Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kuwait Issues Order To Block YouTube

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the singed-and-composed dept.

Censorship 180

Bashar Abdullah writes "Kuwait Ministry of Communications have issued orders to all ISPs to block YouTube, after some offensive videos to Quran and prophet were posted there. YouTube is 15% of Kuwaiti traffic, ranked #3 on Alexa for Kuwait. Funny thing is, those videos they refer to have been removed and I can't reach them anymore."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Profit! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114023)

1. Submit post about Kuwait blocking youtube.
2. Misspell prophet
3. ..
4. Profit!

Re:Profit! (-1, Troll)

m3j00 (606453) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114083)

Maybe they were referring to youtube videos that were offensive to Kuwaiti oil profits? Did ya ever think of that?

Re:Profit! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114969)

Insightful? Really?

The mods work in mysterious ways...

Re:Profit! (3, Interesting)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115357)

All governments have the same reason to censor, be it US, UK, or any other country. From their perspective, when is control of information ever a bad thing?

What varies is the thing they wave around to make people swoon. Terrorism, child porn, offense to Islam, Holocaust denial, etc.

Re:Profit! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25116099)

Well censoring offense to Islam is more of a religious thing than a government thing. When Middle Eastern governments do that they're basically doing it in order to prevent the religious elements from really running amuck (and I mean running amuck worse than the governments have already permitted in order to give the people something to distract attention from the government's policies.) When Western governments try do the same thing they claim it is to be "culturally sensitive" but it is really because they are afraid the offended folks will make good their threats to blow some shit up and kill people.

As for censoring Holocaust denial that's pretty straightforward. Tends to be done in the countries where it occurred. Those who deny the Holocaust tend to do it in order to further their own anti-Semitic ends, to make the case the the Nazis weren't so bad, and "Wouldn't it be great to go back to the good old days and finish what we started... er finish that thing we claim didn't happen but we really want to finish just the same."

Re:Profit! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25118469)

If you examine the Holocaust with a scientific mind you will find that there are quite a few inconsistencies. It's sad that any historical examination that goes against the consensus is illegal in some places. Instead one is labeled and slurred. One could draw comparisons to religious censorship throughout history, the ties between the holocaust and religion seem to run deep. Before you accuse me of being a closet anti-semite, I'll have you know that I am married to an Israeli(both her parents were holocaust survivors.)

Re:Profit! (3, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118593)

You should try going against the consensus in slashdot. You might mention the fact that the founder of the islamic "religion" comitted multiple religious massacres.

You could even suggest that this probably means that islam itself is, to say the least, "not opposed" to the idea of religious massacres. You might even say that "jihad" seems to include the practice of religious massacres, both historically and contemporary (e.g. Sudan).

And of course, by any objective standard, you'd be right.

But the consensus on slashdot will be put down firmly. After all regressives (since "progressives" want to let these idiots bring back the 8th century, I refer to them as regressives)

Re:Profit! (0)

EvilIntelligence (1339913) | more than 6 years ago | (#25119047)

You, my friend, have made probably the most ignorant comment I've seen on Slashdot. I'll be the first to say that major problems with the world today are based in religion. And me being an atheist, I have no loyalties to a single one. However, every single religion has had their share of atrocities, including Catholicism / Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, etc. Not a single one is without fault. Singling out Islam as being the only one is shortsighted. By the way "jihad" means "struggle" not "holy war". If you actually make intelligent comments, maybe you wouldn't be modded down.

Re:Profit! (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#25119271)

Catholicism / Christianity

Not sure why you picked Catholicism in particular. Protestantism also caused a number of atrocities. Remember the Salem Which Trials?

Re:Profit! (0)

EvilIntelligence (1339913) | more than 6 years ago | (#25119351)

I was grouping Catholicism and Christianity, to include Protestanism. Christians are Christians, from my perspective. I think the only group I can think of that hasn't committed major atrocities are the Amish, unless you consider "technology deprivation" an abuse.

