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!

Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the redacted-redacted-redacted-redacted dept.

Censorship 678

Onymous Hero writes "Following the recent YouTube video 'The Innocence of Muslims' and the subsequent Muslim violence, Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.' The World Telecommunications Policy Forum (a UN body) is the vehicle by which Saudi Arabia (and possibly other states) will try to use to implement a global set of internet content standards."

cancel ×

678 comments

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

One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629621)

It's going to happen some day. The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.

One little tragic baby step at a time.

Public order be damned!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629849)

And fuck the Saudis, and anybody else who wants control! And fuckity fuck fuck fuck their goddamn perverted mohamed!

Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (1, Troll)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41629893)

Two things. First, you're over-exaggerating it a bit, it is unlikely that any drastic anti-freedom legislation will be passed in the west based on the wishes of Saudi Arabia in the next decade or two. Or more, if you freedom-lovers choose to lead instead of whine.

Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.

Moreover, the US rationale for this was always the perception of the superior morality of the American way, not some logical, scientific argument. Why are you complaining when other countries notice what yours does, and try to do the same?

Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (5, Informative)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#41629999)

Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.

Oh, really? So what was this [wikipedia.org] all about?

Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41630013)

Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Go read some history books! What a crock!

Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41630067)

The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.

Are you arguing that what non-Muslims should do is commit genocide against Muslims? If you're not, could you explain how invading Iraq and Afghanistan and applying economic sanctions to Iran, Syria, and the Gaza Strip constitute "appeasing"?

one word! (4, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#41629625)

NO!

Re:one word! (-1, Flamebait)

Sollord (888521) | about 2 years ago | (#41629681)

but! If it wasn't for that video our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!

Re:one word! (4, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 2 years ago | (#41629725)

but! If it wasn't religious extremists our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!

FTFY

Re:one word! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629751)

but! If it wasn't for political extremists our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!

FTFY

Re:one word! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629763)

but! If it wasn't TERRORISTS our US embassies around the world wouldn't have been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided and the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this! Time for war, boys!

FTFY

FTFY again

Re:one word! (3, Insightful)

Sollord (888521) | about 2 years ago | (#41629983)

Fuck that pack up and get everyone out and let the region burn and the barbarians kill each other if they want to kill each other over silly religious beliefs let them but they attack us once we leave them to rot as they seem to want show them the error of there way with bombs and drones if that fails we can always produces several kilometers of glass in a instant till they learn.

I see no point in wasting the lives of our troops on helping people who don't really want it. A supposed silent majority is no majority at all

Then again there is something to be said about stopping genocide which we will probably see one way or another when it comes to the Christians and Jews in the region if we did pull out.

Re:one word! (5, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#41629731)

And if women didn't dress provocatively, they wouldn't be raped.

Yeah, yeah, that's it. Suppress freedom of expression so half-crazed Islamist assholes don't have an excuse to riot. Sounds like a great plan to me.

Re:one word! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629875)

But she showed her ankles!!!! I COULDN'T HELP MYSELF FROM RAPING HER AFTER THAT!!!

Besides don't forget to stone her after raping her. It's the Muslim way!

Re:one word! (5, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 years ago | (#41629943)

Now here's the catch. A riot was asked what they didn't like about the video or what was so wrong, answer, I would not watch that rubbish. So what do you do with morons who riot about content they have never even bloody seen and like automatons they are rioting because the were told to be insulted and that they should riot.

Saudi Arabian government can fuck right off. The Government of Saudi Arabia via their nominated sub-cult the Wahhabis were the shit heads telling everyone to riot. No matter what anyone writes, draws or video if the criminally insane subcult of Islam spends money on telling the rest of the Islam world to riot via the religious communication channels then a percentage of fundamentalists world wide will riot.

The problem is not the content the problem is the corrupt autocratic government of Saudi Arabia and it's fiscal campaign corruption of the US government. How many US politicians are crawling around feeding at the hand of the Saudi government and it's Wahhabi religious fanatics, shit they ran airliners into US buildings, own substantial interests in US media channels, corrupt US politicians and the US governments turns a blind eye, again and again and again.

Re:one word! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41630005)

You mean that don't have that excuse. They'll always think of others which is why the appeasement tactic against aggressors never works.

Re:one word! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629737)

NO!

but! If it wasn't for that video our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!

Again, "NO!"

Re:one word! (0)

FudRucker (866063) | about 2 years ago | (#41629743)

you actually believe that pile of bullshit the govt's mainstream media propaganda machine blathered on the TV?

