In response to the recent violence surrounding the "Innocence of Muslims" youtube trailer, Stanford professor Ruth Starkman recently wrote: "Whatever the origins of the riots, they underscore the role of social media as a purveyor of provocation. Indifferently offering equal shares of grotesque bigotry, reasoned debate, enlightened humor and a mind-boggling variety of other responses, social media raise complex questions about freedom of speech in an increasingly global world." Consider Starkman's statements, as well as what you know about the film and its responses. Please comment about 1 or more of the following: Starkmen's post (see link below), international reactions and the "clash of cultures", potential responses or preventive measures for the future, or connections to similar situations at other times, such as the "Qur'an burning" Florida pastor. Your response should be at least 5-6 sentences in length and should directly reference at least one of the links below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruth-starkman/its-all-the-rage-the-inno_b_1906050.html
The New York times article linked below provide additional information about the protests
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/world/middleeast/muslims-rage-over-film-fueled-by-culture-divide.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Finally, this link details an interesting Twitter development related to the protests
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/17/161315765/muslim-rage-explodes-on-twitter-but-in-a-funny-way-yes-really
21 comments:
I think that what Ruth Starkman said about the power of social media is absolutely true. It has started huge riots and caused a lot of damage to be done. On the other hand, it can haphazardly unite people from different cultures, "social media succeed in fueling rage as well as redirecting it." It was because of social media that all the controversy and violence started in the first place. Yet at the same time, many people, even Muslims, have made light of the situation using social media.
Any time you put something on the internet or any social media outlet so that everyone can see it, you must be careful. As Starkman said, you never know how something will be interpreted or how people will react to it. In this very serious case, violent protests broke out in the predominately Muslim countries of the Middle East while at the same time people responded with humor in the #MuslimRage phenomenon. Due to the First Amendment and the right of free speech, I support the decision not to punish the makers of the trailer. However, the makers should have realized how much of a problem their video would cause. A measure to prevent another “culture clash” would be through the painstaking yet worthwhile process of educating people so that nothing offensive is created in the first place.
I agree with Ruth Starkman in that people have to be careful about what they post on the internet. This one video has caused an uproar all over the world particularly in the Middle East. It caused the death of a U.S ambassador and could have been the reason for several other attacks. This video poses the question of whether free speech tied in with our first amendment are always the same thing. As Starkman pointed out, in other democratic countries such as Germany, their free speech right as some limits. Their freedom of speech right takes human rights into account to prevent events like this. I think there should be some sort of protection limit on the freedom of speech right to protect the lives of the majority.The makers of the trailer should realize that their video not only had huge repercussions on their own lives (the director is now in hiding) but it fueled the killings of others.
Recently, a movie called ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ has been released. This film relentlessly degrades the Muslim people and depicts their prophet Muhammad as a common thug. The movie sparked waves of protest all throughout Egypt and neighboring countries, including attacks on American embassies. Its release has raised the question: how far is too far when it comes to social media? Should someone be able to insult another’s faith without reprimand? Many Muslims seem to think so. Also, the fact that the producers of the film released the film knowing that it would probably incite so many protests is a slap in the face to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Such reckless use of social media is repugnant.
That being said: for all its demons, social media does inspire debate. Social media is only as idiotic or intelligent as people make it. If a bigoted preacher in Florida wants to illustrate how ignorant he is, let him do it. He has a right to express himself, no matter how stupid he may sound. Social media must be unrestrained for when good interactions between enlightened souls occur, like the witty and humorous Twitter phenomenon surrounding the hashtag #MuslimRage. If freedom of speech is preserved and maintained, benevolence and humanity will out.
I agree with Ruth Starkman that anything too extreme like the Innocence of Muslims trailer can cause countless issues once posted on the Internet. I don't think it should be taken down (at least not in this country) because of the first amendment, but I think people should be smart enough to ignore such hateful messages. There are so many stereotypes in social media. The news doesn't talk about the majority of Muslims who have perfectly normal nonviolent lives; the few rioting and killing killing ambassadors make a better story. I loved the twitter posts, because it's a very effective way to spread the thoughts and opinions of the average nonviolent Muslim to undermine stereotypes.