Re:Profit! (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25119337)

I am not saying anyone, or any ideology is without fault. I am merely stating facts about a specific religion. Please don't imply things I didn't say. Here's what I am saying, with references, even if they are low-quality references at best.

Everyone knows that the prophet is to islam what Jesus Christ is for christianity. For Christians, the question is "what would Jesus do ?" for muslims the question is "what would the prophet do ?" and the answers are somewhat ... different than those you're used to from christians :

the prophet raped a minor girl, fact [wikipedia.org] (involuntary sex, whether within marriage or not is rape, especially if the girl did not know about the marriage)
he raided caravans, stealing, raping and kidnapping people into slavery, fact [danielpipes.org] (none of these sources are very good themselves, please look up the primary sources yourself)
he comitted SEVERAL religious massacres, fact [wikipedia.org]

Jihad means "holy war". Or at least that's what it meant from the 7th to the late 20th century, in every muslim source. The massacres in arabia, the muslim massacres that eradicated the blacks from north africa, and the utterly massive massacre muslim comitted in India are referred to, in any muslim historical source as "jihads". Whatever else jihad means, clearly to muslims it includes these massacres, so please have your translation include that fact. I realise calling jihad "holy war", with massacre implied, that that is very politically incorrect, but that IS what it means.

Just like "islam" means "submission" yes, but it very VERY strongly implies militarily enforced submission, and certainly does not mean voluntary submission. You are a muslim if you're militarily dominated by islam, if your family does that for example, not if you "believe". Most muslims don't believe, not in the sense that they have faith in God (if you read the quran you'll understand why faith in god is nonexistent in islam, you see allah is a vindictive asshole and the prophet even more, they kill for no reason at all, criminally insane and dangerous individuals, even by muslim standards, and certainly nothing like Jesus Christ in the new testament)

Read the primary sources. Draw your own conclusions. E.g.

When asked whether his soldiers should or should not rape female captives in war, the prophet answered, wait, let me just point you to the source and have you answer this yourself

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3432 [usc.edu]

He said that, not only was raping them okay, but if they were impregnated, that would not matter.

Now my challenge to you, point me to the section of the new testament were Jesus orders his soldiers to rape captive women. Oh you can't ? Well well, isn't that interesting ?

Re:Profit! (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118553)

Sshhhhhhh ... these people are "progressive". They have to be able to deny the history, contents and ideas of islam.

Of course islam is antisemitic. The prophet killed 1200 jews in one of his religious massacres (e.g. google for "khaybar"). Saying that religiously massacring jews is wrong is saying islam is evil.

Of course if you do think that massacres are evil, then you're not going to be a fan of the quran, you're going to think the prophet is a monster (which he is, much more so than many others we call monsters), and islam to be excluded from allowed religions, and that muslims are at best as good as nazi's. You can talk very nice with most of them too, after all.

Re:Profit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25118647)

TROLL?!! man that's a funny line, right there!

Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sound (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25118539)

on Earth. The only thing worse than living in a hot, dusty hellhole would be living in said hellhole and being awakened every morning by those evil chants to come and worship a god who is so small that he must enlist his human minions to subjugate or kill all non-believers.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118625)

Sssshhhh this is slashdot. The position is that muslims, having killed millions upon millions of people in religious massacres, have recently come to the discovery that they really want to live peacefully from now on, ending a killing spree of over 1300 years.

All these muslims today, you see, are totally different from all their predecessors, and share nothing with them. Except a book commanding them to commit religious massacres, rape children (google "aisha age"), murder in order to stifle dissent (google "asma bint marwan"), and worse.

And the result will not be a dead hellhole where nothing survives. The result of not defending against these massacrers will be the final utopia, where everyone will live happily ever after.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25118949)

Sssshhhh this is slashdot. The position is that muslims, having killed millions upon millions of people in religious massacres, have recently come to the discovery that they really want to live peacefully from now on, ending a killing spree of over 1300 years.