I think there is another reason why the natives in those other lands revolted and the govt does not want us western citizens to find out the real reason so they made up that story about the video

Re:one word! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41629887)

The "reason" was that they were assholes who wanted to attack those embassies anyway and they just used the video as a convenient excuse.

Saudi douches, internet censorship in 1 easy step (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629635)

Disconnect yourselves from it. Done and done.

Re:Saudi douches, internet censorship in 1 easy st (3, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#41629881)

Yeah or create your own separate network for the caliphate. You can call it camelnet.

no (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41629647)

I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos. But this is way over the line. This asks for the ability to apply censorship rules to everyone. They should be bitch slapped and sent out of the room.

Re:no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629749)

Yeah. We here in the US only do that for the content Mafia gangs.

Re:no (3, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#41629779)

I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos.

I am. Islam is a blight on humanity and evil things like those emanating from Iran [telegraph.co.uk] , Saudi Arabia [dailymail.co.uk] and Pakistan [npr.org] flow directly from Islam.

Re:no (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629821)

Try to get to know real muslims, those living day by day and living quite ordinary lives without intruding on anyone else's. Don't mistake islam for the noisy and the greedy. Most just want to live in peace. Not saying Islam doesn't have any problems, like Christianity, it has many, but the majority of muslims are quite peaceful and sane.

Re:no (4, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#41629869)

Note: I said the evil flows from Islam. I didn't say that Muslims are evil. The Muslims I know are all decent and humane people. That's because they ignore all the nasty crap in their religion and only pick and choose the benign stuff. But the religion itself is full of nastiness and evil and is a blight on humanity.

Re:no (3, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | about 2 years ago | (#41629891)

Don't mistake good folks who pay only lip service to religion as Islam. You can't possibly be an observant muslim and a good person (as the holy book demands murdering infidels), but merely calling yourself a muslim does not preclude you from being fit for civilisation. You "just" need to disregard core articles of the faith -- fortunately, most do.

Re:no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629965)

as the holy book demands murdering infidels

Isn't a similar statement also true for some of the instructions in the Bible? Wouldn't that make it impossible (by your standards) for someone to be an observant Christian and a good person?

Re:no (5, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#41630023)

Isn't a similar statement also true for some of the instructions in the Bible? Wouldn't that make it impossible (by your standards) for someone to be an observant Christian and a good person?

IMO, yes. All religion is bad. That being said, some religions are worse than others and IMO Islam is the worst of the lot.

Re:no (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#41629913)

The problem is telling them apart because the raving jihadi when he chooses suddenly claims to be a moderate, peace loving muslim.

Re:no (2)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#41629923)

I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos.

I am. Islam is a blight on humanity and evil things like those emanating from Iran [telegraph.co.uk] , Saudi Arabia [dailymail.co.uk] and Pakistan [npr.org] flow directly from Islam.

Blaming the religion is the wrong approach. All you will accomplish by attacking a religion is to add to the resolve of those extremist followers who you seem to conflate with the vast majority of those followers who are not so fearful, ignorant, and hateful. Notice I said "a" religion. Not Islam. Christianity has it's share of nut-job followers too. They're not as well organized since The Enlightenment, but they are still there. We need to leave the religion out of it and deal with religious extremists for what they are, violent and anti-social criminals.

Re:no (2)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#41630045)

Blaming the religion is the wrong approach

Why is that?

On the contrary, blaming the religion is exactly the right approach because it is the religion that contains the evil. Most Muslims are quite decent human beings and are deserving of respect. Islam, on the other hand, is a set of ideas and philosophy and we should not hesitate to criticize it.

Re:no (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#41629995)

Mao didn't need a religious excuse to kill millions, neither did Stalin. North Korea manages to oppress their people to a degree the middle eastern nations can only dream about. Christianity was used as a rallying cry for countless atrocities throughout the middle ages. Evil flows from evil people. If the evil people couldn't use Islam to be evil they'd use something else.

Gee can you say censorship?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629651)

In a word, "no". In two words "fuck no".

A governing body such as this would be co-opted in a heart beat.

Aww poor little guys (4, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about 2 years ago | (#41629661)

How about we tell them to stop being so sensitive and they can just ignore it.

Re:Aww poor little guys (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629823)

Because that *totally* works, when their entire model of reality is built on the thing we're rattling on.

