It would take a heart of granite not to laugh at the overwrought Victorian reactions of students at Central Connecticut State University to a satirical piece about the societal benefits of rape published in their school newspaper.
Sarah said she couldn’t keep her knees from buckling and the tears from welling in her eyes when she picked up a copy of the student newspaper at Central Connecticut State University this week … . ”I couldn’t believe anyone in this day and age would write something like that, and that other people would let it be published.”
After all, humanity has witnessed the death of God and has progressed beyond good and evil, haven’t we evolved past satire and free speech yet? Certainly some of her fellow students saw no amusement in Sarah’s knee-buckling reaction to what must have been some very frightening ink assembled into a series of threateningly occultic glyphs on paper. One specimen in particular seems rather unlikely to find much humor in anything.
”There are some things that just aren’t funny, and rape is one of them,” Griffin [one of the students protesting the article] said. “I mean, what’s next? The Holocaust? Slavery? There’s nothing funny there, I’m sorry.”
I’m sure we shall all anticipate receiving a list of humor-approved subjects from Mr. Griffin. Apparently we shall also look forward to seeing three Oscars being rescinded from Roberto Benigni and Nicola Piovani, to say nothing of the public flogging of Mel Brooks. As for slavery, I have to confess that I tend to find it rather amusing when the historically ignorant make melodramatic references to the historical American slave trade while failing to realize that a woman can be purchased for a few hundred dollars in nearly any country in the world today.
For there is a tremendous amount of dark humor to be found in the post-Christian era, where it is ironically far easier to argue for the moral and scientific imperative of rape than it is to make the case that rape should still be considered a crime, much less a moral offense. As Daniel C. Dennett writes in ”Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” the full extent of precisely how dangerous the idea of natural selection is has not been understood, much less accepted, by the vast majority of those familiar with Darwin’s theory of evolution.
For who are you, dear reader, to declare that one reproduction-oriented act is superior to another? Do you not know that there is no God? Are we not merely vehicles for our selfish genes?
But whether we consider ourselves to be vessels for amoral genes subject to the reproduction imperative or containers of an immortal soul subject to future Divine judgment, atheists and Christians alike can agree that the removal of Nick Gilburn’s videos from YouTube is a direct offense to free speech as well as being the latest revelation that Google’s ”don’t be evil” slogan is nothing more than meaningless words.
Gilburn is a poor-man’s Richard Dawkins, whose YouTube videos are popular with and considered marvelously enlightening by the sort of 10th-grade boys who seriously believe that no Christian has ever read the Bible. (This is a common theme in the sort of science fiction they read, wherein the scene featuring the atheist hero stunning the Bible-thumping bigot into silence with a devastating quote from John 8:7 is as mandatory as the sex scene with the seductive female scientist/space alien. Of course, only an author who knows nothing about the ubiquity of Christian Bible studies could posit such a scenario, moreover, they invariably leave out John 8:11.)
But it is only a weak and fragile faith that cannot bear to be questioned, however incompetently. So while Gilburn posted his anti-Christian videos on YouTube without a problem, his posting an anti-Islamic video met with a speedy response from the Google-owned company. Gilburn’s account was permanently disabled and his videos were removed due to the ”inappropriate nature” of the video. Slashdot’s coverage of YouTube’s action spurred the geek community into action; the result was that while most of Gilburn’s videos were permitted to be uploaded again, the Islam-related one remained banned.
Gilburn himself sums it up thusly:
The latest situation is that I posted 2 near-identical videos to YouTube, in the account I was forced to create after my original accounts and videos were removed:
One contained information showing negative passages from the Qur’an
One contained information showing negative passages from the Bible
Their formats were similar, just the origin of the material differed.
The Qur’an video has just been removed by YouTube and flagged as ‘Content Inappropriate’
The Bible video? It has not been touched. It’s there now. YouTube is censoring any comment which puts Islam in a bad light. Negative Christian comments are being ignored.
Now, this is not censorship. Google is not the government and there is no constitutional right to have YouTube or your college newspaper publish your speech. However, it is important to note that Google, college administrations and American liberals all proudly claim to be supporters of free speech when the evidence demonstrates quite clearly that they are actually its enemies.