Well you just need to replace muslims with christians and the phrase still makes sense. What is your point?.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25119011)

Mind if I tell you something about the world ? It's going to sound trivial. It's going to sound insultingly simple.

That's because it IS insultingly simple :

Different ideologies are ... ... different.

So unfortunately you're wrong. If you replace those words, it doesn't make sense anymore. Not from a historical perspective.

It only makes a good soundbyte. The problem ?

Christians killed a few tens of thousand questionable characters for religion. Many of these were murderers and otherwise criminals. Yes there are innocents amongst them, I don't deny that. Most, however, were not innocent.

Muslims killed a BILLION people in spreading islam. They killed several hundred million of their own in the process too.

If you actually believed 10% of the things muslims claim about the Jews then you could also fill in Judaism in that sentence, and it wouldn't make sense either.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou (1)

EvilIntelligence (1339913) | more than 6 years ago | (#25119059)

Amen.

Dangerous videos (3, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114033)

There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.

Re:Dangerous videos (1)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115003)

I smell totalitarianism... or are those cinnamon buns? Either way, I'm on it, chief! :D

No such thing (2, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116053)

There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.

The descendants of six million dead Jews disagree with you. The descendants of 20-60 million dead Russians and East Europeans disagree with you. So do millions of people in China, Cambodia, and Rwanda.

Some ideas stink to the core, and always end with death. Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?

Re:No such thing (2, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116135)

So it was the Nazi ideology that killed people, and not its creators? Let it be my new motto, "People don't kill people, ideas kill people".

Re:No such thing (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118851)

Actually yes, the ideology is certainly not innocent. And those people, the nazi's, are not innocent, first in accepting those principles as an ideology, and later a small part of them in killing to preserve them.

Nazism was a "moderate" socialist/communist ideology (certainly more moderate than Stalin's, though probably not what one would call a "moderately socialist" opinion in an American) which led to Germany not being able to care for it's own people.

Which led to the demand for "lebensraum", ie more land. Also this led to the demand to "tax the rich", and prevent the rich from taking over again, as their power remained. As a populist measure Hitler scratched "rich" from karl marx' script and filled in "rich jewish arms merchants", and continued on. Of course this did not change anything.

So pretty soon (took about 10-15 years) there wasn't much left to steal in Germany, so the ideology of stealing continued on : it attacked it's neighbour states and started stealing from them (talk to any survivor, you'll see how much emphasis the "reich" put on stealing art, money and treasure, and how regulated this stealing was, just like islam regulates stealing (goods stolen from infidels are considered legally acquired and taxed 20% in sharia)).

So they attacked. Obviously many, many prisoners were the result, they weren't like the muslims, who historically started conquests with a massacre, they respected the white flag and took survivers prisoner and cared for them if possible, at least initially. But it went still worse with Germany economically, since they were still following communist/socialist dogma, and still failing even further. So they had a HUGE war prisoners population they couldn't take care off ... conditions worsened. First gradually, but more and more. Eventually they stopped putting brakes on military vehicles, including prisoner transports.

They also had a national healthcare plan, that became utterly unpayable. So rather than admitting defeat, they killed cripples and anyone "not productive" that was a strain on their healthcare resources. Medicines weren't yet as expensive, so most money went to patients needing full-time or part-time help and tools, like cripples or blind people. They did this, again, not because they planned it or out of spite or hate against their victims, they did it to be able to keep saying their national healthcare worked. They killed for the same reason muslims kill : because it's the only way to preserve their ideology. Without constant honor killings, islam would quickly be overwhelmed by human nature itself. The concentration camps, some of them, were actually part of the German national healthcare system, and were meant initially as a cost cutting measure, increasing the number of cripples per nurse/docter by cutting travel.

Initially the racist nature of nazism only demanded that these patients/prisoners/jews/dissidents not have children.

However pretty soon it became, due to the further deterioration of Germany, and due to the pressure caused by the counterattack by Britain and the USSR, impossible to man the "camps", both prisoner camps and "healthcare" camps, with sufficient guards to prevent massive outbreaks or military medical personnel that could be used at the frontline. But those people couldn't be released, and left to care for themselves, that would mean nazism and therefore their brand of socialist/communist law had failed.

