Obama and Google's Mutual Adviser: Jesus is gay, wears a diaper, and gets run over

By Erick Posted in | | | | Comments (125) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

“Call the Senate Commerce Committee at 202-224-5115. Tell the committee it is abhorrent to have Larry Lessig parroting Google's call for open networks while Google censors and denigrates Christians.

Just the other day I posted about the Obama voters at the University of Washington. On their way home from an Obama rally they videotaped themselves ridiculing Christian voters and were kind enough to put it on the web.

Now comes word that Larry Lessig and Google really could care less that so many of us revere Jesus. This time the Lord is not in a jar of urine, but singing "I will survive" in a diaper before being run over by a bus. If you are really curious, you can watch this work of blasphemy here.

Though the Obama campaign is guarded in what connection Lessig has to the campaign, googling Obama's technology policy we can see that tech bloggers are widely under the impression that Obama consulted Lessig first. In fact, Lessig hosts the policy on his website.

Likewise, in his endorsement of Obama, Lessig admits they are friends and former colleagues. Lessig has also been on the campaign trail speaking on behalf of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama's campaign has regularly cited Lessig as a key supporter on technology issues (see here too) and made sure Lessig was quoted when listing Obama's technology endorsers.

Obama's campaign has also used Lessig to reach out to journalists writing about Obama's tech positions.

It's no secret that the Obama campaign does not want to be tied too directly to Lessig. In addition to happily showing off blasphemous images of Christ, Lessig is also known as a digital communist (read the linked article for the substance of why he's called that) Lessig believes there should be no such thing as intellectual property rights -- patents and copyrights should be tossed. Lessig's anti-property theories give businesses and a lot of regular folks the heebie-jeebies. After all, if the government can strip you of your intellectual property, why can't it take away your real property?

Just as importantly as advising Obama though, Lessig is an adviser to Google. And it was at a Google employee event that Lessig showed off a video of an effeminate Jesus who strips down to all but a loin cloth diaper singing "I Will Survive" until getting run over by a bus. Lessig acted bemused and surprised by the reaction of some saying, "This is a little bit touchy to some people. I don't get it, so just chill. The underlying message here is that Jesus does survive."

After the conclusion of the video Lessig says there's a sequel making clear Jesus had survived getting run over. You'd have thought that by the time Lessig showed his video to Google, he'd have reconsidered the Jesus clip considering the last time he'd shown it, people walked out.

You can hear the Google employees laughing.

Read on . . .

Now, this is important for a number of reasons beyond another connection to Obama by someone denigrating the Christian religion.

Google has never been a Christian friendly organization. It censored a pro-life video from YouTube posted by the American Life League.

The Christian Institute in the UK sued Google for anti-Christian discrimination after Google refused to allow the organization to advertise through Google.

Naturally though, Google censored content offensive to muslims going so far as to remove videos that Islamists found blasphemous..

Oh, and we can't forget Google banned Michele Malkin for showing the Mohammed Cartoons from Denmark.

Tomorrow, Lawrence Lessig will testify before the Senate Commerce Committee on the future of the internet. Lessig will do Google's bidding and suggest that the net neutrality doctrine should be legislated to force companies that provide the connection to your home to give everyone access for free. It sounds great until you start thinking about all the freeloaders. I too supported net neutrality in principle until realizing just how far left groups like Google want to push it -- eradicating privacy along the way. But, while Google wants open access to your broadband connection, they themselves want to censor pro-lifers and Christians from Google's own network.

I would encourage you to call the Senate Commerce Committee at 202-224-5115 today and tomorrow and express your outrage that Google would censor Christian content on its network, while mocking Christians behind closed doors with Larry Lessig.

And you Christians who support Obama, given the growing evidence that the body of his supporters look down on you, is this really the guy you want to support?

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Glass JawComments (4) »
Obama and Google's Mutual Adviser: Jesus is gay, wears a diaper, and gets run over 125 Comments (0 topical, 125 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

I think Lessig's "Creative Commons" license rocks. I use CC licensed material all the time when putting together presentations.

I don't trust Google any farther than I can throw them (they probably know more about what I do during the day than my wife does), but the Time-Warner vision of the internet isn't very appealing to me either.

5 by von

This post makes no sense whatsoever, Erick. Calling Lessig a communist displays a breathtaking ignorance regarding both Lessig and the nature of communism itself. It's an insult to Lessig, our intelligence, and the brave men and women who stood up to and died as a result of real communists.

And the post goes downhill from there.

I don't know that I agree with Lessig's views on net neutrality. I don't know if I agree with TimeWarner's views. I do know, however, that Lessig* knows a heckuva lot about copyright law. He deserves to be heard and considered, not slandered.

von

*Lessig's a former Scalia clerk -- natch, since Scalia's a total commie too.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The fact that Erick, you, and I all consider "communist" a killing insult doesn't mean that the same is true for academics - and the one that wrote the LA article was not trying to be insulting by calling the whole thing "Marxist-Lessigism."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You should have read the Legal Affairs article, von

I did read it Moe. The article notes that Lessig has been called various names -- including "communist" -- by a columnist in Forbes and, in 1998, by the Ayn Rand Institute. The article goes on to explain how the charge is without merit.

By the way, it is false, as in untrue, as in not-even-a-little-bit-correct, as in not-even-fair-as-a-rhetorical-device, to say that "Lessig believes there should be no such thing as intellectual property rights -- patents and copyrights should be tossed." That is not Lessig's belief, it's not even close to his belief, and it really has nothing whatsoever to do with Lessig's argument.

Again, to the extent that this post attacks Lessig, it's an insult to our intelligence and an embarrassment. You don't have to agree with Lessig's ideas; indeed, I'm not sure that I agree with Lessig's ideas. But this is nothing more than an extended -- and false -- ad hominem.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

ON THE OTHER HAND, WHILE LESSIG'S PROPOSED I.P. REFORM stops well short of the destruction of private property, it stirs a Marxian debate in a much more interesting and crucial sense. For starters, it is clear that I.P. reform is a conflict involving a significant class struggle. There are I.P. haves and I.P. have-nots. And in a world where the means of production are increasingly controlled by intellectual property, the dynamics exist for significant conflict. But the majority of the I.P. have-nots are in the developing world, which is why the globalization debate often involves intellectual property. Any Marxist-Lessigist revolution therefore is likely to be mediated through the cordon sanitaire of international trade, and through the World Trade Organization. The prospect of I.P.-induced violence, at least in the United States, is unlikely.

