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!

Libya Takes Hard Line On Link Shortening Domains

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the still-don't-like-shorteners dept.

The Internet 354

Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that Libyan government has removed an adult-friendly link-shortening service from the web, saying that it fell afoul of local laws in a crackdown that could come as a blow to other url shortening services such as bit.ly, which is particularly popular on Twitter where all messages have to be limited to 140 characters. 'Other ly domains are being deregistered and removed without warning,' says Co-founder of vb.ly Ben Metcalfe. 'We eventually discovered that the domain has been seized because the content of our website, in their opinion, fell outside of Libyan Islamic/Sharia Law.' Alaeddin ElSharif from NIC.ly, the body that controls Libyan web addresses, told vb.ly co-founder Violet Blue that a picture of her on the website had sparked the removal. 'I think you'll agree that a picture of a scantily clad lady with some bottle in her hand isn't what most would consider decent or family friendly,' says ElSharif. 'While letters "vb" are quite generic and bear no offensive meaning in themselves, they're being used as a domain name for an openly admitted "adult-friendly url shortener." It is when you promote your site being solely for adult uses ... that we as a Libyan registry have an issue.'"

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

thinkoftheadults (1)

rwv (1636355) | about 4 years ago | (#33823222)

Won't anybody stop this insanity and think of the adults who crave link-shortened pictures of "a scantily clad lady with some bottle in her hand"?

The Picture in Question (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 4 years ago | (#33823232)

Won't anybody stop this insanity and think of the adults who crave link-shortened pictures of "a scantily clad lady with some bottle in her hand"?

I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad' but you can judge for yourself here [talkingpointsmemo.com] .

Re:The Picture in Question (3, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 4 years ago | (#33823268)

as far as I can tell SFW in even some of the more restrictive environs in the US.

Although, while not scantily clad, I think she is someone I'd still prefer to see in a Burqa.

Re:The Picture in Question (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33823340)

> I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad'

Her head isn't covered and her arms are bare. The bottle is also quite offensive to conservative moslems as it implies alcohol.

Re:The Picture in Question (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | about 4 years ago | (#33824124)

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't want to let any religion get their hands on your government - whether it's a nutjob cult set up by an early 19th century lunatic, a 7th century pedophile, or even a rather kindly gentleman whose major accomplishment was sitting on his ass under a tree for a month and a half.

Ultimately, we want to get religion out of government as much as possible. If something is universal - say, prohibitions on murder or theft - then we can certainly all agree to implement them in a secular manner. But I shouldn't be restricted from buying some beer on my one day off each week just because a bunch of fundamentalist shitheads think I should be wasting my morning praying to their sun god.

Re:The Picture in Question (3, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33824224)

I read a report about a Millersville PA government school teacher being FIRED for having a similar photo online - drinking alcohol. They said it sends the wrong message to her students.

>>>you don't want to let any religion get their hands on your government -

And yet we already do (see my last sentence).

Re:The Picture in Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33824262)

If I had mod points I'd give them all to you. Without religion we could be cruising in space already but NO, those fuckers had to burn our scientists!

Re:The Picture in Question (4, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#33823350)

I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad'

While not being an expert, Islam in general expects at least modest dress for women that includes not having bare arms. So the definition of scantily clad is region dependent.

Re:The Picture in Question (1, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#33823634)

... the definition of scantily clad is religion dependent.

FTFY.

Re:The Picture in Question (4, Interesting)

SteeldrivingJon (842919) | about 4 years ago | (#33823806)

Uh, no. The accepted conception of 'scantily clad' in the US has changed dramatically in the last 100 years in the US, without as dramatic a change in religion. (The delta between ankle-length bathing costumes for women and Lady GaGa's outfits is a lot wider than the difference in US religious beliefs from 1910 to 2010.)

Re:The Picture in Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823896)

I disagree. In 1910 you had people mobilizing to get an amendment to the constitution banning alcohol. The level of moralism running through society was widespread. Back then, nearly everyone self-described as a morally conservative Christian and most people agreed on moral right and wrong.

