Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Detention Threat for Malaysian blogger

Posted by michael on Tue Oct 05, 2004 02:03 PM
from the keyboard-is-mightier-than-the-sword dept.
Censorship
Malaysian Patriot writes "The Malaysian blogosphere is currently in uproar as one of their most famous bloggers, a political observer named Jeff Ooi, has been threatened with action under the country's draconian ISA (Internal Security Act) law which allows a person to be detained without trial if he is thought to threaten "national security". The whole problem started with a comment made by a reader of the blog. The comment is alleged to have been insulting of Islam. A national newspaper (whose editor has frequently been a target of Ooi's blog) took up the story and accused the blogger of insulting Islam, while Ooi in his defence states he warned (and later deleted) the offending commenter when he was alerted to it. Malaysian bloggers meanwhile are outraged that a blogger should be held responsible for comments made by readers. In the case of Ooi's blog, which attracts thousands of hits per day, it is logistically impossible for Ooi to read and moderate every comment made. The whole saga can be followed in Jeff Ooi's Screenshots blog."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Detention Threat for Malaysian blogger 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • is it just me... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by syrinx (106469) on Tuesday October 05 2004, @02:20PM (#10443178) Homepage
    Does anyone else favor the death penalty for anyone who uses the word (if you can call such an abomination by that name) "blogosphere"?

    Personally I think the Rack is a suitible punishment. Alternately, hot irons under the fingernails, or forced repeated viewings of "Star Trek V".

  • Them too? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bizpile (758055) * on Tuesday October 05 2004, @03:03PM (#10443720) Homepage
    ...under the country's draconian ISA (Internal Security Act) law which allows a person to be detained without trial if he is thought to threaten "national security"...

    They have the Patroit Act too?
    • I believe the Patriot Act just allows the government to:

      a) snoop into your private life without court order or permission,
      b) detain non-citizens without trial [with exceptions of 'enemy combatants'].
      c) Expires End 2005.

      The ISA has not expiry date and allows the police to detain anyone for arbitrary periods without trial on any suspicion on having acted or likely to act on any matter of national security. The difference is on implementation: the ISA is frequently used against opposition parties, religious
    • Being a Malaysian, I have to point out that there are some proud ruling party member who would like to say that the American Patriot Act is copied from Malaysian ISA law, which has been in place since the 60's
    • The "funny" part is that it is a hangover from British rule.

      The fierce Malaysian freedom fighters did not deem necessary to get rid of it once independence was attained.
    • Yes, our ISA is just like your Patriot Act. As we are a multi-racial society, one where "tolerance" is practiced, we realise that all races are different, and although there is some feeling of superiority with some races, i feel that us malaysians pretend that we are all equal.

      As such, there is some discontent between some races, but we just dont show it. There have been cases of racial riots, so to prevent this, we have the ISA.

      Under the ISA, if the police feel that you pose a threat to national secur
    • Patriot Act = October 24, 2001 ISA = February 1997 (or was it 1998?) ISA appeared before Patroit Act, what can I say? American govrmnt copied Malaysian govrmnt stupidity, I think the Human Rights people comes to Malaysia to voice their complaint, then bring back the ISA to U.S
  • I find it disconcerting that all of the above comments focus on the "insulting Islam" part of the story, and not the "national security" preserving "Internal Security Act" being leveled at a political observer. With a focus like that, and the possibilty of the administration resposible for the Patriot Act being re-elected, don't be too surprised if it's an American blogger in 4 years time. Islam. Islam. Islam. Expose yourself to the word ten times daily until it ceases to trigger alarm bells, and image
  • Around here, it's "John Ashcroft is under my bed! Software registration is a crime against humanity! Supermarket discount cards are one step short of concentration camps!" all the day. Meanwhile, this guy is liable to be going to prison -- and not Martha Stewart prison, either -- for posting political views and debate on his website. And what do we get? As of this writing:
    • Two guys complaining about "blogosphere"
    • One troll and seven longwinded biters
    • And two guys yelling "John Ashcroft is under my bed!"

    Ho

      • And hey, if some yahoo posting one poorly worded, obscure comment on one poorly made (grey text on white and yellow backgrounds? WTF?) weblog can diminishes someone's God, it's a pretty crappy God. What a pussy.

        I believe CmdrTaco subscribes to the same theological view: "Yes, God, people may have blasphemed against You on my website but anything posted in the IT or Games section shouldn't count."

