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!

Iran to Filter 'Immoral' Mobile Messages

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the go-go-govt dept.

Censorship 273

jb.cancer noted an article running on eweek about plans in Iran to censor phone messages sent within the country. At least it's not quite that bad here yet. But give it a few years!

cancel ×

273 comments

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

F***T P**T (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926301)

This First F***T P**T was sent using an Iranian proxy!

Re:F***T P**T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926465)

This First F***T P**T was sent using an Iranian proxy!

Front port?

OMG (5, Funny)

ady1 (873490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926579)

it's full of stars...

Re:OMG (1)

_xen (79742) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926715)

it's full of stars...


Stars? What start? It's coming through alright for me here in .au ... what country are you reading that post in?

Re:OMG (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926797)

Was the novel "2001: A Space Odyssey" banned in Australia?

Re:OMG (1)

_xen (79742) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926941)

Not as far as I know. We usually only ban European films and media that are "too educational."

Re:OMG (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927079)

I was trying to be pithy - "Oh my God, it's full of stars!" is a quote from the end of that book. I thought it was pretty well-known since it was used in the promotion of the 2010 movie.

Re:OMG (1)

abanathabla (1093897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927215)

And since we should have read it. All four of them. Twice.

Re:OMG (1)

_xen (79742) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927293)

Well I didn't know about that quote, but I did guess that you chose Space Odessey because of stars ... I just ran with the fact that we have had a few European films censored over the years.

My God. (4, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926305)

From tfs/tfa:

* Iran censoship story *check*
* Comparison of Iran censorship to censorship within the US *check*
* eweek article *check*
* Orwellian techniques by the Iranian govt refusing to define imorral messages *check*
The trolls are going to have a field day. Maybe we should have some sort of rule about stories with less than 50 words in tfs? (or at least be able to mod them flamebait).

My God! It's full of Tacos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926655)

Since it's Taco that's posting this "hitbait". Is he doing it from Canada or some other country?

I know what to do (3, Funny)

master_p (608214) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926311)

first, CENSORED, then CENSORED and then, CENSORED!

Re:I know what to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926457)

Good idea! That'll really CENSORED them up the CENSORED!

Re:I know what to do (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926691)

Step 1: ???
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

Question: (5, Insightful)

el_munkie (145510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926317)

What, exactly, would make the poster think that it would be possible that text messages in the US would be filtered for content? Has the US censored IMs, phone conversations, e-mail, or any other means of communication, or is this just the nebulous political FUD we've had to endure for so long?

Re:Question: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926377)

Just another trolling, what's better yet is that it was posted in full form and not condensed into simply
"Shocker: Iran censors thier citizens".

*Sigh*, When did slashdot become political? If I want my news with opinions I'll turn on the TV.

Re:Question: (1)

moseman (190361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926401)

Amen brother. I'm surprised it was not posted by kdawson.

Re:Question: (0, Flamebait)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926541)

The same organization that censors television regulates wireless carriers. Once upon a time you couldn't swear on the telephone.

Hahah, stupid liberals. They're whining about something many conservatives would implement if they could if not for the resistance of stupid liberals.

Everyone in Power Wants to Regulate Speech (3, Insightful)

el_munkie (145510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926667)

But it has luckily been fairly resistant to attacks. Both major parties are equally guilty of this. In the Clinton years, you had Tipper Gore wanting to apply "Explicit" labels to records and the DMCA, which prevents one from disseminating fairly obvious bits of knowledge. Under Bush, you have more of the same.

However, it's been a long time since I've seen a congressional hearing about anything that didn't have a member of Code Pink or some other lefty organization visible in the audience, covered in slogans. If we ever get to the point where they're kicked out before they start yelling and disrupting the proceedings, then I might start to get worried. Until then, this is just the same, tired hyperbole.

Re:Everyone in Power Wants to Regulate Speech (1, Troll)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926859)

That was the Reagan years, and she did it with other bored Washington housewives, as it was fashionable due to Nancy's whining about drugs.

And really. A but-but-but Democrats! argument? Do you honestly think anyone here gives a shit what party it comes from? The conservative impulse knows no party lines.

Re:Everyone in Power Wants to Regulate Speech (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926999)

Seriously - all of the politically correct crap that we've had to endure all of these years comes from the so-called "left". Everyone seems to want to control what we say, Democrat or Republican.

Re:Everyone in Power Wants to Regulate Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18927193)

"And really. A but-but-but Democrats! argument? Do you honestly think anyone here gives a shit what party it comes from?" You're an imbecile. CENSORSHIP knows no party lines, you're the idiot making this about conservative vs. liberal. Read his post again and tell me where it says anything in there about "Democrats" Oh wait, it doesn't. You're adding that yourself, moron.

Re:Question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926699)

"They're whining about something many conservatives would implement if they could if not for the first amendment"

Fixed that for you.

