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!

More Fuel For Facebook Censorship Advocates In India

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the censorship-makes-the-world-go-round dept.

Censorship 122

thodelu writes "Close on the heels of Friday's communal clashes in a town in India that were triggered by a Facebook post which contained morphed images apparently deriding a religious place of worship, there has been another incident. City police have removed images from another similar blog post citing 'cyber criminal' laws. There has been an ongoing effort in India to censor the web which would get more backing as a result of these events. Could we be seeing another Great Firewall of China?"

cancel ×

122 comments

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

Religious tensions percolate under surface... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554985)

... in India, Facebook blamed. Same results probably would have occurred if dead-tree distribution was used, although it's less likely such would make Slashdot.

Let Their God(s) Sort It Out (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39554987)

Couldn't they just let the religious whackos kill each other off, thus lessening the "need" for censorship?

Re:Let Their God(s) Sort It Out (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39556669)

This is India, the religious whackos make up the entire countryside.

Re:Let Their God(s) Sort It Out (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39557465)

what if they find that you are an enemy whacko (as in fact majority of such people would) ? Would you still opt for freedom of action to clean up the environment?

Following in the footsteps of my betters... (0)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39554989)

I've always tried to better myself in any way I could. Now it's time to become greater than any before my!

I am bootyass process! Now use Gamemaker without a single problem.

Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555033)

I'm confused. Was that suppose to be a positive review for Gamemaker?

Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... (0)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555151)

It was tricked into so that they utilized Gamemaker.

Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555407)

Ontological argument: But what was Gamemaker programmed in? Surely any environment capable of creating Gamemaker must be more perfect than it.

Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555621)

javascript obviously.

Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... (0)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555725)

Gamemaker is the greatest. There is simply nothing better than Gamemaker.

Komen Bryce, the God of Computers, endorses Gamemaker. That lets you know just how great it really is. You can do anything in Gamemaker.

Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... (2)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555807)

Sounds like Zombo.com

Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39558775)

Gamemaker sucks arse. I tried it once...not only do you have to pay big bucks to use it, but the interface is difficult as hell to use. Of course, no documentation or support.

Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39558859)

Why you little wusaaaaaaaaaay!

You don't even understand life itself. Anyone who says that Gamemaker is anything but magnificent is not and will never be a True Programmer. How dare you insult Komen Bryce so!

There are rumors about you circulating all over the grapevine. Dark rumors. Extremely dark, in fact. The rumors were started by... Komen Bryce himself! All of the elites have already read them.

What do they say, you ask? Horrible things. Revealing things. Things you'd kill to prevent others from knowing. They state that... you're missing a few gigabits on your puter! Another rumor even goes so far as to state that you don't purposely disable the fan on your video card and then overheat it as a hobby!

You're an eyesore! Get out of my sight!

Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555001)

Of course, incompetent, racist and corrupt governments want censorship. They do not want you to know the truth about them, any other use is purely opportunistic

The solution is censorship? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555005)

Really, why dont they look at the root cause, which is the communal tension and try to solve them. Oh wait, it is politicians that incite such communal hatred for political reason.

Re:The solution is censorship? (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556139)

Go ahead, smart guy, enlighten us - who do you solve the communal tension between a country with Hindu majority and a large Muslim minority?

Re:The solution is censorship? (4, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556283)

Punish anyone who indulges in violence and ignore the religion.

Re:The solution is censorship? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556811)

What happens if one group disproportionately indulges in violence, and hence gets punished more?

What happens if that's not the case, but people start perceiving it as such?

Re:The solution is censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39556963)

Still, be fair, and punish the ones that Indulge in violence.

Re:The solution is censorship? (1)

Chibinium (1596211) | more than 2 years ago | (#39559031)

HR term of the day: Disparate impact. Fortunately we're not in an HR department, so we can mull over it. Who cares if there's disparate impact??? Punishment as a function of violence seems perfectly legitimate to me; punishing one group for a higher violence coefficient, rather than being a bug, is a goddamn FEATURE of the principle. To argue otherwise is to lengthen the chain of causality, to say that poor nutrition -> poor childhood -> poor impulse control -> helplessly indulge in violence. This would be followed by an admonishment to the developed world about not correcting poor nutrition. Tracing causality should be capped at two links max.

Re:The solution is censorship? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561387)

Who cares if there's disparate impact??? Punishment as a function of violence seems perfectly legitimate to me; punishing one group for a higher violence coefficient, rather than being a bug, is a goddamn FEATURE of the principle.

You missed the point of my argument. You can argue that it's right and just and all, but it won't matter to the punished group - they will just add you to the list of "friends of our enemies", and from there on any punishment, no matter how minor, will just keep aggravating them. So this will do nothing to solve communal tension - if anything, it will further polarize it.

Re:The solution is censorship? (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39559705)

See there's your problem for you. You think in terms of "groups". Forget about groups and see only individuals. Punish individuals. The government or the state has to be blind to "groups".

Re:The solution is censorship? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39558849)

Put someone else in charge of them all?

Re:The solution is censorship? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561419)

We tried that - but, instead of solving the problem, the buggers were using communal tension to divide and rule, while keeping the country downtrodden.

