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!

Pakistan Blocks Twitter Over 'Blasphemous' Images

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the omnipresent-omnipowerful-omniscient-government dept.

Censorship 226

Diggester writes with this news from the Times of India: "Pakistani authorities on Friday further widened the crackdown on websites with blasphemous contents by restricting access to popular social networking website Twitter. Pakistani users were unable to log into Twitter after internet service providers blocked access to the site." The block was prompted by Twitter's refusal to take down messages promoting a cartoon contest to which the Pakistani government objects for its depictions of Muhammad. This end-run falls right in line with the pessimistic reaction from Reporters Without Borders to the Pakistani court decision calling Internet censorship unconstitutional.

cancel ×

226 comments

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

Blocked for being post-mediaeval (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057135)

Pakistan blocks yet another place for failing to obey diktats from the stone-age. Maybe they'll just discard everything with origin from the Renaissance onwards.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057181)

True religion at work.

Superstition is slavery.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057377)

This type of comment reduces complex issues to simple bitter theophobic (yep I just coined a word) rhetoric and it is no better than the folks who force their religious beliefs on other through institutionalized oppression and social shunning.

Since the beginning of civilization clans and tribes have sought to extinguish each other so that theirs would thrive. In a world of constrained resources this actually makes some evolutionary sense. Now that our clans and tribes are defined as much by structures of belief or schools of thought we've evolved to insisting that everyone believe like us. This is stupid. I'm not a big fan of most religions but to group them all in and call the most extreme acts by them as "true religion" is part of the same evolutionary short circuit that caused the religion to act that way in the first place. If you really want to change things show some tolerance and make reasoned, peaceful, and calm arguments for your school of thought rather than attacking theirs. A little introspection in the world would be a revolutionary thing.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (4, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057417)

. . . theophobic (yep I just coined a word) . . .

No, you didn't. You just discovered a word you had never heard before.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (4, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057639)

. . . theophobic (yep I just coined a word) . . .

No, you didn't. You just discovered a word you had never heard before.

And the AC used it wrongly, too. Theophobia [wiktionary.org] is the fear of one or more gods, and is therefore an attribute of a pious follower of some religion, and would likely be approved by that religion. More likely, the AC meant religiophobic, as religiophobia [wiktionary.org] is the fear of religions.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (4, Informative)

shmlco (594907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058345)

Hijacking the thread here. The Twitter ban has been lifted.

“Pakistan’s telecommunications regulators shut down Twitter for about eight hours Sunday because the social networking site would not remove content the government found objectionable to Muslims, but the nation’s prime minister stepped in to reverse the ban, officials said.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-blocks-then-restores-twitter-access/2012/05/20/gIQAPqBPdU_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058361)

Do Theophobics go catatonic just thinking about Hinduism?
I'm not afraid of religions, I'm contemptuous of them.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (5, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057521)

How can he be "theophobic" when he does not believe in all that crap? You can't be afraid of something you know that does not exist.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057555)

If you really want to change things show some tolerance and make reasoned, peaceful, and calm arguments for your school of thought rather than attacking theirs.

In my experience, confronting people frankly with their delusion is the most effective way to get them to question it.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057709)

Surprising it didn't work on you, then.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058153)

Really? And just how many conversions have you achieved by being an asshole?

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057583)

This type of comment reduces complex issues to simple bitter theophobic (yep I just coined a word) rhetoric and it is no better than the folks who force their religious beliefs on other through institutionalized oppression and social shunning.

Nonsense. Your assertion that absence of superstition is no better than any of the contradictory superstitions which cripple our societies is a contemptible form of moral relativism.

A little introspection in the world would be a revolutionary thing.

And is explicitly banned by most of the big religions extant today ("don't ask the wrong questions or you're an apostate/heathen/whatever"), thus reinforcing GP's point that "superstition is slavery". Which was the point you disagreed with, and must confuse you quite a bit.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (2, Interesting)

englishknnigits (1568303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057735)

Actually, Bible colleges are incredibly introspective and address "controversial" questions. I suppose that is only one religion (assuming you group all forms of Christianity) which would still make the statement "most of the big religions" true.

Also, most atheists confuse "lack of belief" with "disbelief." Lack of belief is rational and not in any way equivalent with belief. Disbelief is in the same category as belief in that you take it to be true even though you do not know it is true. Most atheists fall into the disbelief category and have more in common with religious believers than they are willing to recognize.
Put another way, not believing in God/god(s) is not the same as believing there is/are no God/god(s).

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (2)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058085)

Most people who believe in God/god(s) also don't believe in God/god(s). It's just the atheists are more thorough in their disbelief.

