What would you think if you read the title “Court orders removal of anti-Islamic film...” on the Drudge Report? My blood begins to boil about the activist judges pushing their hatred for America.
I went to the article and found that the title of the article reflected just that. “Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube.” My anger mounted as I read the first paragraph.
“A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.”To add fuel to the fire the next paragraph pointed out the ruling was issued by the most overturned court in America, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The writing brought up the issue of “prior restraint.” That means censorship. They bring up the Benghazi massacre and the “turmoil” in the Islamic world.
We have a scandal brewing.
But wait. Keep reading. Turn on your brain. Don’t trust the government but remember, don’t trust the media either.
After several paragraphs loaded with emotional verbiage you come across the first bit of substance. It seems that an actress was suing because the filmmaker had used a clip she had done from another context and had illegally used it without her permission.
If you read the entire article you find that the issue was copyright law, not anti-Muslim content. You really have to look hard, but it is there. It is possible that the actress and the judges were politically motivated. That accusation saturates the piece but no evidence is presented about that.
This is another case of media distortion to generate readership. Does it qualify as a hate crime?
homo unius libri
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome. Feel free to agree or disagree but keep it clean, courteous and short. I heard some shorthand on a podcast: TLDR, Too long, didn't read.