Archive for the 'freespeech' Category
"nothing of this sort will happen in the future"

матрациFacebook has deleted “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!”, a user-created page, and apologized to the Pakistani government which had blocked Facebook. A Pakistani minister said Facebook had assured them that “nothing of this sort will happen in the future”.

Yeah, good luck with that. And fuck you, Facebook. How about not knuckling under to paternalistic theocratic states that block Internet access for millions of people?

See:
* Huffington Post, 5/31; hat tip to boston-atheists mailing list.
* comicsalliance.com
* and, yes, wikipedia

You can’t see http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day/121369914543425?ref=ts..plz which redirects you to facebook, nor can I find a cache of the site on Google or on the Internet Archive.

Sotomayor, Al Franken, the First Amendment, and information law

Some interesting commentary on Sotomayor and the First Amendment from Paul Levinson:
* http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/search/label/Sonia%20Sotomayor
* http://paullev.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=497539
* http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/search/label/Sonia%20Sotomayor

I haven’t had time yet to dig into Sotomayor on intellectual property, telecomm, and other information law issues, but this is discouraging.

Franken of course I have hopes for: After Fox News sued him for trademark infringement for putting its logo “Fair and Balanced” on the cover of his book (Lies and the Lying Liars Who tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right) Franken ought to have a good sense of why trademark fair use, at least, is important.

patents and the first amendment

it’s so delightful to read those two areas of law in a single news article. The ACLU is suing to invalidate a patent on a gene. Yaay Chris Hansen. (Psst. They’re also patenting algorithms and business methods and even tax strategies.)

wtf with st. paul?

This is un-fucking-believable: Amy Goodman and producers were arrested at the RNC protests. Arresting an award-winning journalist for inquiring about her arrested producers. The video of Goodman’s arrest (“Update II”) should be watched along with the SF Chronicle‘s interview of her on her release (“Update VII”). See also Washington Post. An AP reporter was arrested later, and there were various other police actions against journalists.

Glenn Greenwald said at the beginning of this column:

Beginning last night, St. Paul was the most militarized I have ever seen an American city be, even more so than Manhattan in the week of 9/11 — with troops of federal, state and local law enforcement agents marching around with riot gear, machine guns, and tear gas cannisters, shouting military chants and marching in military formations.

See also this video of a peaceful protester being tear-gassed at close range (second video; at pharyngula).

As with the Chicago DNC in 1996, and many other political party meetings in the intervening years, activists’ homes were raided before the protests began.

Reporting of interest:
* Glenn Greenwald at salon.com
* The Revolution Will Be Twittered – firedoglake / jane hamsher
* raid on an anarchist art production in a theater – The Uptake
* ColdSnap Legal Collective – updates on arrests etc.
* house arrests of journalist group “iwitness”
* interview with st. paul officials – mayor, chief of police, police PR
* Minnesota Independent coverage
* cell phone video of police firing what may be smoke bombs & in general acting like the protesters are enemy combatants — following after a retreat
* “inside an RNC raid” – a house of legal observer coordinators was raided & folks detained.

Copyright claims against Expelled

4/11: I had previously (3/27) drafted a brief commentary on Expelled‘s use of copyrighted material. Then, I unposted it while I checked on something, to try to make it more complete. I hadn’t gotten back to it, when the other shoe dropped: One of the copyright holders’ whose material was used in Expelled wrote a published a draft cease & desist letter to the filmmakers. So, I’m re-posting my original comment, even though I haven’t yet had a chance to figure out the licensing status of the animations in question, and I’m doing a more detailed analysis below of the current set of claims. Consider this a rough draft of an analysis.

In part, I’m rushing this out because there are a few misconceptions about copyright and fair use on the Pharyngula blog comment thread. I’ll have to come back & add in the relevant cites when I’ve got a bit more time (probably not before Sunday), and I may have more considered analysis at that point. Right now, this is my quick first impressions on the merits of the claims that XVIVO is making, and the merits of the likely defenses that Expelled could raise.

I’ve gotta say, I’m rarely so personally sympathetic with a cease and desist as I am with this one, a letter from Peter Irons on behalf of XVIVO to the makers of Expelled, for using without permission a biology animation that XVIVO did.

However.

