Actress Attempts to Remove Hate-Filled Film from Youtube

The movie "Innocence of Muslims" became one of the most controversial films of the year when it caused protests in various Muslim countries.

One of the actresses in the film attempted to have the film removed from youtube because she said that the director lied to her about the nature of the film, and dubbed (replaced) new lines over the lines she spoke.  Therefore, she stated that her life was now in danger because it appears that she makes many statements attacking Islam.

Unfortunately, a judge refused to allow this film to be removed from youtube.

There are, of course, limits to "free speech."  A person cannot make deliberately false statements about another person or use speech to cause violence.  The judge, apparently, however, felt that the film was protected by the 1st Amendment.

Interestingly, President Obama asked that the film be removed from youtube even if it was protected by the right to freedom of speech.  It is up to each web site as to whether it allows "controversial" material, and most web sites will voluntarily remove hate-filled and malicious content for the good of the community.  Google (which owns youtube) refused to do this.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=777707

1)  Do you think that Google should have removed this video even if it is protected by the 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression? After all, the film is truly badly written, edited and directed and presents false and hate-filled messages about a religion.

2)  Do you think that Google is "required" somehow to present anything that anyone posts?  For instance, here's an analogy:  Let's say you own a bookstore and an author comes in and tries to encourage you to sell copies of his book which seems to be attacking a religion or religious figure in a hate-filled manner.  He assures you that the book is protected by the First Amendment and that many copies of the book can be sold.  Would you sell that type of book?

3)  Why do you think Google refused to remove the video even though the president of the US asked them to?  Some people feel that Google is more interested in profits than the 1st Amendment and does not want to spend money monitoring or policing or removing negative content from their search engine and youtube. For instance, an argument might be that it  might cost a great deal of money to hire an appropriate staff to remove "objectionable" content from the Google search engine and youtube.  Google may not want to spend this money.

4)  Do you think the actress was right to ask that the film be removed because it makes her seem anti-Islamic?

5)  Do you think the sometimes violent protests against this film were justified?

6)  Did you see the film?  What is your response to this film? If you did not see the film/video, why didn't you watch it?

A Mother Inherits Her Dead Son's Debt, and Asks for Its Cancellation

Foreign students often learn how expensive American tuition is when they consider coming over to the USA to study.  Indeed, as foreign students, they are charged even higher rates.

Many American students have to borrow money in order to attend college and graduate school.  After college is over, they are expected to pay back these loans, little by little, month after month. Sometimes this takes years, and the student is forced to pay back a huge, extra amount of money in the form of "interest."

However, the loan organizations have acquired a terrible reputation.   If a student falls behind in his/her payments, they often harass the student, the student's family and sometimes acquaintances of the student, in an attempt to get their money back.  (This type of harassment if often illegal and the loan organizations or their collection agencies can be sued.)

In the following story, a mother co-signed for a student loan for her son.  This meant that the mother agreed that if the son could not pay the loan back, she would assume responsibility for it.  Then, after the son graduated, unfortunately, at a very young age, the son died.

The mother then became responsible for paying back the son's debts for which she had co-signed (equalling tens of thousands of dollars).  The Federal Government released her from the obligation to pay the debt back (he had taken some loans from the US government), but a private company which gave a large loan to her and her child is expecting their money back.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/mother-inherits-dead-sons-student-loans-petitions-to-have-them-forgiven/

1)  Do you feel that this private loan company should cancel the debt owed by the dead son?

2)  Some people feel that the mother should have to pay the money back because 1: She co-signed for the loan and 2: The son accepted and used the money. The son spent four years studying at a college with this money. 

Furthermore, this loan organization is a business and they cannot operate unless they receive their loan money back with some interest.  How do you feel about this?

3)  Some people seem to be upset that the Federal Government cancelled the loan payments upon the death of the son.  People point out that the tax dollars of Americans went to pay for her son's tuition, he used that money, and the government should receive the money back.  How do you feel about this?

4)  If you had to take out a massive amount of loan money to pay for your education, would you do it?