And before you get all high and might Mr. Liberals are keeping the world safe for open dialog, ask yourself if the liberals (your word not mine) would censor anything. Nothing? Really?

So save that stupid crap.

Re:Question: (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926791)

Good thing both parties are filled with conservatives trying to squash free speech, isn't it?

Yes (1)

el_munkie (145510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926835)

Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean are such raging conservatives that it makes my stomach turn sometimes. If you perceive both parties as being conservative, you must be pretty far out there.

Re:Yes (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926865)

Both parties are filled with people that want to place further restrictions on music, video games and the like. Heck, Lieberman mentioned by name some of the bands I enjoy listening to. Hillary wants lots of looks into this whole video game thing. And Gore's wife was a driving force in the whole PMRC thing. I haven't found a party yet that's actually for freedom.

lp.org (2, Interesting)

el_munkie (145510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927077)

Check it out. They're a little out there, and they'll never have any success, but they exist.

Re:Question: (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926955)

Has the US censored IMs, phone conversations, e-mail, or any other means of communication

Yes, they've censored websites. Over and over again. Even Slashdot and Google, courtesy of the DMCA and Scientology's lawyers. Or 2600.

You see, the USA government isn't as concerned with morality as Iran (although they still are a bit, consider the fines associated with Janet Jackson's nipple), but step on the toes of big business, and you'll get slapped down pretty hard.

Re:Question: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18927001)

Why censor those communications when you can wiretap them and add people to terror watchlists without oversight? America, land of the (relatively) free!

Re:Question: (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927179)

> What, exactly, would make the poster think that it would be possible that text messages in the US would be filtered for content?

Are you denying that it's not technically possible? Or that there's no desire on the part of those in power to limit speech, and that any laws restricting governmental interference will be obeyed? Because I'm not sure if you've been paying attention over the last few years...

Re:Question: (5, Informative)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927539)

The reason for the Iranian concern here is that the revolution was originally spread through compact cassette tapes. This has nothing to do with morality, it is all about political control.

The regime is becoming very unstable, the only shill the mullahs could find to front for them was Ahmendinejad. And many of them have been visibly regretting it since. He is doing the crazy act a little bit too well.

The problem is similar to Cuba, it is pretty easy to keep a regime going for a very long time if there is a widespread perception of an iminent external threat. If a country is attacked the people are going to side with their government regardless of what it is like. The Russians sided with Stalin, the Cubans side with Castro, the Iranians will side with the mullahs.

Sanctions don't work unless the country targeted by the sanctions respects the party applying them. Sanctions worked in South Africa because the South African whites considered their country to be a part of the Western world. The rejection mattered to them. Cuba might respond to sanctions from Latin America, but sanctions from the country that backed the corrupt Batista despotism are not going to work.

Instant messaging is a way for opponents of the regime to organize. They can keep tabs on Ahmendinejad's gangs of armed thugs. They can arrange protests and demonstrations.

There is a blogosphere in Iran and it is spread by SMS messaging. That is cool.

Language issues (2, Insightful)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926325)

Hmmm ... sounds like the anti-SPAM filters for email.
With the right language and some "ad hoc" grammar mistakes you could foolish the filter.

Re:Language issues (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926437)

OMG elevNTone A77A|-| AK8aR PPPP's B @ IM, i5 t1m3 2 sl0rt0r t3h j000z + infuidLLza + cru54dorz rofl!!!!???!

Can't see them censoring that.

Censorship never works (4, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926621)

sounds like the anti-SPAM filters for email


Spammers work by making grammar and spelling errors that people recognize anyway. However, in the long list of countries that tried press censorship in the 20th century, all failed because there's always innuendo, sarcasm, satire, etc.


There was a joke in the Soviet Union that went like this: a man is arrested because he was shouting in the street "that man is a disgrace, he made everybody suffer" and so on. In the KGB station he was questioned about who he had been shouting against. "Why, Hitler, of course!" was the answer. The KGB agents apologized and released him. When he was getting out the door, he asked "hey, by the way, who did you think I was speaking about?"


Unless the government controls the publishing hardware, there's no way they can stop people from using double entendre.

Re:Censorship never works (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926937)

Doesn't double entendre just lead to that other old joke: "Hey, the KGB shot that guy that was shouting in the street."

Re:Language issues (1)

Vagrant (518197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927045)

Time for everyone to learn Cockney rhyming slang [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Language issues (1)

abanathabla (1093897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927279)

We could still talk in rot13 to each other, so what's the deal?

ifk ur m0mz ir4n (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926337)

What about clever/1337 txting? Are the sensors 1337 h4x0rz?

Here's an example of censored messages. (4, Insightful)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926341)

Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

Re:Here's an example of censored messages. (1)

sherms (15634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926677)

You know their just going to find another way of talking dirty. Ma went to the pub = (Put your dirty comment here)

"At Least???" (5, Insightful)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926357)

At least it's not quite that bad here yet. But give it a few years!