The misuse of science is not the same thing as the misuse of intellectual property, and I have, unfortunately, a number of problems with this cease & desist letter. My problems are more tactical and, of course, from the perspective of a fair use / information policy attorney. But I’ll go through a bit of legal analysis first, because there are some interesting questions. If you don’t find details of copyright interesting, skip to the last 3 paragraphs.

(more…)

federally funded censorship about abortion

Jenna Freedman posted an outrageous story about a medical database: Popline has made the word “abortion” a stopword, meaning you can’t search on the term; the database ignores the word as it ignores words like “the”.

Why? Popline responded that “We recently made all abortion terms stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now.”

They recommend instead searching “fertility control, postconception”.

I fail to understand this rationale. Was their pressure from within PopLine or outside from the funders to hide information about abortion? Or did they decide for some reason that it was strategically better to hide information about abortion given the anti-choice climate at the Bush administration?

Either way, hiding information is not the right solution.

The contact information is:
Debra L. Dickson
POPLINE Database Manager/Administrator
INFO Project
111 Market Place, Suite 310, Baltimore, MD 21202
ddickson@jhuccp.org
Tel: 410-659-6300 / Fax: 410-659-6266

and more information is available at Jenna’s page.
cross-posted at sivacracy

update fri 3pm:
The Dean at John Hopkins (which manages Popline) has ordered the decision reversed. See statement from Johns Hopkins (link from women’s health news); see also crooks & liars coverage

roommates.com: no 230 safe harbor for discriminatory housing ads

Just saw that the 9th Circuit has issued its en banc opinion finding that Roommates.com is not eligible for Section 230 immunity for discriminatory postings. Haven’t read it yet.

Decision at up at the 9th Circuit website. Opinion by Kozinski, who usually gets this stuff so maybe it’s not too bad.

link from eric goldman

(more…)

religious in Turkey block wordpress.com

Pharyngula said it well: “Turkish ass shuts down a slice of the Internet” (well, as far as Turkey is concerned, anyway). Muslim creationist was unhappy with some critical blog commentary so he got a judge to block the entire domain.

Best comment from Pharyngula thread:

Wonder Twin powers activate. Form of A Google Bomb

yaay ACLU

A victory for free speech in the ongoing war against silly efforts for Congress-critters to score political points. (Preliminary injunction against COPA, aka CDA II, aka son of CDA)

press subpoenas in Watada case

In an interesting twist on press subpoenas, Army prosecutors have subpoenaed journalists to get them to vouch for published quotes — not source information or unpublished information. [SFgate 12/18.] The prosecutors hope to use the quotes to prosecute First Lt. Ehren Watada, who denounced the war on Iraq as illegal and refused to deploy.

Sarah Olson, an Oakland journalist who wrote about Watada, said she had no legal grounds to refuse but she noted that “If conscientious objectors know that they can be prosecuted for speaking to the press and that the press will participate in their prosecution, it stands to reason that they would think twice before being public about their positions.”

The subpoena requires not just an attestation but participation in a January 2007 hearing and the court-martial of Lt. Watada, under penalty of contempt of the military tribunal. Olson and the other journalists subpoenaed can be put in jail for refusing to comply.

One of the statements that Lt. Watada is being charged for is:

As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked. I became ashamed of wearing the uniform. How can we wear something with such a time-honored tradition, knowing we waged war based on a misrepresentation and lies?’

You can look at each little skid on a slippery slope individually and note that it’s not that big a deal.

A failure of the public interest tech law community

From my perspective, the Section 230 (qualified by dicta) victory in Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law v. Craigslist (PDF), is fine, unsurprising, but a relief. But more importantly, to me, the case demonstrates a significant and ongoing failure of the public interest tech law community: Explaining to people outside our community why it is in the best interests of progressives and folks fighting discrimination to enable a robust sphere for communications.