But more than this, I.P. reform arises out of a genuine Marxism, that of the open source movement. Open source, or "copyleft," as the movement is often called, involves the transfer of the means of cultural and creative production from capital to the worker. It is usually thought to be limited to computer software. The Linux operating system was created by thousands of programmers and has been freely distributed on the understanding that others might amend, fix, improve, and extend it. But while software might be the paradigmatic example of open source, the revolution it promises reaches much further. The widest-read and most influential newspaper in South Korea is Ohmynews, whose motto is "Every Citizen is a Reporter." Ohmynews hires no reporters, and relies wholly on individual contributions of news stories by its readers. Another example is the Wikipedia, an open source, online encyclopedia that is entirely written, edited, and rewritten by anyone who cares to contribute to it. Even though there is no control structure—there are no editors, nor is there a publisher—it rivals commercial encyclopedias in scope and quality of coverage. Or consider the Distributed Proofreader's Project, a group of people who volunteer to proofread and edit vast reams of scanned documents for inclusion in Project Gutenberg, another open source initiative that puts out-of-copyright books online.

Well, I'm sure that he'll take your nomenclature issues under advisement. Then again, perhaps not: this kind of theological debate is best left to people who actually believe in the core principles, which includes neither you, me, nor Erick.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Erick shouldn't have made a blatantly false characterization of Lessig's positions on copyright and intellectual property. It's as simple as that.

He could have avoided doing so through some basic fact checking. Such fact checking might have included direct quotes from Lessig rather than citing (or copy-pasting) second hand accounts.

This is what Erick wrote: "Lessig believes there should be no such thing as intellectual property rights -- patents and copyrights should be tossed"

This is some of what Lessig actually says:

[Questioner] "Do you not agree that an artist's ability to copyright his work, if he chooses to, creates incentives for that artist to innovate and create?"
[Lessig] OF COURSE I do! Absolutely it does. And most of my work these days is devoted to making it easier for ARTISTS to choose how best to deploy the rights the law gives them.
[...]
I believe that copyrights, properly defined and reasonably balanced, ought to be defended by copyright owners, and organizations (whether the RIAA or others) devoted to defending such rights. I'm sure everyone at the EFF believes the same. But just as a lawyer who defends someone charged with auto theft does not therefore support auto theft, so too with the EFF: They are, rightly, defending the rights of individuals that they believe, rightly, should not be prosecuted in this way under this law. [cite]

But hey, it's a strange world we live in.

Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, with the legal backing of digital civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), has contested an attempt by major label Universal Music Group to have her podcast criticizing one of its artists removed from YouTube under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Malkin recently called Universal hip-hop artist Akon a "misogynist," and his act "vulgar and degrading" in a podcast posted on YouTube, using video footage from an Akon show to back up her points.

Universal then submitted a takedown notice, claiming the podcast violated its copyrights; Malkin responded with a counter-notice, arguing she made "fair use" of the video for the purposes of criticism and commentary. [cite]

I suppose this makes Michelle Malkin a "Marxist-Lessigist" sympathizer!

This is a different conversation: i.e., why Erick called it "digital communism" in the first place. If you want to argue that he shouldn't have, then go after the LA article that he used.

Sheesh.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

What side of copyright and IP law would the LA Times take, pray tell? I don't think it'd be for any sort of reform.

Also, I would point out that Lessig started off as a Republican, then turned into a left-libertarian. On most issues, we're probably more in agreement with Lessig than Obama, actually. Does he have his faults? Of course; for one, he's advising Obama. That being said, I'd have more to worry about from Google than from Lessig.

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

It does a heck of a job explaining the motivations of a paper who is trying to paint an advocate of shorter copyrights with the Communist brush.

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

That might explain some things.

Note to self... no more drinking and blogging :)

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

It happens. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The article got the key point right (emphasis mine):

LIKE MANY OTHER I.P. REFORMERS, Lessig is routinely denounced as a communist. [...] The Marxist slur is a simple rhetorical device that paints I.P. reformers as both dangerous and willfully ignorant. [...] Yet this use of the "Marxist" tag is shallow and empty.

When people such as Manes or those at the Ayn Rand Institute charge Lessig with Marxism, they refer to two features of Marxist-Leninism: the rejection of private property, and the civil uprising that Mikhail Bakunin and V.I. Lenin said was necessary to move from capitalism to communism. The kind of social reform of intellectual property proposed by Lessig doesn't involve either of these elements.

I'm hard pressed to find anything in the article that Erick could lean on to excuse his blatant mischaracterization of Lessig's position or the mis-labeling of Lessig as either communist or Marxist. If Erick would like to explain himself, I'm all ears. The closest it comes, from my perspective, is to try and draw similar characteristics around the concept of transferring "the means of cultural and creative production from capital to the worker".

If that kind of parallel is enough to get one labeled a communist then I imagine bloggers ought not get so carried away as they happily point out how their grass roots "revolution" has shifted the power of the pen away from Big Media to the little guy.

...of an article which explicitly attempts to define Lessig's arguments in Marxist terms, and show that they are compatible with a Marxist worldview.

If you have a problem with that, then take it up with Dan Hunter.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

an article which explicitly attempts to define Lessig's arguments in Marxist terms, and show that they are compatible with a Marxist worldview

From the article, again:

... this use of the "Marxist" tag is shallow and empty.
[...]
... they refer to two features of Marxist-Leninism: the rejection of private property, and the civil uprising ... necessary to move from capitalism to communism. The kind of social reform of intellectual property proposed by Lessig doesn't involve either of these elements.

So, no, the article doesn't come anywhere close to showing that Lessig's position on copyright is compatible with a Marxist worldview. It directly refutes that on two of the critical tenets of Marxist theory, and instead discusses a minor parallel regarding a transfer of the means of production. And when you actually read what Lessig says about property and copyright, you discover that, if anything, his position is completely incompatible with a theory that requires an abolition of all property ownership.

What's goofy about your defense is that the article also lumps together "citizen-journalists" with "open source programmers" - noting that both groups are part of the same kind of revolution (taking hold of "the means of production" in their respective fields). So I guess I could have written a post calling Erick a "journalism communist", cited the LA article that notes the activity of bloggers happens to look kinda like the proletariat if you look from a certain angle and ignore the lack of violence, and you would be on my side, of course, since after all, I did cite that pesky article that defined blogging in Marxist terms.

If you have a problem with that, then take it up with Dan Hunter.

Well, no. Only Erick can explain how the heck he came up with this factually incorrect characterization of Lessig's position. Trying to blame the article for that really isn't advancing your position, or his:

Lessig believes there should be no such thing as intellectual property rights -- patents and copyrights should be tossed. Lessig's anti-property theories ...

ON THE OTHER HAND, WHILE LESSIG'S PROPOSED I.P. REFORM stops well short of the destruction of private property, it stirs a Marxian debate in a much more interesting and crucial sense. For starters, it is clear that I.P. reform is a conflict involving a significant class struggle. There are I.P. haves and I.P. have-nots. And in a world where the means of production are increasingly controlled by intellectual property, the dynamics exist for significant conflict. But the majority of the I.P. have-nots are in the developing world, which is why the globalization debate often involves intellectual property. Any Marxist-Lessigist revolution therefore is likely to be mediated through the cordon sanitaire of international trade, and through the World Trade Organization. The prospect of I.P.-induced violence, at least in the United States, is unlikely.

