I’m sure that butt-faced Michael Moore could ram it through.
“Wilderss point has already been proved, hasnt it?”
#
Yes.
Another article on the same subject:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020419.php
#
Previously...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020418.php
March 22, 2008
“Netherlands anti-Wilders protestor: “The government could really do something. That’s in the interest of the country stop him, just stop him””
Happens all the time with conservative content on youtube.
It is the same with slap suits, intimidation by complaint.
There is a time honored civil redress though. It is called “tortious interference with a beneficial business relationship.”
IOW the complaint was filed just to interfere with a contractual relationship which has nothing to do with the complaining party.
Absolutely chilling - the complete moral cowardice.
“Is paragraph 7 the operative one, do you think or is it paragraph 10?”
No, its paragraph 1 thats at issue. And according to that paragraph this company would never allow such a movie.
More about Wilders and the movie.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/815
Instead of showing a movie about Islam as it really is, they will show an anti-Christian movie and everyone will be happy.
He may just have to publish it over peer-to-peer networks.
Seeing that NetSolutions “disclaimer” chilled me to the bone. Is this the future of every Western nation—terrified deference to Islam?
Put it up with Torrent and nobody can block it.
I can only recall that the left loves to scold others who object to the garbage they push out to the public, that if they don't like it, they don't have to watch. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
First it should be posted to multiple groups on USENET, “the other half of the Internet”. This will be the most rapid and clean propagation. Then the USENET subscribers both advertise to their friends and set it up as torrent files.
This way, it will enter the eMule and Gnutella2 P2P nets as trusted files, since there will no doubt be lots of malicious hoaxes.
bttt