Today, no one agrees on morality. Morality among the youth has changed dramatically, as has the religious lessons taught from the pulpit.

Today, you could see a beautiful woman practically unclothed on the beach, and it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. Back then, it would have started a riot. Today, you could burn a bible, insult Jesus and the church, and it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Back then, it would have started a riot.

Values are completely different today, and no where is it more prevalent than religion.

Re:The Picture in Question (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#33823984)

Values are completely different today, and no where is it more prevalent than religion.

Except that even within religions the accepted morality varies by geographic region. For example the morality of followers of Catholicism is widely different between such areas as Brasil, the US, Italy and Ireland. And thats not even getting into other branches of Christianity. That is why I said region and deliberately chose NOT to say Religion.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

stdarg (456557) | about 4 years ago | (#33824068)

Region is only partially correct because people with similar cultures tend to cluster geographically. Religion is more correct. If a fundamentalist Muslim moves to America, he doesn't magically change morality. If you view each sect of Catholicism, to use your example, as a sub-religion, then it makes a lot of sense.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

operagost (62405) | about 4 years ago | (#33824094)

All right, then the word you're looking for is CULTURE. It still isn't religion.

Re:The Picture in Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823948)

Surely you meant to say he's wrong because it's actually culture dependent, as culture can change over time; rather than just saying he's wrong and reverting back to region dependent, because I don't think the US region has changed a lot in the last 100 years either (with only 2 states being added in that time).

Re:The Picture in Question (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33824362)

The Quran say nothing about how women should dress, other then covering their chest.
Few religions have any actual dress code. Islam is butchered by the savages that use their Gods name for war and oppression.

The Quran speak mostly of peace and love, and acceptance of others.
It even says that responsible christians and jews, will go to haven.

Re:The Picture in Question (5, Funny)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about 4 years ago | (#33823904)

I wouldn't even call her 'scantily clad'

While not being an expert, Islam in general expects at least modest dress for women that includes not having bare arms. So the definition of scantily clad is region dependent.

Thank God for the USA, where the right to bare arms is enshrined in the Consitution.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#33824016)

Thank God for the USA, where the right to bare arms is enshrined in the Consitution.

I thought it had to do with hunting and Bear arms?

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

Rashdot (845549) | about 4 years ago | (#33824194)

Just its right arm.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33824288)

I thought it had to do with tracking-down and killing dictators like Nero, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam, and so on - in order to restore liberty.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

Skylinux (942824) | about 4 years ago | (#33824332)

Stop hurting the bears and be happy that you are allowed to display your arms bare.

Re:The Picture in Question (2, Insightful)

rwv (1636355) | about 4 years ago | (#33823372)

Well, that's the point. Cultures that think pictures of women who are "clad" (which is just a fancy word for "wearing clothes") are very probably suppressing their women.

I would stop short of saying that women in these cultures are abused or mistreated because I don't know the situation. But my impression is that making them adhere to a particular dress code is denying them a basic human right.

On the other hand, forcing "Western" values on Libya doesn't seem all that fair either. So let them be free to make rules for their own people and what businesses like bit.ly or vb.ly run afoul of those rules then let them pay the consequences.

Re:The Picture in Question (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823424)

So let them be free to make rules for their own people ...

No, absolutely-fucking-not. Let the people themselves make the rules for themselves and tell the goddamn-fucking oppressive government go fuck themselves.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

leonardluen (211265) | about 4 years ago | (#33823642)

...and this is why everyone hates the U.S.

one way or another (through war or election) those people chose their own government. if that government is not acting in their own best interest it is just a matter of time before its people will choose another.

so let the government make the rules, until their people go to war, or hold a new election, we have to assume this is what they want.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

fifedrum (611338) | about 4 years ago | (#33823852)

riiiight, this process has worked so well liberating the rest of the Islamic world.

Re:The Picture in Question (3, Insightful)

leonardluen (211265) | about 4 years ago | (#33824258)

and how has meddling with them been doing? seems it only makes them hate us and turn their anger in our direction.