The release of "The Innocence of Muslims" has shown how powerful social media can truly be. Soon after it was released, violent protests erupted all around the world (especially in the Middle East); as Ruth Starkman wrote, people "underscore the role of social media as a purveyor of provocation." It also raises issues about global laws of freedom of speech, as they extend to different areas in different countries. For example, freedom of speech laws in France extend to the Holocaust but not to insulting Muslim prophets. I think people have a right to speech and expression, but not if its hateful, especially about something as sensitive as religion. Although, I do like how social media, ie twitter posts, can also be a positive outlet and way of expression in response to all the negative media. They are hilarious.
I think all of this is ridiculous. Do people not have anything better to do than to become enraged by a MOVIE TRAILER and then go out and kill people? I haven't seen the trailers, but even then, I know it's not real and that no one should be bothered by it. Yes, it was made in America and freedom of speech and all that. Do I think it was a good idea to make the film? No. However, I think the producer is free to make a film about whatever he pleases. He must not have not wanted to be successful, though, since he chose a controversial topic and should have known it would get bad reviews, make no profit, and cause negative emotional stir. I'm not sure what it is about some people, but they can't seem to follow the basic concept of "if you don't like it, don't look at it." Even children can follow this concept. For example, I hate My Little Pony. I know I hate it, so I'm not going to watch it. So if it's described as an "anti-islamic" film, then why would you watch it, know you would be offended? I'm pretty sure no one forced the muslims who got upset to watch the movie trailer. Still, this whole uprising could have been avoided had the producer not made the trailers, BUT it was his choice to do so, being American. But really, manslaughter because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs? I thought this was 2012 but apparently we're still in the 1600s here. I adore the muslims who are light-hearted during this time, with their comical #MuslimRage posts, but I can't help but shake my head at the ones who are getting their knickers in a twist over it all.
The reaction to "The Innocence of Muslims" trailer shows why people need to think before they post on the internet, even in places where freedom of speech exists. In my opinion, the makers of the trailer did something morally wrong, and the fact that is caused violence and death only makes it worse. Education, and communication could have helped to lessen, or eliminate the reactions to the trailer. The Muslim people that reacted with violence to the United States should have known that a couple of Americans made the trailer, and the the government did not have anything to do with it. However, after I read "Cultural Clash Fuels Muslims Angry at Online Video," I understand why some Muslims reacted the way they did. They live in countries where the laws concerning freedom of speech are drastically different than those of the United States.
I think that the release of "The Innocence of Muslims" exemplifies how social media can be used effectively and negatively to target a certain group of people. This video was obviously intentionally released to provoke negative response from Muslims (and non-Muslims), which I think is disgusting, but it also cannot be removed due to the protections of speech in this country. Both the NY Times article and Ruth Starkman addressed the controversies stemming from this freedom of speech by discussing it in the context of Middle Eastern media, which is generally tightly controlled and does not allow insults to religion. As a result, many citizens of these countries do not understand the response that the American government has had to the hate video, and are angered that the people responsible have not been punished in some way. These differences in mentality can cause huge problems, especially when it comes to social media, when uncensored and sometimes insulting material appears on the internet.
I think that the video "The Innocence of Muslims" not only shows how powerful social media is, but it also shows how the protection the internet gives allows people to say extremely hateful and arrogant things with little fear of repercussions. I HIGHLY doubt that the makers of this video would have gone up to a Muslim and made such rude comments, but the protection of being thousands of miles away, not in person, gives people the courage to say things like this. I agree with article stating that there is no legal repercussion that can happen, due to the first amendment, but I think that as a society we must be the ones to make videos like this inexcusable. At the same time, I do feel like the Muslims who participated in violent riots overreacted, and did nothing to help fix Americans', such as the maker's of this video's, view of Muslim. I could understand peaceful protests, but killing an American ambassador is taking it way too far. I feel like it is not the government, or big companies such as Google's responsibility to deal with these problems, it is our responsibility as societies to fix the problems we have with one another.