But more than this, I.P. reform arises out of a genuine Marxism, that of the open source movement. Open source, or "copyleft," as the movement is often called, involves the transfer of the means of cultural and creative production from capital to the worker. It is usually thought to be limited to computer software. The Linux operating system was created by thousands of programmers and has been freely distributed on the understanding that others might amend, fix, improve, and extend it. But while software might be the paradigmatic example of open source, the revolution it promises reaches much further. The widest-read and most influential newspaper in South Korea is Ohmynews, whose motto is "Every Citizen is a Reporter." Ohmynews hires no reporters, and relies wholly on individual contributions of news stories by its readers. Another example is the Wikipedia, an open source, online encyclopedia that is entirely written, edited, and rewritten by anyone who cares to contribute to it. Even though there is no control structure—there are no editors, nor is there a publisher—it rivals commercial encyclopedias in scope and quality of coverage. Or consider the Distributed Proofreader's Project, a group of people who volunteer to proofread and edit vast reams of scanned documents for inclusion in Project Gutenberg, another open source initiative that puts out-of-copyright books online.

Are these two paragraphs not in the article that you read? - Because they are in the one that I did.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...over to the create content section, hit new blog entry, and write for us a critique of the Hunter article? Much less aggro all round.

This is only a suggestion, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Well, it is tempting to tackle the article's rather absurd take that the open source movement is Marxist simply because, like blogging, it's an example of people exerting effort to produce and distribute some tangible good - ostensibly, for free - that was formerly only possible through a commercial, corporate structure. In fact I think I've addressed that mischaracterization of open source before, but I'll pass for now, because I suspect that, as someone personally invested in a website that uses open source software, you would already reject such a mischaracterization, given what it would imply about a relationship between RedState and Marxism...

But other than that, I don't find the article to be off base at all, particularly in the way it calls out for derision other entities who, like Erick, falsely smear Lessig as a communist. As the article says, it's a shallow and empty device.

Are these two paragraphs not in the article that you read?

I'll tell you what - when you continue ignore the plain text of what I've quoted from the article, which clearly and succinctly defends Lessig from accusations of promoting Marxism or being a communist, and try to use passages that at best assert that Lessig's position "stirs a Marxian debate" and at worst make a faulty association between open source, citizen journalism, and Marxism, then I'm quite comfortable standing pat on what I've presented thus far.

I would still like to hear from Erick himself, in regards to what the basis was for his statement, and whether he thought it was too much work to dig deeper and fact check himself:

Lessig believes there should be no such thing as intellectual property rights -- patents and copyrights should be tossed. Lessig's anti-property theories ...

Of course, if you'd like to point out for me which specific paragraphs from the article he got that from, I'm all ears.

No aggro intended - thank you for engaging!

...arguments in Marxist terms. See, I can keep repeating myself, too.

For the last time - which is to say, I'm not going to bother burning any more photons on this - if you have a problem with the designation, take it up with Hunter.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Only Erick is responsible for what Erick wrote.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the matter of excusing Erick's gross mischaracterization because he misread an article that states that the "use of the "Marxist" tag is shallow and empty".

No by von

Moe Lane, I'm at a loss: how can you possibly think that this passage supports Erick's statement?

Have we completely lost our faculties due to the election?

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

This is just another example of the haters and anti-Americans that surround Barack Obama. From his own wife and Revered to policy advisers and campaign workers, Obama has made a life out of associating with people who are NOT like Americans, who do not LIKE Americans, and who think Americans are the enemy to the world.

it certainly makes a good stab at it.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

You may feel it does but the religious freedoms this country was founded on include protecting speech like this video. You may this video offensive but that doesn't mean it should be censored.

I find the fact that Redstate seems to be coming out against network neutrality because of some perceived benefit in beating Obama up over this advisor a very sad and short sighted position. Lessig didn't make the video in question. He simply played it as an example of the read-write culture he was speaking about.

But, Redstate has decided to cut this tiny piece out and promote it like it was something Lessig created it.

On top of that ironically Redstate is essentially advocating censoring that video, which simply reinforces one of the points Lessigs discussion at the time was trying to make.

The practice of free culture is what Wikipedia is all about. This would have been impossible to do in a 20th century mindset. There are lessons that we should learn about how this is all made possible. If you look over the last 50 years, there's a repeated pattern. Look at interoperability - a proprietary instinct is natural, but freedom is a more important value. Consumers reject the idea of control. It's much better for society and innovation that there's interoperability and free standards encouraging the widest range of competition and the widest number of participants. That's the lesson of the last generation.

But we also need to enable a platform of free culture. We have to make it possible for this infrastructure to grow, and there's a threat to this freedom, a clear and present danger. Jack Valenti calls it a terrorist war - except the terrorists are kids remixing media. When they build the locks to protect the read-only internet, that will lock out the potential of the read-write internet. So we need to join Free Software Foundation to fight DRM, support free culture and free software, because they enable each other. There as important steps that all of us should take to facilitate free culture.

We need to enable a legal platform that protects free culture. We came up with the Creative Commons movement, stealing the ideas of Richard Stallman to use copyright law to carve out a space for freedom. Shift the default from all rights reserved to some rights reserved. They have a human element - a simple common deed, a legal element for lawyers, and a machine-readable element that computers can understand. Google and Yahoo use this machine-readable element to integrate CC into search engines. Now we're porting the legal layer for different jurisdictions around the world. There are now 140 million linkbacks to CC licenses as of last June. Content that explicitly says, We're free for you to use - and protects it in the legal code.

Redstate on the other hand I guess feels that scoring a few political points against Obama is worth promoting censorship of the internet.

Nice.

Link

Might be worth a listen before you get too up in arms about the Jesus video.

...will limit their opposition to phone calls and blog posts - even when their desire to object to the objectionable is cast as censorship. I wonder whether Lessig would have used this video if the Methodists reacted to that sort of thing with mail bombs?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It's OK to protect what Lessig calls free culture but in my experience it should be completely voluntary and nobody should feel as though they're doing something wrong by opting out of his high-minded utopian fantasy.

Because in the real world, his frictionless ideas are less than satisfactory when it comes to paying the mortgage. I think he overstates the value of what he's promulgating, by a lot.

I've said this with equanimity to intellectual property law professors in fora less antagonistic than this one and they've agreed with me that nobody should be forced to use Creative Commons licenses just because Larry Lessig has written so expansively on them and added several valuable ideas to people's idea of copyright in a digital age.

I'm a strong supporter of DRM because the simple inescapable fact is that once you go one level away from Lessig's high minded ideas, you find yourself in the thicket of people who will simply steal whatever they can. He underemphasizes those people while overemphasizing the putative benefits of "free culture." More importantly, Congress should never adopt CC licenses as the "default" mode of copyright. Ever.