And then someone came up with the "final solution" ...

Nazi's didn't kill because they liked it. They did it because they liked it more than the alternative (giving up power, risking revolution, admitting defeat). They did it because otherwise people wouldn't listen to the "obvious concerns for the planet" they had : population had to go down, and the "best bred people, the best genes" had to survive. Eugenics. The fit (=nazi's to a nazi) would no longer rule, but idiots, and the rich would rule again.

I mean sure, you're right. Individuals choose to kill, obviously, and they are INDIVIDUALLY to be held accountable. However they didn't just choose out of the blue to kill. They killed when they should have laid down power. They killed their own, in order to avoid losing face.

That's who the nazi's really were. They were not magically evil people, sent by the devil himself. They were people obsessed with a specific ideology, unwilling to compromise with reality, unwilling to adapt to the demands of the real world, unwilling to admit that their healthcare would fail, that their lebensraum was lower than before, and that that was not going to change. Their transformation to monsters was very, very gradual and would take almost 20 years. Most nazi's were (and are) very reasonable people. It's just their ideology is non-negotiable and doesn't compromise with reality.

Re:No such thing (2, Informative)

solafide (845228) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116195)

Your logic reaches the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. "Guns don't kill people: evil dictators kill people" - or in your case, ideas don't kill people, evil dictators kill people. Most ideas where one person is believed to be permanently more important result in evil dictators, and death results.

Re:No such thing (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116561)

Most "evil" dictators kill nobody by their own hand.

Re:No such thing (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118891)

Indeed, it's their ideology that's danguerous, because it induces others to kill, not the person himself/herself. Alone they're mere little crybabies, trying to weasel out of everything. It's not the ideology that makes them evil, but it's the ideology that empowers them to induce others to do their evil for them on a huge scale.

Of course some ideologies are much more potent enablers of evil than others. Democracy, for instance, isn't very useable for a dictator. Stuff like communism or islam on the other hand ... (unless you enjoy genocide you're not going to like the history of either communism or islam very much).

Does that make these ideologies evil in themselves ? Yes.

Does it absolve people who accept those ideologies from responsability ? Of course not. In fact it makes them at least partially guilty from the moment they accept that ideology.

Re:No such thing (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116221)

Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why people and not ideas are dangerous.

Re:No such thing (2, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 6 years ago | (#25117251)

Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why people and not ideas are dangerous.

Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all. Really the examples of dictatorial regimes that survive the death of their founder is so great as to make your statments ridiculous.

Goodness wasn't the GreatMan view of history abandoned sometime in the C19th? Must ususally an historical opportunity presents itself and someone (and it could have been any number of someones) fills the place. I will conceed that in the case of Hitler we are perhaps dealing with a leader sui generis since, unlike Mussolini for instance, he did not remain a simple puppet to the interests that allowed him power. Mussolini, however, is far more typical. Facially a "great leader," in reality a captive spokesperson.

NS Germany was never going to end any otherway simply due to the bellicose nature of the regime. Had it not been so warlike, the regime would have eventually ended in economic disaster. Not because it was a state-owned economy, it wasn't, but because the regime had undermined the intellectual infrastructure of the country. You cannot continue to place party hacks into all the educational, administrative and judicial positions based merely on ideological adherence without regard to ability and hope to survive long term.

Re:No such thing (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#25117763)

Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all

No, you're missing the point. When the regime is in place, it's too late, you can take off the originator. Once your disciples are in power it's too late, but before that happens, before some point when a movement gains too much momentum and power, the people who started it are the only thing that keep the thing going. Not ideas. People. Leaders.