Christians/Muslims/Jews don't believe in Odin, Zeus, Ra or Shiva. Atheists don't either, they just add one more god to the list of gods they don't believe in. Which, if you think about it what's the difference in not believing in 1000 vs 1001 gods. If the first thousand don't exist, why would you believe in the thousand and first.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058099)

Most atheists fall into the disbelief category and have more in common with religious believers than they are willing to recognize.

I've found the reverse to be true. Atheism covers a pretty broad range. As with religious believers, there'll be plenty of atheists who don't realize how stupid it is to voluntarily assume the burden of evidence. If some guy tells me that he's in personal communication with Grabxil, Supreme Warlord of Venus, then why should I be the one paying for the ticket to visit Venus in order to disprove this guy's existence?

Of course it also depends on the nature of the God. In internally inconsistent god (all forgiving, yet refuses to forgive certain actions) is not disproven, but certainly cannot reasonably exist. Believers will most likely adopt special pleading or interpret away these inconsistencies. Why does a loving God send us to Hell? Why, he doesn't! We send ourselves there. Why was a loving God such a cunt back in the Old Testament days? Well, it's obviously because the Hebrews were barbaric, and for some reason or other God had to abide by that. Hey, perhaps it's all about free will and stuff? Why does an all loving god permit suffering to exist? Well, that's definitely free will, isn't it? Hey, it's the corruption of the world cause by man. Yep, your child is dying painfully of leukemia because two simpletons a few thousand years ago had a fruity snack, and certainly God couldn't possibly intervene to avoid blaming the innocent for something done by someone else. That's how the stuff goes.

From personal experiences, it's pointless trying to disprove the existence of gods. One can spend hours debating, running through arguments and "evidence", to end up with the frustrating last ditch defense that it requires faith. Fuck it, why not just say that right from the beginning! You have no evidence, and you believe this because you have faith - fine. Then why waste time with this evidence and these fancy arguments you picked-up from a William Lane Craig book, when they're simply not relevant to why you personally belief this stuff? I can see the value in Jeff Dee's approach of asking people to provide their best argument first. What is it that actually makes them believe in their God - not what is it that they think will convert me?

Put another way, not believing in God/god(s) is not the same as believing there is/are no God/god(s).

Not even in the same league. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet a lack of evidence is reasonable grounds to assert disbelief. Let's say a guy is claiming that his car can fly. He believes this to be true, and I feel confident in asserting the opposite. He tells me that he can't give me a demonstration because the government radar will detect him. He claims the car has a super secret CIA made engine. I pop the hood and see nothing out of the ordinary. Overall, this appears to be a regular Chevy. Is my disbelief of his flying car the same as his positive beliefs? If not, then why is this any different to a belief in gods?

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (3, Interesting)

njen (859685) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058155)

A new tactic of religious followers I have seen lately is to try and elevate atheists to the same level of what is "unknowable" (and I use that term loosely) as themselves, and it is maddening. I disbelieve in many things that I know to be untrue: unicorns, dragons, FSM (sorry to all the Pastafarians out there!), teapots circling the sun, etc.

The sheer amount of things to disbelieve in is absolutely infinite, there for it is safe to say to disbelieve in it all as a starting point, unless there is proof for it's existence.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (2)

englishknnigits (1568303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058363)

Again, confusing disbelief with lack of belief. What evidence do you have that there are no teapots circling the sun? (I am assuming this excludes teapots on earth). What evidence do you have that a horse with a horn (unicorn) has never existed on this planet or another? Perhaps aliens placed tea pots in orbit around the sun as some sort of game (ridiculous but illustrative). Maybe there was some freakish mutation and a single horse had its main grow into a horn like structure. I don't believe any of that because I have seen no evidence of it. I also don't disbelieve it because I have no evidence that either of these possibilities never happened.

You are claiming you know something to be untrue when you have no evidence to back up that claim. A claim without evidence sounds a lot like a belief to me.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (1)

njen (859685) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058435)

I am not confusing anything.

You talk of "maybe this", or "maybe that", but until there is proof of evidence for what ever you want to assert is true, then it is not, no belief required.

It is not up to the person to prove something is untrue, it is up to the person to prove something is true.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (1, Insightful)

I(rispee_I(reme (310391) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058289)

I find it instructive to reframe discussions regarding belief in god as discussions regarding belief in unicorns.

"Not believing in Unicorn/unicorn(s) is not the the same as believing there is/are no Unicorn/unicorn(s)." is thus easily revealed as the semantic niggling that it is. Either there's unicorns or there ain't; if there are, you believe in them.

