Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iran to Filter 'Immoral' Mobile Messages

Comments Filter:
  • F***T P**T (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:34AM (#18926301) Homepage Journal
    This First F***T P**T was sent using an Iranian proxy!
  • My God. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:35AM (#18926305) Homepage Journal
    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).
  • by master_p (608214) on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:36AM (#18926311)
    first, CENSORED, then CENSORED and then, CENSORED!
  • Question: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by el_munkie (145510) on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:36AM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Threni (635302)
      > 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: (Score:5, Informative)

        by Zeinfeld (263942) on Monday April 30, 2007 @10:43AM (#18927539) Homepage
        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.

        • by Slithe (894946)

          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.

          I think you overestimate the importance of opinion in favor of economic realities. I assume that South Africa, being a rich former colony, was relatively dependent on the West for certain items, and sanctions made it very difficult to remain self-sufficient for long. I highly doubt that sanctions would have had very much impact on the U.S.A. pre-1970s (that produced 96% of all products consumed).

          Cuba might respond to sanctions from Latin America, but sanctions from the country that backed the corrupt Batista despotism are not going to work.

          Uh, what do you mean by backed? Here is a snippet from Wikipedia:

          As armed conflict broke out in Cuba between rebels led by Fidel Castro and the Batista government, the U.S. was urged to end arms sales to Batista by Cuban president-in-waiting Manuel Urrutia. Washington made the critical move in March 1958 to prevent sales of rifles to Batista's forces, thus changing the course of the revolution irreversibly towards the rebels. The move was vehemently opposed by U.S. ambassador Earl T. Smith, and led U.S. state department advisor William Wieland to lament that "I know Batista is considered by many as a son of a bitch... but American interests come first... at least he was our son of a bitch."

          U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower officially recognized the new Cuban government after the 1959 Cuban revolution which had overthrown the Batista government, but relations between the two governments deteriorated rapidly. Within days Earl T. Smith, U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, resigned his post to be replaced by Philip Bonsal. The US government became increasingly concerned by Cuba's agrarian reforms and the nationalization of US owned industries. Between April 15 and 26th, 1959, Castro and a delegation of representatives visited the U.S. as guests of the Press Club. This visit was perceived by many as a charm offensive on the part of Castro and his recently initiated government, and his visit included laying a wreath at the Lincoln memorial. After a meeting between Castro and Vice-President Richard Nixon, where Castro outlined his reform plans for Cuba, the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express "serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities."
          As the reforms continued, trade restrictions on Cuba increased. The U.S. stopped buying Cuban sugar and refused to supply its former trading partner with much needed oil, creating a devastating effect on the island's economy. In March 1960, tensions increased when the freighter La Coubre exploded in Havana harbor, killing over 75 people. Fidel Castro blamed the United States and compared the incident to the sinking of the Maine, though admitting he could provide no evidence for his accusation. That same month, President Eisenhower quietly authorized the CIA to organize, train, and equip Cuban refugees as a guerrilla force to overthrow Castro.

      • by el_munkie (145510)
        I didn't say it isn't technically feasible. Automatically sifting for keywords in plaintext is trivial. I meant legally. The summary seemed to imply that the US was far down that path already, and that is not the case, to the best of my knowledge.
        • by Tassach (137772)

          Automatically sifting for keywords in plaintext is trivial.
          Fortunately, bypassing keyword filters is also trivial. Deliberate misspellings alone can defeat most filters without losing readibility. Once you start using slang and euphamisms, it becomes an impossible task to keep the filters up to date.
    • by jafiwam (310805)
      The US Government would rather snoop than censor I think, more after power than they are religious BS. (Though the latter is getting more and more attention.)
    • I can make it happen in the US with a few magic words: "Won't someone PLEASE think about the children!"
    • by kinglink (195330)
      Well because the government is against us and wants to opress us. Unless our party is in office.

      I mean what other way can we create hatred against the enemy? Claim they are going to reinstate the draft? Oh wait....
  • Language issues (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VincenzoRomano (881055) on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:37AM (#18926325) Homepage Journal
    Hmmm ... sounds like the anti-SPAM filters for email.
    With the right language and some "ad hoc" grammar mistakes you could foolish the filter.
    • by mangu (126918) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:09AM (#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.

      • And then he got killed on the spot. How long do you think people stood up to them ?

        Not ... at ... all ...