  • Maybe these Malaysians should be helping me build up metanet. They can't arrest you if they don't know who you are...
  • ...on two counts. One, that negative comments about Islam (or Christianity, or Republicans, or Democrats) could be considered a crime, and two, that they arrested someone who didn't actually make them. I don't know whether to hope they find the person who made the comments [jeffooi.com] or not. I suppose that putting into law the idea that you are responsible for users' actions might be worse than suppressing free speech.
  • Given the regularity with which copyrighted articles are posted as comments on slashdot, it's surely only a matter of time before someone takes an action against the editors. Should slashdot editors be held responsible for their users' comments in the manner of this blogger?
  • If you're Malaysian and are aware of the facts of the matter, please take 1 min to sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/jeffooi/petition.htm l

    • Actually (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Schezar (249629)
      Why should people be allowed to insult Islam, a sincerely held belief that hundreds of millions of people agree with? We would not put up with anyone insulting Christianity.

      The First Ammendmend (in the US at least)

      Hell, we don't even let people burn our flag!

      Yes, we do. Flag-burning is protected speech, and the ammendment proposed to change that fact was shot down.

      When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

      Heh.. Free
      • Yes, we do. Flag-burning is protected speech, and the ammendment proposed to change that fact was shot down.

        Are there any forms of 'unprotected speech'? Can you see where this is going?

    • Re:It makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Tuesday October 05 2004, @02:27PM (#10443244) Homepage Journal
      Why should people be allowed to insult Islam

      Because we should be free to insult anything and anyone. I for one don't find that fact that hundreds of millions of people adhere to a religion that is philosophically stuck in the eighth century (minus all the scientific and cultural progress they were making back then), all that compelling a reason for its merit.

      We would not put up with anyone insulting Christianity

      What planet are you from?

      When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

      On this we agree.


      I suppose I'll get shot down in flames for pointing this out, but the levels of Islamophobia and general religious intolerance at slashdot are staggering.

      Perhaps, but I do not need to be afraid that I or my children will be nuked, poisoned or infected by militant Buddhists, or Presbyterofascists, or Mormon suicide bombers, because they don't exist. There are no rabbis, or bishops issuing death warrants.

      While there certainly have been Christian, et al, terrorists, they pale in significance by orders of magnitude to those of Islam. No bigotry in this statement, just facts.

      • Christian terrorists have been big in the past (Crusade was one example; Inquisition another - there are tons), and they still exist today, though, as you said, not as big.
      • When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

        I am so tired of religious people saying that atheism is just another religion. Atheism is simply the absence of belief, not a belief that there is no God. To claim that atheism is a religion is like saying that silence is just another sound or that darkness is some kind of light.

        I think some people simply can't grasp that someone might simply not believe in any kind of God and the

        • Atheism is simply the absence of belief

          What you're describing is generally known as "agnosticism".

          Atheism by sheer virtue of its etymology means a belief that God does not exist.


          I think some people simply can't grasp that someone might simply not believe in any kind of God and they try to paint this stance as being just as irrational as any other religion.

          I think that some people cannot grasp the idea that a belief in God and practice of religion can be as rational as any empiricist.


          I just wish
          • The refusal to take sides without -any- good evidence from either side is a cop out or cowardice? You make a good point that true atheism is logically impossible to prove. However, belief without any evidence and no way of testing for truth seems to me to be less a thing to be proud of and more a thing to hide away and never speak of. Yes, I believe India exists, but there's an easy test: I can go there. Now give me an equally simple test for the existance of god.
          • What you're describing is generally known as "agnosticism".

            And generally incorrectly known as agnosticism. Agnosticism is the philosophy that the existence of gods is unknowable.

            One can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.

            Atheism and agnosticsm are orthogonal.

            I think that some people cannot grasp the idea that a belief in God and practice of religion can be as rational as any empiricist.

            As an agnostic atheist, I hold that belief in God and practice of re
        • This, my friend, is probably the best description ever, and I fully agree.

          A fellow atheist
      • While there certainly have been Christian, et al, terrorists, they pale in significance by orders of magnitude to those of Islam. No bigotry in this statement, just facts.

        Islam is a much younger religion than most, Christianity, Judaism, etc. Islam's current state and that of most other religions cannot be compared accurately; the others have had time to streamline themselves in a way that Islam has not yet. i.e. it's heading into an age of reform that happened several hundred years ago in Christianity an
        • You have a good point and you're absolutely right. However, in the 21st century how do we get past this stage without someone having to (or wanting to) annihilate the other?

          When the state-of-the-art is a sword or a crossbow, it's one issue, but with weapons of mass destruction, it's a much scarier prospect.

    • Re:It makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by egomaniac (105476) on Tuesday October 05 2004, @02:37PM (#10443372) Homepage
      When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

      Refusing to believe in something until evidence is submitted is a matter of reason, not religion or faith.