What country are YOU posting from? There is hardly ANYTHING censored in the US- and yes, I recognize that you are attempting sarcasm, but it's rather pathetic. There are several dozen things that I wish were censored, but aren't, and that's a good thing too.

And yes, you can be executed in Iran if you perform Immoral Activities. Shall we wait for that to come to a US City nearest you, too now?

Re:"At Least???" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926445)

There is hardly ANYTHING censored in the US


That's right folks, nothing to see here, move right along ... You are absolutely free and all the information you receive is completely unfiltered ... you can go back to your homes now.

Re:"At Least???" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926493)

Hardly anything censored in the US, take a look at the media and presidental reports. Not to mention when a nipple slips on tv everyone is up in arms. Believe me it is getting bad in the US.

Re:"At Least???" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926751)

are you kidding me? television is heavily censored. radio is heavily censored. if you went to school (public or private) in the US, your thoughts and actions were heavily censored. the current attorney general's got a *raging hard-on* for censoring the internet. i've even been given a ticket for swearing when i got pulled over for speeding (i said "shit", i only said it once, and it wasn't derogatory).

if you think you don't live in a censored country, it's only because you've become acclimated to this level of censorship. are things as bad as they are in iran? no; not even close- but make no mistake about it, we're headed in that direction. see, there's this problem with FUD: it's indistinguishable from early-warning signs of *real* problems...

Re:"At Least???" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18927145)

WAHHHHH WAHHHHH I CAN'T SWEAR AT COPS AND MY TEACHER DIDN'T LIKE MY WICCAN T-SHIRT FUCK THE FASCISTS WAHHHHHH

nobody cares about your pathetic life, toolbag. the people who matter get to say whatever they want. nobody cares about the freedom of expression inherent in being a fat forty-year-old pizza delivery driver.

Re:"At Least???" (1, Insightful)

porpnorber (851345) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927389)

<sarcasm>Ah, so at last America has abolished the death penalty! I am glad to hear it. Now ... about reinstituting habeas corpus...?</sarcasm>

Re:"At Least???" (1, Troll)

db32 (862117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927451)

Now, I agree the original statement here is probably a bit overboard and reactionary, but let us go ahead and examine the trends. Attempts to ban Gay marriage ("immoral behavior") *Check*, Ban gays from the military *check*, Ban porn from the internet *check*, Spy on citizens because they might be related to the boogey man *Check*, Toss citizens in secret prisons to 'interrogate' them without any real charges and identity screwups *Check*, Refusing to allow citizens to travel due to identity confusion on relations to the boogey man *Check again*.

No, we are not Iran, but we are running down that road at breakneck speeds. Both the right and the left have been doing bang up jobs of attempting to legislate morality at every turn and destroying our constitution when they see fit. Eminent domain, banning gay marriage, banning free speech (Free Speech Zones are an absolute admission of this one), controlling the press (FCC nipple fiasco anyone), warrantless searches (phone taps, email taps, and the TIPS program is dangerously close), giant government database to keep track of potential boogey men (TIA), no my friends, our constitution is all but dead. Oh, except for when people are called to testify like good ol Condy, whips out that constitution in a heartbeat and starts talking about how it would be constitutionally wrong if she testified. Bastards, hard to hide behind a shredded paper.

I for one welcome our new msg censoring overlords (4, Funny)

_xen (79742) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926369)

Well thank goodness for this. I know I'm often tempted to send out messages so immoral that I shock myself! So I'm glad there's someone with my best interests (and the best interests of society at large) at heart who is going to take the time to censor the messages I send. Isn't it nice when those kind people in the government relieve you of any need for self-restraint!

Re:I for one welcome our new msg censoring overlor (3, Funny)

SilentSheep (705509) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926399)

Ahh, i see you fall for the "drunken text message" trick too? Always gets me that one does, if it weren't for a 'sent items' folder on my phone i wouldn't know how many people to apologise to in the morning.

Re:I for one welcome our new msg censoring overlor (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926477)

They're also telling barbers there will be no more plucking of Iranian eyebrows under any circumstances. I'm not sure which clause of which Islamic law comments on the evils of plucking eyebrows or text messaging, but it looks like the Iranian government has a firm grasp of the literature.

Re:I for one welcome our new msg censoring overlor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926607)

Hey you with the bushy eyebrows! Lemme guess, you're Iranian, aren't you? And no, your message never made it through.

not surprising (3, Informative)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926391)

With the nuclear stand not getting them anywhere and the need to release the english mailmen mostly because the moderate ones refused to back them on that issue, it is not surpirising to see Iran leaders attacking their homeland ennemies again (they also recently banned "occidental" haircuts, a ban obviously targeted at the teenagers and young adults).

Then they came for me (3, Insightful)

MatrixCubed (583402) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926413)

First, they came for the "inappropriate" text messagers. But I did not speak out, because I do not have a cellphone.