The ideas for communism were out of the bag long before 1917. A revolution was bound to happen due to the conditions and the regime in the country (I like to blame it all on Nikolai II's insensitivity, stubbornness and insufficient leadership skills), but without Lenin who's to say how different the outcome would have been? That sort of change takes opportunities, and someone to exploit those opportunities and lead their way to their goal, which depends on what they want, not on their ideals. Ideas don't lead people, leaders do, and ideas are just tools they use to get a following. But communism isn't inherently dangerous, nazism isn't inherently dangerous, people are.

You look at the whole problem too far downhill, when the powers are in already place and executing their plan. You have to look at what happens uphill, when movements are bodies that couldn't survive a decapitation.

The whole point is, it's not the carrot that makes the mule go forth, it's the man who holds the carrot.

Re:No such thing (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118967)

So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.

By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !

Re:No such thing (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#25119083)

So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.

No, don't you read? You just have to kill the leader.

By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !

Not really, they're merely iterations, the 44th to be precise.

Re:No such thing (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#25119129)

Just to make your thoughts more clear :

So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.

No, don't you read? You just have to kill the leader.

Aren't Obama and McCain leaders ? Okay maybe Obama is a puppet, so perhaps it'd be better to kill Joe Biden on the democrat side, but other than the names of the current "leaders", the principle is correct ?

By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !

Not really, they're merely iterations, the 44th to be precise.

So we should not only shoot Obama and McCain, but both Clintons, both Bushes, Joe Lieberman, and all ex-presidential candidates ?

I think by 44th iteration of leaders you're saying we should kill them, and all their predecessors in the 44 previous campaigns ?

Re:No such thing (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118363)

> Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the
> ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why
> people and not ideas are dangerous.

Dunno about `national socialism` but there was an engrained hatred of Jews in Germany, and if it hadn't been Hitler who used them to promote his ideas and turn them into actions then it could have been someone else. Stephen Fry's (fictional) book "Making History" is more or less about this and is well worth reading.

Re:No such thing (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118157)

Sounds like dangerous people to me, man. Credulousness and stupidity are the most dangerous things of all.

Re:No such thing (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118207)

Sounds like dangerous people to me, man.

What ever happened to "the pen is mightier than the sword", and "an idea who's time has come is unstoppable"?

Re:No such thing (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118449)

Well I say the fool is mightier than the pen.

What I'm saying is, ignorant and credulous people are prerequisites for the worst ideas to take hold, and that they're the root of the problem, not the ideas themselves. An idea without someone willing to act upon it is nothing but a curiousity, like the whole Nazi thing is now.

Re:Dangerous videos (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116975)

There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.

If ideas and speech really are this impotent, then is freedom of speech or conscience such a big deal? Tell you what the next time someone brings up some egregious example of censorship, I won't get upset anymore, I'll just relax, take a leaf out of your book and tell myself, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter, after all ideas can't do much can they?"

Re:Dangerous videos (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#25117263)

The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas. Ideas within this context are anti-dangers, i.e. they help destroy dangers. Note that for the sake of generalisation and simplification we'll assume a moral absolutism.

Which is why in most of the western world there is little censorship, because dangerous (evil) people aren't in charge of us (that's a generalisation) and thus why every idea is freely available to us, without anything bad happening as a result, i.e. our freedom of access to all the so called dangerous ideas/ideologies ever produced have little negative impact on our civilisations. Which proves my point. No idea is to be feared, the only danger is that ideas would be deemed dangerous.

Re:Dangerous videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25117471)

They removed my video where I burned a qur'an, I had that up there for a fucking year and now my account is suspended.
Fucking muslims!

Those fucking morons need to learn to take their criticism just like everyone else, should we ban sites that have online qu'rans after that book quite descriptivly vilify and pesecute Jews, Christians and atheists? I think that should be consistant.

Then again, YouTube do have a habbit of violating the 1st ammendment.

Um... (0, Redundant)

Skreems (598317) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114039)

Shouldn't that be "prophet", rather than "profit"?

Re:Um... (3, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114251)

Well, to be fair, Kuwait is more about the profits than the prophet.

Re:Um... (2, Funny)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115475)

Well, to be fair, Kuwait is more about the profits than the prophet.