I really don't care if they are liberated or not. how has democracy been working for our own freedom lately?

Re:The Picture in Question (5, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#33823794)

Well, that's the point. Cultures that think pictures of women who are "clad" (which is just a fancy word for "wearing clothes") are very probably suppressing their women.

And people from Brasil look at what the US norm is and shake their head. I have a female friend from Brasil, who after a business trip to the US she told me how she brought her normal Brasilian bathing suit and felt weird wearing it around Americans. The next trip she borrowed her mothers bathing suit because it was more modest and fitted in by US standards. So by your definition and her experience the US is suppressing its women. And dare I mention Prairie dresses?

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

operagost (62405) | about 4 years ago | (#33824114)

I think the problem is in America, women like their swimwear to STAY ON when they get in the water. Men don't mind one way or another :-)

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 4 years ago | (#33824302)

I think the problem is in America, women like their swimwear to STAY ON when they get in the water. Men don't mind one way or another :-)

Ironically, most people wearing swimwear don't actually swim; they just sunbathe.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33824450)

>>>she brought her normal Brasilian bathing suit and felt weird wearing it around Americans.

Really?
(packing bags)

But seriously: Not all Americans are prudes. There are topless beaches and also nude beaches. Perhaps your friend should have gone to hang-out with those people instead of the Puritans. ;-)

Re:The Picture in Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823866)

You lot have a real fixation on this right to bare arms don't you? :)

Re:The Picture in Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33824038)

Just remember this example when you have the opportunity to live under Sharia Law in your country.

Re:The Picture in Question (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823376)

Ah, good, thanks for the link, you'd think it would be something that would be incredibly obvious to include in the story, but apparently not. Either that or I'm giving too much credit to the BBC.

I suppose I should be outraged by this, except:

1. I hate URL shorteners.
2. It's not like there isn't a free market for domains. Don't like the Libyan rules, create a domain somewhere else.

Well, I Did Include It in a Summary Before pickens (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 4 years ago | (#33823646)

Ah, good, thanks for the link, you'd think it would be something that would be incredibly obvious to include in the story, but apparently not.

I included it in my summary [slashdot.org] that I submitted a half hour before pickens but they selected his instead because mine was voted down to purple in firehose for some reason. Guess I wrote the wrong headline as I've got the same quotes he does plus the picture.

ly sites smackdown (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 4 years ago | (#33823938)

The funniest aspect of this whole thing is the ultra-cool black turtleneck set with a whole list of Ajaxy Web 2.0 gradient-fill, extra white-space, pastel color sites from here to Timbuktu getting smacked down by ... ultra uncool Libya.

Did anybody know Libya owned .ly before this?

Re:ly sites smackdown (2, Funny)

stdarg (456557) | about 4 years ago | (#33824108)

A better question is why is this country even allowed to own a tld. Time to centralize control of DNS in a locale with better (nobody's perfect) free speech and neutrality laws. Libya can build their own internet if they want a sharia compliant experience.

Different culture, different opinions (5, Informative)

fantomas (94850) | about 4 years ago | (#33823400)

Depends on what you consider moral or immoral in your culture.

A lot of folk howled with laughter in Europe when middle America made a fuss about Janet Jackson showing off her body during Superbowl one year, in mainland Europe you'll see advertising hoardings promoting perfume, moisturisers etc with half naked models and nobody even blinks. While on the other hand a lot of Europeans freak out at aspects of US gun culture that pass without comment across the Atlantic. All over the world people have different opinions on what is right and what is wrong.

You want to use a Libyan DNS, I guess you have to abide by Libyan rules.... A classic case of a global economy confronting local norms and attitudes. Who is right and who is wrong? how do you decide? (wish I had the answer but alas I don't.....)

Re:Different culture, different opinions (5, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#33823486)

A lot of folk howled with laughter in Europe when middle America made a fuss about Janet Jackson

Actually to be fair a lot of people in the US also couldn't understand what the problem was. However those who complained about it had the louder voice.