It's the religion, stupid (2, Insightful)

mrseth (69273) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555051)

What we need is less religion, not more censorship...

Re:It's the religion, stupid (5, Insightful)

linatux (63153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555099)

Perhaps we just need to be more tolerant, no matter how opinionated the person next door is?

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556151)

It depends. If the person next door is opinionated in words only, sure. When that opinion also guides them to vote that way, and they vote for intolerance towards your own beliefs (or lack thereof) - starting on local level or working upwards - that becomes a bit of a problem. When they openly say that they support cutting your head off, that's a huge problem. At which point do you cease to be tolerant?

Re:It's the religion, stupid (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39556419)

This is a worldwide problem involving Muslims everywhere, be it India, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, France, you name it. Why this blanket comdemnation of religion, when only ONE religion is demonstrating that it's incapable of co-existing w/ the rest, but at the same time, incists on spreading to non-Muslim countries? There are no problems between Jews and Christians, Buddhists and Shintos, Hindus and Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Jains, etc. So rather than indulge in a self-sensoring game, why not bluntly state that the problem is Muslims being their usual self, and that no amount of censorship of Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Reuters, AP, et al is going to change that.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39557157)

> why not bluntly state that the problem is Muslims

1. Political correctness to protect the "moderates", who voluntarily form a protective shield around extremists.

2. Good ole Appeasement, because they threaten to kill and nobody wants to be killed first by them.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39558193)

There are no problems between Jews and Christians, Buddhists and Shintos, Hindus and Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Jains

Spoken like someone who hasn't been reading the news from India. Or did you just miss the stories about (Christian) nuns being attacked by Hindus trying to force them to convert? And, no doubt, you missed the people in Ireland being attacked for being the wrong flavour of Christian?

Religion is an intrinsically intolerant idea. Any religion that claims to be the sole arbiter of truth can not coexist with others that make the same claim.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39558769)

no doubt, you missed the people in Ireland being attacked for being the wrong flavour of Christian?

In the Balkans too.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560017)

Same AC as the GP

I'm posting this from India. The incidents you refer to are one-off incidents caised by a perception that Christian missionaries were out to convert Hindus. I don't justify any violence against them, but it's hardly something that has an unlimited scope in time. Similarly, in Ireland, the problems were more political than religious - the IRA, terrorist as it was, did not have an agenda to wipe Protestants out of Ulster, but rather, wanted to end British rule there. Since there were no religious demands on them to wage endless warfare against the Brits, they ultimately came to an agreement. Muslims can't come to such permanent agreements, since their goal is to convert the entire world to islam. Every other religion has given up on such goals, in the event that they ever had them.

The Balkan example by Hognoxious above only re-emphasized my point, since it was Muslims vs Serbs in 2 countries, and Muslims vs Macedonians in a third. Serbia's war against Croatia was not a religious war.

All religions are not intrinsically intolerant, and at any rate, all religions today - except islam - accept that not all their nominal adherents are practicing believers, and don't include them in their scope. In all non-Muslim countries, except Communist ones like N Korea, freedom of conscience exists, and people don't get hunted down by family members for not being devout $adherents. That's not the case in Muslim countries, where you have howling fanatics baying for your blood if you draw cartoons of Mohammed, burn a quran or do anything Muslims deem offensive. In the meantime, in the West, people freely make art works like Andre Seranno's 'Piss Christ', and while practicing Christians do protest and express their disgust, you don't have the 'offenders' living in hiding for fear of their lives. Contrast that with Molly Norris, who started an 'Everyboody draw Mohammed' day on Facebook, and later had to assume a changed identity and go into hiding.

People can have their beef with religion, but this problem of Muslims goes well and way beyond that: everywhere that there are Muslims, they have hostile relationships with their non-Muslim neighbors - with the possible exception of the ex-Soviet republics, where the hangover of Communism is probably still there. Not to mention that in every Muslim majority country - from Mali to Malaysia, Islamic supremacists are pretty much calling the shots.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

afeeney (719690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39559655)

Except for all the cases where it's not.

Almost all religious conflicts are, fundamentally, about allocation of resources and post-colonialism tensions. Muslims tend to live in previously colonized lands far more than any other religious group. Religion just makes a better-sounding cause for violence and is better as a way to influence the poor. Sure, you're suffering now, but you'll lack for nothing in Paradise if you just do what I tell you. The Crusades were as much about control of the Silk Roads and commerce as about religion, religion just made better sound bites.

Christian versus Christian (Northern Ireland). Ethnic and post-colonialism as much as anything,

Muslim-Jewish. Ongoing colonialism and ethnic.

Hindu versus Sikh (India). I don't know enough to say for certain what the post-colonialism factors are.

Catholic versus Buddhist (Vietnam and 1966 Buddhist uprising, also about resource allocation).

Serbian Orthodox Christian attacks on Bosnian Muslims. After the dissolution of the USSR, territorial and ethnic issues.

Christian versus animists (South Africa)

Buddhist versus Hindu (Sri Lanka).