For those not in the know, the CLCCRUL fights housing discrimination. One way they do it is by using laws that prevent the publication of discriminatory housing ads in, for instance, newspapers. The CLCCRUL filed suit against Craigslist for discriminatory housing ads that were posted on its website. Craigslist lets users post their own ads, and lets users “flag” other user-oriented content that is illegal for whatever reason, like the Fair Housing Act. It’s a largely automated and user-driven moderation process like many others on the Internet. In 1996, Congress passed Section 230 which protects Internet service providers (called “Online Content Services” or OCS’s) from liability as a “publisher” for their users’ content. Courts have pretty much uniformly read Section 230 as Congress exempting ISPs/bulletin boards and the like from any liability for their users’ messages (except IP which is explicitly exempted from S.230′s “safe harbor”). Legally, there isn’t much to the case, because Section 230 squarely applies. Emotionally, as a matter of justice, it seems to some to be a different matter.

Section 230, like copyright law, clickwrap clauses, reverse engineering, WIPO, Internet jurisdiction, and other such issues can seem pretty bloodless when you’re fighting for the right to housing, reproductive decision-making, and healthcare, or to end race discrimination, the death penalty, or torture. Social-change activists may humor us occasionally, but they don’t see those of us in the information activist community as really, truly, fighting for something that they should care about. They just don’t get it.

To me, these issues are fundamentally free expression issues — which, as Emma Goldman saw, underpin the right to advocate for every other right.

For Section 230, for instance: The Internet is the largest and most open platform for human communications that has ever existed. The technology needed to gain access to every other person on the Internet is increasingly affordable to everyone, with cell phone networks, free wireless municipal networks, cheap computers, and so on. People and “society” more generally are now learning to navigate and contribute to and draw from the increasingly vaster floods of knowledge. I believe that the transformative power of that access to knowledge offers humans the best opportunity yet to transcend the petty powers of principalities, the tyranny of learned prejudice, the prison of ignorance. The pen is mightier than the sword–it has the power to destroy fascism at its root.

And Section 230 is a critical piece of that. If you can’t speak because a gatekeeper controls the speech, and the gatekeeper could be subjected to liability under someone else’s local rules, then your ability to speak and access speech is set to the lowest common denominator available to all. A race to the bottom in terms of what’s allowed.

Permitting people to speak in untrammelled ways leads to offensive and arguably harmful speech. But if you create a chokepoint for speech on the greatest speech platform yet to exist, then others will be only too happy to use that chokepoint for their own agendas.

And it’s not just speech. The people that CLCCRUL is representing–anybody seeking housing, because everybody benefits from a non-discriminatory housing market–are the primary beneficiaries of an open, user-controlled housing information market. They have access to more postings and information. They don’t have to go through rental agents who may have secret or subconscious prejudices. They have the ability to flag biased postings and police the community, themselves. (It’s the ultimate form of community policing, and it works a hell of a lot better than any attempt at governmental regulation ever can.) And for a myriad of other reasons, an open, responsible-to-the-community, speech platform is better, both in the short-term and in the long-term, for people seeking housing and for people seeking an end to invidious discrimination of all kinds.

I haven’t even gotten to the real and qualitative differences between printing-press and broadcast media, and the Internet. But it’s a worthwhile exercise to look at the best arguments for regulating print and broadcast media, and assess how those arguments play out on the Internet. Defamation, for instance. One good reason for regulating print publishers of libel (defamation) more harshly than spoken publishers of libel (slander) is that print publishers have a powerful tool at their disposal that the victim of defamation may not: the ability to reach a mass audience relatively cheaply. How does that map to the Internet? Well, it turns out that in terms of being able to respond to the libelous speech, the Internet is a lot more like spoken word (slander) than it is like printing press or broadcast (defamation): It’s pretty easy to get access to the same forums & the ability to respond to the libelous speech. So, one could argue, libelous speech on the Internet is less harmful than libelous speech made on the radio station or in the local newspaper. The rationales for restricting publication in print newspapers may likewise apply differently in the Internet. This is a case that our community should be making, persuasively and directly, to communities that are seeking, for very good reasons, to regulate speech on the Internet.

… Anyway, rather than castigating or calling for Rule 11 sanctions against the CLCCRUL attorneys as a number of folks have done, I’d rather see us try to reach out to them to explain why it’s in the best interests of their clients to support Section 230 and craigslist, instead of attacking it. (I don’t mean CLCCRUL directly, btw; once you’re in litigation it’s difficult to shift gears. But other social-change activists.) Others, no doubt, can make different, better, or more persuasive arguments than I have. I hope they do. We in the public interest tech community have an affirmative responsibility to lay out these arguments, not just to ourselves, but to our activist allies, whoever they might be.

it’s not FCC “fair use”

(It’s the anthem for fccfu.com … and, relatedly, you all know about Eric Idle’s ‘The FCC Song’, right?)