Nora Smith
the release of this video has caused massive riots in the middle east and huge controversy all around the world; mainly about peoples freedom of speech. can these people be allowed to post a video about this? i believe when something is posted on the internet you really do have to be careful about what it says. yes there will always be controversy no matter what your stance is on any given subject but something like this video goes against the muslim religious laws and degrades there beliefs. but the difference between someone's controversial opinion and this video is that this video was made with the intention to cause a negative response from muslim and muslim supports alike. and that is just horrible... but i also see why they can not remove the video. to remove it would violate the makers right to freedom of speech. it is a slippery slope we walk between our rights and someone else's rights, bot religious and individual. As Ruth Starkman says - "Social media both promise and trouble this freedom to comment on one's own and another's culture" so is what is being shown really 'wrong'? i mean yes it was mean of the few people who made the video to post it hoping to cause a negative reaction, but it was also wrong of the muslims to react so drastically against the us government when they had to part on the creation or distribution, also it was the opinion of a few and i don't think that should constitute riots and the deaths of innocent people.
“The Innocence of Muslims” video causing a lot of out roar we have to remember what we post is public for the world to see. Starkman said, we have to be careful what we post and how people will interpret it. There a lot of tension with a war going on in the Middle East it just further fueled the fire. “When you hurt someone, you are just hurting one person … But when you insult a faith like that, you are insulting a whole nation that feels the pain.” - Ahmed Shobaky. The video never should have been made all it did was cause more harm, but also the Americans should of never been killed. We have to learn how far our words can go and the consequences that come with that. It’s wrong that the few people who made the video now reflect how we are perceived now in the Middle East. The bottom line is that four innocent Americans died in response to this video it should of never went that far.
David Kirkpatrick's article in the NYT really has me thinking about perceived religious entitlement, specifically in America. I don’t understand how so many people in our country, including those who created the hate video, think they have the right to negate the truth in other religions, while feeling that their religion is unfairly targeted or attacked by others. If someone thinks it’s perfectly alright to bash another religion, I think they should be prepared to take a dose of their own wrongdoing without screeching about injustice and necessary retribution and rights to beliefs. Morality is not a one way road—it must include both parties involved in a conflict to be applied to one side or the other. I think this is a trend that exists across the globe throughout history—religious groups claiming that theirs is the best religion and attacking all other forms of worship. It has only ever led to unnecessary violence and pain, and in the end, it is never possible to force one party into giving up their beliefs. Just as it is wrong to tell someone who they are and what they must do with their life, it is equally wrong to tell them how they must structure it, what they must believe, or who they must bow down to, politically and religiously.
Ruth Starkman's article is interesting because it explores the wide variety of ways social media are used to influence politics and real-world events, both positively and negatively. For example, social media's role in the Arab Spring was positive, as it helped unite citizens as a part of a common cause. This situation supports Mark Zuckerberg's claim that "governments will become more responsive to issues and concerns raised directly by all their people rather than through intermediaries controlled by a select few" through the wide spread use of social media outlets such as facebook. The "muslimrage" twitter phenomenon was also a result of social media access, and is positive and enlightened humor in the face of an offensive incident. However, social media are the whole reason "Innocence of Muslims" was able to spread so fast, and in turn cause so much violence. Social media allows anyone, or at least anyone in a country with free speech, to write or post offensive or hateful beliefs and opinions. This hate speech demonstrates one of the drawbacks of social media and ease of access to social media.