It has gone from 14 years to infinitely extended. As usual the only people that benefit are the lawyers. You have companies like Disney that owe their existence to the public domain but have done everything possible to prevent others from benefiting.

Net neutrality is another lovely issue. If we actually had competition it wouldn't be a problem. The sad fact though is we don't. Most people are lucky if they have broadband from one provider and very lucky if they get a choice between two. Allowing these people to filter what is advertised as unlimited and unrestricted access in effect turns your cable or phone company into your censor.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Probably Lessig's best point intellectually speaking was his criticism of the relentless extension of copyright into what is now very close to a lifespan and could become greater than a lifespan. It should be less than that. Probably it was close to correct at 14 years by default, and I have always thought that was his strongest argument, all Gay Jesuses aside.

My admittedly oversimplified view (which I nevertheless think is pretty close to correct) is that if you can't make any all the money you're going to make off of ironclad copyright enforcement in 14 years, it's time to find a different cash cow.

If through genetic engineering people can some day live to be 300 years old, I'll start seriously about extending it. But in that instance I think copyright is going to be the least of our problems: the bigger one will be the fact that you'll have people 230 years old who won't get out of the way, to quote Francis Fukuyama.

I also agree with him there -- not least because I live in an area where the primary ISP is Cox Cable, although Verizon and Hughes Satellite are now making inroads, so I now have a choice of 3 ISPs where I used to have only one -- Ray Nagin's former company.

Lessig has it backward when he says: Consumers reject the idea of control as though it is a Universal Truth that applies in all circumstances everywhere. It's one of the slick ways he gets people to nod in agreement with him, but it absoultely is not true.

Consumers reject the idea of control right up until the point that affects them personally -- when their product gets stolen, when their trademark gets misused, when their brand gets diluted, and when their intellectual property is hijacked. At precisely that instant the "consumer" that Lessig waxes so poetically about is revealed to be, in fact, the *producer* -- and don't give me any BS about how colleges don't protect their brands and their intellectual property trademarks.

I worked the Dean of a law school who spearheaded the effort to have a DePaulSucks.com cast into the pit of fire for violating DePaul's trademarks. And she was as liberal an individual as you will ever meet on this Earth -- except when it was HER ox that was being gored. And then she was a VERY strong advocate of the kind of copyright and trademark law that Lessig made his bones advocating against.

The practice of free culture is what Wikipedia is all about.

A little part of me just died. And dead academics, were they hooked up to generators, could power a large city they're spinning so in their graves.

"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate

I find this video extremely offensive and I consider it worthy of physical violence, (A punch in the nose...not terrorism), the same as Muslims view the Mohamed Cartoons and other postings pulled by Google that were offensive to Muslims.

I don't advocate banning either, (I'm sick of incidents like the Imus thing and all the other speech purges that are occurring across America) but if you are going to ban anti Muslim speech then you should have the same standard when it comes to this type of hate speech!


--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

Technically threating to punch someone in the face in order to scare them from doing something is terrorism. Whether someone is terrorizing one person or a million, they are a terrorist.

Ben

My main point is that movies displaying my Lord and Savior being run over by a bus is equivalent to fighting words and are considered in some jurisdictions as just cause to punch someone's lights out. My overall point is that as dispicable as this is and as mad as it makes me, I would oppose the government restricting speech to prevent it. I also want to point out the double standard where Mohamed vs Jesus is concerned with the artsy fartsy crowd

I'm sick of being insulted by juveniles like this who think they're being smart. maybe if they were punched in the nose a time or two they'd grow up!


--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

We have a bunch of disconnected bits here:

* We have an amusing or offensive video shown by Lessig at Google, with no context of why it was shown.

* We have Lessig's ideas on IP, with the conclusion that he must be a communist

* We have accusations of Google being evil with censorship and all that

* And then a conclusion that Net Neutrality must be evil, since it is supported by Google (the anti-christian censors) and Lessig (the anti-christian comminist)

Am I missing something? There seems to be a lot of fluff, but nothing that pulls it all to the conclusion, other than guilt by association.

Some questions for you:

* What makes you think Jesus is gay in this video? I saw no evidence of his sexual preferences, orientation or practices.

* How does Net Neutrality limit privacy?

* Do you want only the folks with deep pockets (i.e., Google, the anti-christian censor) to be able to serve data on the internet?

The basic question of Net Neutrality is: should John McCain and Hillary Clinton have to pay different rates to shuffle bits around the internet? Should the ISPs control political discourse?

That's the fundamental problem with the Time-Warner proposals -- every content provider will have to negotiate with every ISP or have their bits dropped or slowed. The ISPs will no longer be common carriers.

I don't particularly trust Google -- I think they've made some very bad decisions with the Chinese, in particular -- but I trust the ISPs less.

The post is a bit slap-dash.

I'd like to point out a bit of potential hypocrisy here, though. In dealing with legislature that enforces diversity, a lot of people say, "But we should choose who we get to associate with!" It has happened, though I can't cite any examples off the top of my head. If Google doesn't want to associate itself with certain groups, who are you to disagree with them?

What's the point of bashing them for this?

And, I haven't watched the video, but it sounds as if the OP might have inferred sexuality based on a set of cliched stereotypes? So, we're all gay if we like singing and/or dancing? Please don't go down that road, OP, or do you hate Frank Sinatra?

actually reading them. Added to mental list of people who are not worth reading.

then Sen. Coburn, now Jesus. They should put out an APB on that bus.

I think you're going a bit too far with the Lessig "hate". Lessig favors copyright (the whole CC thing derives its authority from copyright, for one), but a copyright with limits -- we're currently at something like life plus 50 years, so anything you create is by default not publicly usable for at least two generations after you're dead as a doornail, which doesn't seem to fit the constitutional requirement of "limited time". Also, I don't seem to recall him saying anything about abolishing all forms of IP restrictions entirely, primarily limiting himself to the restriction (not erasure) of the copyright monopoly.

In the end I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with at least parts of his message. Copyright and IP law in general are government-imposed monopoly systems; they are infringements upon a truly free market. Their goal is to increase the short-term returns from the creation of knowledge and ideas, thus promoting that creation; ensuring this restriction is only a short-term one acknowledges the superiority of the free market overall, once the initial investment expenses have been recouped. Such restrictions, assuming they are reasonable (and certainly life-of-the-creators is a lower bound that should be sufficient to meet the creators' needs, but we're way past that now), should be near and dear to the heart of any free-marketist who knows competition results in the greatest total surplus and least deadweight loss.

All that said, the Jesus video was absolutely crass. If his purpose was to offend, his prefatory comments make this very unclear. If his purpose was not to offend, any one of numerous other videos would have served just as well -- nay, better, since it would not immediately prejudice any members of the audience against his lecture. Were I there, I would have asked why show such a video at all. A ripoff of any of the Muslim cartoons would have served exactly as much purpose and been exactly as pointless and offensive, yet I think it unlikely he would have shown one of those.

