the US like to think that atheists only oppose xtians, but I for one find all religion and religious indoctrination to be utter bullshit.

i always forget i can do that. /doh

hee, there’s some irony for you. using google translate to read a page about google being Evil.

Just because he speaks the truth does not mean that Google is obligated to give him a platform from which to speak it. That said, I have zero confidence in Google and any claims of ethics it may make, especially their “Don’t Be Evil” motto.

“I’d have to question whether the company is being consistent” You, sir, have said the magic words and are great high exalted ruler of the Internet this day. You asked the perfect, most logical, most reasonable question about this situation. However, I would not hold my breath waiting for an answer, you probably do not look good in blue….

How many of us have read Google’s terms of service?

Since I live in NL I know the background. If he had put “Religion is a lie, all prophets are crooks. Holy texts are poison.” then nobody would give a shit here. But singling out Islam as the (implied) only false one causes knee-jerk denials.

“Christianity is a lie. Jesus is a crook. The Bible is poison.”
I don’t see a problem with it other than that it can be disputed as too simplistic, and too flowery. I’m not sure where the “Jesus is a crook” part comes from. I think he stole a donkey once so you might call him a thief. Crook seems like a term referring to someone who makes their living by criminality. He was more like a con artist. Not sure how the bible could be “poison”. Was someone planning to eat it?
Calling Mohammad a crook is more appropriate. He did raid caravans for a living. He was however far worse than a mere crook. He was also a genocidal slaver and pedophile.
Both Christianity and Islam are based on falsehoods. They aren’t “a lie” however. More like a bundle of falsehoods, since lying requires that the teller knows it is false, and the singular seems inappropriate. Islam is more clearly based on lies because the founder, Mohammad was the lier. Not sure how it would apply to Christianity. It is possible that Christianity started via rumor, not lies.
Of course, I don’t think any of this is “hate”. It’s opinion. Google is being ridiculous.

Thanks to both you and Jeff. Haven’t thought of it in terms of private versus public companies although I don’t know if the distinction is enough to validate one action being a suppression of free speech and the other one being perfectly fine. I’ll have to think on it more.

Actually reading it again (and lacking the ability to edit), please substitute “Christian” with “Muslim”. Or even better, “religious person”.

Not that kind of blue, no 😉

I don’t see how an email account is a “platform from which to speak”. It is a private messaging system, and is not akin to a soap box or other platform upon which a speaker stands as the phrase alludes.

Am I the only one bothered that it’s a politician doing that? I know we in the USA get pissed when a politician uses his podium and power to espouse his or her views on gawd.

To be clear, this is not a legal objection as I don’t know Dutch laws regarding this.

There are some leftists who side with Islam and oppose Christianity. There has been outcries from the left over criticism of Islam as “Islamophobia” when they’ve been silent for decades over far worse things done to Christians, and Christianity. So not surprising that some right wing types get confused and think atheists think this way. Generally I read them referring to “leftists” not “atheists” in their criticisms though.

But, like much of Europe, a large Muslim *immigrant* population. I don’t care whether you call this sticker racism or islamophobia or plain old fashioned jingoism, it is an ugly thing that has nothing to do with the objective truth of whether or not their religion is correct.

Whenever i see this sort of thing from Europe, I go ahead and pretend they’re talking about Hispanics. It’s the same sort of thing.

Why not go for the more general
Religion is a lie. Messiahs are crooks. Holy books are poison.

He has done that now — set up his own domain, I mean. The fact that he initially chose a gmail address might indicate that he knew of the possibility that Google would shut it down, and that he picked gmail anyway to benefit from the controversy and the publicity it would generate. I’m just guessing…

Because it doesn’t fit his demagogy. In fact, this action by Google works out well for him, because again he gets the attention he wants. Free speech advocates all come to his rescue, but they forget that he only wants free speech for himself. Even within his own party people are kicked out as soon as they dare to publicly question his dictates.