Re:Different culture, different opinions (1)

Inda (580031) | about 4 years ago | (#33823994)

A lot of folk howled with laughter in Europe when middle America made a fuss about Janet Jackson

Actually to be fair a lot of people in the US also couldn't understand what the problem was. However those who complained about it had the louder voice...

...and bigger guns.

Re:Different culture, different opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33824050)

Because there are different cultures even within America, right? So a national broadcaster should make sure that it passes the muster in all of the areas it broadcasts to, shouldn't it?

Like GP said, it's all about local norms and attitudes.

Re:Different culture, different opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823586)

Then they certainly didn't actually *see* the breast in question. If you were suddenly exposed to that thing you would have made the same fuss--right after cleaning up your vomit.

Re:Different culture, different opinions (5, Informative)

Dynamoo (527749) | about 4 years ago | (#33823724)

nic.ly is very clear about this in several places in its regulations [www.nic.ly] : The Applicant certifies that, to the best of his/her knowledge the domain name is not being registered for any activities/purpose not permitted under Libyan law. [..] Domain names must not contain obscene, scandalous, indecent, or contrary to Libyan law or Islamic morality words, phrases nor abbreviations.. So if vb.ly's content broke Libyan laws.. then, tough. Get a Libyan lawyer.

Re:Different culture, different opinions (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 4 years ago | (#33823738)

in mainland Europe you'll see advertising hoardings promoting perfume, moisturisers etc with half naked models and nobody even blinks.

In all of Europe you'll see half naked advertising models. It's fully naked models than people in some countries blink about [soliscompany.com] (NSFW outside Europe -- includes a picture of a banned [by the industry self-regulator] perfume advert).

Re:Different culture, different opinions (1)

quenda (644621) | about 4 years ago | (#33824272)

Ah ... looking at the photo, its not the nudity but the pose that would have caused objection. Very sexual.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

Cili (687222) | about 4 years ago | (#33823502)

In this particular case it's not about the clothes but about the alcohol. It is forbidden under Sharia. Having a woman drink it makes it worse. Naked shoulders?! Even more so.

To put things the other way I'm pretty certain any arab anti-semitic website would NOT be accepted on .de.

Re:The Picture in Question (2, Informative)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 4 years ago | (#33823710)

Abrahamic religions are so full of misogynistic shit. Whatever is bad for men is double bad for women, because women have cooties and are automatically inferior in the eyes of Allah/Yahweh/Jesus. (Yes, Jesus too, he tells women not to touch him in John 20:17 presumably because they are unclean, and commands a man to touch him ten verses later.) I love how according to Judaism when women give birth to boys they are "unclean" for a week, and when they give birth to girls they are "unclean" for two weeks. Ew, cooties! Bunch of superstitious chauvinists need to grow the fuck up.

Re:The Picture in Question (3, Informative)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 4 years ago | (#33823956)

Yes, Jesus too, he tells women not to touch him in John 20:17 presumably because they are unclean, and commands a man to touch him ten verses later.

Not really, it looks more like this was a translation error [dtl.org] .

Actually, she was clinging to him (not merely intending to touch him), and he basically told her: stop clinging to me, but instead go out and preach the word.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

stdarg (456557) | about 4 years ago | (#33824206)

What a ridiculous equivalence you've drawn. Hopefully it was unintentional. If you think Jesus telling a woman to stop touching him is on par Mohammed's actions with women, you're wrong.

Re:The Picture in Question (1, Flamebait)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 4 years ago | (#33824328)

. Ew, cooties! Bunch of superstitious chauvinists need to grow the fuck up.

I'd much rather they died off without spreading their mindvirus to the next generation.

Re:The Picture in Question (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 4 years ago | (#33823520)

The person in the photo is one of the vb.ly's two founders, well-known sex book author Violet Blue [wikipedia.org] , who, I'm told, recently had all posts referencing her removed over [youtube.com] at boingboing by the staff over there. No one seems to know why.

Re:thinkoftheadults (0, Troll)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33823270)

Just create a domain "deathtoamerica.ly" and the Libyan's won't have any problem with anything that you put through there.