The fanatics on the periphery of that religion are notorious for having much more vigorous methods for going after perceived trademark violations.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Of course he wouldn't have shown a anti-Muslim cartoon. The fanatics on the periphery of that religion are notorious for having much more vigorous methods for going after perceived trademark violations.

That's certainly a creative way of putting it Moe...Genius actually

LOL


--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

How is Creative Commons licensing the same as digital Communism?

It's all voluntary - - nobody forces anyone to release anything with a Creative Commons license: you only do it if you want to. That makes about as much sense as calling community service or volunteering at a soup kitchen communism.

Net neutrality is a good thing too in my opinion. It is not Communism. It is libertarianism. In fact, net neutrality is most popular in communist states like China, and to a lesser degree in semi-socialist Europe. So the belief that the internet should remain free and neutral for all uses does not exactly equate to Marxism.

I also don't see anything wrong with the Jesus video. But I'm a secularist so maybe that's why. Still, I'm kind of tired of people assuming I'm in love with Jesus just because I'm a Republican. I'm equally tired of some fellow Republicans assuming that I'm going to sympathize with their Jesus fanaticism. I don't care. Jesus is as important to me as the box of dryer sheets in my laundry room. And top it all off - - I don't even see how Jesus is gay in that video.

In that second paragraph I meant to say net neutrality is NOT popular in places like China and Europe. Whoops.

Network neutrality imposed by government fiat is not libertarianism, it's coercive regulatory power with no real perceived economic efficiency advantage. It is also not the current status quo, as so far the government has not issued any regulation on it (although the "neutral" network currently exists in the market). There may, due to possible market power issues, be a rational economic interest in access standards for digital content, but government imposition into the technical arena of this matter seems to be inviting a tragedy of the commons situation to arise.

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

I don't get the point of this call to action. Are you saying we should be against net neutrality because someone and some org who is for it is anti-Christian?

Or do you think content on the Internet should be censored by the government to make sure it's not offensive to any given group?

Here's a better idea. It's called free market. If you feel Google is anti-Christian. Don't use their products.

And that talking a good game isn't the same as actually having one.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

This is the kind of thing that makes Lessig such a rockstar and gets intellecutal property professors at B-list schools all hyperkinetic when he comes to speak -- especially if the school is nominally a Catholic, Vincentian university.

Anyone who can't see the camp/gay overtones in Jesus in that video has obviously never lived in Lakeview, Chicago. Anyone I know there would say: "It's the gay, dancing Diva Jesus."

Whether Lessig is a Communist for his efforts to change the copyright system in the United States is less clear. But the video itself featuring Jesus singing and dancing to a *WELL KNOWN* gay bar/nightclub anthem (Diana Ross is still a gay icon) and then getting hit by a bus is probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen him do. Of course, this kind of stuff is how Larry Lessig became a rockstar in the first place.

Digital communist is not "communist" in the generic meaning. But yeah, this guy is parading around this video to cheering crowds at Google while Google would go nuts if it was Mohammed instead of Jesus.

Fight On!

I've used CC licenses on some of the things I've placed on Flickr and as far as CC goes, I've welcomed the chance to have an alternative copyright scheme in certain instances. But anyone in this thread who doesn't get the explicitly gay references has obviously never been to Spin or The Closet

It's as gay a remix of Jesus as they come, folks. And I say that as someone who used to get his hair cut by a transvestite drag queen in Lakeview.

Lessig covers his bases here and I would think the idea of a gay Jesus getting crushed by a bus would be offensive to gays as well, even though Lessig claims that Jesus "survives" in the next installment...

Which leads one to wonder...

Does getting hit by the bus cause him to go straight? Is that the cryptointellectual message Lessig is trying to convey? I'm sure the Advocate or the Village Voice will have an article about this soon. Lessig may have just managed to offend everyone, gay or straight. That's why he's a genius!

I've probably just learned more about your nocturnal activities than I had any right, or desire, to know.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

I lived in Lakeview primarily because my -ex girlfriend moved there when she went out to Chicago to get her doctorate degree in Psychology. She wanted to live in Lakeview because it was hip and gay, but also because as a stauch feminist she was terrified of being raped, and figured she was safer living in a gay neigborhood. As a result, I learned about gay culture firsthand and upclose over the entire time I lived there. I used to live in what was affectionately called (by gays, not me) the Homo Hilton. At the time I lived there it was the tallest all-rental apartment building in the world.

And a recovering anorexic-bulimic ballet dancer. And having lived with a vegetarian for the time I did, I can tell you personally that Jules was correct at least in spirit when he said:

Well, if you like burgers, give them a try sometime. Me, I can't usually get them 'cause my girlfriend's a vegetarian, which pretty much makes me a vegetarian. I do love the taste of a good burger. Mmm. [To Brett] You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in France?

I wasn't ever a vegetarian but I had to accomodate and flatter the vegetarian sidekick whenever we planned dinners or nights out, and that made me pretty much a vegetarian first. Later on, it turned out that there were other aspects of her personality that I would also have to "accomodate" if I intended to stay with her -- things I didn't know at the beginning -- and those are really why we're not together today. It's terrible when people lie about things that are deliberately ambiguous.

I could have lived the rest of my life helping her carry the Vegetarian cross, but not the other things. At some point you have to draw the line, no matter how much you love the person. I like to think Jesus would have felt the same way.

Lakeview's a huge neighborhood. It goes all the way down to Diversey and out west past Ashland. I've lived all over Lakeview at some point in my life -- including, yes, near Boys' Town, the part of Lakeview that you're thinking about. (I wouldn't put the Irving park tower in Boys' town, but whatta-I-know.) It's a good place to live and has some pretty decent restaurants. (Yoshi's, for instance, at about Roscoe and Halstead).

I admit that, back in the mid-90s, I preferred living in Wicker Park and the Urkanian Village. But it had nothing to do with teh gays, and everything to do with being cheaper and (allegedly) hipper.

Right now, I'd love to move back to pretty much anyplace in Chicago.

So: I'd strongly encourage anyone considering living in Chicago-proper to look hard at Lakeview. The Southport corridor area (north of Belmont), in particular, has a nice mix of shops and tends to be a little quieter.

Thus endth my digression.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

My view of the boundaries of Lakeview come from the landmarks that have been placed there by the City of Chicago and more than six years living in the neighborhood.

And being accosted in the elevator by a leather-clad 16 year old high on ecstasy one night in the Homo Hilton on Irving Park Road, who grabbed me and in his incoherence and inability to speak on his way to a big party in the building grabbed me and gave me a big kiss on the lips, which was uninvited. The doorman at that building was gay the entire time I lived there, and it was a regular occurence to see downtown accountants and lawyers walking off the elevators on Saturday nights clad in leather. C'mon, Von, I used to eat at the Bella Vista almost every week, and the guy I knew best from DePaul who was an indie theater producer/actor/artiste lived right next to the Alley...