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560845)

Of your list above
  • Northern Ireland - like you said, more a colonial conflict, now over
  • Falls within the category of jihad, which as I stated, fuels the problems Muslims have with everyone else
  • Hindus-Sikhs never had any problems. A Sikh political party had problems with the Indian government in the 80s, and that led to the brief wave of terrorism in India during the time: it was never a case of Hindus trying to destroy/convert Sikhs, or vice versa. Today, that Sikh political party is allied to a Hindu political party, which wouldn't be happening if Hindus and Sikhs were at each other's throats
  • When did Vietnam ever have a Catholic-Buddhist standoff? It was a pure case of Veitnamese vs French colonialists, and the fact that their religions were different was just incidental to their differences
  • In both Bosnia and Kosovo, it was the Muslims who chose to be agressive. Today, Sarajevo, which used to be only 40% Muslim, is almost entirely Muslim, while Serbes have been driven out of Kosovo. Also, in Macedonia, Muslims started their fight against the non-Serb Macedonians
  • South Africa - is it a religious conflict at all, as opposed to a race based one?
  • Sri Lanka - again, an ethnic, not a religious conflict. The Tamil Tigers were Leftists, not Hindus. They had support from a Dravidian race based party in India, but the Hindu parties in India had nothing to do with them, which they would have had the Tamils been fighting a religious war

Your other hypothesis - that Muslims happen to live in previously colonized lands more than others is not accurate. We should then be having the same problems with Latin Americans (colonized by Spain and Portugal), Asians (colonized by Brits in Indian subcontinent,French in IndoChina, Spanish/Americans in Philippines, Japanese in Korea and China, and many more). How is it that there is no such civil strife in S Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, and so many other countries that were also colonized?

Also, Muslims have had the sort of luck that nobody else has: through an accident of geology, they happen to be sitting on the bulk of the world's petroleum reserves - a product which, to this day, has not lost its market the way several other products have. Every member of OPEC ought to be a utopian society. But how many people would like to live in Saudi Arabia or Qatar, as opposed to Europe or other Western countries? In 1950, S Korea was as poor as Egypt, and never happened to sit on any oil reserves. In between then and now, Egypt received $60 billion in aid from the US alone, while Muslim OPEC states have received $10 trillion from the rest of the world since 1973. Yet today, S Korea is one of the countries one associates when one talks about advanced countries, while Egypt isn't. So all this talk about Muslims getting the short end of the stick throughout history is downright fraudulent.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39559313)

Perhaps we need extreme intolerance of stupidity and violence

Re:It's the religion, stupid (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555157)

At this point in the game, it doesn't matter. Muslims and Hindus have been at odds for centuries in India. The conflict has been internalized and institutionalized to the point where even if religion is somehow magically removed they would keep fighting. You still have the deep schism left over from the Partition. Northern, lighter skinned Indians look down on southern, darker skinned ones (look at Bollywood films for a perfect manifestation of this). And that's even assuming that you can remove religion from Indian society. Guess what, you can't. The caste system comes in part from religion. The most basic of traditions come from religion. People are violent. It's human nature. Hell, it's nature period. As long as there are 2 or more people left in the world, there will be violence.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555463)

I agree with most of your assertions. However every thorn has its rose. India is a complex country and despite all the differences people from most religions live peacefully with each other. At one point India had the highest muslim population in the world. It is home to six religions with major population and several religions with much smaller populations. Most of these people live in harmony and despite propaganda from several extremists elements, in general population is quite tolerant.

As for this article, I disagree with the hypothesis that India is heading towards censorship like China. I am really doubtful that it will ever reach that stage. Mainly because press is really strong in India. In addition censorship will have a negative impact on India's economy. At the same time religion is a sensitive topic and it has a potential to flare up emotions in a country where there is a constant struggle between the tolerant who want to broker more peace and the extremists who want to incite the general public for their political gain. The problem is that these same extremists might have plotted to put up the offensive material in the first place and then rally against it to gain cheap points in the media.

It's a complex issue and I am not sure there is a good solution to the problem. As I said India is a complex creature :)

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556049)

Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

A lot of the violence in India is driven by poverty, working hard every day just so you can more slowly starve, die from lack of medical treatment and live in squalor. All while the few live in opulent luxury, those few of course adhering the maxim divide and conquer.

The rich and greedy driving the poor to attack each other because of caste, race, religion or any other excuse, just so the poor won't stop and think about who is actually the cause of the bulk of their suffering and who they should really focus their anger on.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556101)

Very true, the best way to reduce tensions in India will be to educate and employ the poor.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (2)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556169)

Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together

They're also programmed to compete. You can apply theory to this all day long. The bottom line is that blaming Facebook (which isn't lily-white by any measure) for this particular incident is wrong. Those people have been fighting since time imemmorial and will only quit I suspect when one side gets wiped out.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39557525)

I do not think anybody is blaming anybody here except maybe police blaming the author of the flaming post. The action 'against fb' was precaution. I suppose they weighted benefits of letting it go and causing massive riots in a process or stopping it and having trouble with fb first. I guess as long as process is visible and transparent and status quo can be restored if action was unjust it is ok. There is always a problem between freedom of expression and other freedoms. It is more difficult to resolve in crowded places where tension is never going away. Going for extremes of freedom as with any other extremes - causes a lots of trouble. Be rational and practical instead of trying to teach people on the other side of earth how they should do their business.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556191)

Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

That's bullshit, as demonstrated by ample evidence - there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.