Also, Christianity in the U.S. only seems benevolent to the extent that it does because Christianity's become a toothless tiger after 200+ years of secular legislation forcing Christians to treat other human beings like human beings. Christianity, or any other religion, unchecked would be indistinguishable from radical Islam given free rein. The pretense of infallibility leaves no room for civil liberties.

In keeping with the article's theme, let's all laugh at historical Islamic hubris: 12th century Muslim sultan tries to demolish the Great Pyramids; fails. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (1, Interesting)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057705)

Phobia implies irrational fear. Fear of religion is not irrational. If anything the absence of fear towards religion should be considered irrational.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057949)

Superstition is nonsense, unsupported by evidence and therefore deserving NO respect.

If it's not truth then propagating it is bad, end of story.

The only people who defend superstition ARE superstitionists. I have no use for the unsupported beliefs of flat-earthers.

Prove a deity exists and I'll recant then grovellingly kiss his/her/it's Noodly Appendage. Until then, fuck off.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058031)

True religion at work.

Your definition of "True religion". Not mine: I'd call it "bad religion at work".

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057203)

If anything the age of the law lends it credit. Let me guess, the concept that murder is immoral is outdated because it was considered bad since the beginning of civilization?

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057887)

Your logic is flawed.
Man created murder
Man created morality.
Man created law
where lack of law, man created religion

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057245)

Maybe they'll just discard everything with origin from the Renaissance onwards.

Would be nice if they'd be a little more ambitious and go for everything from 610 onward ;-)

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057257)

Human copyright violations do not exist..

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (2)

Jesus_C_of_Nazareth (2629713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057337)

Pakistan blocks yet another place for failing to obey diktats from the stone-age. Maybe they'll just discard everything with origin from the Renaissance onwards.

I'm guessing they'll be holding on to the modern weaponry.

Two issues... (4, Insightful)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057157)

There are two main issues here. The first is the rights of a country to limit internet access in line with their own laws. This could be holocaust denial in Germany, incitement to murder in the UK or copyright infringement in the US, the religion aspect has nothing to do with it (and given that no-images-of-the-prophet-Mohammed is a central tennant of Islam intended to prevent idol worship it's perfectly understandable).

The second issue is whether it's worth trying to block the offending sites when it's unlikely to be effective and there are pre-existing legal mechanisms. If I was to call for the murder of all members of $ethnicMinority then that's illegal in the UK, so should the UK government's response be to block Slashdot or to prosecute me? I'd argue that the latter is far more effective in every way, whilst protecting the freedoms of other Slashdot users.

Should I do the same but breaking the rules of another country (eg holocause denial is legal in the UK but not Germany) then it's down to the pre-existing extradition channels.

Re:Two issues... (2)

tokul (682258) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057191)

The first is the rights of a country to limit internet access in line with their own laws

Country also doesn't have the right to dictate own laws to companies in other countries. Pakistanis asked for good will gesture. Twitter refused as it would violate rights stated in their country laws.

Re:Two issues... (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057747)

They're not dictating laws to companies in other countries. They're not saying Twitter can't operate as they do, just that they're not prepared to assist them once the data hits the Pakistan border. This is equivalent to any western country blocking access to data (copyright infringement, child pornography, $randomEvil), even though it may be considered legal in the country they're hosted in.

Re:Two issues... (2)

Alumoi (1321661) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057771)

Really? Try telling this to US.

Re:Two issues... (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057871)

Really? Try telling this to US.

I am not brainwashed American. My understanding of liberties and freedoms is way ahead of current US American "freedom" stuff. I never said that some bullies abuse their international powers to impose own laws in Cuba, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Africa.

Re:Two issues... (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058113)

If they have a physical presents in that country they dam sure do. On the other hand they can just block the content which they did. So the real question here is why do people care about Pakistanis? Its within there own religion beliefs to do what they did. At least they can fully pratice there religion. Here in the USA there is no real religious freedoms its mans laws first or should i say cooperate law.

Re:Two issues... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057199)

I have been wanting to make a series of prophet Mohammed cartoons similar to the spiketv Battlepope ones for a while.

(Exposing such things as his paedophilia and other anti American sentiments. With lots of American flags and the second coming and the usurping of the pretender.)

I think it would be pretty funny.

The world really needs to learn that the opinions of others are utterly irrelevant to them.

So many peoples psyches are totally screwed and illogical.

(Same with relationships there is only 2 opinions that matter and that is the 2 people in the relationship.)

Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 1776? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057241)

(Exposing such things as his paedophilia and other anti American sentiments. With lots of American flags and the second coming and the usurping of the pretender.)

Paedophilia? Interesting but must be taken into context with cultural norms at the time. In fact, Mohammad was quite progressive compared to what was going on in Christian Europe at the time.

