Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Courts The Internet Government News Your Rights Online

Internet Censorship's First Death Sentence? 475

mrogers writes "A journalism student in Afghanistan has been sentenced to death by a Sharia court for downloading and sharing a report criticizing the treatment of women in some Islamic countries. The student was accused of blasphemy and tried without representation. According to Reporters Without Borders, sixty people are currently in jail worldwide for criticizing governments online, fifty of them in China, but this may be the first time someone has been sentenced to death for using the internet. Internet censorship is on the rise worldwide, according to The OpenNet Initiative."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Censorship's First Death Sentence?

Comments Filter:
  • Nope (Score:5, Informative)

    by BertieBaggio ( 944287 ) * <bob@manRASPics.eu minus berry> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @04:31PM (#22275520) Homepage

    The Afghan Senate decided to go back on it's original decision [independent.co.uk]

    But the first story / headline is much more likely to bring in people from the RSS readers / aggregators etc. Not that internet censorship isn't a topic worth discussing; but the latest information is more useful than this misleading summary.

    Sheesh.

  • by Dannonman ( 1232084 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:19PM (#22275952)
    Er...why don't you read your own article (obviously, you were too busy to read the /. summary to note which governmental body is involved)? FYI, in the Afghan system, there is a difference between a sharia court and the Senate. The Senate voted to support the sentence, and in the article you link to, then reversed its support. The guy still has a death sentence awaiting him until a higher court reverses it.
  • by Ricin ( 236107 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:26PM (#22276032)
    From what I read here and there (google) this is really about this guy's older brother who's also a journalist and who has written about one or more of the tribal chiefs aka warlords (and since they're our "friends" now they have moved up into all sorts of higher positions). One thing that stung was apparently his reporting how this tribal chief and others (apparently it's an old custom) enjoy capturing and abusing teenage boys. Maybe before being sold and shipped to Guantanamo, who knows.

    I think, but am not sure that's in the Uruzgan province where our dear Dutch soldiers are protecting such scumbags while spreading freedom and democracy.

    And there are persistent rumors that Karzai (mayor of Kabul)'s brother is opium chief number one in that lovely place. Well I reckon something has to pay for weaponry and the squanders of war and newfound power. And they can cheerfully dump the heroin into countries such as Iran. You know, to stop the terrorists there.

    BTW, in Iraq they now HAVE sharia law. Officially. It's only a few pages away from the oil privatizing clauses in their new and illegal constitution brought to them by the benevolent US of A. Gays are killed. Single women (and there are MANY widows there) are targeted. The whole shebang. So they get death from above, death from starvation, death from disease, and death from their own governments militia (and the madhi). Almost makes death by M16 a mercy killing, doesn't it.
  • by schon ( 31600 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:28PM (#22276046)

    in 2005] 64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda
    How is it FUCKING possible that this has happened?
    Simple - because that's what the US Government [washingtonpost.com] wants them to believe.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:29PM (#22276056)
    Really? Literally?

    Are you literally as dumb as a box of rocks? Or is the word I am looking for "figuratively"?
  • by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:38PM (#22276150)
    Unfortunately, if you give a bunch of religous zealots democracy they will vote to stone you to death and revert to a dictatorship.

    Actually, this case is about political censorship; it isn't about religion, or even about the journalism student at all. The student's brother is a journalist who has written pieces critical of one of Afghanistan's political factions, they haven't been able to get him, so they resorted to arresting the journalism student and trumped up some charges. This is about suppressing political dissent; there was a story about this on NPR a few days ago. It's unlikely that the student is in real danger of execution: apparently Karzai has to OK any executions. He doesn't strike me as that kind of a guy, but even assuming he was completely lacking in moral fiber, it's doubtful he would: doing so would cede power to his rivals and piss off his international allies. But I agree that Sharia is an idea whose time came and went in the Dark Ages, along with burning witches and trial by duel. When your court claims to execute God's Will, that gives it power that is difficult to check, and as seen here, that leads to abuses.

  • by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:44PM (#22276232) Homepage

    The United States in not a democracy, never has been. Democracy is an insanely stupid form of government. What we have is a constitutional republic.

    It's a constitutional democratic republic, which is a form of democracy.

    Our puppet government in Afghanistan is also a constitutional republic, the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", with a constitution adopted in 2004 [wikipedia.org]. Instead of being in the name of "We, the people", theirs is in the name of "In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful".

    Article Thirty-Four of said constitution states [president.gov.af]:

    Freedom of expression shall be inviolable. Every Afghan shall have the right to express thoughts through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with provisions of this constitution. Every Afghan shall have the right, according to provisions of law, to print and publish on subjects without prior submission to state authorities. Directives related to the press, radio and television as well as publications and other mass media shall be regulated by law.

    So I see they're doing as good of job of following their constitution as our government is of following ours.