I know enough about psychology, to know that their brains literally fear for their lives when facing such "attacks".

The only way we will get rid of it, is by doing the *opposite* of hating them back. Unfortunately, we're just as much hate-filled pieces of shit, when it is justified by *our* agenda/mindset.
The only solution to religious schizophrenia, is to make them *feel* (remember: this is unrelated to rationality) that the real world is nicer, safer and better for them. While keeping their self-respect intact. (Hint: Sell it as “Hey, look, you just found this even *greater* extension of your already great mindset!”. As if living in the real world *was part of their mindset all along*, and *they* came up with it. Nobody disagrees with others saying he’s great and had a great idea. ;)

Next time you see a fundamentalist, go the high road: Be nice and forthcoming. Make a nice emotional argument for the real world.

awwww poor religious oppressive country... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629663)

Can't keep your citizens in line with fear and religious nonsense anymore?

The sexist in me... (1)

thisisfutile (2640809) | about 2 years ago | (#41629669)

...wants to send plane loads of Vagisil over to them.

Drop dead (5, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#41629671)

If your feelings get hurt every time someone calls you out on your religious convictions, either you're not confident enough of your religion or you need to stop believing in fantasies.

Either you believe in freedom of speech, and all the nastiness that goes with it, or you want the world to adopt your narrow-minded, pathetic excuses for why women shouldn't drive, be allowed to walk alone or meet with men who aren't their relatives.

When you drag yourselves up to the 20th century, then we can discuss things you have issues with.

Re:Drop dead (1)

thisisfutile (2640809) | about 2 years ago | (#41629733)

"When you drag yourselves up to the 20th century, then we can discuss things you have issues with." I just felt this needed repeating

Re:Drop dead (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 2 years ago | (#41629785)

I'd be okay if they dragged themselves all the way up to the 21st century, but I suppose 20th is a good start.

Re:Drop dead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629811)

Even the 18th or 19th century would be a good start.

Re:Drop dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629911)

I'd be okay if they dragged themselves all the way up to the 21st century, but I suppose 20th is a good start.

Depends on the place and time in the 20th century they drag up to. I'd prefer them not to drag up to 1940s Germany, or the Soviet Union.

Re:Drop dead (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#41629969)

but I suppose 20th is a good start.

Thus my point.

Re:Drop dead (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#41629833)

It's not just "comfortable in your religious convictions." If someone (e.g. Saudi Arabia) calls for censorship because something offends their religious sensibilities, then they should realize that their statements might offend someone else. Giving your religious explanation why women shouldn't drive, vote, or be seen in public? That offends me. By your own rules it should be stricken from the Internet. In fact, anything about Islam is bound to offend some Christians/Jews/Atheists so take that down. And Christian/Jewish posts might offend some Muslims so remove that. And Atheist posts should be taken down for offending the religious. Pretty soon you'll have nothing left on the Internet.

Oh wait, that's the plan. Never mind.

(As far as I'm concerned, I'm comfortable enough in my religious beliefs. People can criticize them all they want. I might ignore them but the only time I might ask for them to be taken down would be if they turn violent/threatening.)

Re:Drop dead (0)

mapkinase (958129) | about 2 years ago | (#41629837)

>Either you believe in freedom of speech, and all the nastiness that goes with it, or you want the world to adopt your narrow-minded, pathetic excuses for why women shouldn't drive, be allowed to walk alone or meet with men who aren't their relatives.

I find it amusing that of all restrictions in Shariah you chose the ones related to women...

And, yes, I choose the latter. Moreover, since I am too old to go anywhere, I choose to work on establishing the latter in your country.

And may Allah help me with that. Ameen.

Barking up the wrong tree (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629855)

Censorship isn't about "protecting the people" (who are to be censored). Censorship is about expanding the business of government through both spending and power over the people (which will be leveraged to justify yet even more spending). In other words, censorship is merely one of 1000 gimmicks the ruling class uses to get rich. It's nothing but a cheap smokescreen for the real objective.

Re:Drop dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629889)

unfortunately they wont drag themselves into the current century. we (i,e, the west) will have to drag them kicking and screaming into it. the funny thing is that all those saudi princes enjoy many of the privileges that they do not afford to their citizens, whether it is at home or abroad.

now beware, highly inflammatory material coming :)

my thesis: one thing that pervades muslim society, but is not talked about frequently, is homosexuality. think about it: women are faced with all these restrictions so what is a man suppose to do when a woman does not have the freedom of expression to reveal herself (not necessarily nude) in a magazine or on a beach or in a shopping mall? the average heterosexual man would be driven to insanity.