To give you an impression who we’re talking about: Geert Wilders was one of the inspirations for Anders Breivik, the Oslo terrorist.

let me clarify. i know that in our corporate controlled world, there is no “right” to free expression when using their products. i clicked the ‘agree to terms’ button, and that was my choice. but i am disturbed by the increasing encroachment upon free expression that corporations have demonstrated in the last few decades. more and more, we accept that profit is more important than free expression, and that consumers should take instruction and directions from the businesses they patronize. that is very chilling to me.

as far as the DD guy, other commenters have said what i would’ve said. his rights as a citizen were not violated and i’m quite tired of people who don’t understand the definition of what freedom of speech means in this country. it has to do with government, not a private corporation. anyway, the bigot got his job back and imho the whole thing was planned from the beginning to sell DD junk at walmart, etc.

Playing devil’s advocate, comparing Christianity and Islam in this context is not necesserily appropriate. Yes, they’re both religions but one is a majority with a major public platform while the other is a minority. This power discrepancy necessitates some deference to the minority because they’re less able to defend themselves against harmful statements. Given this, generic anti-blah statements should be more carefully weighed when against minorities than when against majorities.

Evolution is a lie, Dawkins is a crook. Origin of the species Is poison.
I am sure Google would suspend the account of someone who promoted this bumper sticker.

While Google’s actions are disappointing , the context is important :
1.The guy is using the gmail account to promote his ideology . This brings some publicity onto google.
2. Gmail is a free service – like most freebies , it is provided as is with no guarantees and/or rights . So google as a commercial entity does not want to be embroiled in such a debate. They don’t want to be on the frontlines of the war. The government/judiciary’s lack of clarity on this issue is the major fault here IMO.

and finally :
3.The guy maybe promoting hate speech . While all religions are a lie , religious leaders of one group try to bring hate onto another religion . This is very common in my country (India)
The distinction between free speech and hate speech is thin , subjective and delicate .

I personally support government control of hate speech . In my country , you can be punished by jail time for abusing people of lower castes using derogatory terms.

why does it ‘imply’ that Islam is the only false one? i don’t read that at all.

i sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. i’m fairly sure i can find plenty of google accounts that say that every single day.

It’s a free service. They’re under no obligation to provide it to those they don’t want to.

” It is a private messaging system…”

In the sense that it’s the private property of Google, yes.

Xtians, for the most part, don’t call for their followers to rain down firebombs and suicide attacks on companies, groups or people who denounce Xtianity.

For the most part, perhaps, but there are still Xians who do exactly that. See: Operation Rescue, Army of God, Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, Joseph Stack, Anders Breivik, etc. ad nauseum.

Yes, but they are open to criticism for their cowardly, censorious actions. Seriously, fuck Google and their “don’t be evil” platitudes.

I’m wondering if the account was blocked not because of the content of this person’s stickers, but because of the number of complaints brought against it.

Google may have had little more to do with this than an automated system. If an account receives too many flags, the software itself may block an account until further review. I’ve seen it a lot with atheist videos posted on YouTube (also owned by Google) where Christian groups sent in mass complaints and triggered an automated response.

I doubt that.

He said “for the most part” so I would interpret that as meaning he is aware of the outliers.

Most of our politicians do similar things. Many run on platforms denouncing us heathens, and such.

Perhaps he doesn’t believe that.

Likely.

I thought about this myself. There were so many people that were outraged, saying they’d stop watching A&E, but it seems like the controversy just brought in more viewers than ever before.

1.6 billion people plus a couple of the richest countries in the world how could somebody possibly overlook this tiny minority? Oh my fucking god.

well, you must be very privileged and not be exposed to much right wing media, then. pam geller, anyone? she’s just the tip of that racist heap of crap.

Maybe a bit strong but in no way obscene or anything so since when has Google decided what is/isn’t crossing the line? I know they’ve bent (some would say broken) their “Don’t be Evil” motto several times but now it seems they’re getting into censorship & free speech issues (on the wrong side) & that crosses my line. It’s ridiculous. I just tried sending an eMail to see if i could get some stickers & it IS indeed blocked/disappeared.