Secondly, Mohammad anti-American? You do realize he died 1100 years before America was born. I suspect your comment is more geared towards being provocative and inciting a reaction than just letting things be.

Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057275)

a contest to draw pictures of naked children could probably get you in hot water in some more western countries as well

Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (5, Interesting)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057435)

Mohammed had 12 wives. You have evidence of polygamy on that scale in Christian Europe?
Mohammed was 52 years old when he consummated his marriage to the 9-year old Aisha. This was common in Christian Europe?
How was this progressive? How was Europe worse? Do tell defender of Islam. .

Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (0)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058067)

Mohammed had 12 wives. You have evidence of polygamy on that scale in Christian Europe?

Mohammed was 52 years old when he consummated his marriage to the 9-year old Aisha. This was common in Christian Europe?

How was this progressive? How was Europe worse? Do tell defender of Islam. .

No man in his right mind wants more then 1 wife.

And as for a 52 year old marring a 9 year old, that isn't new. Sure, in modern times we don't do that, but thru out history the old marrying the young has been very common place. Usually for alliances. In case you don't know, marriage for love is a recent thing, you used to marry whom your family told you.

For the record, I'm not Islam, I do NOT believe in religions. But if your going to knock them, do it right. Not with stuff that honestly doesn't matter.

Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (5, Interesting)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058251)

It matters because Muhammad is considered an example for all Muslims to follow. His marrying Aisha at 6 (and bedding her at 9) sets the precedent for modern day child marriage and sex in the Muslim world. One famous example: Ayatollah Khomeni, who married a 10 year old. You don't have to look far to find thousands of other examples. What about Qur'an 4:34 (pick a translation on quran.com) which commands a husband to beat his wife. Could that not have something to do with the 90% of women in Pakistan who have suffered domestic abuse (or the one in four in Turkey, considered the most "progressive" of Muslim countries?) All religion is poison but some are worse than others.

Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (3, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058439)

Minor mistake on the statistics. It's four in ten women in turkey [globalpost.com] , not one in four. That's 40% of women. And those who think this is limited to muslims in "those" countries -- sorry. 6 out of 10 Imams in Sweden were recently found to be giving out illegal advice on domestic abuse [jihadwatch.org] . And that's according to Swedish state tv. I don't see why so many in the west insist on shoving their heads in the sand in the name of "tolerance" (as if domestic violence was something that deserved tolerance). If a holy book tells people to do something, there is a pretty good chance they will.

Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058459)

"Mohammed was 52 years old when he consummated his marriage to the 9-year old Aisha. This was common in Christian Europe?"

The Pope commands an Army of Pedophiles. Close enough for you?

Re:Two issues... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057315)

the religion aspect has nothing to do with it (and given that no-images-of-the-prophet-Mohammed is a central tennant of Islam intended to prevent idol worship it's perfectly understandable).

In my cult, neo-islamist, worshiping idol image of the prophet Mohammed is a central tenant. It has everything to do with religion because it is against my religion. If some cult can impose their idea over mine it mean that Pakistan is an evil theocracy. While all censorship is bad, some censorship are worst then other.

Re:Two issues... (0)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057517)

Pakistan is a theocracy... religion is part of the state. as far as evil? i am sure they feel the same way about others.

Heck if you look at the current elections here in US, it would seem the republicans would have us believe US is another "inspired" state. which "I" think is pretty darn evil/backward/wtf moment in history.

Re:Two issues... (0)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057413)

But as we all know, these bans are often for political reasons and the religious pretext for this case is probably just that, a pretext.

Re:Two issues... (2)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057589)

I'm sorry but I fail to see how depicting an image of a dude is the same as advocating the extermination of a people or copyright violations.
I think a better comparison would be the depiction of nudity in public in the US. Ashcroft even covered up lady justice because of her filthy boobs.

We have the same idol hang-ups as the Pakistanis and they're driven by retarded right wing extremist assholes. The constitution is intended to protect us from them, but it even fails to work in the US.

ONE main issue (2)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057603)

There's only one main issue, and that's the basic human right of free expression, unfettered by state or religion sponsored oppression.

The examples you cite aren't even remotely related and none actually justify morally or practically suppression of free speech.

Criminalizing Holocaust Denial, whatever it's achieved or claimed sociological benefits in Germany, is a political restraint on free speech probably no longer justifiable in Germany, even by it's supporters' standards. Now it's merely a technique to suppress far right political movements, even though most far right parties have become more PR savvy and dropped the Hitlerian rhetoric and focused on more regional and contemporary issues.