  • by RiotingPacifist ( 1228016 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:47PM (#22276252)

    It's similar to the refounding of japan that kept the emperor: it was reconized that it simply would not be doable without that because there was universal opposition. In this case the thing they had to compromise on was to allow religious law to be part of government justice. Failure to do so would have lead to what happened to the Russians.
    what you mean the US would pay osama bin laden and a bunch of fundamentalists to fight against the current regime?
    plane tickets are free, he had to get his money somewhere, and that somewhere was pretty much US citizens pockets!

    It's hardly the fault of the United States. Afghanistan is such a backward country
    Well apart from putting a regime in power just so the Russians didn't get the oil.

    assuming the kid gets to spend some time on death row, the US could simply pull out and then pay some group to invade on thier behalf, then invade them, he'd only need about 20 years on death row!
  • by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:47PM (#22276256) Homepage Journal

    This a a new theory to me. How did the discovery the world was round lead to any attempted genocides?

    Well, if you hold onto the Amero-centric view that nobody had posited the spheroid nature of the Earth before Columbus sailed to the Americas, I suppose one could point out to you the fact that the Aztec empire just isn't what it used to be.

    Yaz.

  • by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @05:56PM (#22276358) Homepage

    take a page from General Pershing and do what he did. Line up about 50 of them. Dip bullets in pig blood. Execute all but one. Take the bodies, toss then into a common grave, pour pig blood & pig body parts on them, cover them up (while the one you let live watches). Let the only survivor go......they did that in the late 1919's era.......NOT ONE more act of terrorism for a long time.

    Except that there's no evidence that Pershing did such a thing, and in fact was careful not to take actions that would turn people into "Mohammedan fanatics"; and similar defilement of the corpses of suicide bombers in Israel has been done recently and didn't stop terrorist attacks; [snopes.com] and commiting terrorist acts of mass execution to discourage others from doing terrorist acts is a stupid idea.

    We should not look to American war crimes in the Philippines [wikipedia.org] as a model of how to behave.

  • by mybadluck22 ( 750599 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @06:31PM (#22276616)
    idiom
    noun
    1 a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light).
      a form of expression natural to a language, person, or group of people : he had a feeling for phrase and idiom.
      the dialect of a people or part of a country.
    2 a characteristic mode of expression in music or art : they were both working in a neo-Impressionist idiom.

    literally
    adverb
    in a literal manner or sense; exactly : the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle | tiramisu, literally translated "pick me up."
      informal used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true : I have received literally thousands of letters.
    USAGE In its standard use, literally means 'in a literal sense, as opposed to a nonliteral or exaggerated sense,': : I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn't expect him to take it literally . In recent years, an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in nonliteral contexts, for added effect: : they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects ( : we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal English.

    While you could make the case that this is not formal English, you can't use a word like literally to mean exactly the opposite of what it means, unless you're being sarcastic, which you're not. Raining cats and dogs is a pretty silly phrase, word for word, but that's what makes it an idiom. Calling something an idiom doesn't make incorrect English into correct English.

    I mean really, look up literal in a thesaurus. It will show "figurative" as an (possibly the only) antonym. You can use a word to mean its antonym if you're being sarcastic, but that is not what you were being.
  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @08:56PM (#22277922) Homepage Journal
    No, they didn't all vote. Their reps were installed, and controlled by their priests. Afghanistan hasn't had a popular election of its government. It's all been installed by the US, and the factions the US patronizes.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 02, 2008 @09:50PM (#22278372)

    It is literally two wolves and one lamb voting on what is for dinner.

    Your dictionary and my dictionary must differ on the definition of "literally" ...

  • by teh kurisu ( 701097 ) on Sunday February 03, 2008 @06:52AM (#22281086) Homepage

    Even just a single murder is unlikely to get you the death sentence - you have to kill, rape, and/or mutilate multiple people to even be considered for that particular "award".

    Kenny Richey [wikipedia.org] was convicted of arson that led to the death of a child, and was sentenced to death for it. Despite weak, circumstantial evidence the Ohio public prosecutor still hounded him for his life after his retrial was ordered. Ironically, he secured his release not by fighting back but by plea bargaining - his sentence was reduced to jail time that he had already served on the understanding that he plead 'No Contest'.

  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) on Sunday February 03, 2008 @10:46AM (#22281994)
    The problem is, there are a fair few million people who are Afghans,....

    The problem is, there's no such thing as Afghans, they are:
            * Pashtun: 42%
            * Tajik: 27%
            * Hazara: 9%
            * Uzbek: 9%
            * Aimak: 4%
            * Turkmen: 3%
            * Baloch: 2%
            * Other: 4%

    and they speak different languages too

              50% Dari
              35% Pashto
                8% Uzbek
                3% Turkmen
                4% Balochi
                2% other (Nuristani, Pashai, Brahui, etc.)

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...