Re:thinkoftheadults (-1, Troll)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 4 years ago | (#33823862)

Not all adults crave pictures of ladies. Some prefer this [bit.ly] .

Re:thinkoftheadults (2, Insightful)

kingturkey (930819) | about 4 years ago | (#33824056)

Goatse

Their rules, their game (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#33823228)

Seems fine to me. You don't have to play on their turf

Re:Their rules, their game (1, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33823286)

Rather stupid to register a domain of any value in a country as loony as Libya, though.

Re:Their rules, their game (2, Funny)

Zironic (1112127) | about 4 years ago | (#33823346)

Well, when you want short domain names you have to go to rather loony countries for them to not be taken yet.

I don't get it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823514)

Short domain names can be had on any TLD.

I fail to see what's so special about an URL ending in .ly, apart from the smug cleverness that some punsters might conceive.

No one is going to type in such an URL, and clicking works just the same across TLD's. And if you are complaining about 'all the good domains are taken' perhaps you could lobby for the squaters to be rounded up and shot.

Re:I don't get it (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33823786)

I fail to see what's so special about an URL ending in .ly, apart from the smug cleverness that some punsters might conceive.

That, apparently, is the entire point.

sil.ly, no?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823828)

Short domain names can be had on any TLD.

Wrong. When DENIC (.de) bowed to corporate pressure to allow 2 and one letter domains, they were all gone as fast as the automated registry system could handle them.

I wouldn't be surprised if all 1 to 4 letter domains are gone for any halfway popular TLD. At the very least, there's some domain-grabber who simply registered all free permutations.

Re:Their rules, their game (1)

mean pun (717227) | about 4 years ago | (#33823684)

Well, when you want short domain names you have to go to rather loony countries for them to not be taken yet.

I'm not sure if I'm arguing for or against your point here, but the .us domain is rather empty.

Re:Their rules, their game (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 4 years ago | (#33824372)

I can't believe no one has snatched up duf.us, th.us or fung.us yet.

Re:Their rules, their game (2, Funny)

lowrydr310 (830514) | about 4 years ago | (#33823492)

Somebody should set up a site there that sells used pinball machine parts.

Re:Their rules, their game (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 years ago | (#33823364)

They're changing the rules, pretty arbitrarily because they want the useful 2 letter domains. I think we have every right to call them out on this, both to protest and to draw attention to it so as to warn others.

Re:Their rules, their game (2, Insightful)

splutty (43475) | about 4 years ago | (#33823410)

I'm sorry, but are the owners of those domains actuall Lybians? If not, then I don't think you have any right to whatever domain name you'd want or like.

And the Lybian registrar has all the rights to take your domain name for actual Lybians.

Re:Their rules, their game (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 years ago | (#33823460)

They can make such a rule if they choose to, but should go about some reasonable means of handling the transition to the new rule. However, it doesn't look like they have [www.nic.ly] .

Re:Their rules, their game (1)

stdarg (456557) | about 4 years ago | (#33824222)

They have all the rights huh? Who gave them those rights? They are part of an international network, maybe it's time to have some minimal standards of free speech and neutrality. If they want to retain their Islamic imperatives, then they can build their own Islamic internet.

Re:Their rules, their game (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 years ago | (#33824406)

They have their own internet. It just happens that it's connected to various other internets to form one big internet.

Re:Their rules, their game (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823512)

Seems fine to me. You don't have to play on their turf

But but but it's short! And it's easier to make funny words in English with that TLD! Therefore, we as American Internetians should have full jurisdiction and sovereignty over it! It's in the constitution, people!

Re:Their rules, their game (1)

Phil06 (877749) | about 4 years ago | (#33824226)

Peop.le w.ho u.se count.ry cod.es to ma.ke clev.er ur.ls a.re idio.ts

Stupid fucking wogs. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823246)

That is all.