Thank God we fought so hard to keep like minded people from under the yoke of tyranny!
USA! USA! USA!

Islamic Censorship strikes again (1, Informative)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114047)

Somehow I'm not shocked by this.

Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (4, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114369)

Joe Lieberman [go.com] and his staff have been actively censoring youtube under the guise of Senate Bill 1959: [govtrack.us] Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 since May. The bill hasn't passed the Senate yet, but it hasn't stopped Lieberman from pressuring google to delete any video and accounts he wants.

This video [youtube.com] describes what is going on pretty well.

This veteran [youtube.com] gives Lieberman a piece of his mind on the issue.

MIT has been trying to track down what videos are being taken down and why.
http://youtomb.mit.edu/ [mit.edu]

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (0)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114621)

But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat and Democrats are the party of freedom!

Oh, wait [huffingtonpost.com] ...

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114701)

But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat

This is sarcasm, right? You do know Lieberman isn't a Democrat, right? It's hard to tell [wired.com] .

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114851)

Whooosh.

Respectfully yours,
- Ethanol-fueled

Lieberman is Independent now, endorses McCain. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25115129)

Actually, he's an Independent because they denied him the Democratic endorsement, though they didn't kick him out of the caucus.

Then again, Lieberman has endorsed John McCain and the Democrats like to call him "Traitor Joe" these days, so take your pick.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (0, Flamebait)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115591)

I don't think anyone knows what exactly Joe Loserman really is.

He's not a democrat. He says he's independent, but always votes along with the republicans.

This can mean only one thing. He's a Turducken!

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (0, Troll)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#25117657)

fascist?

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114677)

I never said Christians and other religions didn't censor stuff too. Trust me, all religions are going to censor stuff they don't like.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (1)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114697)

I never said Christians and other religions didn't censor stuff too. Trust me, all religions are going to censor stuff they don't like.
Joe Liebermann is Jewish.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (1)

dunnius (1298159) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114863)

Almost everyone does censorship in order to look better. Unfortunately, there are some fools who apply for college and work that can't seem to figure out that it is a good idea to keep the bad stuff off of their social networking sites.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116767)


Social networking sites are not an ancillary thing to some, but increasingly a part of people's social lives, by which they share experiences with their friends, keep up to date, arrange events and make new friends.Why should work suppress someones social life outside of working hours, or even before they even apply for the job as you say?

off-topic... YouTomb (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114685)

(nokarmabonus due to off-topicishness)

If that list is even reasonably accurate, then there's a few in there where "terms of service violation" seems questionable given the video titles - but not being able to see the video, who knows, maybe there was porn in the middle.
Then there's the jagex/runescape takedowns that are certainly.. odd. Perhaps it's against -their- ToS to hack and thus they believe posting information about it is a no-no? whatever..
But by far the most takedowns seem to have reasonable cause. WWE SomethingOrOther Night Parts 1 through 16? Yeah, I'm sure -that's- fair use.

I'm honestly surprised to find that by far the removals on that YouTomb list are either likely to be completely valid, or removed 'by the user' (why are those even listed? hrm.)

Doesn't take away the questionable ones, though. Wish there was a little more information than what they've got.. perhaps by automatically sending the video-poster an e-mail asking for clarification.. along with a DMCA counter-notice form if applicable?

Re:off-topic... YouTomb (2, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#25117079)

But by far the most takedowns seem to have reasonable cause. WWE SomethingOrOther Night Parts 1 through 16? Yeah, I'm sure -that's- fair use.

See, there it is though. You consider it reasonable to censor a YouTube posting because you believe information can be owned. In Kuwait they consider it reasonable to censor a YouTube posting because they believe the Prophet should not be criticised. Both to me seem rather artificial. But I suppose Americans believe it worth restricting free speech in that way in order to encourage a profitable media industry, and Kuwaitis believe it worth restricting free speech in that way to avoid infuriating God.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (2, Insightful)

ZosX (517789) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115283)

Its not just Liberman. Fox and all the other media outlets have all been purging clips from youtube. Go through the last year of videos on digg from the top down and nearly half of them have been purged. I feel like there are some fairly powerful anti-subversion forces at work.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25115673)

I feel like there are some fairly powerful anti-subversion forces at work.