Then, they came for the "innapropriate" emailers. But I did not speak out, because I do not use email.

Then, they came for the "innapropriate" web-surfers. But I did not speak out, because I do not surf the web.

Then they came for me - and by then, there was no one left to speak out.

Re:Then they came for me (0, Flamebait)

fatduck (961824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926611)

Your comment just went whooshing over the heads of Iranians who don't believe the Holocaust happened.

Re:Then they came for me (-1, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926619)

What a bull. They are not after you, moron. They are after your messages. And here comes some dumbass moderator who modded you up.

If you claim that you read it, read this, idiot. AGAIN:

" ... in order to prevent possible misuse of MMS, immoral actions and social problems, the Telecommunications Ministry will filter immoral MMS," the television said.
Since when "filtering" means "come after me".

Go scratch your little green foot balls, moron.

Re:Then they came for me (5, Informative)

UTPinky (472296) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926729)

*sigh*
He made a spin off on a famous poem, "First they came...", written by Martin Niemöller [wikipedia.org] about the Holocaust and Nazi rise to power. Please educate yourself and learn some culture.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Re:Then they came for me (2, Informative)

alexo (9335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927535)

> He made a spin off on a famous poem, "First they came...",
> written by Martin Niemöller about the Holocaust and Nazi rise to power.


More info here [wikipedia.org]

Well, that is one way to deal with iran nuke crisi (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926629)

Well, that is one way to deal with iran nuke crisis, wait until they kill themselves off. It will be a race between the west and the east. Who will kill themselves off fastest, the west by not fucking enough or the east by chopping off their own heads.

Ah, the human race, and people wonder why we aren't visited by aliens. THEY AIN'T THAT STUPID!

Re:Well, that is one way to deal with iran nuke cr (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926987)

I thought they didn't like the taste.

Very original... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926687)

And I mean that with the most bitter sarcasm. Insightful? Give me a break! Every time there's a story on censorship you geeks race to try to be the first person to post a variation of the "First they came for..." theme. It's not original, nor is it insightful. It's tired and cliche. If you're really so disturbed by the Iranians censoring text messages, then why don't you go over there and raise hell about it instead of cowering in some server closet tapping out cliches on your keyboard and whoring for mod points?

First they came for the geeks, but I did not object because I enjoyed the fact that b.o. no longer filled the hallways of my office.

Then they came for the dweebs, but I did not object because I did not miss hearing I.T. war stories from days gone by.

Then they came for the nerds, but I did not object because I didn't have a nasally voice.

Then life was grand...

Re:Then they came for me (3, Informative)

quarterbrain (958359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926705)

Censoring text messages is hardly the first sign [wikipedia.org] of censorship in Iran. From what little the article has, there is no reference of anyone being arrested as of yet for breaking the moral code via text messaging. This may come down the pike, but right now people have an honest reason to fear being sent to jail for blogging, wearing sleeveless shirts, or styling their hair wildly [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Then they came for me (0, Troll)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927275)

Then, they came for the faggy emo kids on Livejournal, and that was awesome.

Yeah that's going to work (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926451)

After all, look at the success we have filtering spam adverts for viagra, cialis etc. from our mailboxes.

Re:Yeah that's going to work (2, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926775)

I know you're going for funny, but I haven't had but one piece of spam break through Gmail's filter in god-knows-how-long

Re:Yeah that's going to work (1)

dhoffman (705777) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926929)

That may be true, but I have had several dozen legitimate and innocuous messages sent to the spam folder that did not belong there. False positives in the spam filters are becoming a serious issue in e-mail these day.

Defining 'immoral' (2, Funny)

Calydor (739835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926539)

The Iranian government should define immoral messages as any message that is not grammatically correct, contains proper sentence structure, and is free of typos.

Re:Defining 'immoral' (1, Funny)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926721)

So a moral message is one that is grammatically correct, but badly structured and full of typos?

Re:Defining 'immoral' (1)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926915)

In America anyway that would probably eliminate over 99% of all text messages.

R U GONG 2 TEH PRTAY? *banned*
OMG NA SHEZ A BICH! *banned*
SES NOT A BICH! U SUKC! *banned*

I guess I'm not saying it would be all bad, mind you ...

[ The Slashdot lameness filter must be Iranian, BTW. ]

Nasty (3, Funny)

Moggyboy (949119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926549)

Don't know why they're bothering. You ever try to write "durka durka, mohammed jihad" with predictive text on? It's a bitch.

"But give it a few years!" (5, Insightful)

caldodge (1152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926553)

In a few years you'll still be spouting this sort of paranoid crap, with no censorship taking place.

That sort of loony paranoia doesn't boost your side's credibility, any more than my side was helped by predictions that Bill Clinton would use FEMA regs to declare a national emergency and establish a dictatorship, or the right-wing paranoids who referred to the Oklahoma City bombing as "Bill Clinton's Reichstag Fire".

