Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship

Kuwait Issues Order To Block YouTube 180

Posted by timothy
from the singed-and-composed dept.
Bashar Abdullah writes "Kuwait Ministry of Communications have issued orders to all ISPs to block YouTube, after some offensive videos to Quran and prophet were posted there. YouTube is 15% of Kuwaiti traffic, ranked #3 on Alexa for Kuwait. Funny thing is, those videos they refer to have been removed and I can't reach them anymore."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kuwait Issues Order To Block YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • Profit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22, 2008 @09:56PM (#25114023)

    1. Submit post about Kuwait blocking youtube.
    2. Misspell prophet
    3. ..
    4. Profit!

  • Dangerous videos (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4D6963 (933028) on Monday September 22, 2008 @09:57PM (#25114033)
    There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.
    • I smell totalitarianism... or are those cinnamon buns? Either way, I'm on it, chief! :D

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        Off topic, but your sig is truncated and so makes little sense:

        Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a r [mewshi.com]

    • No such thing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DesScorp (410532)

      There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.

      The descendants of six million dead Jews disagree with you. The descendants of 20-60 million dead Russians and East Europeans disagree with you. So do millions of people in China, Cambodia, and Rwanda.

      Some ideas stink to the core, and always end with death. Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 4D6963 (933028)
        So it was the Nazi ideology that killed people, and not its creators? Let it be my new motto, "People don't kill people, ideas kill people".
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by solafide (845228)
        Your logic reaches the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. "Guns don't kill people: evil dictators kill people" - or in your case, ideas don't kill people, evil dictators kill people. Most ideas where one person is believed to be permanently more important result in evil dictators, and death results.
      • by 4D6963 (933028)
        Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why people and not ideas are dangerous.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Capsaicin (412918)

          Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why people and not ideas are dangerous.

          Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the d

          • by 4D6963 (933028)

            Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all

            No, you're missing the point. When the regime is in place, it's too late, you can take off the originator. Once your disciples are in power it's too late, but before that happens, before some point when a movement gains too much momentum and power, the people who started it are the only thing that keep the thing going. Not ideas. People. Leaders.

            The ideas for communism were out of the bag l

            • by Capsaicin (412918)

              Let me start by stressing that in illustrating to you the fallacy of the GreatMan view of History (which enjoyed some historiographical credibility in the wake of Napoleon, but went out of serious History with gas lights), I do not mean to argue for an idealist notion of historical motion. Instead I think of History in terms of the reciprocal relationship between complex material conditions and ideology. Nor am I trying to write human actors out of History, that would be a position even more ridiculous th

      • by Spatial (1235392)
        Sounds like dangerous people to me, man. Credulousness and stupidity are the most dangerous things of all.
        • by Nutria (679911)

          Sounds like dangerous people to me, man.

          What ever happened to "the pen is mightier than the sword", and "an idea who's time has come is unstoppable"?

          • by Spatial (1235392)
            Well I say the fool is mightier than the pen.

            What I'm saying is, ignorant and credulous people are prerequisites for the worst ideas to take hold, and that they're the root of the problem, not the ideas themselves. An idea without someone willing to act upon it is nothing but a curiousity, like the whole Nazi thing is now.
      • by Pig Hogger (10379)

        Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?

        It could have ended up like Stalin, who died in his bed, dubbed "the little father of peoples", and "benefactor of humanity", despite the 16 million people he killed in his concentration camps, which makes the nazis look like amateurs, especially that the nazis were more systematically organized to exterminate people they didn't like (not just jews, by the way).

      • The descendants of six million dead Jews disagree with you. The descendants of 20-60 million dead Russians and East Europeans disagree with you.

        There are hundreds of millions of Christians who disagree with us about natural selection, too. What's your point?

        Incidentally, neither the pogroms nor the holocaust would have happened without people. There are no dangerous ideas.

    • by Capsaicin (412918)

      There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.

      If ideas and speech really are this impotent, then is freedom of speech or conscience such a big deal? Tell you what the next time someone brings up some egregious example of censorship, I won't get upset anymore, I'll just relax, take a leaf out of your book and tell myself, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter, after all ideas can't do much can they?"

      • by 4D6963 (933028)

        The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas. Ideas within this context are anti-dangers, i.e. they help destroy dangers. Note that for the sake of generalisation and simplification we'll assume a moral absolutism.

        Which is why in most of the western world there is little censorship, because dangerous (evil) people aren't in charge of us (that's a generalisation) and thus why every idea is freely available to us, without anything bad happening as a result, i.e. our free

        • by Capsaicin (412918)

          The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas.

          If ideas pose no danger to them, why would they want to do that.

          Ideas within this context are anti-dangers

          Dangers are dangerous to particular subjects. What is dangerous to liberal democracy (eg. the control of the state by the church) might not be dangerous to a theocracy and vv. The only sense I can make of your "anti-dangers" is that they are dangers to things you happen not to agree with.

          Note that for the sake of

    • by skeeto (1138903)
      I guess it goes along with that saying: The only way a book can be dangerous is by throwing it.
  • Um... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Skreems (598317)
    Shouldn't that be "prophet", rather than "profit"?
  • Somehow I'm not shocked by this.