They’re a minority in Europe.

Sheesh, next you’ll be saying that there isn’t any racism in the US because Africa has a lot of black people!

Instead of crook I would have went with child rapist, but that’s me.

Yep. It’s sarcasm.

I think you have a fan.

If Google started denying service to African Americans they’d have a big civil rights act lawsuit on their hands.

No problem at all…so long as no actual violence is advocated, free speech should have priority.

plat·form (pltfôrm)
n.
1.
a. A horizontal surface raised above the level of the adjacent area, as a stage for public speaking or a landing alongside railroad tracks.
b. A vessel, such as a submarine or an aircraft carrier, from which weapons can be deployed.
c. An oil platform.
2. A place, means, or opportunity for public expression of opinion: a journal that served as a platform for radical views.
3. A vestibule at the end of a railway car.
4. A formal declaration of the principles on which a group, such as a political party, makes its appeal to the public.
5.
a. A thick layer, as of leather or cork, between the inner and outer soles of a shoe, giving added height.
b. A shoe having such a construction.
6. Computer Science The basic technology of a computer system’s hardware and software that defines how a computer is operated and determines what other kinds of software can be used.
7. Geology
a. A flat elevated portion of ground.
b. The ancient, stable, interior layer of a continental craton composed of igneous or metamorphic rocks covered by a thin layer of sedimentary rock.

Since the publicity was probably not desired by the person doing the suppression, it’s still Streisand effect.

Well, we could test that. Find someone advocating anti-atheist hatred, flood Google with complaints, and see whether their account gets blocked.

Amazon censors opinions of non-Christians on its forums.

I posted this on an Amazon forum: “Many Christians are narrow-minded, unintelligent, willfully ignorant, hateful, bigoted– you know who I’m talking about!– thoroughly despicable, immoral (if not amoral) people. Despite this, God still Loves them.” ‘Hate speech’, says Amazon and removes it.

This is okay: “The Koran and Hadiths of Islam is an insult to women and pretty much
everything outside of Islam. Christians and Jews are supposedly created
by Allah, and purposefully led astray, and made evil, so that they will
all occupy Hell in the place of all Muslims. All non believers are
detested, Muhammad murdered 1000’s of “non believers”. He pillaged,
murdered, raped. He was a sex slave trader, and he had sex with a 9 year
old. This is all in the Koran and Hadiths. All of Islam reads about all
this, and they they still love him, and if anyone shows any disgust in
Muhammad, they are to be killed, just as Muhammad had all his political
opponets, and detractors murdered. Murdering for political gain,
terrorism, pedophelia, and hatred is taught in the Koran and Hadiths.
The Koran and Hadiths lies about Christ, and lies about all other
religions as being evil. The lack of disgust for Muhammad and Islam is
staggering. You have this videao that lampoons and exposes the craziness
in the Koran, Islamists go on yet another murder tirade(as the Koran
and Hadiths teach them to do) and everyone shows disgust for the makers
of the video. It seems to me the video makers are the only sane ones in
the room. If anything, they diserve a pat on the back for attempting to
expose Muhammad and what is in the Koran.”

http://www.amazon.com/forum/religion/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1M9TK6UGAX6EO&cdMsgID=MxTVXTPRCK9F1&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx35RVEQPQX05IW#MxTVXTPRCK9F1

I was eventually banned from posting in Amazon forums or reviewing books etc, for making ‘spiteful’ comments.

Email from Amazon: “We’ve repeatedly removed your discussion board posts from the Amazon.com website, as they were outside of our guidelines and were considered to be spiteful.

“Post: Uhhh…’goblue’ (aka ‘Ferengi’) is a long-time Amazon troll. He’s been banned a couple of times but Amazon is a lot more tolerant of trolls these days while apparently having become far less tolerant of sincere posters who don’t toe the Amazon party line (IE, Amazon seems to be bigoted against non-Christians in general and non-believers in particular). ‘goblue’ might be an annoying, repetitive, thick-headed jerk but as a self-identified Christian, he fits in with Amazon’s agenda.”