It is incredible how effective social media is today. Starkman was on the ball when she said that you never know how people will react or interpret some things. I think it was a good thing that the video stayed up in regards to the first amendment, but I think the makers of the video should of thought it through a little more before it went viral. I think the video could of been used as a documentary to teach people more about what is going on. But sadly it had a negative connotation to it. Now a days, some people don't think things through completely before posting something online, and things like this occur. I think that with a little more thought process things like this can be avoided.
I agree with Starkman in that social media can be an instigator of riots. Often times, the media find ways to twist stories and deliver them in a way that will catch the attention of the audience, even if it causes a negative reaction. I especially agree with Starkman's statement that "the power of social media rises in proportion to the intensity of events". With more controversial events occuring, people rely on the media to hear about them. I don't know much about this trailer, but my guess is that the media somehow changed some part of it to grab the country's attention. Although it is offensive to Muslims, the makers of the trailer do have freedom of speech as Americans and I appreciate the Muslims that are taking humor in this with the "muslim rage" hastags.
I think Ruth Starkman makes some very interesting points in his statement. People really do have to realize that media today really is a global thing. If someone posts something online it can have international implications. It's also interesting that he brings up free speech, because it really should be discussed whether people should be allowed to introduce things into the media that can be so offensive to people and ignite violence on an international scale. U.S. embassies were attacked and forced to evacuate because of an offensive video that an American posted. I think that it should at least be discussed whether we as Americans should be allowed to introduce something into the media that we know will offend other cultures around the world and put Americans living abroad in immediate danger.
Ruth Starkman's article was a very interesting one. She tied other instances in history to this one, and how social media has stirred up controversy. Americans have the constitutional right to put out whatever they want on the internet, and that is what the creators of this video did. It is very offensive, and was received as a huge insult. This shows how simple it is these days to cause an international scene. The muslim rage hashtags were amusing, and it is good to see people of all backgrounds saw it that way. Social media plays a big role in international news today, and will forever.
Valerie Stocking
Ruth Starkman's article brought an interesting point to my attention. She mentioned how social media brings up questions about our freedom of speech in the world. I had never thought that social media could be censored, but Starkman talks about how countries will censor social media to protect privacy, prevent hate-speech, and protect minors. But at what point does freedom of speech turn into freedom to harm? It seems like people abuse their freedom of speech in social media to hide behind their computer screen to say something outrageous and mean. They might not even think about the consequences their videos, tweets, or Facebook posts could have. The Twitter article brought up a valid point in mentioning a more comical response in social media. The #MuslimRage jokes all over Twitter give some humor to the idea that not many people really know about the Muslim Rage Newsweek magazine was talking about, but rather what makes Muslims angry about their lifestyle. It;s interesting to think about freedom of speech and how easy it is to abuse it, as well as the global effect of social media.
I think the release of the video "The Innocence of Muslims" on the Internet where "no one can be certain what might happen" has stirred up too much controversy to be protected. When someone is posting a video that directly targets a culture on a global site, the consequences should have been very obvious. Everyone does have the freedom of speech, and the government shouldn't be blamed for the video's content. However, because it has caused such outrage, I don't think it is acceptable to allow it to stay up. The fact that one person who didn't think about the consequences of their actions caused such a violent reaction shows how easy it is to cause a similar or possibly bigger problem in the future.
I believe that it is hard to define the the line between respectful and going too far, especially regarding social media. As Ruth Starkman says, social media content has been censored "even in countries with strong traditions of free speech, where issues of privacy, protection of minors, intellectual property and hate-speech are concerned." This further reinforces the complexity of social media because it is hard to tell what content will anger groups to the point of rioting. In my opinion, "The Innocence of Muslims" was made with the knowledge that it would create tremendous controversy and probably incite violence- which is not covered in the freedom of speech. On the contrary, social media can be used for good- such as the organizations of the Arab uprisings. While I do agree that people should be able to speak their mind, one can do it in a respectful, non-criticizing way that will not come off as "clumsy [and] amateurish."
Post a Comment