Fair Use Network website

The first stage of our new fair use project is online — the Fair Use Network website, at http://fairusenetwork.org/ .

At present, we’re focusing on consumer resources, and version 1.0 includes resources for recipients of copyright cease-and-desist letters or DMCA § 512 takedown notices. Similar resources for trademark will be coming online later. Version 2.0 will include more resources oriented toward “gatekeepers” and users of copyrighted & trademarked material, before they get a C&D. And Version 3.0 will include more network resources for attorneys serving these clients.

net neutrality provision fails in the House

we knew this, right? that legislative attempts to do something positive for consumers were likely doomed? [nyt 6/9]

consumers, if you get Internet service from a phone or cable company, do you think you pay enough to have service already? do you think your broadband provider ought to be able to charge you more for getting email from a non-corporate-licensed listserve, or using Google? you might want to consider calling & explaining that you already pay them to deliver a particular service–not to spend millions of dollars in lobbying to ensure their “right” to double-bill you for Internet access.

Save the Internet and Public Knowledge are the places to go on this one. Go now, while you’re not being charged double for the privilege.

undermining google.cn

Like most people I know, I was saddened, but not surprised, by Google.cn. I get the official corporate reasoning, although it smells more of justification than reason. But even if I understand the reasoning/justifications — some information is better than no information; someone else (China?) will do it if we don’t; engagement is better than isolation; blah blah blah — Google.cn is, unquestionably, not the principled thing to do. Lay as much as you want on the Google.cn side of the scales, but here’s what’s on the other side: Google set up a censored version of a database, with the intent to keep information away from 1.3 billion human beings, at the behest of the few thousands of people in the government who are responsible for this decision. There’s a four-letter word to describe that and it starts with “e” and rhymes with “bee-vil”.

If Google truly believes its own rationalizations, and if the company’s decision-makers are truly committed to not being evil, then I have a suggestion for them: Large donations to peacefire and other groups working to defeat censorware, now.

As long as I have been watching censorware [aka "filterware"] arguments — since the mid/late-90s, actually, on library listserves — Bennett Haselton (Peacefire) has been out there doing research on the issue and developing tools to route around censorship. One such tool is the Circumventor program. It’s a sort of peer-to-peer router option to help provide uncensored access to the Internet. (Hey Bennett and other developers: a mac version would be nice. I bet a nice big check from Google would help develop some new versions of the software.)

I’m not familiar with all the organizations below, but they’re worth checking out, and if you like them, support their work.

will right-wingers finally appreciate international law?

Right-wing homophobes have been freaking out over the Åke Green’s conviction under a Swedish hate speech code. They were particularly incensed because Green made his anti-gay comments from a church pulpit, and hailed the conviction as a sign of the treacherous path of hate speech codes. His conviction was reversed on appeal and then the Supreme Court of Sweden took it up. Now, interestingly, I found out that at the end of November, the Supreme Court also acquitted Green. Why? Because although he did violate the Swedish hate crime legislation, a sentence against him would likely violate the European Convention on Human Rights. So, right-wingers have to recognize … international law … for protecting human rights. I’m sure I’ll see that on the same blogs where right-wingers thank the ACLU.

(Caveat: I don’t read Swedish so my understanding of the Supreme Court opinion is based on this short synopsis by a Swedish attorney.)

jetblue blocking daily show segments?

Coming home on JetBlue on Thursday 12/29, we had an interesting experience with the TV programming. One entire “Daily Show” segment was wiped out. The program did one segment, then skipped straight to the interview with Howard Stern, and then ‘programming was temporarily unavailable due to normal motion of the aircraft’. Pretty much until the next show started when programming magically resumed. Other channels were not affected.

crooks & liars has the video of the gaywatch segment.