Yet “Richard Dawkins is an utter moron” is entirely acceptable, as is “If there are a 100 atheists in a room, and a skin-head Australian Nazi
comes in with a machine gun and kills them all, is a crime committed’

http://www.amazon.co.uk/forum/religion/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx24A4CS3HPMJLK&cdPage=1&cdThread=TxKVNO60N1EF58

http://www.amazon.com/forum/atheist/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3VDTKO61HE6U7&cdMsgID=MxWOM6PX8AG8AE&cdMsgNo=7205&cdPage=289&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1BZVKXCWL1G7N#MxWOM6PX8AG8AE

Yes, Amazon does occasionally delete a post made by a Christian (or ban one altogether) but most censorship is directed against atheists and other non-Christians. The censorship of Christian posts is few and far between (and the banned Xians almost always seem to create new accounts and continue as before, unhindered by Amazon censors).

See also: http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdThread=Tx2NGJ5XD3Z5TTN

http://www.amazon.com/forum/atheist/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3VDTKO61HE6U7&cdThread=Tx36VLGOBOA740T

http://www.amazon.com/Bullpucky/forum/FxS78NWF246LKC/Tx1WT8IMFOBC0I8/1/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1419348876

Gmail is a lie, Google + is a crook, Google is poisonous. In whichever you like.

Most EU countries are secular and the people don’t give a damn about Jesus Boy.

It’s free speech just like Phil Robertson’s (Duck Dynasty) interview.

Unity Mitford said in public, very emphatically, “yes, I am an anti-Semite”. It was the word the German government and its supporters used to describe themselves. It was only after the German defeat that it became a boo-word.

To me, it read like a smear.

Show me where Wilders has advocated the murder of Muslims, or anyone at all.

While you’re searching, let’s look at the other side: There’s a fatwa on his head, he needs a 24/7 security detail, and Muslims the world over openly advocate that he must be killed like a dog.

Yet he’s the aggressor, somehow?

Anti-semite means specifically someone who hates Jews. Given the facts about Israel it is very common for anti-semites to attack Israel with regard to the Palestinians. You might just be in thrall of anti-semetic propaganda with regards to Israel. Then again some people make these charges erroneously. Palestinians themselves tend to be virulent anti-semites. Those who deviate from such a narrative soon find themselves killed, so it is hard to get a reading on this.

Also, genetic studies have shown that Jews are very close genetically. From Wiki: “Concerning North African Jews, Autosomal genetic analysis in 2012 revealed that
North African Jews are genetically close to European Jews. This findings “shows
that North African Jews date to biblical-era Israel, and are not largely the
descendants of natives who converted to Judaism” As some have claimed, Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. Not surprising in that they discourage conversions, and trace Jewishness via maternal lines. So if you are an anti-semite you are also likely a racist.

That was a totally unresponsive, and pointless comment.

Those are stupid arguments that are totally at odds with free speech. They are rationalizations for suppressing not only free speech, but worse, for suppressing true free speech. All you need do is classify someone speaking the truth as being “dangerous” and throw them in jail. Regardless of the truth of the matter. This is exactly how atheists have been suppressed for millennial.

By this “obligation” I meant a real obligation, not an artificial one.

I presented an argument for the position that it is legitimate to treat anti-Muslim speech differently from anti-Christian speech, not an argument for banning anti-Muslim speech. The argument that I presented not preclude the consideration of other factors when deciding how to treat speech. You clearly are lacking in critical thinking, and it is frustrating having to explain that argument mean exactly what arguments mean. That an argument can be twisted into a “rationalization” for some other position is not a valid counterargument. That an argument can be used by censors does not mean that the argument is, itself, arguing for censorship. Rather than addressing whether the argument is true, you are addressing the consequences of making the argument, which is, ironically, what you are accusing the argument of doing.

“I presented an argument for the position that it is legitimate to treat anti-Muslim speech differently from anti-Christian speech, not an argument for banning anti-Muslim speech.”