Re:Drop dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629939)

That's not how the schizophrenic mind works. It's indeed not about confidence, but about feeling the fear of death when we rattle on the shitty instable wooden pillar that they have built their entire world on. If it falls over, how will they even know they're not falling through the floor tomorrow? It is *incredibly* frightening to a person, to lose its entire model of reality. Because it makes achieving a goal, like survival, completely impossible.

Offer them a really nice, stable, reliable, safe foundation, and tell them that they discovered it, and it was even more exactly what they wanted all along, than their current pillar. Because it is. Then the whole nonsense will vanish into thin air all by itself.

(The reason we don't already do this constantly, is because 1. it is an art to create a gradient (dragging and pushing) that is strong enough, or will take a loong time, 2. they are extremely over-confident and we aren’t, so they tend to dominate the mindset (e.g. about if you're supposed to respect them or laugh at them), and 3. it is morally not acceptable to force our own mindsets on them, even when we think it will help them, because then we're doing exactly what they are doing, and we're being arrogant dicks. It's a complex matter.)

Re:Drop dead (1)

xelah (176252) | about 2 years ago | (#41630063)

If your feelings get hurt every time someone calls you out on your religious convictions, either you're not confident enough of your religion or you need to stop believing in fantasies.

I think this neglects the transmission mechanism for religion. New believers don't believe because they're persuaded by argument. They're indoctrinated through social and moral mechanisms - a lot of serious and important people around them take their belief very seriously, the beliefs are treated with reference and respect, and there's a strong 'belief in belief', a sense that belief is the morally right thing to do. The environment to which impressionable people (children especially, but maybe adults with less predisposition for religious belief) are exposed is important. Religions which survive are religions which are good at tending to this transmission mechanism, and some do this by being good at making people feel disgust towards attacks on it. And, so, it's no surprise that there are people who get unreasonably upset and angry when this environment is polluted.

For the same reason it's very important that access to competing material is preserved. Indoctrinating others this way is an abuse of a person's position, one which goes on to cause its victims to abuse their position in turn. Keeping genuine discussion and exposure to alternative views available is vital in breaking this cycle of abuse.

What about our public order? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629699)

We should be all in favor of this;) Content standard #1 should prohibit anything that doesn't respect equal rights for ALL and due process, since OUR "public order" is fundamental dependent upon those principles. We are offended by civilizations that don't abide by such policies.

Thank You, the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629703)

For keep funding and supporting this brilliant representative of Islam and the Middle East.

Thank you.

(Note: By "the US" I mean the US governments and authorities, not her citizens, whom I pity much for having to make do with illusionary presidential "choices".)

Isn't is supposed to? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629705)

Freedom of expression is supposed to be uncomfortable and challenge public order. That's the whole idea.

Censorship - part of the 10 year plan (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629717)

It is part of a 10 year plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to make it a universal crime to speak ill of Islam or Mohammed.
Once this were to be achieved it would be easier for the Caliphate to take over the world since any rejection of Islamic expansion would be viewed as anti-Islam hate speech and thus be illegal.
The Muslim Brotherhood is already entrenched in the US Federal government due to the Obama administration.
The blaming of the killing of the ambassador and 3 others in Libya on some film most have not seen nor care about is meant to advance the agenda so that, in an attempt to placate these people, we will disavow the freedom of speech.
I really don't think that Obama was "shooting first" and thinking later necessarily as he accused Romney of doing.
I think Obama's complicity with the Muslim Brotherhood is telling.

Re:Censorship - part of the 10 year plan (1)

packslash (788926) | about 2 years ago | (#41630047)

I've seen some misinformed fantasy posts on slashdot before but this is a contender for crackpot 2012. Care to provide any tangible evidence of how the "The Muslim Brotherhood is already entrenched in the US Federal government due to the Obama administration" and no his middle name is not sufficient.

Yes! Let's do it! (5, Informative)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 2 years ago | (#41629719)

"international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order"

I agree absolutely. Let's set the standard: public disorder - destroying property, killing people - is a crime. Freedom of expression is not. Pretending that freedom of expression forced someone to violence is a transparent and pathetic excuse.