Your boundaries might differ from mine slightly but that's all a matter of personal experience...

Irving Park isn't a part of Lakeview proper but Barry certainly is and that's why my -ex used to live. I walked there regularly from Irving Park and used to shop with her all the way out to Damen, on foot. I worked at Illinois Masonic Medical Center on Wellington in the Outpatient Psychiatry department for almost a year. I know the neighborhood pretty well.

The officially drawn on a map versions can be seen with a simple Google search.

My criticisms came across as too strong, Kowalski. I didn't mean to quibble with the boundaries of the neighborhood or your knowledge thereof.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Frankly I thought Lakeview was a fun place to live while I was there, and there was nothing about the place intrinsically that made me sorry to live there. The only thing that makes me regret the time I spent there was that the relationship I went to Chicago in the hope of turning into a lifelong commitment turned out to be a dead end. But that isn't anyone in Lakeview's fault, particularly not my former hairdresser's.

He/she was a very interesting person who had a very tough time in life as many transvestites do. Drugs, abuse, self-abuse, chaos, and total topsy-turviness combined with absolutely ridiculous amounts of money spent on changing his/her body that didn't produce the results she/he desired. I really cared about her just from a humanistic point of view. I wonder if she's still alive, sometimes I doubt it these days, her life was that bad once you peeled back the layers of glamour.

I don't have any compunction about discussing the things I saw and did and experienced while I lived there. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. I also don't feel as though I should keep my mouth shut when it's *pluperfectly clear* to me that using Diana Ross' song like this is about the most direct gay reference anyone could make except for having Jesus dressed up as Judy Garland and click his heels together.

That would have been edgy.

Hrm. I just checked out YouTube to find the South Park clip in question, and it's nowhere to be found*.

How odd.

Moe Lane

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*Yes, I know that South Park puts everything on the web.

is just another example of what's wrong with the world. The 'opinion makers' reward morons like him with 'celebrity' status because they have lost all sense of what is actually important in the world. And there are just enough 'fellow morons' in the real world, the one the rest of us inhabit, to allow them to get away with it.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

I am rooting for injuries.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I've been trying to sum up my feelings on this and related issues for years, and I think you just did it for me.

--
This too shall pass.

...that when I called the Commerce Committee, I got a voicemail telling me that if I wanted to talk to the "Republican majority", I should dial a different number.

The worst thing about the video is that it is really unfunny. Outrage is not always a better response than just ignoring things and moving on.

The debate on open source, as others have indicated, is very complex and there is by no means an obvious "conservative" answer.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

If this were an isolated thing you would be right. But it's become sheik to be insulting and belligerent toward Christians. It's everywhere all the time from the Hunky Jesus competition in San Fran recently to the Gay portrayal of the last supper to the plays about a gay Jesus having orgies with his disciples to dipping crosses in vats of urine to making virgin Mary's portrait out of manure, (I'm not Catholic and I find this deeply offensive), Barging in on a mass and throwing condoms on the Congregation, invading easter services and throwing blood on the parishioners, dressing as transvestite nuns and invading communion services in a Catholic Church and on and on and on it goes!

We'd be better off if we just ignored it?

I'm sick of ignoring it!


--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

The remedy for speech is more speech, not silence.
People mouth off about the dumbest things in our society. We need to stick up for the what is important.

If you want to see this video in true context of one of Lessig's talks, watch this TED talk. He's talking about "remix". In context, you can see why he wanted to show startling examples. He also shows a Muppet / anime mashup and a love song between Bush and Blair. The Jesus video wasn't made by Lessig, it was made by Javier Prato, as you can see in the watermark of the YouTube video. Yes, Lessig is an Obama supporter.

A far more apt criticism of Lessig's presentation style is that he often engages in the "Lord Privy Seal". I highly recommend the TED talks. Watch a few, you'll learn something.

*sigh* by TRM

Here we go, muslims pissed, christians pissed, jews pissed, queers pissed -on-...

Putting aside all of the net neutrality and digi commie talk...

Am I the only one who observes the destructiveness of organized religion once it becomes a tool to offend and be offended with? Everyone is guilty of it and has always been a means to war and always will... the old My G-D is right and yours is wrong routine...

I think when folks get their heckles up over jesus in a diaper they cease to be any different than those upset about muhammed in a bomb turbine.... I mean c'mon...

No offense Erick

TRM
The Anti-Lib
& right wing Deist

And why wasn't that on the news?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Qualify as attempted murder.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Has been a couple of Lutherans killing ales.

Probably not the same thing. Come to think, someone's missing a marketing opportunity: a six-pack of 'Infid Ales' should come with a free bag of pork rinds.

--
This too shall pass.

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

when the creator of this flick is found stabbed to death with a manifesto pinned to his chest, like Theo van Gogh. THEN you can make claims of moral equivalence like this, but not until.

Am I the only one who observes the destructiveness of organized moral equivalence once it becomes a tool to dismiss and be dismissed with? Every idiot is guilty of it and has always been a means to war and always will... the old my moral obligations are right and yours is wrong routine...

Yawn. Does your vague, vacuous and overgeneralized post actually mean anything significant?

No offense, TRM.

you made my night. I'm going to quote you some time.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Christians are not blowing up women and children every day and flying planes into buildings TRM. This..."Christians are no different than Islamic Terrorists" moral equivalence is straight out oif the Democrats play book and worthy of an award from the Daily Kos or the Huff Post for it's blatant foolishness.

One can only hope you aren't as ignorant as your comments make you appear.


--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

Actually I thought the character came across as a Charles Bronson/Rocky Marciano type, exuding masculinity and the traditional male virtues. So what if he was wearing diapers, doesn't every liberal ? And in any case it's only Jesus, a stand in until Barack/Michelle get in and relieve the peasants of their misplaced fixations while pointing, or forcing, them to the real god, the symbol of which is not the Cross but food stamps, and whose church is located in the basement of the Department of Health and Human Services, or the IRS.

And who can hold Lessig responsible for picking this tape, he didn't produce it, he just laughed his way through it. A man can't be responsible for what he picks, unless he votes republican or asks Baby O an embarrassing question about what is increasingly a rather scummy list of associations. For which I'm sure Barack isn't responsible either.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Perhaps if Obama becomes President, he will save me from my unsophisticated intolerance.

My lord, nobody has a sense of humor anymore.
It's not hilarious, but it's not blasphemous. More of a spoof on musicals and diva-ism than anything else. If this video had Hillary Clinton or Muhammad being hit by a bus, it'd be front page hilarity here.
I have to agree with a lot of the posters and say that this seems a bit like reaching.

The actual hypocrites are Lessig and Google.