Sure, humans are a social species, and they together - within their society. Not within the entire species, though - someone from another society is an untrustworthy foreigner at best, an enemy at worst - again, look at our history and our culture, all these cliches are spelled out there quite explicitly. Where the boundaries between societies come from is an interesting question, but regardless of then answer, humans are real good at dividing the world into "us" and "them", and then hating "them", despite pacifist wishful thinking to the contrary. And the bulk of human of human violence stems from that, not from psychopaths. Psychopaths may hurt or kill several people, some of the more prolific ones may hurt several dozen before they get caught. A normal human male, with beloved wife and kids, killed thousands by squeezing the trigger of the bomb release over Dresden.

Yes, it's true that there are people out there who nudge and shape the boundaries to suit them. But, even without such meddling, humans are perfectly capable of splitting into groups, and hating and killing each other.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556415)

there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.

Yeah, and War has been part of humans for a very long time. My theory is that War is the real reason why humans evolved to run long distances. Not to stupidly spend hours chasing down lunch.

When you have two different species, one predator and one prey, it is not surprising when at least one species ends up with a high top speed. But when situation is members of the same species chasing each other, evolving to be faster starts to hit diminishing returns quite early.

In contrast, long distance running gives you a better chance of outrunning and surviving 100 other humans chasing you (you have no chance of outfighting them). Being able to run till nightfall works better than being able to sprint like a cheetah at 100kph for 20 seconds when everyone else can too.

War would have provided far stronger selection pressure for human distance running than merely being able to spend hours chasing down prey, especially since most humans are smart enough to catch/trap most prey species, and would probably be more inclined to do so- it's more time and energetically efficient.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556857)

There's plenty good evidence for why humans evolved as long-distance runners - and remember, that was long before they were smart enough to trap their prey. Things is, from all evidence we have, humans evolved in African savanna - think vast open areas with occasional vegetation, a perfect environment for setting an ambush and then chasing your prey once it gets close - how cheetahs etc do.

What made humans quite unique, though, is that they have little body hear, and sweat a lot (more than any other animal). There's only one obvious benefit from that, and it's thermal regulation. This let humans take an unused niche in savanna ecosystem - that of the noon predator. Large cats normally don't hunt at that time of the day, it's too hot for them, and they can't run for long - but humans can. What more, prey also can't run for too long there, so if you can regulate your body temperature much better then it does, it's actually more energy-efficient to run it down till it drops (due to far better success rate) then to go for fast short dashes (which fail just as often as not).

So, their environment provided a unique niche they could occupy and be highly successful in with very little competition; but that environment is also what required them to be good long distance runners.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39557491)

That's bullshit. As demonstrated by ample evidence (the truth this time) that wars were driven by the leaders, leaders who psychopathically maintained power by the narcissistic minions torturing to death anybody that disagreed and refused to fight in those wars.

In regions where rule was by tribal elders, it tended to be all show and little violence, more arbitration and little or no war.

That key for war, for gross human violence, the slavery of the majority to the egoistic greed of the minority, was the ascendency of a genetic defect psychopathy, hidden behind the deceit of monarchy, those of un-special birth who maintained power by extremes of brutality. Are these brutish animals to be celebrated no they are to be reviled as a curse upon humanity.

Divide and conquer is the rule of the minority to gain and keep power. The hate is born in the few and forced upon the many.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

Beeftopia (1846720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556903)

Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

And they're also wired to form up into tribes or packs. Like wolves. Throughout the ages, they've competed bitterly with other tribes/packs. It's been a life and death struggle for resources they need to survive. This instinct is as normal and natural as any other typical human instinct. Of course, if it gets out of hand, you get world war. Tribalism has been around for as long as humans have been around. And it's been evolutionarily beneficial as evidenced by its existence to this very day, everywhere you look.

Now, in socially complex, diverse and technologically advanced civilizations, this can lead to trouble if aggressive tribalism is stoked by leaders for their own purposes. But it has its benefits too, as in successful cultures identifying themselves and trying to preserve themselves.

Humans are not bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans or gorillas. They are humans. With all of their strengths and weaknesses and foibles.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39557021)

I think Indians have done pretty well considering that the country is like a European Union with people from different states having as much or more cultural differences as say Spain, Germany, France, Portugal, etc ... They are more united than the EU and have a good chance of becoming a developed nation with opportunities for most if not all in the coming two decades.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39557877)

Apparently, you have succeeded in bypassing censorship, because in none of two links mentioned in ./ summary I have seen any indication on the religious identity of clashing groups.

Care to provide a link?

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555541)

As a devout Atheistic Rationalist, I agree completely.

Lets sit in a circle and consume some abortificants and read scientific papers and talk about how unbiased and progressive we are
and how stupid everyone else is!

Hail Science!

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555791)

No, I can tolerate religion ... as long as its followers can tolerate being made fun of as much as I can tolerate being made fun of (which is a lot).

If there's one thing I can't stand it's intolerance.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556179)

"I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that."

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555825)

You can bet that is someone started posting pictures of Obama that were defamatory and inciting violence, that they would be shut down real quick. So Slashdot, pretend defenders of Freedom of Speech, you shouldn't be so outraged at something that would happen here and many here would undoubtedly support.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555905)

What the hell? You're making the accusation that people on slashdot don't really defend "freedom of speech" unless they agree with it ? No, just no.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39556365)

Hell yea. This place is filled with Obama sycophants. Just try saying anything against him and you are modded into oblivion.