According to TFA, Saudia Arabia is still blaming the video clip for the violence. It is now well-established that the violence was pre-planned; the date of September 11th was picked carefully. The video clip was merely a transparent excuse, and the upload may, in fact, have been coordinated to coincide with the violence. Saudia Arabia is trying to use the situation to impose their fundamentalist values on the rest of the world. No thanks.

So, yes, let's set a standard: Free speech is too important to compromise.

The One Solution (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629721)

OK, do as Saudi Arabia calls... but KISS. We only need One Rule to Rule Them All:

RELIGION HAS NO RIGHTS OVER FREEDOM OF ANY KIND BUT ITSELF.

We have freedom of speech, so telling everyone how shitty religion is is my freedom an no religion has the right to shut me down.
We have freedom of sex, so being homosexual is over that shitty religion you keep talking about.
We have freedom of mind, so I don't mind telling how stupid a people is believing in religion but I won't tolerate they attack me (driving people to commit suicide [christians], shouting I must be killed [muslims], etc.) in fact, I will do my whole to erase religion from Earth as it's the worst infection this planet suffers.

And, at last but not at least, please, do not mix "religion" with "ethic". I won't kill anything because I find it unethical not because my *own* religion forbids it. Religion can be sent without any problem to the incinerator and sent to oblivion.

What the fuck is the point of the UN? (1)

Zarian (797222) | about 2 years ago | (#41629723)

Seriously, what the fuck is its point anymore? Last I check I didn't live in the United Nations. I lived in a country that has it's own sovereign rights and laws.

Re:What the fuck is the point of the UN? (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 2 years ago | (#41629933)

As a forum to bring together countries to discuss global level issues it's a great idea. As a governing body being used to try to create global law, it is a terrible idea. On the up side, it does let idiots like these guys show exactly what they're trying to accomplish when so many of their apologists have tried to water down the true goals of their actions.

Saudis legislating morality ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629727)

is like hillbillies giving out cooking tips for haute cuisine.

New food joint (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629735)

So I guess they won't like this idea for a new Chicken and Goat restaurant. Ali's Cock Bar and fresh banged Goat! The goat will be severed freshly banged and covered in Mohammad's special sauce, then stuffed with a hot sweaty Lebanese sausage. Mohammad doesn't know what it taste like , but his neighbors love it!

I think he forgot (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41629741)

He must have forgotten that the US invented the internet, not Saudi Arabia.

Re:I think he forgot (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 2 years ago | (#41629897)

They only want to censor Tim Berners-Lee's(UK) bit of the internet. I blame Tommy Flowers(UK) for starting this all. Charles Babbage(UK) wouldn't have let this happen. ;)

Re:I think he forgot (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#41629915)

Doesn't matter. It's like someone harping they invented fire and we should heed their authority. The internet is pretty much ubiquitous in all the modern cities of the world now. Is those Saudi's want to censor the Internet, they can censor their own segment or break away like Iran wants to do and form their own national Intranet. Better yet, they can continue to pound sand.

The internet dies by a 1000 cuts (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | about 2 years ago | (#41629753)

A little here, a little there. Soon enough you have to show you have paid your media and news tax and registered your RealID before being allowed online.

Re:The internet dies by a 1000 cuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629863)

Then people buy some kind of device that runs over phone lines and MOdulates and DEModulates the sound into digital information so that they can connect to various servers around the world which are not governed by anyone (at that point paying for a 3hr phone call will probably be cheaper than paying for overages on a broadband connection anyway) and as everyone leaves the internet we see these servers start to have connections between them so on and so forth until everyone (other than politicians) realizes that censorship still doesn't work for more than five minuets.

How about no (1)

theurge14 (820596) | about 2 years ago | (#41629759)

Time to grow up or GTFO, as they would say on the Internet.

Re:How about no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41630017)

nope.

it's TITS or GTFO

Fair's Fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629773)

Policing public discussion and providing measures to deal with content that crosses the line is a good thing if implemented reasonably. I see no problem with it if the Saudi Wahabist terrorist dictatorship is treated in the same way and held to account for its arrogance, greed, and abuse of human rights. Fair's fair, as they say.

what they should do is (4, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | about 2 years ago | (#41629789)

they should do their own censoring and leave the rest of the world's internets alone, china did it, what nations should do is change their system to a nationwide LAN (sortof), and when connecting to websites served from IP address of other nations it should go through a filter if that is what they want to do, if i want to look at naked women eating barbecue pork while holding poker chips with her twat that is my business and should not be of any concern of some religious zealots in some other nation

I've said it before I'll say it again (0)

killmenow (184444) | about 2 years ago | (#41629791)

Saudi Arabia can go fuck itself.