Incitement to murder *is* probably a justifiable restraint of speech, but only in the same category as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and only so long as the incitement is literal, specific and likely to actually result in a homicide. The risk is that it will get used against people advocating for radical political change, despite the fact that even though revolutions may cause deaths, advocating for revolution isn't advocating for killing.

Religiously-derived bans on freedom of speech can't even claim some practical value as Incitement and Denial -- the only thing being "protected" is the public status of a religious figure -- they are the pure suppressions of freedom of speech. If anything, they stoke the passions which often result in violence. They're not even particularly logical -- if you follow Islam, how or why would you be swayed or even in a position to participate in anti-Islamic speech?

A ban like this is entirely ridiculous and even more so for a country like Pakistan. Pakistan needs to do everything it can to promote itself as a regional center in Asia. Religious or politically motivated suppression of human rights will only isolate them, reducing their political, economic and social standing.

Re:Two issues... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057625)

But what about idols/imagery in art? Are we opposed to all art? I know some other bunch that is opposed to all art...Taliban.

"(and given that no-images-of-the-prophet-Mohammed is a central tennant of Islam intended to prevent idol worship it's perfectly understandable"

This statement you made means it has got everything to do with religion/cult contradicting your earlier statement.

Re:Two issues... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058039)

They don't allow images of Mohammed, we don't allow images of mickey mouse or idolitous curved corners on some electronic devices.

Whoah... hold up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057163)

Censorship is rampant here in the West, we should clean up our own back yard before knocking on our neighbors door.

I'm not defending the paki decision, far from it, its disgracful, but we're so used to finger pointing and highlighting foreign repression we take our eye off the ball here.

Re:Whoah... hold up (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057219)

The story is that this ban is illegal according to a recent Pakistani court ruling, not that they're upset about depictions of Muhammad. After the Danish cartoonist thing, that's kind of old hat.

Re:Whoah... hold up (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057531)

++interesting and informative

Re:Whoah... hold up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057695)

Why acknowledge it as informative if there is no source. I searched and I can find no evidence of such a ruling. Wikipedia's page on free speech clearly states blasphemy is illegal in Pakistan.

Re:Whoah... hold up (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057669)

[citation needed]

Re:Whoah... hold up (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057575)

What popular web sites have been blocked in the US? How many books have been banned vs. any islamic country? Which cartoons have been declared unlawful? Where are the American road signs that say all non-practicing christians must exit the freeway? How many churches have been closed or burned down because with the tacit approval of the state?

This is none of your fuckin business (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057209)

What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.

There is no point to posting this to slashdot. Other countries have different notions of free speech and censorship and just because it doesn't jibe with your western values doesn't make it a story.

Stay out of their internal affairs. This is not news for nerds.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (5, Interesting)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057281)

What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.

I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057381)

There is no such thing as basic human rights. Whatever rights people have are granted or restricted by their individual governments. They do not transcend borders, that statement is plain idiotic and nonsense. Sound like you have the dipshit argument.

I win again, 2-0. Checkmate.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057483)

Whatever rights people have are granted or restricted by their individual governments.

Moron.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057613)

There is no such thing as basic human rights. Whatever rights people have are granted or restricted by their individual governments.

I am so very, very glad I don't live in your world. Say hi to Big Brother for me.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057475)

Access to truth? You mean, like in Wikileaks?

I can see how governments are loving that freedom, yeah.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057571)

+1 sensible
however the article should have mentioned how the block was implemented (dns, IP) and if there were workarounds people could use (simple as proxy?) making it more relevant for the "news for nerds" moniker.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (2)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058061)

What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.

I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.

It's their country and their culture. They WANT it this way. Pakistan means "Land of the Pure", after all. Their capitol city is "Islamabad". This is what they want. As long as they're not invading your country, let them do as they damn well please. Oh, and their "dip-shit religious government"? They like it, thanks.

You are living proof that the left has just as many people seeking dragons to slay abroad as the right does. Have you ever considered... just for a moment... that Pakistanis don't share your ideas, and would refuse to live by them? Do you really think it's "progress" to force them to live by your thinking? What are you going to do, force them to be "civilized"... like you?

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058383)

Then go fight for their rights. Claiming you have one is one thing. Being willing to lay down your life for it is another.

That's probably why we're losing so many of them in Western countries. The current generations are mostly composed of spineless twerps who are completely fine as long as their television shows aren't interrupted.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057325)

Calm down. Grab yourself a ticket to the matinee stoning. Allah willing, your virgin body will depart this world in a hail of explosives and ball bearings, ideally on a crowded bus full of Muslims of a variety marginally different from your brand. I'm sure that Mohammed himself, if he can tear himself away from his harem of pre-schoolers, will swoop down on his magic flying donkey to bring you to Allah's freebie brothel in the sky.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (2)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057487)

Stay out of their internal affairs. This is not news for nerds.