      I don't believe in God.
      I don't believe in unicorns.
      I don't believe in Santa Claus.
      I don't believe in leprechauns.
      I don't believe in Brahma.
      I don't believe in alien abductions.

      Chances are that you and I agree on all of those but the first. You probably also agree that the fact that you don't believe in unicorns is not a religious belief. Doesn't take a religious, faith-based belief to not believe in a stupid fairy tale, does it?

      Now, please explain to me how the fact that I don't believe in unicorns is not a religious belief, but the fact that I don't believe in God is. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
      • I would also point the poster of the grandparent to one of the most insightful and lucid arguments for atheism by Douglas Adams in his (sadly posthumpously published) "Salmon of Doubt".

        It tells the hypothetical story of a puddle of water that franctically clings on to the idea of how well the world around it (namely the hole in the ground that it inhabited by it) is made by God to fit it exactly, even as the sun slowly evaporates and shrinks it.

        Oh heck...who am I kidding...believers discount rationality

        • A matter of reason surveys the current state of a question and seeks to generate a testable hypothesis. Whether there is or is not a God, is entirely a domain of faith for a religion where the will of a supremely powerful being is to not be directly observable. The conjecture of whether there is or is not a Judeo-Christian God is unprovable.

          Everything is "unprovable" in the strictest sense of the word. For all you know, you're currently locked in a padded cell in an insane asylum, having a vivid delusio
          • I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Christians are the ones making the ridiculous claims, they are the ones who need to prove it. When I claim that the entire universe was in fact created by an all-powerful space duck with an insatiable appetite for spaghetti, then it's my turn to cough up some evidence.

            Well, it's obvious that the most fundamental questions about the universe remain unanswered to some people's satisfaction, mine included. The big bang may describe the first split second, but doe
            • Well, it's obvious that the most fundamental questions about the universe remain unanswered to some people's satisfaction, mine included. The big bang may describe the first split second, but doesn't really explain anything other than there was nothing, and then all of the sudden there is something. And in the vaguest sense, it is somewhat hard to deny that it certainly seems like there may be a creator of some sort. So, in the most general sense, a religionist isn't all that crazy, imo.

              Yes, it is crazy.
              • Amazingly enough, alot of what you say can also be used against the big bang theory. Is it now also a religious delusion?

                No modern religion claims that god makes it rain. That religion was once used to explain things that could otherwise have been explained better only says something about how unwilling primitive people were to explore reasoning.

                But, if you insist on using that line of reasoning, isn't it only fair to subject science to the same thing? I mean, if Zeus is going to be responsible for lightn
                • Amazingly enough, alot of what you say can also be used against the big bang theory. Is it now also a religious delusion?

                  When did I say that I support the big bang theory? In any case, the big bang theory is not a religion for many reasons, but most notably because it is falsifiable. It makes certain predictions, and you can test those predictions to see whether or not they hold true. You can prove it wrong, and come up with a theory that better explains the observed facts.

                  None of those traits hold f
                  • My point was that religious beliefs are a delusion. It should be pretty scary to you that not even psychiatrists can find a meaningful distinction between religious delusions (a 'loving' God ruthlessly flooded the entire planet and murdered trillions of innocent animals, crackers turn to flesh in my mouth, you'll spend an eternity burning in hell for inserting your penis into another man) and the delusions of the truly insane (the CIA is controlling my mind via my radio).

                    Nice of you to pick the craziest,
                    • Nice of you to pick the craziest, most undefendable beliefs as an example. What do they call that, the strawman argument?

                      Not at all. A strawman argument is misrepresenting your opponent's argument in a weaker form, attacking the weakened form, and then claiming that you have defeated the argument.

                      I admit that few people nowadays really believe in the miracle of transubstantiation, but the other two (the Great Flood and that homosexuality is a sin) are very much active beliefs held by millions of Christi
          • I don't
            have to prove that God doesn't exist. Christians are the ones making the ridiculous claims, they are the ones who need to prove it. When I claim that the entire universe was in fact created by an all-powerful space duck with an insatiable appetite for spaghetti, then it's my turn to cough up some evidence.
            You, sir, have just made my day! I hope you don't mind if I borrow that comparison. ;-)

            • Re:No. (Score:1, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward
              The Big Bang is a testable hypothesis, and quite frankly we can reasonably discuss what form it took, but not if it was. The if of it is no longer in doubt. Not believing in the big bang isn't much different than not believing in the light coming from your computer monitor at this point.

              This of course does not preclude the existance of God, there's something to be said for the Bible as a metaphore. While Maxwell's equations are, no doubt, more useful and precise than "Let there be light" they do lack a

            • Re:No. (Score:2, Informative)

              by DavidTC (10147)
              That's a trick.