Somebody spends too much time typing 'svn' at the command line. :)

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25116761)

Fox and all the other media outlets have all been purging clips from youtube. Go through the last year of videos on digg from the top down and nearly half of them have been purged. I feel like there are some fairly powerful anti-subversion forces at work.

Funny how a lot of the video takedowns are selective.

NBC jumped right on their most recent Palin sketch where the reporter was asking about incest in the family. Video is no longer available due to copyright reasons.

Whereas the first Palin sketch "I can see Russia from my house" is still available as are a multitude of other SNL clips.

Funny how they're really concerned about copyright when they start taking flak.

Re:Islamic Censorship strikes again (2, Interesting)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115467)

It's not islamic. Kuwait is a dictatorship. Other more Islamic countries haven't blocked youtube.

Re:Islamic Censorship strikes again (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116631)

Someone should invade them and introduce democracy. Oh yeah I remember, we already kicked out one invader in return for Kuwait becoming democratic, how that working out? hmm not too well I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcjUG99tu24 [youtube.com]

Play "spot the woman"

Re:Islamic Censorship strikes again (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118589)

Spreading democracy? No. We (and everyone else who joined us in Gulf I) kicked out one invader to put the pre-invasion government [theestimate.com] back in power. We were defending an ally (a very strategic one), NOT nation-building.

Re:Islamic Censorship strikes again (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118463)

If I remember correctly, all of Kuwait's Internet access is filtered through WebSense, of all things. All it takes is an entry for "http://*youtube.com/*"

At least they won't poison the BGP tables like Pakistan did.

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114059)

I know this is slashdot, but is it *that* hard to read the submissions before accepting them?

"offensive videos to Quran" means nothing, and "profit" vs "prophet"? If the submitter doesn't speak english as their primary language I don't mean this is their fault - our "editors" are supposed to step in.

Re:Seriously? (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#25117949)

editors... the one thing that /. doesn't have...

hmm (4, Funny)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114077)

Funny thing is, those videos they refer to have been removed and I can't reach them anymore

Do you by any chance live in Kuwait?

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114689)

I don't think this is a troll, but here it goes. He wouldn't be able to tell if they were taken down (just if youtube itself was down).

lol (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114173)

fucking arab filth

OFFENSIVE TO PROFIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114195)

Making money is bad. Eat Communism!

Why were they removed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114215)

Were the videos violent or overtly sexual? Were they hate speech? Or, as is more likely, did they merely refer to His Holiness with less reverence than required?

It seems that every time Islam shows up in the news it's because some group is completely flipping out about something inconsequential. (Of course, this may simply be due to media bias.)

Re:Why were they removed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114959)

Some times I purposefully write HBUH(Hell Be Unto Him) instead of PBUH(Peace Be Unto Him) after Muhammad(HBUH) in order to find the extremists in internet conversations.

Quran and profit? (1)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114249)

I hope that's not anything like Abercrombie and Fitch...

This just in (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114333)

Youtube blocks Kuwait. Kuwait cries.

Kuwait Discovers Pat Condell? (1)

blackholeoverlords (1360411) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114461)

I wonder if they ran across Pat Condell's channel [youtube.com] and couldn't deal with it? Too many free thinkers on YouTube, there's a lot of censorship going on, I wonder how long until the corporations in saner places throw a virtual blanket over free speech lest a nipple sized ray of intelligence shine through?

Re:Kuwait Discovers Pat Condell? (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114639)

I'm a fan of both Pat Condell and Thunderf00t.

Re:Kuwait Discovers Pat Condell? (1)

thedrx (1139811) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116045)

I came in here to post that. Well, at least nobody is trying to assassinate the guy.