I know, and it is an invalid argument, that once accepted can be used more broadly. It is similar to the false claim that “blacks can’t be racists because they are in the minority”.

“You clearly are lacking in critical thinking, and it is frustrating having to explain that argument mean exactly what arguments mean.”

Arguments have implications. That is a part of critical thinking that you need to learn.

The criteria of your argument “endangerment” is too broad. True speech can endanger. If I truthfully claimed you were a murderer that puts you in danger of a lynching. If you are a minority that puts you in even more danger if only because there is a larger potential pool of lynchers. That’s not my problem.

Once you accept your argument there is no reason why your means of “discrimination” between different speech on this basis cannot be used to outlaw it. This is in fact happening on campus, and other places to great ill effect.

http://video.thefire.org/2013/05/in-defense-of-being-offensive-jonathan-rauch-on-the-new-threats-to-free-thought/

I didn’t even fully attack all your critical thinking flaws. Like your false belief that discrimination comes into play here. Muslims are NOT discriminated against in opening email accounts and printing bumper stickers. Making true statements about Islam is not an example of discrimination against Muslims.

It’s not that I can’t “get” your arguments. They are just poor arguments. You make all sorts of bad assumptions and make deductions that do not follow from any good assumptions you make.

There have been numerous societies in which the minority has discriminated against the majority to great effect. It is very very common. So you are completely wrong about that assumption too. Example after example can be found throughout history and even today. They practice actual discrimination however, not free speech, to do so.

There are also numerous examples of minorities who are discriminated against not being economically effected by that discrimination to great effect. Chinese and Jews, as minoritiies, in a variety of countries, have been discriminated against and yet earned far above the income of those doing the discrimination.

You’d have to learn some economics to understand how that is possible. I suggest you pick up a book by economist Thomas Sowell as a start.

“That an argument can be used by censors does not mean that the argument is, itself, arguing for censorship.”

I didn’t say you were arguing for censorship. You have to now explain why your argument is valid in the one case but not the other. We do ban speech on the criteria of endangerment. You’ve now claimed that we can treat majority speech as endangering to minorities. Why can’t we then ban it. They ban holocaust denial in Europe. That is at least false speech. Your argument also works against true speech.

Except that you cannot use any public forum or set up a blog etc without having a verified email account first.

Then one would expect blocking to occur when and if they set up a blog using the email account and then used that as a platform. It is also likely google can block blogs without disabling email accounts.

Not me personally. After our first exchange I’d figured picking my nose would have been a better use of my time.

Maybe my optimism is getting the better of me but for a brief moment I thought an olive branch had been offered.

It’s a metal slime from the Dragon Quest series of games. You can see the entire image here: http://lady-die.deviantart.com/art/A-Metal-Slime-Draws-Near-210482851

If you thought it looked like a Klan hood, then you have issues of your own to deal with.

“The total number of anti-Semitic incidents in the United States fell by 14% in 2012, continuing a three-year trend of incremental declines, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, issued Monday.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4408907,00.html

A few years ago the American Jewish Congress posted an article showing that while there has been a long-term decline in anti-semitic incidents, Jews were more fearful of it.

So it is not rampant, but a perception. “The ADL Audit reported a total of 927 anti-Semitic incidents across the US in 2012” So with approximately 6 million Jews in the U.S., that makes a rate of 0.16%. It is likely even lower because Jewish militants have invented “the new anti-semitism”, usually meaning criticism of, or action against, Israel to include even more events.

It is in the interest of Jews, as well as say Muslims and other religious, to exaggerate their plight to plead for action against something that does not exist. Latinos, Blacks, and women have more cause to complain about discrimination and violence against them.

I don’t discount that point, it is well-taken.

However, this is happening not in Uganda, but in Europe – where the Muslim population is growing, and is becoming more vocal and influential. While, here in the USA, we do have isolated incidents of abortion clinic bombings and the like by radical Christians,they are more isolated, and pretty roundly denounced by both the press and other, less radical, Christians who form their majority. This type of criticism seems to be far less common in Islamic “jihad” attacks, as the extremists in Islam will also attack those critical of their methods, even if they are Muslims as well.