You have NO RIGHT to NOT be offended.

Oh yeah... well.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629795)

I call for saudi arabia to eat a bag of dicks and stfu.

bet i get more votes.

A Modest Proposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629805)

Sure, we wouldn't want any "expression" which clearly disregards public order'". That's bad, after all. So let's start with, oh say, censoring out *any* discussion of Islam, Mohammed or the Koran. After all, popular opinion is that they are all terrorists and you can't disregard public order much more than using terrorist tactics, right?

Of course, so much of terrorism is fueled by the oil industry. You know, let's kick anything to do with that off the Internet as well. Not just discussion of oil, but any of their business transactions or automated traffic from their software. If they need to route signals from one refinery to the next, let them build an entirely new infrastructure rather than using the Internet. We need to cut down on influences which disregard the public order.

Say, aren't there links between terrorist groups and the Saudi royalty? Off the Internet for them, then! Might make it a bit hard to get at their bank accounts in Switzerland though. Well, its all for the benefit of public order.

What's that? You don't like those suggestions? Oh, I see, you only want to censor things YOU don't like. That's not really about public order then, is it though? It's about maintaining your control. Well, let us reconsider this in light of this new information. We'll get back to you.

[Sadly, the answer in a few years will be, "Sure, great idea! We can use it in our own countries too!" because the governments of the West who currently control the Internet are becoming as increasingly corrupt and misguided as to their purpose as the tyrannies in the East]

is there a right not to be offended? (1)

mbaGeek (1219224) | about 2 years ago | (#41629809)

something about history repeating itself probably applies ...

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Disregarding public order (1)

jdavidb (449077) | about 2 years ago | (#41629815)

address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order

As a fellow religionist, let me give you my opinion about that: fuck that. Public order means somebody controlling somebody else, and I don't believe in it. Public order can go screw itself.

we need decentralized internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629825)

neither governments or corporations can be trusted and are the enemies of individual freedom

any organization that is large enough will eventually become corrupt at the top levels

either the individuals who "earned" their positions will commit corrupt actions to retain and profit from their power and influence, or inherently corrupt individuals will seek out the existing positions of power and influence

the technology is there for a decentralized, peer to peer internet
https://github.com/Byzantium/Byzantium/wiki
(and other mesh initiatives)

be part of a solution, find an old laptop, plug it in, run a node, maybe update it every 6 months

when the normals start seeing more and more restrictions on the "public" internet they will start to look for alternatives and by then either we have an infrastructure in place which can easily accept them, or it will be too late

Self restraint (1)

Xacid (560407) | about 2 years ago | (#41629827)

How about international collaboration on having some self restraint and not causing others physical harm to others any time something in the world doesn't go your way?

Re:Self restraint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629925)

We already have that. It's called war.

Hey Saudi Arabia... (4, Insightful)

BMOC (2478408) | about 2 years ago | (#41629839)

Welcome to the 21st century. Want to be a part of it? ...then grow the frack up.

God fail (2)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#41629851)

If your deity needs intercession by mortals to prevent others from speaking against him, he is probably not what you are thinking he is. So there's that, but the real thing I want to say, to anyone who would presume to limit my speech on religious grounds is "Piss off!". Seriously. Get a fucking clue and realize that your spiritual path is yours, and yours alone, to walk. The rest of us don't have to join you. Get it?

Good luck with that. (2)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 2 years ago | (#41629859)

- The Constitution of the United States says that any treaty to which the United States shall be beholden must be ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate.
- The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and prohibits the Congress from passing legislation limiting expression.
- Every single Senator took an oath to uphold the Constitution upon taking office.

Any vote by the US Senate to ratify such UN action would be a direct violation of the Constitution which they swore to uphold. At the very least, I can't imagine that there are 67 senators looking to retire at the end of the term in which this treaty would be voted on for ratification; to say nothing of the Supreme Court throwing it out like a 105mph fast ball...

Hey, if this thing gets passed in other countries, maybe the US will become the best place to host Internet content...

Religion as trolling (2)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about 2 years ago | (#41629867)

Judging from the comments and reactions it is clearly obvious that religious nutjobs are pioneers of trolling.

Don't watch it (2)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#41629871)

and it wont offend you. Essentially you waived all rights to be outraged when you clicked the link and pressed play on the video.