Slashdot is pretty much filled with two faced hypocrites.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39558211)

No, if you post things like 'Obama == miserable failure' as a total post then you get moderated down. You got the same thing with George Bush five years ago. Coherent arguments for and against both have been modded up, but if you just say 'Obama is a nigger muslim!' (quote from a post I read on Sunday) then the only reason you're moderated Troll or Flamebait is that there is no -1 Idiot.

Re:It's the religion, stupid (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556271)

It isn't about religion. If there was less religion it would be something else. Maybe the dictators image. It is about control, control over the population.

What happened to sticks and stones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555061)

Sticks and stones will break my bones but facebook posts will never hurt me.

If all that facebook is done is hurt your pride. Get over it.

Breaking news from India! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555139)

Authorities from the town of Sangareddy have determined that rioting and arson have caused over $2000 in IMPROVEMENTS!!!!!!!

Square peg....round hole (5, Insightful)

bennini (800479) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555143)

The article states that a young man posted a photo on Facebook which offended several people.
Several of those offended people decided to protest peacefully in front of a police station demanding his arrest.
Other people decided to protest violently by burning cars, smashing in window stores and just generally acting like idiots.
Instituting a nationwide internet censorship policy won't address the problem: impulsive, destructive people whose first course of action is violence.

Re:Square peg....round hole (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555397)

You can get arrested in India for offending someone? I'm glad it's not like that here (yet). I'd have a multitude of sequential life sentences.

Re:Square peg....round hole (0)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555431)

Of course you can get arrested for offending someone. If you incite someone to do something criminal, you're guilty as well.

At the day treatment school I used to work at, kids that ran their lip and incited someone into a fight got the same charges as the kid who threw the first punch.

Re:Square peg....round hole (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39558833)

Of course you can get arrested for offending someone. If you incite someone to do something criminal, you're guilty as well.

Offending (pspahn is an asshat) and inciting criminality (death to pspahn!) are not the same thing. Law (and logic) fail.

Re:Square peg....round hole (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556199)

Yes, you can. One has to admit that for India it really does make a lot of sense, because their society has many deep divides in it (one of which is Muslims vs others), which together make it a kind of a powder keg - it's not all that hard to incite violence between various sects, and it tends to flare up quite spectacularly from there on, with numerous victims.

Re:Square peg....round hole (1)

sauge (930823) | more than 2 years ago | (#39558825)

It is coming to the US (assuming you are posting from the US):

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Arizona-law-looks-to-censor-the-internet/g-MIO8eRL0-x4SzkNtLFBA.cspx

From the article:

The bill would make it a crime to offend, harass, terrify or even just annoy another person online. Skordas points out a few issues, like how will law enforcement find these so-called "online trolls?" and who is going to set the basis for what is considered "offensive?"

Re:Square peg....round hole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555457)

Actually it wasn't a 'young man' it was a 'politco' (which I assumed meant 'politician'). Regardless, if the point is that the government finds the posting so objectionable as to require a Social Networking site to block it or to institute a 'great firewall of China' approach...why didn't they simple direct the police to arrest or otherwise sanction the person who posted it...

Sure in an 'enlightened' society, the posting shouldn't have given rise to violent outbreak, and shouldn't be censored in any way or the person sanctioned...but assuming the society where this is happening clearly doesn't share the same beliefs in 'free speech' they surely have the ability to sanction the actual person 'inciting' the hatred by posting the picture rather than imposing it on the social networking site. The latter will only lead to censorship in general, the former in theory try's to enforce 'moral norms' in the country.

Of course I would argue that perhaps it would be best to teach their people to be less sensitive to 'speech'...but I come from a country where 'free speech' is generally (though not entirely) considered to mean I can say anything I want (within the bounds of fraud,lies, actual defamation of character etc.), and while people may not like it, may even protest, they don't start violence (as a matter of standard behavior that is).

Boo Hoo (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555243)

Some people got trolled on the internet and responded with violence. They don't deserve any sympathy.

the real cause (0)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555381)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just outlaw religion, the real cause of this and most other problems in the world?

Re:the real cause (4, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555973)

Are you serious?

Mao outlawed religion and while he managed to solve and get rid of a lot of his problems (people), I think he made the world's problems worse.

I am so sick of all of this, "just get rid of religion and everything will be peachy" crap.

The biggest killers the world has ever know killed for the nation, the party, their culture and for themselves, not for religion.

An also, how do you plan to get rid of religions, are you going to round up the faithful and send them to camps?

Re:the real cause (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39557019)

Mao outlawed religion...

Mao also developed a philosophy of the moral superiority of the downtrodden ("Blessed are the meek..."?); established a cult of personality venerating him as more than a mere man; and published a handbook of his writings that outsold the Bible, and was treated in much the same manner (as a source of divine wisdom, infallibly correct).

It seems to be a flaw of the human psyche, that the most direct way to get rid of a religion is to invent another one to replace it.