military bloggers & commentary

part of a longer post i’m developing on military bloggers, but this to start:

morning tea round-up
  • Yahoo!’s historically less-than-stellar track record of protecting user privacy is made much, much worse by this news: Yahoo! turned over a user’s identity information to the Chinese government, and now journalist Shi Tao has been sentenced to ten years for “e-mailing a government’s plan to restrict media coverage around the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre”. [SJ Merc 10/2 editorial; see also Xeni Jardin in the LAT 10/9; and Open Letter to Jerry Yang, Yahoo!, from Liu Xiaobo, 2005 Oct. 7. ] The Merc thinks it’s “hard to blame Yahoo!” for this but wants them to more aggressively lobby on behalf of human rights. Me, I don’t find it hard to “blame” Yahoo! for what they did. The individuals at Yahoo! who made the decision to hand over accurate information made a choice: company profits and business model over the freedom of a journalist. I guess they were just doing what they were told. [link from ping]

  • The Bush Admin. has never really had a sense of humor about parodies. The latest brouhaha is about The Onion’s use of the presidential seal. [cnn 10/26] White House spokesperson Trent Duffy:

    “When any official sign or seal is being used inappropriately the party is notified. … You cannot pick and choose where to enforce that rule. It’s important that the seal or any White House insignia not be used inappropriately.”

    The Onion editor-in-chief, Scott Dikkers:

    “I’ve been seeing the presidential seal used in comedy programs most of my life and to my knowledge none of them have been asked not to use it by the White House. … I would advise them to look for that other guy Osama … rather than comedians. I don’t think we pose much of a threat.”

  • George Takei - Live Queer and Prosper

    George Takei (“Mr.
    Sulu”) vamps it up.

    Mr. Sulu George Takei is gay! His new role in “Equus” apparently “inspire[d] him” to come out. I have to say, I am deeply gratified to finally have some queer representation on Star Trek. Although looking at this picture, it seems like the official coming out was, well, redundant. [Jason Schultz has a nice photo for Sulu fans, and SFGate 11/10 has a lot more details.]

    Between Mr. Sulu Takei and WNBA triple-MVP winner Sheryl Swoopes, National Coming Out Day came out a little late, but strong. [Women's Hoops blog links to lots of Swoopes coverage.]

  • Research about five years ago showed that even as women athletes were setting records and breaking into new fields, sports photographers were increasingly minimizing and downplaying women’s athleticism. (Also at Women’s eNews. See also Womens Sports Foundation. That was in 2000, and a flurry of scholarship around that time evaluated that phenomena. A year or so later, the Smithsonian launched a traveling tour of sports photography of female athletes, Game Face (which I caught in DC at the time). Women’s ascendance in sports in the last five years has continued apace, and I wonder if there have been follow-up studies….

  • Chinese women bloggers are doing the sex blog thing. (This is at least the second or third such similar article on Asian women bloggers and sexuality that I’ve seen in the last year or so. News coverage about the Chinese government frowning or cracking down on this or that is fairly routine, I know. But I can’t help but wonder how much of the coverage is due to the starting! shocking! news that Asian women bloggers are blogging about sex, and how much of it is because white Western journalists are surprised to see such goings-on. Hey, I’m told that even in Boston, beans do it.)

  • Speaking of blogging, the NYT is trying to get “hip” to this newfangled “blogging” thing, and you can really see the results. In one article recently, the Times “jazzed up” their content with “hyperlinks”: the article included one link on the name of a state to NYT coverage about that state. And yesterday & today the coverage of the Scooter Libby resignation made me snigger with this bullet point: “Reactions: Bush. Cheney. Bloggers.” But I shouldn’t make fun, because the NYT also gave me a happy moment with its briefly-posted blurb for the Scooter Libby thing, which went something like this: “Scooter Libby indicted; steps down; Bush-Cheney no comment; Karl Rove not indicted.” The mere fact that Karl Rove’s non-indictment is news sends a warm glow all the way down to my toes, and I thank the NYT for that little moment of joy.

  • National science standards groups are registering their disapproval of Kansas’ new “science plus! religion” standards. Unfortunately, they’re using copyright to do so. [nyt 10/28]

  • The Washington Post trashes the E-Rate, the telecomm. tax-funded grant to schools & libraries for Internet access. [WPost 10/27]

yet more quotes & comments

some links, some quotes, some comments, all in one … I pulled various of these articles up several hours ago from various blogs, which I would like to link back to, but windows got closed, systems got rebooted, and to make a long story short I no longer know which link came from where.