Re:Stupid fucking wogs. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823276)

Since we are calling names.. I call google [goo.gl] (NSFW) to the rescue. ;)

D'oh (goatse alert) (1)

srussia (884021) | about 4 years ago | (#33823432)

I always read NSFW as New South F'ing Wales.

appropriat.ly (3, Funny)

paiute (550198) | about 4 years ago | (#33823482)

dastard.ly

Why .ly? (1)

khchung (462899) | about 4 years ago | (#33823494)

Why do these sites have to register in Lybia, of all places?

Why not .us? toysr.us, come2.us, go2.us, etc, are just as short.

Re:Why .ly? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 4 years ago | (#33823584)

Go to a registrar and whois search short domain names for .us. You'll find most (if not all) of them are taken.

Re:Why .ly? (1)

stdarg (456557) | about 4 years ago | (#33824268)

When I search for b.us, I get "b.us is an invalid name." What's up with that?

"by.us is an invalid name."

Seems like a minimum of 3 characters is required, I didn't know that.

Re:Why .ly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823818)

There's always this competitor:

http://hugeurl.com/

Link to the Offending Image (1, Funny)

Ponteaus (1485065) | about 4 years ago | (#33823526)

The offending image [teenymanolo.com]

Really, I think we can all agree Libya made the correct decision! =D

Oh no now we have to use nig.gr (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823532)

No comment!

VB (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823550)

While letters 'vb' are quite generic and bear no offensive meaning in themselves

He's obviously not a software developer.

Sharia is a bit of a red herring (5, Insightful)

SteeldrivingJon (842919) | about 4 years ago | (#33823622)

If US states had top-level domains under their control, I can imagine quite a few that would try to do the same thing.

It's just conservative cultural mores, which come in all religious flavors. Libya doesn't want its domain used for sexual matters, Texas won't let you buy or sell vibrators, and I think some places still enforce the sabbath so that few businesses are open on Sunday. Connecticut doesn't allow take-out sales of alcohol on Sundays. Various localities in the US ban alcohol sales altogether. John Ashcroft covered up a public statue's boob with a curtain when he was AG.

Talking about sharia just puts it into "oooh, scary muslims! They're so alien and different!" territory.

Re:Sharia is a bit of a red herring (2, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | about 4 years ago | (#33823940)

Maybe, but sharia law is scary, and these actions are consistent with it. So, maybe, maybe not.

Re:Sharia is a bit of a red herring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33824186)

What you forgot to mention after your examples is that they all represent the same kind of insanity. The effects of Sharia law is just as retarded as religiously motivated stupidity in the US.

Re:Sharia is a bit of a red herring (2, Interesting)

ErikZ (55491) | about 4 years ago | (#33824190)

If US states had top-level domains under their control, I can imagine quite a few that would try to do the same thing.

I can imagine winning the lottery, that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Re:Sharia is a bit of a red herring (1)

stdarg (456557) | about 4 years ago | (#33824310)

Since when did the actual cause of something become a red herring??

Would you say fundamentalist Christianity is a red herring too in relation to Texas's enforcement of the sabbath? Or is this excuse business reserved for sharia?

Right... (2, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 4 years ago | (#33824434)

So, the US and NL and BE and DE etc governments have NOT sought out such control over the domains for their countries BUT this means nothing to you. That LY HAS sought out the control and uses it, is just the same as western countries NOT seeking such control and not using it.

An Islam-apologist, you are doing it great.

Qaddafi likes Sharia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823636)

  It is their domain and they can do anything they want with it, including saying no to people who want to give the terrorist state money.

  But, since when does Qaddafi give a crap about Sharia?

Re:Qaddafi likes Sharia? (1)

dogsbreath (730413) | about 4 years ago | (#33823916)

  But, since when does Qaddafi give a crap about Sharia?

Exactly. Libya is not like Saudi Arabia where women have to sit in the back seat, etc. Although the Libyan judicial system is supposedly based on Sharia law, it is observably closer to British/American systems. Most results involve prison terms or other modern punishments.

My observation: like many other things in Libya, perception is more important than reality. The government wants to appear to be consistent with Sharia law but doesn't want Sharia to permeate Libyan society.