As an aside, this is an interesting point of view on how Islam can quietly sneak up on a society:
http://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/4-stages-of-islamic-conquest/

You are playing semantic games. Emails are used to communicate with the public. Certainly, in the case, the email address was being used as part of public expression.

I was talking about in Europe. Which BTW is where the majority of anti-Israeli propaganda occurs.

Emails are not used to communicate with the public. If that were the case then people wouldn’t need to use Freedom of Information requests against the government to get emails sent by the EPA. Since when are emails public information? Never. Emails are used to communicate privately. The email address was NOT being use to express anything publicly. To do so would require that they know everyones email address. They don’t know mine. I’m part of the public, and they can’t inform me or anyone else of any information without an address. I can’t believe how ignorant you are about this subject. Little kids can grasp these concepts.

Europe, heh? So that is why you mentioned Louis Farrakan. On what basis do you say that the majority of anti-Israeli propaganda occurs in Europe? Anyway, being anti-Israel is not anti-semitism but some groups conflate the two and then you have the so-called “new anti-semitism”. That is one way to inflate figures in the U.S. and Europe about alleged growing anti-semitism.

“Nonsense”

Open an email account and try communicating with a public audience. You’ll find it is impossible. You will only be able to send private messages.

“The fact that people send private emails does nothing to establish that every email is private.”

Give a single example of an email that is NOT private. Even spam is sent to private accounts.

“When they are released to the public. Duh.”

Via something other than email, like a newspaper or web site, Duh.

“It was being used to communicate with the public about a bumper sticker.”

No. It was being used to receive private orders for bumper stickers. Presumably even with private credit card information. Hardly public.

“The email address was publicly advertised”

So what? Peoples phone numbers are publicly advertsied when lislted in the phone directory. That doesn’t make a private phone number (nor any conversations done on it) a form of public communication.

“If you choose to not be in the park when someone makes a public speech, that doesn’t change the fact that the speech is public.”

A public speech is public because it is done in public. There is no requirement in the definition of public that every person on the planet read or hear of it. It just has to be done publicly not privately.

“Are you constitutionally unable to have a respectful conversation?”

I have respectful conversations all the time. In fact a tiny minority of conversations are with people who are so stubbornly ignorant, and abusive like you. Don’t you feel hypocritical after your other rants in response to my simply pointing out that communist countries are atheist?

From your links, I see that now there are a third and fourth types of anti-semitism: “Orwellian” whatever that means and “on par for” whatever that means.

A boycott of Israel is logical in that it is the state that the U.S. supports unconditionally the most and for no good reason. Most of the neo-cons are Jews, starting with the person who invented it, Leo Strauss. But I haven’t seen criticism of them for being Jewish. Who says neo-con Jew Wolfowitz for example? I would also like to know where you get your figures from. Learn more about the neo-con ideology at the BBC documentary, “The Power of Nightmares”. They seem most unlikely to me.

As to the comedian who you didn’t name, that is Dieudonné. Anelka got the gesture wrong. It should have been his right hand over his left. This is not an anti-semitic gesture but one the comedian has used for years in sketches which is a form of the French “bras d’honneur”, equivalent to Americans giving the middle finger to someone. It is a sign saying “screw those in power”.

Recently French President Hollande made an insulting joke about Algeria, and that was while speaking to the racist Jewish group, Crif. Your comment on France 2 doesn’t surprise me, because it often highlights supposed anti-semitism. But there is more discrimination against French-Arabs, called Maghrebins, and Blacks than against Jews.

As to beatings, the Jewish Defense League has attacked bookstores, where authors of books critical of Israel were signing books, and hit people with boards and baseball bats. Funny that the police never found nor arrested anyone responsible.

People are against Israel because it stole Palestinian land and drove hundreds of thousands into exile, and it is illegally occupying and expanding its illegal colonization of the West Bank. Read Ari Shavitz’s book, “My Israel” to see how much Israel supports human rights from 1948 on.