  • Molly Ivins writes about SLAPPs and also reminds us of one of my favorite George W. Bush quotes: “There ought to be limits to freedom.” Uttered in response to a parody website. (which it seems is now on hiatus). [link from sideshow]
  • God, I loved this: famous same-sex swan couples: romeo & juliet, of boston’s Public Garden [link from plaid adder war journal 8/12]
  • This Swedish library is loaning lesbians. [Which reminds me of one of my favorite canvas bags/t-shirts seen around ALA: "Nobody knows I'm a librarian."] The library project is called “The Living Library” and allows you to check out various, err, types of people for 45 minutes. Now circulating, a lesbian, a Muslim, an animal rights activist, a gypsy, and some other folks. [link from librarian.net 8/17; see also sbs]
  • John Nichols, “Being Like Bernie” [Sanders], The Nation, 2005/8/15.

    At his best, Sanders succeeds in separating policy from politics and getting to those deeper discussions about the role government can and should play in solving real-life problems– discussions that are usually obscured by partisan maneuvering. That’s the genius of Sanders’s independent status. But it is also a source of frustration. While Sanders backers formed the Vermont Progressive Party, a third-party grouping that holds six seats in the State Legislature, he has never joined the party and has sometimes been slow to embrace its statewide campaigns. While the sense that Sanders is a genuinely free agent serves him well, it raises questions about whether Sanders will ever create not just an alternative candidacy but an alternative politics in his state. “He will not leave a party behind him. So what will be his legacy?” asks Freyne of Seven Days. “I don’t see a next Bernie on the horizon. I don’t see what comes after him. There’s a lot wrapped up in one man, and I don’t know where that gets you in the long run.”

    But Sanders makes no apologies for refusing to be a party man. Yes, of course, he’d like the Democratic Party to be more progressive and for third parties to develop the capacity to pull the political process to the left. But Sanders is not going to wait for the right political moment to arrive. What he’s done is create a model for how an individual candidate can push beyond the narrow boundaries of contemporary politics and connect with voters in the same sense that Progressives and Populists of a century ago–operating within the shells of the Democratic and Republican parties and sometimes outside them–did so successfully.

    ai-yi-yi. i must rant. why should sanders have to leave a party to leave a legacy? his unreconstructed individualism is charming. the man stands for himself. people like and appreciate that in almost anybody and especially in politicians. a party? what do parties stand for? mostly, their own ongoing existence. at any given moment, a party might have a general drift — towards theocracy, say, or corporate welfare. or a party might be a confusing morass of many different opinions and no center. evaluating a party by its platform tells you nothing: who could imagine, reading the RNC platform, that there would be such a group as Log Cabin Republicans? is evaluating a party by its inner circle power brokers any more useful in assessing what a party stands for? the value of political parties lies in certain advantages for their members in furthering their common agenda through pooling resources, power, etc. but once a party is too big to reflect any common agenda for all its members, and has significant disagreement on major policy points among its members, then its continued existence becomes just an exercise in maintaining its own power. so bernie sanders doesn’t do party politics, but manages to get things done, stick to and voice his opinions, and he’s wildly popular. hmm. i think there’s a lesson there.

  • Digby, Shameful Indifference, 2005/8/14:

    Memo to those on the right who say the Left supports Islamic fundamentalists: we’re the Godless Heathens, remember? We’re against the religious zealots running governments across the board. Of course, that includes your “base” here in the US too so you’ll have to pardon us for our consistency and ask yourselves why we find you incoherent on this matter.

    Such a useful point. Get rid of the rhetorical labels (“left”, “liberal”, “Republican”, “Islamist”, “Democrats”, and all the various pejorative quasi-puns that conservative blog commenters think are so funny, e.g., “Dims”) and look at specific positions. State control of the press. State control of individual’s sex lives. Specific state positions on individual’s sex lives: same-sex okay or not? Protection of natural resources: important or unimportant? up to the state or the private sector? … and so on. For instance, who’s opposed to non-marital sex, same-sex relations, immodesty in women, indecency on the airwaves; and supportive of patriarchal households, tending to form personality cults around strong authoritarian leaders, pro-military/violence, pro-government entanglements with religion. With so much in common, I guess I should be happy that Islamic and Christian fundamentalists don’t get along better. Hooray for doctrines & deities!