Re:the real cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39558337)

how do you plan to get rid of religions, are you going to round up the faithful and send them to camps?

Just responding to the "how"... speaking hypothetically.

  • * No more state subsidies for religious organizations.
  • * Replace holidays which have some origin in religion with other ones that don't.
  • * No more public religious figures that try to have their say in everything (like the pope for example).
  • * Outlaw religious symbols in public. This includes clothing and buildings. Religious buildings that are too valuable to be demolished have their ownership transferred to the state, who uses them as simple monuments (allow for no other uses than tourism only).
  • * In general: outlaw public references to religious elements of any nature. People would still be free to believe what they want, but they would have to restrict their religious practices to the privacy of their homes (or small religious events held in neutral buildings with no advertising on the outside).

Re:the real cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39559877)

I agree. Perhaps we should just get rid of irrational thinking. I wonder if there are any institutions that explicitly promote irrational thinking as a virtue?

Re:the real cause (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556161)

It would be so easy to Godwin the thread here... so I won't. Instead, I'll just say: that statement is the fundamental justification for most (every?) instance of genocide and many instances of war and evil throughout history. And, like all of them, you are completely wrong. The problem isn't x group of people or y ideology: the problem is human nature, or to quote from Equilibrium, "man's inhumanity towards man." And as the movie points out, there isn't one single property of humanity that causes that.

This can manifest itself through religion, yes, but it can also manifest itself through rationality, emotion, or just about anything else. To attempt to scapegoat any one of this things as "the real problem" is also a trait of human nature: mankind excels at placing blame on others. The reality is so long as men are men (and women are women, don't want to be sexist), these problems will exist.

To cry for the banning of an ideology you disagree with and see as wrong (and, most likely, don't fully understand either: fear of the different, often stemming from ignorance, is another manifestation of the flaw of human nature) is to undue most of the progress we have made as a society towards overcoming our own nature. We will never rid this world of all it's problems: we can do our best not to cause more, and to fix those we see. Intolerance towards another's ideology is one of those problems. And yes, religion can cause that. So can rationality*. And to ban them would be to not only make things worse, but to remove a great source of potential good, which again, both rationality and religion can achieve.

*Of course, rationality and religion as perverted by evil. Neither one, properly used, is inherently evil. They are often used improperly (again, by flawed humanity that strives against its fellow man).

Re:the real cause (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556219)

It's blind adherence to ideology that's the problem - religion is just a subset of ideology. People have killed in the name of Allah or Jesus, yes, but they have also killed in the name of racial purity, or even equality and brotherhood.

Re:the real cause (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556281)

Because it isn't about religion. It is about control, and those in charge use religion to control people. If they didn't use religion, they'd use something else.

Honestly... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555425)

They should probably encourage facebook to keep up the good work...

Nothing intensifies feelings of religious entitlement(that, when violated, swiftly turn to violence) like continual cringing deference and nothing dissipates those feelings like a continual bilateral exchange of ridicule.

It bloody well took long enough; but thanks to the scoffers, freethinkers, and scurrilous pamphleteers(Oh, and those guys were scurrilous. Trolls respect your elders....) most of the western world can't even distinguish between a Lutheran and a Methodist, much less excitedly tell you why burning one of the two at stake is an immediate necessity. Heck, unitarians the last major surviving heresy(Arianism, Socinianism, and Catharism didn't do quite so well) are now considered to be risibly bland liberals, rather than barely-christian heretics. Even the good, old, Catholic/Protestant bloodbath just isn't what it might be. You've still got a few belligerent, probably whiskey-soaked, Irish fighting; but outside of that knowledge and care about the theological and doctrinal differences is probably at an all-time low, particularly when you consider that the ability to inform yourself if interested is at an all time high.

It takes time; but success through mockery that gradually degenerates into sheer apathy is the way to go! Censorship is an attractive short-term plan; but it will have you travelling away from the slackutopia, where nobody gives enough of a fuck to go to the trouble of brutal communal violence.

Right... (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39557611)

Actually, what really is needed is self-humor, the capacity to look at yourself and see the joke. This isn't always as straight forward as it seems. Take the series, Yes Prime Minister. In it hacker does the list of how the nature of the average EU civil servant. The generosity of the dutch, the organization of the Italians, the humanity of the Germans, etc etc. But conspicuous by its absence is any reference to a British trait. The series make a lot of fun of politicians and civil servants but not of Brits themselves. The voter is barely touched upon despite that they are obviously idiots for electing Hacker in the first place.

There are Italian films where a catholic priest talks to Jesus and has a friendly rivalry with the communist major. It shows how Italy is often surprisingly liberal in its actual laws because while the church is important, it isn't taken entirely serious. As in, people know that while obviously life should be as the church dictates, it isn't and that is alright. It is the different between someone who has cut down on meat and a PETA activist who frots at the mouth at the sign of a human owning a cat.

Most religious groups have learned to take themselves not to serious. Jews are best known for this, you can't move for Jewish comedians. Muslim comedians? Not so much. And gosh, that certainly seems to be a religion represented in a lot of conflicts around the world. It is not as if other fates have never been to bloody serious but Islam right now is at a stage incompatible with the rest of the world. To be fair, no other religion has had to deal with such complexities. Most religions learned to adjust to a multi-cultural world early on with their main group contained within their own region. Sure there were Christian missionaries during the renaissance but they were easily digested.