Whenever one human oppresses another, particularly with ridiculous superstitious nonsense, it becomes the business of all of us. And when whole governments do it, the situation escalates into not just offensive, but an outright human rights issue.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057963)

When their cult gains influence in your backyard it will be too late to foment effective resistance.

Streisand fail? (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057297)

I actually read TFA, hoping to see what, exactly, pissed them off, but apparently Pakistan's not telling.

Either Pakistan found a way to get around the Streisand Effect (if you just mass-block an entire large site and never say which particulars caused it, it gets no publicity), or they just wanted to censor it and found blasphemy to be a decent excuse.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (5, Informative)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057353)

I almost missed that it was back again today [battleswarmblog.com] . I participated in 2010 [battleswarmblog.com] , but nobody seemed to be doing it in 2011. Glad to see it's back, and I would have missed it if Pakistan hadn't brought attention to it.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day serves three important purposes:

1. It reaffirms that the First Amendment is alive and well, and that the United States legal system cannot, should not, and will not knuckle under to transnational demands for Sharia-compliant suppression of "blasphemy" as defined by oppressive theocratic Islamic states.
2. To prove that in the 21st century censorship is self-defeating, as it only draws more attention to whatever is being censored than ignoring it would.
3. To provide so many targets for would-be jihadists to assault that the give up due to the futility of the task. Theo Van Gogh is dead [city-journal.org] and Molly Norris is still in hiding [battleswarmblog.com] . Standing in solidarity with them proves to jihadists that using violence to achieve political ends in a free society is counter-productive (something people eager to attack Chicago cops with Molotov cocktails evidently haven't learned).

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057495)

Should we have a child porn day, too? Maybe soften it a bit and just draw the pictures. That would serve to show that we will not knuckle under to oppressive countries full of uptight rednecks on a jihad. "Blasphemy" is entirely subjective and totally in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (3, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057511)

I don't know of anyone that holds child pornography in such reverence that they will threaten with death anyone who depicts it. False equivalency is false.

=Smidge=

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057503)

anyone bringing up sharia law in the context of something threatening to US freedoms is an insufferable moron and best not to waste your time with.

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (2)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057663)

Why? Many Muslim organizations and individuals freely admit they would like to replace the constitution with Sharia. Some Christian organizations ( if you can find them ) say the same. Why is it OK to acknowledge one as a threat but not the other. It's not racism to acknowledge a religion as a danger. Look at the UK where Sharia courts are already established and the controversy surrounding that (needless to say, what they do is far more than what was originally advertised).

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057845)

Nice Ad-Hominem, do you have an actual rebuttal? "Everyone Draw Mohammed Day" was a direct reaction to violent intimidation tactics used by Muslim extremists in Europe to suppress freedom of speech. The motivation for this intimidation? Blasphemy as defined under Sharia law.

Perhaps you've forgotten the incident in Florida where a pastor was going to burn a Quran until he knuckled under pressure from the same types of intimidation?

Burning books and religious documents have been a protected form of political speech in this country for over 100 years. I've just cited two cases where sharia law posed a threat to freedom of speech in Western Civilization, and one recent case in the United States.

What do you have to back your idiotic assertion that concern over this trend makes one an "insufferable moron"?
Personally, I don't think you know jack shit about Islam's history of religious oppression in Africa & the Middle East and just presume that any criticism of a foreign culture is xenophobia. You know... except when it's FGM(Female Genital Mutilation) or the oppression of women's rights, or the persecution of homosexuals that's being talked about.

Liberals have never given a shit about civil rights as demonstrated by their "war on drugs" in the 80s, or their treatment of blacks during the civil rights era. The Democratic attempt to assume the position of de-factor protectorate of the non-white vote has never been about genuine compassion and has always been the rallying cry of pawns in a chess game played by political machines and oil interests.

We respect the sovereignty of 3rd world countries when it's economically convenient and prop of dictatorships when it isn't. This spans all political parties in every country where money buys influence. The only truly persecuted minority on this planet is the authentic and uncorrupted populist. Guaranteed to be ignored, slandered, or assassinated.

But please do! Get sucked in to the divisive politics of a race war as the defender of the disenfranchised bigots from Arabia. Remember, a wedge-issue-a-day keeps discussion of the monetary system at bay.

We wouldn't want JP Morgans $2,000,000,000 "oopsie" getting too much attention on the telly. Heaven forbid people remember that Eric Holder has not brought a single wall-street criminal to justice over the 2008 market crash. A crash which was largely the result of securities fraud. Or that TARP was repaid with the dividends from treasury bonds bought with the fed's own money. Graft by any other name would smell just as bipartisan.