Why don't you focus on REAL government abuses instead? For example, the "if you have lots of cash then you must be a drug dealer" lunacy known as "Civil Asset Forfeiture", or the suppression of free speech in the name of "Campaign Finance Reform"?

and that is good news (0, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926581)

Iranians take care of filth using some technology. Good.

So what is Iran actually like? (2, Interesting)

bestinshow (985111) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926585)

According to this article [mailonsunday.co.uk] (well worth reading, despite the newspaper it is from), Iran's not that bad.

Sure, the elections may be dodgy, but it's democratic. Nobody seems to like the leaders as they don't represent the people and it's unlikely they'll be in power long. The people are pushing the boundaries in all walks of life. In fact they're far more Western than a country like Turkey. And as for the political situation, it doesn't sound unlike any other Western country - unpopular leadership, dodgy elections, etc.

But no, the Western media portray Iran as a country hell bent of destroying the West, destroying Israel (the viewpoint of one politician who doesn't have that power), and evil evil evil. But in a country with 40% of people under the age of 15, you really don't want to invade badly like in Iraq, and turn them ALL against you for the rest of their lives.

Now whilst the article above is but one story that gives an idea of life within Iran, it is counter to the rhetoric and fearmongering that is so popular within our media.

Re:So what is Iran actually like? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926777)

Sure, the elections may be dodgy, but it's democratic.

No, it isn't. You get to vote for a small, carefully vetted group of candidates who have been approved by the mullahs. And even then, all decisions by elected officials can be overridden by the mullahs.

But no, the Western media portray Iran as a country hell bent of destroying the West, destroying Israel (the viewpoint of one politician who doesn't have that power), and evil evil evil.

They are. Listen to the Iranian government. Even the Arab nations are getting scared of Iran.

And how do you know he has the "truth" (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926827)

Holland is known to be tolerant of gays, Amsterdam especially. Yet the word "homo" is a curse word and not a light one either. In english where you call someone a bastard, even a fucking one, in dutch the person is called gay, same for a stupid idiot or a mean person. Gay each and everyone of them.

A transvestite was recently beaten to death and two male newspapers reporters who pretended to be a gay couple found out just how gay people are viewed, especially by that other hated group, muslim immigrants.

And yet, I could take you on a tour and you would see none of this.

Not that it matters. The people of Iran do NOT matter, the goverment that rules them and that they support (through action or inaction does not matter) is what counts on the world stage.

Many americans claim to be against the iraq war, in fact some sources claim the majority. So how exactly was Bush RE-ELECTED, how the fuck did he get elected in the first place and why are there no efforts to stop the war or at least hamper it?

I would have find the article you linked to a great deal more convincing if the reporter had dressed up as a jew. Or if he had been a she and refused to wear a headscarf, notice how ALL the women in the photos wear one?

White male known to be a reporter from britain is shown a positive face of Iran. Wow, yeah, amazing.

Life isn't a bioware RPG you know. There is no physical representation of the "good" or "evil" of a people. I am reasonably postive that death camp guards on their day off do NOT sprout horns and lurk in dungoens and beat foreign reporters to death for fun.

In fact isn't it amazing racist or at least culterists to claim that "Iran's youth wants western fashion therefore they are not our enemy"? Some of the bloodiests wars in histories have between countries that outsiders could not tell apart.

Re:And how do you know he has the "truth" (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926953)

In fact isn't it amazing racist or at least culterists to claim that "Iran's youth wants western fashion therefore they are not our enemy"? Some of the bloodiests wars in histories have between countries that outsiders could not tell apart.
Haha, I enjoyed this part... nicely said.

Re:And how do you know he has the "truth" (1)

indiechild (541156) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927361)

Your comment started off well and then just went off on a wild ride. I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say.

Democratic ? (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926849)

You dont know a jack about iran. Islamic Revolution guards rule that country. They are financial (own many big companies) military ( they have their own military) secret service (of their own) apart from the government. Nothing revolutionary guards organization does not allow passes through. Democratic my butt.

Re:So what is Iran actually like? (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926905)

Wow, what absolute crap.

Sure, the elections may be dodgy, but it's democratic. Nobody seems to like the leaders as they don't represent the people and it's unlikely they'll be in power long. The people are pushing the boundaries in all walks of life. In fact they're far more Western than a country like Turkey. And as for the political situation, it doesn't sound unlike any other Western country - unpopular leadership, dodgy elections, etc.
Yes, the elections are absolutely democratic--if you are ok with the fact that anyone running for any position anywhere--city council, governors, parliament, etc--has to be vetted through non-elected government bodies. Here's an assignment for you--in the last elections (you can check either I believe december or 2005 elections that brought Ahmadi-Nejad to power) find out how many candidates were BARRED from running. It's unlikely they'll be in power long? Possibly the most radically conservative government since the Revolution was brought to power two years ago. The reformists have suffered massive losses across the country. The most recent elections saw less radical conservatives, but conservatives nonetheless make large gains. Let's be clear: when we say conservatives in the case of Iran we mean Islamists, very frequently clerics, and more and more frequently army former army officers. Nothing wrong with any of those things, but they are all groups deepy vested in the status quo, and maintaining the Islamic Republic as it stands.