Use the Contact link when you're ready to follow site rules again.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... neither Hillary nor Muhammad are actually believed to be gods. Jesus, of course...

...

...

*blink*

...

Still don't get it?

I don't normally post here, and while I deeply respect your moral rejections to the video Lessig presented, the criticisms of him here and inaccurate and unfair.

Lessig is a hero in the technology world to many people, both on the political right and on the left. He believes that the laws created to protect private digital works should also be applicable to the creation of public digital works, and he favors limiting copyright to the useful life of a work. He is not against intellectual property laws as the parent post claims, but he is for reform of those laws and the ability for all content creators to have access to the kinds of protections that are usually reserved for creators with larger distribution and promotion networks.

I figured someone would try to refute my words by stating no christian is killing muslims,,, uhhh, i'll let you figure that one out on your own...

I'm on your side guys...... just trying to make sure we don't turn into Uber sensitive, panty wearing, girlie men....

And VernonBlank I thought it was kinda funny....

TRM
The Anti-Lib
and right wing Deist

It's your friend, dude. And it's
right
down
here

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
\ /
 v

I'm a seminarian for the priesthood. I love Jesus. I even believe in Apostolic Succession and the Real Presence. I like fiddleback chasubles. I'd give a Latin Mass if I could get away with it (even if Dominus Vobiscum makes the Classicist in me positively cringe). St. Augustine is my hero. In other words, I'm a thorough-going orthodox, conservative Christian kind of fellow.

I think the video itself is amusing, and it's been floating around the internet for about two years. I know precious little about Lessig, but I'm not terribly worried about Jesus. Then again, I find Touch Down Jesus, one of the features of Notre Dame University, pretty amusing, too.

Now, this is really an issue of free speech, censorship, and net neutrality. That's an issue we can debate soberly. I do not, however, think accusations of "blasphemy" because Jesus didn't sing Disco in any of the Canonical Gospels is particularly germane to the discussion. It's a bunch of rot that Christians get picked on all day, I agree. But that video was completely harmless. Is Lessig a schmuck? Perhaps. But let's cool down the rhetoric, eh?

____________________________
"Hobbes, what do you think happens when we die?" "I believe we play saxophone in an all-girls cabaret in New Orleans." "So you believe in heaven?" "Call it what you like."

It's about hypocrisy.

I don't really care about net neutrality, one way or the other: it's a fight between two factions of toolmakers over the best way to provide the platform that the rest of the planet uses to read mail, get directions, download pictures of cats with badly-spelled captions, and surf for porn. But it seems that one faction of toolmakers is trying to make this an issue of free expression... while simultaneously demonstrating through their other actions that this is not an issue of people operating as they please; it's an issue of people operating as the faction pleases.

Which leads to the crass political considerations; hence, the post.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Well said; your correction is well-taken. Those are, of course, the points we can easily discuss. The business about "gay Jesus in diapers," however, easily distracts from the nuts and bolts of the argument.

So far as hypocrisy goes, that adds another layer to the fun, in my mind. The Left loves to stick it to a conservative whenever he fails to live up to his own standards. Now, this? This is a weird sort of double hypocrisy.

____________________________
"Hobbes, what do you think happens when we die?" "I believe we play saxophone in an all-girls cabaret in New Orleans." "So you believe in heaven?" "Call it what you like."

And a particularly nasty brand of beancounters at that.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Being a priest, I know you're not married. But, if someone made a video of your mother doing all that, you would still find it amusing?

I wouldn't find it amusing. And so I don't find it strange or an overreaction that Christians, who, you know, actually might love this Jesus guy more than our mothers and wives, would take offense to this.

I would say more about what I think about you, but I think I'll just stop commenting.

What grossly inaccurate and personal assumptions and you've made!

But I forgive you and will not respond in kind. Be well!

____________________________
"Hobbes, what do you think happens when we die?" "I believe we play saxophone in an all-girls cabaret in New Orleans." "So you believe in heaven?" "Call it what you like."

... is no defense. It isn't Jesus you should worry about. The makers of the video don't believe in Jesus. So who are they mocking?

It's belief in Jesus you should be worried about. First it's an object of ridicule. Then the object of scorn. Then the subject of legislation? And finally a subject in History class.

The video, and that Lessig opted to show it, is symptomatic. You treat it as isolated. There is a sentiment of rebellious rejection of Christianity on two fronts. The Dawkins outright assault font, and the Lessig marginalization front.

Also, where does free speech enter it? No one is asking for censorship as would be the case if he'd shown the Mohammed cartoons (a censorship that google would have granted I might add). The point is not to stop him from showing the video or others from making it. The point is that conclusions may be drawn from it. The point is that it's indicative of a mindset. Lessig is a window into a modern spirit that is endemic in google corporate culture, not to mention Obama's campaign. Christianity is a silly little thing, and those who believe are silly little obstacles to a more perfect society. That may not trouble you, but I think it ought to.

absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.


--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

Surely the author of this posts is making a joke.

No one could be this obtuse outside of a coma.

Shameless Blog Plug: The SideTrack

Gross mischaracterization of positions - check.

Lessig believes there should be no such thing as intellectual property rights -- patents and copyrights should be tossed.

What Lessig actually thinks about copyright law:

I am not against copyright. I think the copyright our framers gave us, for example (a term of 14 years, renewable once; granted only if you register; for limited kinds of work; and protecting a limited range of rights) was a bit weak, but not much. I would favor a somewhat stronger right than they gave us, but for just about as long.

Yet obviously I believe copyright law has gone too far, at least in the digital age.
[...]
But we should not be calling for the repeal of all copyright. We should be calling for a balanced and limited form of copyright - much like the right of our framers - that gives artists the right to earn a living, without giving copyright hoarders the power to veto innovation.
[... on file sharing systems]
I support these technologies. More importantly, I support the right of innovators to develop these technologies. But I don't support copyright violations using these technologies. [cite]

So what happened here, aside from your failure to actually research Lessig's views on copyright? Some kind of "Lessig likes Obama therefore he is communist" kind of knee jerk known-factism?

Portraying a distorted view of reality - check

Naturally though, Google censored content offensive to muslims going so far as to remove videos that Islamists found blasphemous.

Well, all except for these videos, and many more you could have found if you'd searched:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-rxJWoG-4I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD1ZofbqGNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi2RcI7LKCc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2VEBE-qX8 (cartoons!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHDqZLTK5Y (more cartoons!)

Here's a whole lot more and they don't mince any words, either.

[Google] censored a pro-life video from YouTube posted by the American Life League.
I imagine that would be this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qsXQcR6q6E4

Google banned Michele Malkin for showing the Mohammed Cartoons from Denmark
I imagine this is the video in question: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UE29Zs3aPos.

As far as Fitna goes, here are numerous videos on YouTube. But I since they require you to register and confirm you're over 18 to view free steaming videos on their servers, thats an egregious act of censorship, right?