              The Big Bang is a scientific model of the start of the universe. I could point out that it's a scientific theory that was created to explain observable facts, whereas God creating the universe doesn't explain anything. And if you start asking what created Big Bang, I'm afraid you're a bit behind the times there. The current conception just has space, and the space 'tilts' sideways and turns into time. (I don't pretend to understand how things can 'tilt' in no time, but the math works.)

              Howev

        • Re:Faith vs Reason (Score:4, Insightful)

          by egomaniac (105476) on Tuesday October 05 2004, @06:28PM (#10445854) Homepage
          Why this distinction between beliefs based on "faith" and based on "reason"? Faith is not always blind. I have faith in my wife. Why? Because she has demonstrated to me in many ways that she is a faithful woman who loves me. Though we're not together during the business day, don't you think it is reasonable for me to trust her fidelity during the day, far less reasonable for me to suspect her of betraying me (at least in the absence of very serious evidence)?

          The word "faith" has a number of different definitions; you are confusing the argument by using a different one than I am. You have evidence of your wife's faithfulness -- she has always been faithful to you in your presence, has professed her love to you on many occasions, and has done many other things to give you reason to believe in her faithfulness. There is no such evidence of the existence of God, so any belief in him must be a different sort of faith than what you describe.

          I hope you can see that faith can be reasonable.

          If it's reasonable (based on rational fact and evidence), it's not "faith" as generally defined in religious discussions.

          Secondly, you wanted some evidence to be submitted about God. There are two kinds of evidence recognised by Christians: what can be seen in nature; and what has been specifically revealed by God in history.

          I submit that there is nothing in nature which indicates the existence of God, nor has God at any point revealed his existence. I challenge you to submit evidence to the contrary.

          Have you ever asked the questions that Science can't answer?

          Of course. No one is claiming that science has all the answers.

          Empiricism can observe the material world, and it can even propose laws which seem to describe the way the universe works. But it cannot say where these laws come from, or why they are so.

          True. However, God doesn't make the situation any better.

          Science: Question: Why does [system A] behave in [behavior B] fashion? Answer: We don't know.

          Religion: Question: Why does [system A] behave in [behavior B] fashion? Answer: God wants it to work that way. Question: Why? Answer: We don't know.

          All you've done is introduced one more unknowable thing and abstracted the answer one more step away.

          Isn't it beautiful and elegant that such simple laws can describe such complexity? Isn't it still so unlikely, even given such laws, that they would produce you?

          First, nobody has any idea how likely or unlikely it is -- we don't understand the processes that gave rise to life (and when we do, it will have been science, not religion, that answered the question). Second, even if it's fantastically unlikely, what does that have to do with anything? In a universe with fifty billion stars in each of a hundred trillion galaxies, the fact that something is "unlikely" still leaves room for it to happen trillions of times. And all we need is for it to have happened once -- and it obviously did, since here we are.

          Have you ever investigated the historical man Jesus Christ, and assessed his claims and the claims of his followers? Reading the new testament of the bible is a good start: it's not very long, and you can't claim lack of evidence without having read it. It's also worth looking at historical analyses of it.

          The historical man Jesus Christ is known from exactly four documents: the four Gospels. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other known documents claiming first-hand knowledge of the man.

          Tell me something: if I and three of my friends wrote stories claiming that we had seen a man perform great miracles, claim to be the son of Allah, and endorse Islam as the one true path, would you instantly trust me, discard all other religions, and follow Islam?

          That is exactly what you done. Replace "Allah" with "God" and "Islam" with "Christianity" and you ha
          • Personally, I think the worst mistake religious people make is trying to rationalize their religious convictions. Christianity is a religion of a personal relationship with God...so unless God reveals himself to a person no amount of shouting and Bible thumping or rational argument is going to convert an unbeliever. And usually, it just ends up making the Christian look rude or foolish.

            However, regarding:
            "There is no such evidence of the existence of God, so any belief in him must be a different sort of
    • That, dear sir, brings a tear to my eye. I was walking forlornly through the rain last week, throughly depressed at the evident truth that nobody knows how to troll anymore. And today, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and you have shown me that there is at least one person who still practices the ancient art. Thank you.
    • I have a feeling that you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway. There is much debate regarding the definition of atheism. Most self-identifying atheists define it as a "lack of belief in deities". Many theists and flame warriors define it as "belief in a lack of deities". Some people lack the ability to distinguish the two positions. Some people claim that the first position is actually "agnosticism", while others will reply that "agnosticism" means a belief that the truth or falsehood of the existence of deit

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.