They're far more Western than Turkey? ok, now this is where you absolutely lose credibility. I can only assume after this that you're basing 100% of your knowledge off the above article. Iran is "The Islamic Republic of Iran." It has an unelected body of clerics that more or less rule the country--they certaintly hold the leash on any elected officials. They have things like morality police. Women showing too much hair is a crime. Now, how exactly is Iran more "Western" than Turkey? I'll be honest, I've never been to Iran though I would love to, and many of my friends have been. I have been to Turkey though, and your comment makes no sense to me.

But no, the Western media portray Iran as a country hell bent of destroying the West, destroying Israel (the viewpoint of one politician who doesn't have that power), and evil evil evil. But in a country with 40% of people under the age of 15, you really don't want to invade badly like in Iraq, and turn them ALL against you for the rest of their lives.
It seems to me that the "Western media" doesn't have to portray Iran that way at all--its (by your reckoning FAIRLY) elected president portrays it that way just fine. Look for some Khamenei quotes (he's the Supreme Leader for life if you don't know)...the power behind it all. 40% of people under the age of 15--that statement might be the closest thing to accurate in your whole post.

Now whilst the article above is but one story that gives an idea of life within Iran, it is counter to the rhetoric and fearmongering that is so popular within our media.
Look, the rich urban elite show their hair, go to university, have parties and sex, love their pizza and hamburgers more than kabab (which I personally don't understand at all!) and probably aren't that happy with the laws and the crackdowns that have been occurring recently. But you know what? They're not the majority. There is a huge urban and rural poor population that is very religious, very devout, very nationalistic, and happy with the Islamic Republic (not so happy with economy and jobs..)

Think of it this way...hang out in downtown NYC, talk to the youth, etc. Now, go to rural Nebraska and talk to the people there. Do you think you are going to get some differences of opinion? Westerners LOVE trotting out the Iranian urban elite as proof that they can be like us too..or something like that.

I used to be hopeful that the Islamic Republic could change. I'm much less so now--the difficulties inherent in the system are so great. 25 years after the Revolution there are a new political class--clerics, army, etc--who are rich and powerful. There is still a strong revolutionary spirit in Iran--it's seen even in some conservative politicians, student movements, Reformists, etc--but who knows where it will go.. not me.

Re:So what is Iran actually like? (2, Insightful)

mckyj57 (116386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926951)

Sure, the elections may be dodgy, but it's democratic.

Did you listen to yourself?

If an election is dodgy, it is not democratic. Particularly when opposition members are routinely imprisoned or threatened with same.

(Cue people claiming 2000 or 2004 election in US was dodgy.)

and the problem with them doing this is??? (3, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926639)

Granted the submitter is trying to imply it will happen in the United States but I still ask, why does it matter to us what Iran chooses for messages in its own country?

It a repressive regime, what are we to expect? Does it violate their own laws? If there is an international law being violated do you really think they care? Its their country, let them govern it as they see fit. No one is losing their life over filtering.

Stop applying our standards to those in the rest of the world. There are things we take for granted many people never had, never wiil, and some probably don't want. Oh I am sure anyone can list a bunch of things ala Strawman style to refute that claim. It still comes down to, its their country, no one is losing their life over it.

Re:and the problem with them doing this is??? (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926763)

No one is losing their life over filtering.
No, just their freedoms. But some would argue that that's more important. "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Re:and the problem with them doing this is??? (1)

struppi (576767) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927187)

Stop applying our standards to those in the rest of the world.
I partly agree with you here. I do think that too often people from the USA are applying american standards to other countries, and people from Europe are basically doing the same. But:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Universal Declaration of human rights, Preamble [un.org] Ok, I know Iran always wanted to change the UDHR, and they always said that they'll choose their own laws over the UDHR if they conflict, but still I think that the human rights should apply for all humans. And according to Article 19 I have the right to say that.

Re:and the problem with them doing this is??? (2, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927549)

why does it matter to us what Iran chooses for messages in its own country

Because it provides some more insight into a country with a culture (or, at least - and worse - a government) that thinks it's reasonable to arrest people based on hair styling [cnn.com] ... and which is busy cranking up a uraniam enrichment program, and which speaks in terms of wiping other countries off the map (you know, countries that don't tow their line, religiously). It DOES matter, because it helps to come to terms with the fact that the people running that country are sitting on a huge oil reserve, are running their economy into the ground (making them more likely to make bad decisions about their dealings with others), spend a lot of their cash on directly and overtly supporting terrorist organizations, are busy doing plenty to destablize the new governments in their neighboring countries.