We could solve the energy crisis by strapping an alternator to the SEC's revolving door, but instead let us concern ourselves with cultural conflict.

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057933)

Don't worry Islam apologist. If you want to see what happens when sharia law is in place, please look at: Pakistan, Malaysia, Maldives, Iran, Saudi Arabia, various African countries, etc.

Remember, a women's testimony is only worth half of that of a mans. And is worth less than that of a non-believer. Remember that treating women like chattel, is perfectly a-okay. Remember that beating your chattel, is perfectly a-okay, the Ulama happily point out the ways and publish materials on how to do this so you don't damage it. After all, if you damage it too much it might affect your image. And so on, and so forth. That stoning women for adultery is the best way to deal with them, after all the man he deserves nothing, maybe a couple of lashes.

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058077)

>upset about Sharia and consider it a threat

I don't see why you Christfags don't get all bent out of shape about Dominionism and Prosperity Gospel and all the other shit the Evangelicals seem to keep trying to shove down everyone's throats.

Fuckhead.

--
BMO

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058121)

I don't see why you atheists give a free pass to Islam. Criticising one but not the other just seems a little... prejudiced. This article is about the religion of Pakistan -- Islam. Seems you're a little obsessed,

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058187)

Sharia law outside of the US is not a threat to freedom inside the US.

Politicians inside the US buying into the Christian equivalent of Sharia (Santorum, et al), however, *are* a threat to freedom inside the US.

Priorities.

Get some, asshole.

--
BMO

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058333)

I'm an agnostic and I agree with you that Santorum was a threat. That being said, to say that Islam is not a threat or that many Muslims do not seek to enforce Shariah in the United States would be a lie. Americans who seek to establish anti-Shariah legislation are merely seeking to avoid a situation like in the UK where there are already Shariah courts. [guardian.co.uk] The GP does have a point in that people like you who selectively criticize religion do come off as prejudiced. If you're going to criticize religion, at least criticize them all.

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058467)

Americans who seek to establish anti-Shariah legislation are idiots.

Fixed.

The first amendment requires that the government not endorse a religion. This includes Islam too. Officially sanctioned Sharia courts would be therefore per-se illegal. We don't need more legislation, it's already done.

The only people who complain about Sharia courts in the US are politicians trying to ingratiate themselves with their "base."

All the while it's just fine with the RWNJs that Republicans wear their religion on their sleeves already.

The amount of doublethink required to hold both Islam as a threat and Christian Republican Dominionists as *not* a threat hurts my head.

--
BMO

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058271)

Don't know too many atheists who think more of Islam than Christianity. Both religions are pretty absurd, and both have plenty of blood on their hands.

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057547)

I prefer 'just because you can be a dick about something doesn't mean you have to be' day.

That day is every day for me. It's called basic human decency and having respect for others. You should look it up sometime.

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057567)

Mohammed taking a nap!

zZz
@|{><-<

How scandalous!

Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058521)

I almost missed that it was back again today [battleswarmblog.com] . I participated in 2010 [battleswarmblog.com] , but nobody seemed to be doing it in 2011. Glad to see it's back, and I would have missed it if Pakistan hadn't brought attention to it.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day serves three important purposes:

1. It reaffirms that the First Amendment is alive and well, and that the United States legal system cannot, should not, and will not knuckle under to transnational demands for Sharia-compliant suppression of "blasphemy" as defined by oppressive theocratic Islamic states. 2. To prove that in the 21st century censorship is self-defeating, as it only draws more attention to whatever is being censored than ignoring it would. 3. To provide so many targets for would-be jihadists to assault that the give up due to the futility of the task. Theo Van Gogh is dead [city-journal.org] and Molly Norris is still in hiding [battleswarmblog.com] . Standing in solidarity with them proves to jihadists that using violence to achieve political ends in a free society is counter-productive (something people eager to attack Chicago cops with Molotov cocktails evidently haven't learned).

4. While drawing pictures of Mohammed may be blasphemous in Islam and thereby verboten to Muslims, it's not blasphemous outside Islam, and non-Muslims are under no obligation to obey what is essentially an Islamic doctrine. Essentially, it flouts its nose against Muslim attempts to introduce Shariah law to the West and other non-Muslim countries, particularly since Shariah laws, unlike laws of other religions, is all about forcing Muslims and non Muslims to live under Islamic law. If this goes unchallenged, next thing you know, veils will be required for both Muslim and non-Muslim women, pork and alcohol will be forbidden to both Muslims and non-Muslims, FGMs will become legal in the West, and so on.

