1. TEXT 1
[…] From Northern Ireland to South Asia; from Africa to the Americas; from the Balkans to the Pacific
Rim, we've witnessed convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order. At times, the
conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of
reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every
country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love
freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage
throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do
with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It
is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear,
we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who
worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect
individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why
people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our
laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless
publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban
blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-
Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always
defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all
people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without
such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own
faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become
a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives,
and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is
not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and
lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

2. TEXT 2
The Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) strongly condemns the French magazine Charlie Hebdo’s publication
of outrageous cartoons insulting Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), which represents a new
assault against Islam and Muslims.
The FJP urges the French government to take stern and speedy action against this magazine, which
violated the sanctity of religions and religious symbols, especially since the French judiciary has taken
clear steps against a magazine that published photos offensive to Catherine Middleton, British Duchess of
Cambridge, Prince William’s wife, and since it also holds a strict position against denying the Holocaust.
The FJP points to the significance of timing publication of these utterly crude and offensive caricatures,
days after the American anti-Islam film also insulting the Prophet (PBUH).
Are there hidden hands manipulating the West to provoke Arab and Muslim peoples who have just begun
winning their freedoms from corrupt authoritarian regimes?
Once again, the FJP calls upon the international community, the United Nations and its organizations, to
expedite the adoption of an international convention to protect religious symbols and sanctities against
such twisted intellectual extremism and perversion that incite hatred, confrontation and violence.
The FJP urges international institutions, the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Arab League, the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation, as well as associations and institutions concerned with civil liberties
and the protection of international peace and security to take the necessary legal steps to address these
abuses that incite hatred and provoke millions of Muslims.

3. TEXT 3
The online presence of the anti-Islamic film "Innocence of Muslims" continues to give
rise to blocking of YouTube, legal actions against it, and blocking of Internet and
mobile phone services.
One of the latest cases was in Brazil, where a São Paulo court yesterday ordered
Google to withdraw a YouTube video containing scenes from the US-produced film,
announcing that it would be fined 10,000 reals (4,950 dollars) a day if it failed to
comply within 10 days.
The order was the result of a complaint by the National Islamic Union (UNI) accusing
Google of posting an "offensive" video that violated the "constitutional right to
freedom of religion." The court rejected the UNI’s request for measures to prevent
these videos being posted on YouTube again.
In Turkey, the communication ministry announced today that legal proceedings have
been just been started with the aim of removing videos showing the film from certain
URLs. The authorities also asked Google to remove the film’s trailer from YouTube.
The ministry said the aim was to suppress the links that give access to the videos of
the film, rather than ban the sites offering the videos.
In Sudan, the National Communications Corporation has blocked access to YouTube
since 15 September. A local source told Reporters Without Borders the government
was using the offending video as a pretext for blocking a website used by many
Sudanese dissidents to circulate information about corruption and human rights
abuses, and calls for political reforms.
In India, the government of the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir has suspended
access to the Internet and mobile phone services in the Kashmir valley since midnight
on 20 September in anticipation of protests against the video.
The government ordered telecommunications services and Internet Service Providers
to do whatever was necessary to ensure that their customers could not access the
anti-Islamic video. To this end, the home affairs department used powers under
section 5 (2) of the 1885 Indian Telegraph Act.
In Egypt, Coptic Christian blogger Albert Saber Ayyad was arrested at his Cairo home
on 13 September after a neighbour accused him of being the administrator of an
atheist group onFacebook. His laptop was confiscated. He is accused of posting a clip
from the anti-Islamic video on the Internet and on Facebook.
When his trial opened today, he pleaded not guilty to charges of blasphemy, insulting
religion and inciting sedition. He is facing up to five years in prison on the blasphemy
charge under article 98 of the Egypt’s criminal code.