    • by megamerican (1073936) on Monday September 22, 2008 @10:21PM (#25114369)

      Joe Lieberman [go.com] and his staff have been actively censoring youtube under the guise of Senate Bill 1959: [govtrack.us] Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 since May. The bill hasn't passed the Senate yet, but it hasn't stopped Lieberman from pressuring google to delete any video and accounts he wants.

      This video [youtube.com] describes what is going on pretty well.

      This veteran [youtube.com] gives Lieberman a piece of his mind on the issue.

      MIT has been trying to track down what videos are being taken down and why.
      http://youtomb.mit.edu/ [mit.edu]

      • I never said Christians and other religions didn't censor stuff too. Trust me, all religions are going to censor stuff they don't like.

        • I never said Christians and other religions didn't censor stuff too. Trust me, all religions are going to censor stuff they don't like.
          Joe Liebermann is Jewish.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ZosX (517789)
        Its not just Liberman. Fox and all the other media outlets have all been purging clips from youtube. Go through the last year of videos on digg from the top down and nearly half of them have been purged. I feel like there are some fairly powerful anti-subversion forces at work.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Fox and all the other media outlets have all been purging clips from youtube. Go through the last year of videos on digg from the top down and nearly half of them have been purged. I feel like there are some fairly powerful anti-subversion forces at work.

          Funny how a lot of the video takedowns are selective.

          NBC jumped right on their most recent Palin sketch where the reporter was asking about incest in the family. Video is no longer available due to copyright reasons.

          Whereas the first Palin sketch "I can see Russia from my house" is still available as are a multitude of other SNL clips.

          Funny how they're really concerned about copyright when they start taking flak.

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        So... why on earth would you post about it on the very medium subject to censorship? I mean, it's not like it won't get taken down in short order...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mr100percent (57156)

      It's not islamic. Kuwait is a dictatorship. Other more Islamic countries haven't blocked youtube.

    • by Hyppy (74366)
      If I remember correctly, all of Kuwait's Internet access is filtered through WebSense, of all things. All it takes is an entry for "http://*youtube.com/*"

      At least they won't poison the BGP tables like Pakistan did.
  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Digitus1337 (671442) <lk_digitus@@@hotmail...com> on Monday September 22, 2008 @10:00PM (#25114077) Homepage

    Funny thing is, those videos they refer to have been removed and I can't reach them anymore

    Do you by any chance live in Kuwait?

  • I hope that's not anything like Abercrombie and Fitch...

  • Youtube blocks Kuwait. Kuwait cries.
  • I wonder if they ran across Pat Condell's channel [youtube.com] and couldn't deal with it? Too many free thinkers on YouTube, there's a lot of censorship going on, I wonder how long until the corporations in saner places throw a virtual blanket over free speech lest a nipple sized ray of intelligence shine through?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    O>
    T
    A
  • by mapkinase (958129)

    Positive decision.

  • > Kuwait Ministry of Communications have issued orders to all ISPs to block YouTube

    Anyone disobeying this order will be imprisoned by the Ministry of Freedom.

  • by ErrorBase (692520) <errorbase@hotmail.com> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @02:18AM (#25116427)
    Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Segan and many others have been trying to tell everybody. Keep this in mind when going to the poll next November.
    • there is no threat of a theocracy in the US from the current candidates. Considering the church that the one candidate went to I would think the biggest threat would be on the left this year. Go figure, it is also the group desperately trying to prove their religious enough for the moderates. The only times I hear about the candidates on the right's religious views is when people mock them on message boards on from the press.

      • by ErrorBase (692520)
        And Christoper was equally clear as you about that. That is why he has become American I think. The trouble you (I'm not American) currently have it that there is erosion from all sides. It is true that you hear about their views from others, but i also have seen some interesting video's where they say it themselves. And that they are Âdesperately trying to look religious is because there is no other way to get elected currently.
    • by nickos (91443)

      Palin's already tried to ban books from the library in the small town where she was mayor. Imagine what she might get up to if she became president...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Mesa MIke (1193721)

        But Barack Obama's a Muslim, and he'll probably want to impose Sharia on all of us.

        • by ErrorBase (692520)
          and for people who actually believe this, it would be a good thing, assuming they are recognized as non believers.. Qu'ran 009.005, 009.030, 009.034. Hoping the bigots also remember 009.006. - the reason it is claimed to be a faith of peace :)
      • by ErrorBase (692520)
        That was exactly what scared me to bits. They are currently claiming that it was some kind of test, but I find that a bit hard to swallow. The chances that she will become president (if, if ,if) are scaringly high.
    • I won't vote for a ticket that uses Catholic Social Doctrine [wsj.com] to justify its tax policies and who proclaims himself to be in "totally consistent" on this point. I'm not Catholic - I don't want a Catholic doctrine to be used to go after my checkbook.

      Just say no to Biden/Obama and their theocratic tax scheme!

      Sorry, was that not what you were expecting?

  • Sucks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by isorox (205688)

    Muhammad sucks, Christ Sucks, Richard Dawkins Sucks, Flying Spaghetti Monster sucks

    Anyone else?

  • Screw them.

    They want to live in the middle-ages? Fine, it's their choice. They're the ones who are cutting themselves from the world. They're the ones who cling to their stupid religion. They're the ones who want to put their heads in the sand.

    Let's all put "mohammed was a pedophile" on our websites and in our .sigs, and let them all blow themseleves up in the ensuing war against the rest of the world.

    Darwin allways wins at the end.

The only thing cheaper than hardware is talk.

Working...