So what happened here, aside from you ignoring the more logical explanation, in light of the fact that these videos are still online, that YouTube/Google has a process for responding to user compliants, which it follows, and then - evidently - frequently restores the videos... enabling millions of viewers to watch them for no cost whatsoever?

Making unsupported accusations - check

Google has never been a Christian friendly organization.

Really? Defend this statement in light of the following evidence:

Google Books carries over 15,000 links to the full text of various versions and printings of the Bible itself and scholarly works covering the Bible - see here.

How many Christianity related websites do they make available through the directory here. Since it uses data provided by another effort, it should have been trivial for them to simply not show these pro-Christian website links, right?

As long as we're looking at YouTube, here is a set of 3,000+ results for "catholic mass". Imagine! Google hosting on their very own servers, hundreds or thousands of videos of Catholic mass, that no one paid them to host, and no one pays them to view anywhere in the world. Wow! Google sure hates people who praise Jesus, don't they?

So what gives? Maybe I misunderstood you, and when you say "Christian friendly" what you really mean is, you expect Google to actually do the proselytizing for you - it's not enough that they digitize the texts of 15,000 Biblical publications and make them freely accessible online, it's not enough that they host pro-Catholic and pro-Christian videos on YouTube.

Hey, your post had two redeeming qualities. You've finally come around on the issue of network neutrality. I'm not convinced it's for a rational reason, but at least you've joined us in that issue's pro-capitalist camp.

And, you know, I think this post will stand as a great example of just how dangerous adopting the sort of "big mean company X is bad, bad, bad" mentality popularized by Wal-mart hating liberals can be. Much of this read like a mirror image of some of the most asinine anti-Walmart screeds I've seen. Most of the rest was simply incorrect.

...have taught the 'Creative Class' the limits of Transgressivism.

'Transgressive' is smearing elephant dung of a portrait of Virgin Mary.
'Courageous' is opening a Hooters in Tehran.

--furious

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Yep, I thought he could have had a little more fun with it though...

TRM
The Anti-Lib

There are a whole bunch of unrelated topics here, each of which has the potential to be an interesting story:

* Google as arbitrar of acceptability -- since they have such a commanding presence in the search space, their actions should be held up to the highest standards.

* Net Neutrality -- does allowing the ISPs to provide different levels of service to packets of different content providers make them an arbitrar of acceptability, and is the interference in the marketplace of ideas caused by that less worse than the interference in the free market caused by regulations.

* Copyright -- life of the creator plus 50 years? Creative Commons? 14 years? 5 years out of print? Do we need copyright reform, or are the people calling for reform just a bunch of dirty hippies and communists?

As it is, you're calling on people to call their Senators and oppose Net Neutrality because "You can hear the Google employees laughing".

I could go on about how the video actually is funny, how it brings to light the underpinnings of the Nicene Creed and the Filioque controversy, but I won't. It's really not that important.

But I will take a moment to implore you to be better at accepting differing views on Jesus -- yes, yes, you're better than the Moslem fanatics calling for beheading over portrayals of Mohammad, but that's a really low bar. Is your religion so fragile that it will not tolerate a ridiculous portrayal of a singing, dancing Jesus who is not so infallible as to look both ways crossing the street?

"Jesus Christ Superstar" must really get your goat.

For anyone at the beginning of this who thought Erick was mistaken because he flagged it as an overt homofication of Jesus, you really, really need to have a look at this video. It's actually a pretty catchy tune on it's own, but the video is SO over the top that it will leave NO doubt in your mind.

I give you "Crucified" by Army of Lovers


I honestly think Lessig said more about himself than Jesus with that particular choice of video in an academic lecture, but maybe he was also trying to appeal to the sensibilities at Google. Who knows?

Stay on your own site if you don't have the guts to talk to us like that here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Lessig responds to the hate mail he's getting thanks to this inaccurate and ridiculous blog post.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/the_redstate_flap.html

when he showed the ba**s of having Mohammed hit by a bus than he can "whine" about being misunderstood.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I suppose that it might be relevant if Erick had ever said anywhere that Lessig himself created the video. As it happens, Erick said nothing of the sort, so I don't really see how Lessig's post clears anything up, except for the fact that anyone who would come here and post it as though it were some sort of slam is a complete dolt.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Not only that he admits to using the video in numerous talks as an example of the maker's creativity...as if he couldn't find another example of creativity that doesn't denigrate and offend one of the world's great religions!

BTW

Didn't he say there was a sequel coming out which shows Jesus survived the bus incident? How would he know that if he isn't communicating and participating in the creation of this trash?


--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

That you Lessig? Or do you just have access to his email?

Outraged mail, hate mail ... Yep! Same exact thing. Just like Christians peacefully boycotting something is exactly the same as terrorists blowing up buildings. Hmm, with that kind of equivalency, maybe you are lessig!

absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.

Such is the lot of the intellectual piss ants that increasing control the Web and pass themselves off as "enlightened" today!


--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

Did the author of this post do ANY research before writing this little anti-Lessig diatribe? As someone who is both a strong conservative Christian (I am currently attending Patrick Henry College, which is about as conservative as you get) AND a fan of Lawrence Lessig who has actually READ a couple of his books, I can tell you that not a single statement this post makes about him is anywhere near accurate.

Even a cursory glance at his book "Free Culture" will reveal he is most certainly not a "digital communist" fighting for the abolition of all copyright laws (an accusation he explicitly denies). Rather he calls for a reasonable balance in copyright law that balances both the interest of content creators and consumers' rights to use that content in reasonable ways. He argues that current copyright law is drastically biased toward creators and does not sufficiently protect the rights of consumers, a statement I think many Christians would agree with, considering antipathy toward America's draconian copyright laws is pretty much universal.

Neither is he anti-Christian or anything of the sort. Contextually, he used this video as an illustration of the overreach of copyright, since regardless of whether or not you agree with its message his point was that the record label which is currently suing its author for copyright violation is overstepping its bounds under the legal principle of fair use. To use this as an example of how Lessig (and by extension Google and Obama) hates Christians is completely ridiculous. Not to mention it would also be highly ironic, considering one of his main allies in a recent hearing on net neutrality was the Christian Coalition, which interestingly enough was concerned that failing to protect net neutrality through legislation would allow, of all things, CORPORATE CENSORSHIP of Christians!

As a young conservative Christian who has grown up fascinated by computers and the internet and happens to care a great deal about technology law, it is posts like this that almost make me embarrassed to be a Republican. Even though I disagree with just about every other policy he has, I do know that if Obama is elected there is at least a chance of restoring sanity to American technology law, which is a lot more than I can say for those Republicans who have thus far shown no interest in doing anything other than pandering to monolithic media corporations and telecoms!

~Patrick M.

You need to do better research, your statements about Larry Lessig are inaccurate. If you are going to post something, at least get your information right.

at least use your brain....

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service