Because we don't live in a vacuum, and what happens in that country can dramatically impact what China does, what Russia does, and what the rest of the world does. They CAN govern as they see fit, I suppose - but if you want to put your head in the sand about the coupling of a soon-to-be-nuke-armed crazyland of medieval-minded thugocrats with their slightly-slow-on-the-uptake new realizations about net-based communications, fine. But don't act surprised when they spend some of their oil revenue to fund violent third parties that would like to see that same world view shape the future of, say, all of Africa - where they're already getting traction.

Here we go again... (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926689)

I'm so sick of the moronic editor comments here. "give it a few years" ?!

Seriously, come on. Freedom of expression is worth fighting for. It's even worth carping about on slashdot. Abuses should be publicized and not tolerated.

But what good does this hysterical hyperbole do? The difference between media controls in a country like Iran or China is an order of magnitude away from just about any Western country. Apples and oranges. A whole 'nother ballpark. Whatever other trite expression you want. Does anyone REALLY think that censorship of text messages is a few years away?

This nonsense just makes being concerned with freedom of speech/expression/whatever seem like it belongs in the realm of crazy people.

Really? (1)

palladiate (1018086) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927537)

The difference between media controls in a country like Iran or China is an order of magnitude away from just about any Western country.

Really? I remember a time nobody would tolerate the military-guarded, razor-wire-fenced places called "free speech zones." Well, I'd like to believe there was such a time. Maybe it's just that nobody had the cojones to pen up protesters before now.

But while we don't filter the message, we are starting to filter the meduim. What about the threat of the NSA reading your internet communication, the threat of RIAA lawsuit or campus police if you fire up Bittorrent to download Ubuntu 7.04, the threat of being brutalized by police for civil protests?

By some subjective measures, there may be more to lament in losing the ability to say what you once were able to here than to lose the ability to say things you were never able to in Iran. Those text messages would probably get you arrested in Iran, and would have for quite a while now. Fark, 4chan, and Something Awful have a few stories about posters that had the Secret Service or FBI showing up for a little chat or three. Iran's censorship is lamentable but understandable, but the chilling effects in this country are becomming alarming.

Not saying we should have an alarmist attitude, but "an order of magnitude" we might not have.

In Democratic Iran.. (3, Funny)

Pointy_Hair (133077) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926693)

ur txt msgs cnsr u!

General Iranian "moral crackdown" (2, Insightful)

hachete (473378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926753)

along with women's scarves and men's hair. Your foreign policy is shit, the economy is sliding into the gutter, your best brains are going abroad, your government has worse cronyism than Bush's, what do you do? Have a crack-down on those stylish scarves and some incorrectly trimmed hair. Yeah. That'll get the country right back on track to armageddon the Middle East.

Um... No. Your tinfoil hat is on backwards. (5, Insightful)

Etherwalk (681268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926761)

Censorship in the US works rather differently. Watch Good Night, and Good Luck or look for the interviews with ex-Fox reporters about Monsanto. The government here rarely censors directly, with the exception of things it claims fall under the rubrick of National Security. Instead, most censorship happens according to the interests of major corporations, and isn't government sponsored. A lot of things are also censored almost by default--third party candidates barred from presidential debates, for example. There's a tremendous amount of social, psychological, political, and financial inertia that--while not technically censorship--make it very difficult to spread information or viewpoints that don't conform to the norm. (And the norm, sadly, is generally addressed to the Lowest Common Denominator.)

The censorship in the US is subtle--and of a different kind, so that in a sense it's not really censorship at all. You can still stand on a street corner and talk to the stranger next to you and not worry much about being locked up. Even if the stranger's a cop, or a Fed, for that matter.

(We won't censor the messages, btw. We'll build an enormous super-secret database of them. Is that better or worse than explicit censorship?)

Re:Um... No. Your tinfoil hat is on backwards. (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927435)

IMHO, the most insightful thing about your post is that you've only hit Score:3, Insightful. I guess Slashdot isn't so different to the general population either.

Predictive text (4, Interesting)

evilgrug (915703) | more than 7 years ago | (#18926863)

Some of my friends are quite lazy and will not deviate from the first suggestion their phone's dictionary gives them. I've become quite adept at deciphering what predictive text words are likely to correlate to, and that "Safe? sub" is likely to be "Paddys Pub"

I suspect the Iranians will be able to cyber their "citags" and "dual" their "yet" "aunts" just as well as anyone else. Then there's l33tsp3ak, backwards text, intentional misspellings, number sequences, and the like.

Give it a few years.. yes, spread of Islam (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18926871)

A few years? Yes quite possibly for many European countries, France for a start when the Muslims start to outnumber the original population. The pathetic liberal policy of appeasing Islamic demands will eventually lead to an Islamic Europe, then later an Islamic United States. The caphilate will have returned.