You can still be buddies with Iran but you can also have a pi** up on bootleg flash.

WTF? (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33823734)

Wait, why the hell are people registering domains in Libya to shorten URLs?

They don't exactly have a history as a nice place [wikipedia.org] and they have been suspected in supporting terrorism.

WTF is Twitter doing running stuff through a domain registered in friggin' Libya?? Why not just run a couple through Iran or Myanmar while we're at it?

Re:WTF? (1)

NevarMore (248971) | about 4 years ago | (#33823800)

We have to earn their trust so we can get the plutonium and hope they don't find out what we gave them back in return was a bunch of pinball machine parts.

Re:WTF? (1)

hcdejong (561314) | about 4 years ago | (#33823926)

Because bit.[TLD] was already taken for every value of TLD where TLD=="nice place"?

Re:WTF? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33824110)

Because bit.[TLD] was already taken for every value of TLD where TLD=="nice place"?

So, register bich.us or something. ;-)

SSDD (5, Informative)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 4 years ago | (#33823802)

This type stuff has been going on for years. It is nothing new! I used to own xg.nu, on it I ran a large anon server averaging 3.5 million unique hits a month and 500,000 messages a day.
The island state of Niue Who owns the .nu domain notified me that Anonymity was not permitted and took the domain back. Point is, this happens a lot more than it is reported. There is no real recourse for this, you live, learn, and move on.

YES! 7p (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823832)

said. 'Screaming 8eeds OS. Now BSDI

Quick! (1)

CrAlt (3208) | about 4 years ago | (#33823892)

Everyone make "bit.ly" shortcuts to places like pornotube,tube8,xvideos,etc and email them to the contacts found at http://nic.ly/contactus.php [nic.ly]

Yet another reason religion is bad for government (2)

CodePwned (1630439) | about 4 years ago | (#33823970)

It troubles me to no end the lengths people will go today in the name of religion. It's actually becoming common place for someone to have an extreme view and use the blanket of religion to protect them.

I have no problem with someone having beliefs, I too have them, but I base them off common sense, not because some book says I should do things. Questioning the institution is essential for growth. The middle east seems stuck in eternal infancy.

Re:Yet another reason religion is bad for governme (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | about 4 years ago | (#33824146)

It troubles me to no end the lengths people will go today in the name of religion. It's actually becoming common place for someone to have an extreme view and use the blanket of religion to protect them.

It was always this way. Hell, arguably the USA was founded by a bunch of people who wanted to practise religion in their own way and didn't see how it was the governments' business.

If you think people will go to extreme lengths today..... emigrating on a sail boat two hundred and fifty years ago was no picnic. A journey that took months, a bunk not much longer (and rather narrower) than the desk I'm sitting at now, any disease had nowhere to go but infect everyone on board. And the food had to be stuff that would keep, being as there was no refrigeration. Precious little idea of what you had to look forward to at the other end, being as the most you'd have heard would have been the odd letter from friends or relatives who'd already gone over. You'd have to be really hacked off to go to that kind of extreme.

I can't really bother to care about this (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 4 years ago | (#33824170)

"I know! I'll run off and register up.kp for my new service! Surely Kim Jong-* won't mind if I toss out some links to starvation in the People's Democratic Republic of Nutjobs!"

Seriously? It seemed like a good idea to set up a business in the gTLD a country widely known for religious extremity, full well knowing that your business would never be physically tolerated, and that it can be shut down by clicking a checkbox without even having to call in police and bulldozers?

And perhaps I'd care more if this wasn't a stupid kind of business to be running in the first place. The "product" is useless outside Twitter and it adds an unnecessary single point of failure (homed in freaking LIBYA!) to an otherwise robust Internet. Well, you rolls the dice and you takes your chances.

One of the dangers of URL shorteners (2, Insightful)

zakkie (170306) | about 4 years ago | (#33824356)

Classic example of why URL shorteners should be considered harmful. Twitter is mostly to blame, I've had to shorten URLs for tweets before, but Twitter could employ better tactics than using the full url as the anchor text too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?