Free speech? (4, Interesting)

GofG (1288820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057357)

Before we get all high and mighty about stupid a-rabs getting upset over pictures of muhammed, lets remember that holocaust denial is illegal pretty much everywhere in eastern europe and is strongly censored everywhere else in the modern world. This is important because even though holocaust denialism's arguments have been thoroughly refuted on every front, they still aren't allowed to make them. This is a very strange policy and likely leads to more suspicion in this day and age, with censorship of an idea almost automatically giving weight to that idea.

So when we have mass huge contests for drawing pictures of muhammed, demonstrating our right to free speech with such a dividing, needless, harmful exercise, alienating an entire region of the earth, just remember: you aren't allowed to be disgusted when the islamic world responds with an International Holocaust Cartoon Competition [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Free speech? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057569)

you aren't allowed to be disgusted when the islamic world responds with an International Holocaust Cartoon Competition.

Of course you are. And the Muslims are allowed to be disgusted by the Mohammed competition. It's when you move from disgust to censorship that there's a problem. By the way, I *do* feel the European decisions to censor Holocaust deniers is wrong.

Re:Free speech? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057601)

As an European, so do I.

Re:Free speech? (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057609)

you aren't allowed to be disgusted when the islamic world responds with an International Holocaust Cartoon Competition.

On one level, that is correct, tit for tat, on another it really isn't (IMHO). Drawing pictures of Mohammad is more like when Family Guy makes fun of Jesus, it is kind of taboo, and bothers people, but in the end no harm done. Making fun of 6 million people dying is on a completely different level, infinitely worse then "cartoons".

Re:Free speech? (5, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057637)

No. We're allowed to be disgusted, just as Muslims are allowed to be disgusted. What we aren't allowed to do is go rioting through the streets, stabbing people, killing the artists, burning down embassies, and causing actual physical harm to others in retaliation. When was the last time you saw a Jew do that over a holocaust cartoon?

Re:Free speech? (2)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057973)

you aren't allowed to be disgusted

Your reasoning unraveled right there. By juxtaposing offended feelings in the second paragraph with censorship taken to limit offended feelings, you blur the moral distinction between feeling offended and taking action upon others to prevent feeling offended. People have the right to give and take offense, there's nothing wrong with Europeans taking offense at Holocaust denial, nor is there anything wrong with Muslims taking offense at blasphemy. The trouble comes from the action of silencing others. By transitioning in your post from a legitimate complaint about censorship to a complaint about double standards when/if Europeans feel offense when the tables are turned, you seem to be implying that feeling offended is enough to establish a claim of hypocrisy when it occurs in an environment that condones censorship. This logic does not follow.

Re:Free speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058245)

Since when did "sticks and stones may break my bones" stop being relevant?

If someone offends you, get the fuck over it, you're a grown up. You're not going to make up the next day with Leprosy as someone insulted the figment of your imagination that you call a deity.

theocracy in the making (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057513)

Lets see how long Pakistan hold out, seem to be a country on its way down to anarchy and theocracy. Great and with nukes just what we need.

Re:theocracy in the making (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057981)

What we need is to switch sides and help progressive India and China instead of the Pakiban.

The only cure for Pakistan is an Indian first strike, and the only thing barely keeping the Pakiban in their box is the Indian military.

I want to be liberal, but lots of Muslims are nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057835)

Hi -

Being an American of slightly mixed ethnic background myself, and also being pretty liberal / progressive, after Sept 11th I went out of my way to try and give Muslims the benefit of the doubt. Surely it was only a tiny minority of fanatics who held such extreme, violent views, and certainly the great majority were not really that different than myself.

Well, I just can't do it anymore. Sure, almost any religion or ethnic group you could name could be associated with some terrible things at one time or another. But considering all the very real, serious problems in the world today, to react so strongly to _cartoons_, well, I just don't know what to say. It's like they think we are still living in the middle ages or something.

"Religion of peace" ? My ass!

I am from Pakistan, Twitter is working for me. (2, Informative)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057955)

I am from Pakistan, Twitter is working for me.

My ISP is the local telecom monopoly(PTCL), so I doubt it's a case of selective application by ISP's.

See? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058021)

Religion can be a force for good (even if it's accidental).

Re:See? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058087)

Religion can be a force for good (even if it's accidental).

God I love sarcasm.

Thought Experiment: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058175)

Depict MLK as an ape
See the reaction in the US (and elsewhere).

Dear Pakistani government: (2)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058185)

Nobody's forcing anyone to look at these images. Anyone who really wants to will anyway. By making unenforceable laws, you simply make yourself look foolish, weak and powerless.

Dear Government of Pakistan (0)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058201)

FUCK YOU
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>