        Same in Iran (and in Saudi Arabia and in Pakistan and in Libia and ...). Bend the rules and they stone you to death. "islam" is the current excuse in a long list of ideologies that can't stand freedom.
  • Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
  • "At Least???" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by purduephotog (218304) <hirschNO@SPAMinorbit.com> on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:39AM (#18926357) Homepage Journal
    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: (Score:2, Troll)

      by db32 (862117)
      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 r
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Hubbell (850646)
        Gays are not banned from the military. Being openly homosexual in the military is banned for VERY legitimate reasons. Who is the largest group that makeup the armed services? Poor/lowerincome groups. Who are the groups most likely to be homophobic? Oh yeah, lower income groups, and to a lesser extent minorities whether they are poor or not. It's a matter of morale. If you dislike gays, and most of your squad dislikes gays, are you gonna feel upbeat and awesome with a homosexual in your squad? No, yo
        • by db32 (862117)
          Your entire chain of reasoning is even more ignorant that the homophobia itself. Associating homophobia with the poor/lower income groups, saying that the largest group in the military is poor/lower income, and then trying to relate the thing to morale is unbelievably ignorant and none of it is very true. The majority of the military is not from the poor/lower income for one, secondly most of the military doesn't give a rats ass about it. The drive for banning homosexuals comes almost exclusively from th
        • This will exclude EVERYONE from the army. In fact you are disqualified. You feel that the "poor" people are less then you, so you would not persom to full potential because you'll feel they are underqualified, inadequate etc etc.

          BUT poor people you claim are the majority, but poor people feel rich people like you are pampered snobs. So they wouldn't perform well.

          You can't have any combination of race since ALL races think something about ALL other races.

          And what about rednecks vs city slickers. West coas

      • by Dog-Cow (21281)
        What is wrong with not providing legal benefits to gay couples just because they want to live together? Giving benefits to those who bare and raise a family makes sense, both socially and economically. Doing so for anyone else makes no sense what-so-ever.
        • by novakreo (598689)

          What is wrong with not providing legal benefits to gay couples just because they want to live together? Giving benefits to those who bare and raise a family makes sense, both socially and economically. Doing so for anyone else makes no sense what-so-ever.
          Do you really have to ask?
          If straight couples who are unwilling or unable to have children receive the same benefits while gay couples don't, it's unfair discrimination.
          • by db32 (862117)
            No no no, that is fair discrimination because they are gay. Don't you understand, Iran is bad when they impose radical Islam rules, but its all okay and civil when our government imposes hardliner "good christian values". The greatest irony is the 2 major biblical sections that get paraded about as anti gay have about 0 to do with gay. Sodom and Gomorrah (assuming you allow them to maintain that everything in the bible is historically accurate) has more to do with the culture of hospitality, and how hosp
        • by db32 (862117)
          So married people without kids should not have any of the legal benefits associated either then is what you are saying. Taxed as single, kept out of hospital emergency rooms, etc etc etc. The homophobic community tries to cast the whole argument into this legal rights nonsense to gain support and justify it. Personally I think marriage shouldn't even be an issue of the government in any way shape or form, it is a church issue and by separation of church and state it should not be a government issue. The
    • by certsoft (442059)
      There is hardly ANYTHING censored in the US

      Except for the unreasonable fear of "dirty words" on broadcast television. I was watching Billy Connolly on broadcast television down in New Zealand a few months ago, totally uncensored. I could just imagine how many millions of dollars of fines that would bring a station in the US.

      PBS had a series recently called "America at a Crossroads" (or something like that) where they actually apologized for censoring our soldier's speach in Iraq, citing the fear of hug

  • by _xen (79742) on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:40AM (#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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SilentSheep (705509)
      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.
    • 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.
  • not surprising (Score:4, Informative)

    by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:42AM (#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).
  • by MatrixCubed (583402) on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:45AM (#18926413) Homepage
    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.
    • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by quarterbrain (958359)
      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]
  • by DrXym (126579) on Monday April 30, 2007 @08:49AM (#18926451)
    After all, look at the success we have filtering spam adverts for viagra, cialis etc. from our mailboxes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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
      • by novakreo (598689)

        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
        Yet no matter how many times I click the 'Report Spam' button, I still get pump and dump stock spam in my Gmail inbox daily. Your experience is not universal.
  • 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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Carewolf (581105)
      So a moral message is one that is grammatically correct, but badly structured and full of typos?
    • by plover (150551) *
      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 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Moggyboy (949119) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:01AM (#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.
  • by caldodge (1152) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:01AM (#18926553) Homepage
    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"?
  • 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 electi
    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:31AM (#18926827) Journal

      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.