Muhammad with a big nose (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25114545)

O>
T
A

If we hadn't saved their butt back in 91 (1)

vistahator (1330955) | more than 6 years ago | (#25114789)

They would be speaking Iraqi today...

Re:If we hadn't saved their butt back in 91 (1)

Jerry Smith (806480) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115851)

They would be speaking Iraqi today...

With "we" I assume you're a US-inhabitant?

Just making sure you're not speaking for all Slashdotians.

Read up on history moron (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116731)

It was an international force in that war, troops from all over the world took part.

Re:Read up on history moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25116931)

yes ... like international troops are in iraq and afghanistan ...

Re:Read up on history moron (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116979)

No... like an honest to God international force. Yeah, the US made up most of the force, but certainly a lower percentage than we do in Iraq today.

Remember, that was the end of the cold war - even the Europeans were itchy to drop those unused cold war bombs.

Re:If we hadn't saved their butt back in 91 (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118655)

There was a truly multinational force in Gulf I, unlike the token participation from a small number of countries in Gulf II. It should be noted that even Afghanistan sent 300 troops. IIRC, however, the country of Slashdot was not involved at all.

Re:If we hadn't saved their butt back in 91 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25116821)

Kuwait and Iraq both speak Arabic.

AlhamduliLlah (2, Funny)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115457)

Positive decision.

Re:AlhamduliLlah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25117991)

Le amelt kidda ya welaat?

Good luck... (1)

isBandGeek() (1369017) | more than 6 years ago | (#25115831)

... blocking all the proxies and other video sites. Do they realize videos can be cross-posted to different sites, not just YouTube?

Ministry of Communications???? (2, Funny)

BinBoy (164798) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116317)

> Kuwait Ministry of Communications have issued orders to all ISPs to block YouTube

Anyone disobeying this order will be imprisoned by the Ministry of Freedom.

That what you get in a theocracy (2, Insightful)

ErrorBase (692520) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116427)

Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Segan and many others have been trying to tell everybody. Keep this in mind when going to the poll next November.

no way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25117325)

you mean Bush repealed the twenty-second amendment and is going to be on the ballot again?

what ignorance you demonstrate (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118487)

there is no threat of a theocracy in the US from the current candidates. Considering the church that the one candidate went to I would think the biggest threat would be on the left this year. Go figure, it is also the group desperately trying to prove their religious enough for the moderates. The only times I hear about the candidates on the right's religious views is when people mock them on message boards on from the press.

Re:That what you get in a theocracy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25118695)

Kuwait is not a theocracy, it is a dictatorship ruled by a hereditary monarch. If the head clergy of Kuwait denounces the monarch and calls him an apostate, it is the head clergy who will find himself in jail. Same thing in Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, Iran is a theocracy. If the head clergy of Iran denonces Ahmadinejad and calls him an apostate, it is Ahmadinejad who will be thrown in jail.

You need to learn more about the many variants of Islam-o-nuts.

America loves them! (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116703)

It's pretty sad that we will do anything for oil while claiming service, yet we will snuggle in and suck teet of these bastards. If we want be isolationist fine, if we want to be the world's police fine, but make up your fucking mind politicos!!

Sucks (1, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116775)

Muhammad sucks, Christ Sucks, Richard Dawkins Sucks, Flying Spaghetti Monster sucks

Anyone else?

Re:Sucks (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#25117499)

Man that's COLD!!
Please leave His holyness the Flying Spaghetti Moster out of this!!!!!

Re:Sucks (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118293)

isorox sucks?

this is (1)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 6 years ago | (#25116823)

This is why the US liberated them! We wanted them to be free!

Yet another useless post (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 6 years ago | (#25118755)

We all know the middle east blocks everything, because they want to control what their people think. They wont allow msn chatting either because communicating to the outside world without paying for it is illegal, as in Syria...so whats new....let me hear about something important please...no more useless nilly willy.

not very funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25119191)

>> Funny thing is...

There's absolutely nothing funny about religious fundamentalism. Or logical.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?