Iran to Filter 'Immoral' Mobile Messages

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!

not surprising

[aadvancedGIR]

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).

Re:Then they came for me

[quarterbrain]

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

[UTPinky]

*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:Yeah that's going to work

[Constantine XVI]

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:Everyone in Power Wants to Regulate Speech

[MightyYar]

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.

At last

[hey!]

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.

Re:Then they came for me

[alexo]

> 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]

Re:Question:

[Zeinfeld]

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.

Re:"At Least???"

[Hubbell]

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, you won't perform to full potential because you'll feel he's underqualified, inadequate, or just shouldn't be there or possibly even alive depending on how strong the feelings are on the subject. It's not a matter of the government hating homosexuals, it's a matter of the government understanding the constitution of their armed services and making a very good judgement call on what is or isn't allowed to be public in it so as to keep morale up.