The USA is about 30 years behind Europe but it will happen. Someone needs to grow some and nip this in the bud before the west completes it's own silent genocide.

So yes, eventually text messages will be censored in the US in this way too.

Re:Give it a few years.. yes, spread of Islam (2, Interesting)

PHPfanboy (841183) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927129)

Living in Israel, I'd love to believe you. But seeing as:
- most of the countries round here are full of Muslims and they aren't pushing for a Caliphate (not caphilate you ignoramus)
- and the fact that most of the Muslims in Europe actually ran away from the traditional societies they lived in previously (and seems they liked it enough to stay in Europe) ....your posting is basically crap.

However, it would be an interesting variation on the "we buy your oil, you buy our goods" relationship. It would be "you keep the oil, and we take all your loonies to make sure you don't get toppled". Sounds quite reasonable actually and certainly cheaper than a land invasion.

Do you remember? (1)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927009)

Do you remember when slashdot was a bastion of intellect, back before it was overrun by paranoid 8th graders?

Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18927013)

Iran is degerating into a feudal theocracy. nasty place for women, gay men or anyone with a brain & no beard.

Anyway, just tell those wayne cars they cannot censor text messages, so they can just far cough, the stew peed ar swipes!

Blocked message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18927047)

Sorry you can't send that message because it contains lyrics used in a song and sending those words as a text message is a copyright violation. -The RIAA

At last (3, Informative)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927051)

a competitive advantage for creative perverts.

In the good old days of censorship in the US, code for female genitalia included: fish, jelly, lemon, coochie, coffee grinder, and honey dripper. "Mojo risin'" wasn't about casting a hex, it was a reference to male genitalia. "Jelly roll" was, of course sex.

The Andrews Sisters were a WW2 era girl group that sometimes covered blues songs in an extremely non-blues, up-tempo close vocal harmony style. I heard a piece on NPR recently where they were singing about how much they love "fish for dinner", which in the day must have been unintentionally hilarious to people who understood blues slang.

So listen up:

Male genitalia can be referred to as: bald headed hermit, bone, broom handle, country cousin, crack hunter, dipstick, gizzard tickler, gravy-maker, gully-raker, joystick, kidney scraper, little brother, middle leg, Old Blind Bob, one-eyed milkman, peacemaker, pink flute, private member, rump splitter, Sir Martin Flagstaff, sugar stick, tally whacker, tube stake, tug mutton, wedding tackle or willie.

Female genitalia can be referred to as: baloney flaps, bean, box, catcher's mitt, clap farm, coin slot, front bottom, fur burger, honey pot, hoo ha, jelly, kebab, lemon, meat curtains, pink taco, pocket, tater, whisker biscuits or yum-yum. Obvious variations can be built from these: fish taco, vertical taco, haddock pasty.

Coitus can be referred to as: balling, banging, beast with two backs, boinking, bonking, bow-chika-bow-wow, bumping uglies, buttering the corn, chasing the tail, cooking sausage, docking the thumb drive, doodling, down time, drilling, exchanging DNA, fluid mechanics, funny business, game time, giving a good seeing to, grinding coffee, hitting it, home run, horizontal folk dancing, how's your father, laying pipe, monkey business, nailing, next stop tuna station, on the job, playing doctor, plugging, plowing, riding, roasting, rock and rolling, spelunking, spinning the cheese, squeezing lemon, or taking the big onion.

Stop the idiocy (5, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927087)

Yes I'm talking about YOU, Taco.

We all love to bash Bush and hate America, often with good reason... but please, at least give it *some* thought and make sure there's at least some shred of evidence before blindly and mindlessly criticizing everything USA.

Freedom of speech and lack of government censorship is one of the few things that America still has the best of, more so than anywhere else - even the wondrous paradise called Europe. Here you can express support for an unpopular political ideology or make fun of a crazy religion and still expect to keep your freedom. Not so in many parts of Europe; you can be arrested for doing just that.

Leet? (2, Interesting)

5n3ak3rp1mp (305814) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927147)

Isn't this kind of crap easily gotten around with leetspeak (substituting similar numbers/symbols/creative misspellings for the original words)?

Reaons for the Iranian Revolution.... (3, Interesting)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927347)

So, is histroy going to repeat itself???
Among the reasons stated for the revolution:
Focusing of government surveillance and repression on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, the communist Tudeh Party of Iran, and other leftist groups, while the more popular religious opposition organized, grew and gradually undermined the authority of his regime;
Wikipedia..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Re volution

PsyOps (4, Insightful)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18927403)

Anyone else find it ridiculous that we're seeing all the reports of how oppressive Iran is to it's people? WHO CARES? Honestly. If the people there didn't like it, and were fed up, they'd fix it. I'm seeing this as a preamble to invasion/attack.

Get everyone talking about how horribly oppressive the government is so they don't feel so bad about blitzing them.

Not happening here.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?