Ah hell go burn some books if it makes you happy

Censorship (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 2 years ago | (#41629879)


The reasons for censorship are irrelevant.

Eventually there will be more and more censorship of the internet, it's already happening and cannot be stopped.

In truth that battle for "internet freedom" is a pointless fight. Like all censorship it will never be absolute, it will always fail.

People will always find ways around censorship. If I cannot speak my mind on your site, I will go elsewhere.

Of course I would argue that if you cannot bear to read thoughts which go completely against your beliefs it should not be me that has to make a change. If we were neighbors, which on the internet we might as well be because distance becomes less relevant for the purposes of communication, would I have to be considerate? of course. Would you have to respect my rights? you bet.

To my Saudi Arabia neighbors I can only say that if you don't like the neighborhood, move away. No one is forcing you to use the internet, facebook etc.

Hmm? (1)

gustapfo (647469) | about 2 years ago | (#41629885)

Isn't disregarding of public order just what we need?

The problem seems to be like they say this "Freedom of Expression".
People or countries should certainly not be allowed to propose such stupid things as Internet Censorship.

Let's not and say we did. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41629895)

How about we not follow the lead of a country that routinely executes people publicly in horrific ways.

This is why USA control of the internet is best (1, Interesting)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 2 years ago | (#41629899)

I'm no flag waver. I'm still a hippy who is hated at first sight by many of my fellow Americans but I trust this country's respect for freedom of speech more than I trust the UN to gain international consensus to respect freedom of speech.

Headed by 4chan and anonymous... (4, Funny)

mekkab (133181) | about 2 years ago | (#41629903)

the Global Internet Censorship Body will ensure equal unrest and humiliation for all.

Yes! We need to contain freedom expression! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41629921)

Let's start with the freedom to kill and destroy in response to insulting or otherwise uncomfortable information being published. This is a form of expression which seriously needs to be addressed.

Now that is worth fighting for. (4, Insightful)

Ryokos_boytoy (259245) | about 2 years ago | (#41629931)

Invading Iraq for oil, did not support
Invading Afghanistan to build pipeline, did not support
Nuking Saudi Arabia for stifling freedom of speech, Let me press the button.

They need to turn off the computer if they are offended but growing the fuck up would be even better.

Dictatorships: New Name; Same Game (2)

hutsell (1228828) | about 2 years ago | (#41629941)

Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.'

There is a "crying need for international collaboration" to address the livid intolerance exhibited by the Monarchists (we've been there before -- self-absorbed, lazy and inbred) pissed that 6 billion people aren't under their thumb.

Dear Saudi Arabia: (4, Interesting)

OldSport (2677879) | about 2 years ago | (#41629953)

Fuck you, and your religion too.

Your pal,

OldSport

But wait (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#41629959)

To which the United States replied: "But if we don't let them say what they want on the internet, how is the NSA supposed to spy on everything they do?!?"

A modest proposal (5, Insightful)

MrLint (519792) | about 2 years ago | (#41629989)

In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.

And now we all see why "THE VIDEO" (0)

aicrules (819392) | about 2 years ago | (#41629991)

And now we all can see why "THE VIDEO" was relentlessly trotted out as the cause of the violence. I guarantee you that if you track down who it was in every administration who pushed the idea that "THE VIDEO" was the cause of the violence when they knew better, you'd have yourself a collection of Sharia plants. People whose goal it is for Sharia law to be the law of the world and who have infiltrated all major governments of the world at various levels.

Internet content regulation (2)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | about 2 years ago | (#41630003)

How is this even theoretically possible? Oh you crazy arabs, the RIAA would've done it like a decade ago.

How about not burning and killing instead? (1)

jopet (538074) | about 2 years ago | (#41630011)

How about not going an burning down houses of innocent people, how about not going and killing and hurting innocent people because somebody made a drawing or a video about some stupid old fairy tale?
If there is something that would be good censoring then it is the utter nonsense the comes from an islamist dictatorship.

well I am offended (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about 2 years ago | (#41630027)

I am offended that they are requesting global Internet censorship. I demand that their request for global Internet censorship be censored because it deeply offends me. If we censor everything that anyone is offended by then we might as well not have Internet because somewhere there's someone who is offended by something.

Dear Saudi Arabia (4, Insightful)

MarkGriz (520778) | about 2 years ago | (#41630039)

Take your censorship and go f*ck yourself with it.

Sincerely,

The Free World

p.s. we can still buy your oil, right?

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>