Islam suddenly spread into a world where religious identity has had to be suppressed because there are just to many others, while at the same time exposing the radical differences within the religion itself. Take Erdogans warmongering with Israel. Complains about 9 Turks killed so that the press is to busy being spoonfed to notice that dozens are killed each day in Turkish occupation of Kurdish lands. Syria is not about human rights but about which faction within Islam has control over the other. The countries that are for or against intervention are neatly divided along these faction lines.

It creates a real identity crisis, who are you as a Muslim? And that doesn't work well with someone poking fun at you, either from inside or outside. Note how carefully western media avoids making jokes about Muslims. Nothing new, blacks were treated the same at some point. Kids gloves so as not to offend those who were not mature enough as a group to handle a joke. No, someone being PC is often not doing it out of a sense of equality in my opinion.

But the PCness leads to cultural isolation. Watch a program like QI, it is awfully white. Most TV is. I can remember only one black person, a comedian. This again leads the group condemned with PCness to have even a greater identity crisis. Where are the role models? The people to show there is an alternative then the models shown by the sattelite tv from back home?

When your identity is lost and no new one is available, you tend to defend what little remains with a vengance.

See Muslims in Europe purposefully dressing the same despite most being fully well aware it will only increase the perception of themselves in a negative way if you pressed them on it. Better belong to your own small marginalized group then be part of the greater anonymous void.

Lets not forget that movies like a "Life of Brian" saw plenty of protest. Peaceful to be sure but that was just because this movie was at the END of the process. Not the beginning. The beginning wasn't nice at all and plenty died so that we can laugh about western religions.

Wirewall (2)

Ashenkase (2008188) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555501)

Could we be seeing another Great Firewall of China?

No, this is the beginning of the great Wirewall of India: http://www.photopumpkin.com/wp-content/uploads/electric_wire_3.jpg [photopumpkin.com]

ahh... the invisible hand of the market (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555521)

its funny how similar are the smells of free market capitalism, and burning insulation.

Story tagged as censorship? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555513)

But I bet you little fagets can't' mod this +5 insightful

NIGGERS

Can you?

Show me that you don't agree with what I say but will die for my right to say it. SHow me a +5 mod on this post. Hell, no need to die for it. Just spend some mod points.

We won't see it. We'll see it at -1 in short order. The United States us a bunch of spineless hypocrites.

Re:Story tagged as censorship? (1, Offtopic)

mhogomchungu (1295308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555867)

any particular reason why you posted as an "Anonymous Coward"?

Re:Story tagged as censorship? (2)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556127)

any particular reason why you posted as an "Anonymous Coward"?

Emphasis on the second word perhaps...

Re:Story tagged as censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39556351)

But I'm at +1, assholes. I could have made an account if that would have made a difference. Why would it have?

Re:Story tagged as censorship? (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39559037)

You're confusing censorship with endorsement. I don't know why anybody should endorse hateful flamebait. Slashdot, however, does not censor your ability to spew such nonsense -- lots of sites would just delete it outright or not even allow it in the first place.

Cart before horse (1)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555665)

The root cause of THIS problem are badly behaved 'youths' rioting and breaking other serious laws. Like those same 'youths' of a 'certain religious group' who rioted, burnt, looted and murdered when somebody in Denmark put some rude pictures in the newspaper.

I think we've already established the basic principle that there is no right not to be offended. The only way we'll teach people this very basic lesson, especially those belonging to a 'certain religious group', is to use force. Force is one language that uncultured and illiterate people throughout the world, truly understand.

So why not just read the rioters the proverbial Riot Act and then kick their asses? Rioting and looting is an extremely serious offence with no moral justification.

Re:Cart before horse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39555857)

There is a right to be offended. Otherwise, Obama would not receive and send the Dalai Lama through the side entrances. (http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j191/mikesamerica/?action=view&current=96834730.jpg). Or look at the US kow-towing in Afghanistan after burning some trash which included the Koran.

F*ck you cant even offend a cop.. or you may get your face smashed to the ground, tasered or worse.

It is also the same reason why LA burned after Rodney King beating - so unless you are calling the blacks in the US uncultured & illiterate, I think you suggestions demonstrate your ignorance of the real world.

Re:Cart before horse (1)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555961)

The Chinese and Muslims act offended to extract political concessions.

Offending somebody with a gun and a badge is just lack of common sense.

Re:Cart before horse (2)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556755)

One of the strange aspects of this case is something you obliquely pointed out: those news articles describe a "place of worship" and a "religious group", which enraged "youths" and offended the "other religious community". In the West (I don't know about India) this kind of bizarre omission of facts normally means that the incident was perpetrated by Muslims but the newspaper doesn't want people to think of Muslims as violent and is intentionally biasing their reporting. It's sometimes extended to other groups; for instance, political affiliation is mentioned a lot less for Democratic perpetrators than for Republicans.