      • 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.
      • 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.
        Ha, the trick's on you then. What actually happens is that on their day off, Dungeon-lurking Horn-besprouted Beaters-to-death-of-Foreign-Reporters guard death camps.
      • by el_munkie (145510)
        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?

        Well, Kerry's didn't say he would end the war. Neither party's nominee had ending it as part of their platform, so in the 2004 election, Iraq wasn't an issue. Sadly, the big issue was gay marriage.
    • Democratic ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by unity100 (970058) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:34AM (#18926849) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • by Moridineas (213502) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:40AM (#18926905) Journal
      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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mckyj57 (116386)
      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.)
  • by Shivetya (243324) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:11AM (#18926639) Homepage Journal
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ScentCone (795499)
      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 tha
    • by DeVilla (4563)

      It still comes down to, its their country, no one is losing their life over it.
      Well, if people do start losing their lives of it, you can be sure you won't find out via text message. Fortunately we can count on the free press over in Iran.
    • by Alsee (515537)
      I understand:

      Do not speak out
      because we are not Iranian.

      It matters not to us, whether they have a voice. To speak out.
      Because no one is coming. For us.

      -
  • by Moridineas (213502) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:15AM (#18926689) Journal
    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.
  • by Pointy_Hair (133077) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:15AM (#18926693)
    ur txt msgs cnsr u!
  • by hachete (473378) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:22AM (#18926753) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Etherwalk (681268) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:23AM (#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?)
    • 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.
    • For a while the EU NBC (I think) also aired the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno". In the ads it ran an advetising campaign were it showed the benefit of ads sponsered programs by comparing a full colour thick ad filled newspaper with a thin black&white non-ad filled newspaper. Same with a news show. There were others as well.

      Now this was an ad, even the most rabid american would agree on that. What I put to you is that this was propangda of the same level as shown in other parts of the world and NO not lim

  • Predictive text (Score:4, Interesting)

    by evilgrug (915703) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:35AM (#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.
  • At last (Score:4, Informative)

    by hey! (33014) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:53AM (#18927051) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spy Handler (822350) on Monday April 30, 2007 @09:57AM (#18927087) Homepage Journal
    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? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 5n3ak3rp1mp (305814) on Monday April 30, 2007 @10:03AM (#18927147) Homepage
    Isn't this kind of crap easily gotten around with leetspeak (substituting similar numbers/symbols/creative misspellings for the original words)?
    • There, did that make sense? When "they" define what is immoral ANYTHING you do can be judged as being immoral. In fact, you nick is immoral. Please hold out your hands so I can chop them off.

      What do you mean my post is immoral, I NEED MY HANDS!

  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Monday April 30, 2007 @10:22AM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LilGuy (150110) on Monday April 30, 2007 @10:29AM (#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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Grym (725290) *

      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.

      What would you suggest? Should we completely ignore the societal warning signs within Iran? Should news agencies not report such incidents or shou

      • by LilGuy (150110)
        Well then, why don't we go "liberate" them? Because that works SO much better.
    • by roystgnr (4015)
      Anyone else find it ridiculous that we're seeing all the reports of how oppressive Iran is to it's people? WHO CARES?

      Anyone with sympathy for fellow human beings.

      If the people there didn't like it, and were fed up, they'd fix it.

      Or they'd be arrested or executed. That turns out to be a remarkably effective government strategy for preventing fed up people from fixing anything.

      I'm seeing this as a preamble to invasion/attack.

      Yeah, I have to admit, the current US media and leadership isn't exactly Amnesty Int
    • by Alsee (515537)
      I'm seeing this as a preamble to invasion/attack.

      Yep. The the Bush PR team knows what does and does not get the American people riled up to want to boot a government out of power. The Bush administration knows exactly how effective stories-about-massive-government-surveillance-prog rams are in stirring up the American people to boot out that government.

      -
  • I saw this on bash.org a while ago, and I thought of it the instant I read this headline:

    <Cobra> so i was watching a pr0n
    <Thunder> wait
    <Thunder> why u guys always say pr0n instead of porn ??
    Thunder has been kicked by Guardian (No porn on this channel !)
    <Cobra> ...
    <Cobra> so i was watching a pr0n

  • WTF? (Score:3, Funny)

    by penguin_dance (536599) on Monday April 30, 2007 @02:00PM (#18930159)
    f dey txt lk kdz hre, n01 wl undRst& em Nyway!

  • I can't even figure out what people are sending me in SMSes half the time, and you're going to tell me that a country is going to be able to parse out immoral messages from these messages... Hah!

If it smells it's chemistry, if it crawls it's biology, if it doesn't work it's physics.

Working...