Re:Cart before horse (1)

vinayg18 (1641855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39558485)

This is how it is in Indian newspapers. The omission of facts is to deflect accusations of biased reporting, and prevent the possibility of inciting further violence by helping miscreants identify "enemies". While in the West, such omissions may indirectly indict Muslims, it's more complex than that because of the many religions and their sub-sects in India. There have been times when Hindu castes have attacked each other over ridiculous reasons (Boy of Caste A sitting in a park with girl of Caste B). Reasons for flare-ups are commonly moral policing (Women in pubs! Won't someone preserve Indian culture? Take up arms!), alleged "insults" to $Deity and inter-religious relationships. Most of the country can only look at such incidents with condemnation and disgust.

couple of big differences (2)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39555801)

The Chinese block shit for the sole rational purpose of absolute POWER. The Indians will block shit because of some delusional religious bullshit. Which is why China will win.

Religious Intolerance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39556109)

Jesus Fucking Christ!

It is fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39556349)

Religion has always been close to people heart in India. Violence in the name of religion is an oxymoron but then this is realty (this is how mature the people are). Either people learn to make sensible posts (in a totally free channel) or the freedom to express will be taken away... surely this is only fair!

this is a socio-government issue worldwide. (1)

bdabautcb (1040566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556837)

Everywhere I look, I could decide that something that someone else has said, posted (tacked a flyer to a wall, or made a comment on the interweb) offends me. Some things I read in my local newspaper are offensive to me. A lot of things I read in comment sections are offensive. But I decided a long time ago to not feel offended by people remotely related to me. A neighbor who has a brother who lives five hundred miles away might not like me; I have found that being a decent person and defending my beliefs have encouraed my neighbors to do the same. This is an issue that confronts 'global society'. I would encourage everybody that has a facebook account to go talk to the people who live around you and learn something. Also, for those that say social networking is at tool for revolution, i agree. It most certainly is and if you are using facebook, twitter, or any other version to talk about social revolution, I am on your side. If you are tweeting about a club or snookie, you already lost any respect I might have, The internet is a tool well utilized by several, by most, it is a hammer being swung at a thumb tack.

Re:this is a socio-government issue worldwide. (1)

bdabautcb (1040566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556915)

Get yer shit together, 'America Fuck Yea!' We should be fighting this, not idly standing by with big screen TV's, professional college athletes, and a government that is fastly degrarding into a corporation. If you have a lot of money, hang on and profit. If you don't, learn how to grow your own food and hang on and live. Public education=government. Biggest employer=government. Decisions about your own health=government. Walking down your sidewalk? Google has the pictures, and who can access that? Government. I have never done anything illegal in my life, nor plan on it, yet this shit still scares me. I sense a revolution coming. Banking system. Federal Reserve. The Dollar. NAFTA. I could go on and on, but you get the point that it is bullshit. The denoument is DHS and TSA. They have yet to catch a 'terrorist', yet they recieve tens and hundreds of million dollars in funding. Who authorizes that? Apparently not me, even though I pay for it and have not voted for a republican or democrat since I was 18 in 2000. I call bullshit.

Religious censorship already exists on Facebook (4, Informative)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39557203)

Try posting a picture of a woman breastfeeding. It is banned because it offends the American Puritans.

Why shouldn't Facebook also cater to other religions? Their goal is to increase profits, so it makes sense to make the maximum number of customers happy.

Re:Religious censorship already exists on Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39558633)

And most of the developed country people look for an opportunity to comment on countries like India and China. All these people talking about other countries keep their cool, if someone burns the bible and post the pictures on facebook.

Notice how all 3 articles are light on details.... (1)

Vijaysj (1003992) | more than 2 years ago | (#39557751)

Non of the articles linked above state
1. The name of the politician who posted the picture on his FB Account?
2. What was offensive about the picture.
3. How did the riots start

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/node/109255 [deccanchronicle.com]
http://postnoon.com/2012/03/30/sangareddy-erupts-in-violence/40619 [postnoon.com]

Political conspiracy... (1)

singhulariti (1963000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39559161)

This is how it works in India...or anywhere... Some months back the Indian people decided they were going to fight corruption, they organized via facebook, twitter et. al. and caused MASSIVE headaches for the govt. The govt. realized they needed to do something about it. So they hire a couple of idiots to post some "offensive" photos, then hire some goons to start a "communal" war and then censor the net in the name of "peace". Almost ALL communal riots in India follow a similar pattern.

Most cry babies per population (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39559647)

India by far as the most cry babies per population in the world, if not about muhammad eating a hotdog, it's about a picture of a temple or it's about being able to google a picture someone does like etc....

All of India needs to grow up, this is getting out of control, they can't keep calling mom everytime someone looks at them funny or because someone makes a face. If you as a person don't want to use the internet don't use it, other wise leave the rest of the world alone, I'm sick of hearing about some Indian getting pissed off because they act like 5 year olds.

Can't be good for the outsourcing industry (1)

EJB (9167) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560569)

If this results in Internet censorship or another great firewall, that can't be too good for the Indian outsourcing industry.
Would you let a team of outsourced programmers work on your code if they cannot access the websites they need to do their jobs? Or of they can't communicate with your on-site developers using the same sites that everybody else uses?
Or if they can't access the website that you're developing as a company?

Don't think so. They're just shooting themselves in the foot over there.

3 words (1)

Mr_Nitro (1174707) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561321)

drop fucking religion.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>