Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship

Bangladesh Blocks Facebook Over Muhammad Cartoons 562

Posted by kdawson
from the try-syndication dept.
lbalbalba writes with a BBC story about Bangladesh following Pakistan in censoring Facebook. "Bangladesh has blocked access to Facebook after satirical images of the prophet Muhammad and the country's leaders were uploaded. One man has been arrested and charged with 'spreading malice and insulting the country's leaders' with the images. Officials said the ban was temporary and access to the site would be restored once the images were removed. It comes after Pakistan invoked a similar ban over 'blasphemous content.' ... Thousands of people joined anti-Facebook protests in Bangladesh on Friday demanding the site be blocked over the contest. A telecomm regulator there said, "Facebook will be re-opened once we erase the pages that contain the obnoxious images." And how do they propose to do that?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bangladesh Blocks Facebook Over Muhammad Cartoons

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 30, 2010 @05:56PM (#32401118)

    That's a bad idea as internet access has a serious western influence on these countries, for better or for worse.

  • by pizzach (1011925) <pizzachNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:13PM (#32401244) Homepage
    People don't want all of the content that is on it. It's not just a group of techies, but people from all walks of life. If they thing that images of Muhammad are as bad a child porn, who is to stop them from blocking it? This isn't the old Internet. We aren't living in the wild west anymore. Not everyone's sense of ethics line up.
  • Re:Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Sunday May 30, 2010 @06:15PM (#32401270) Homepage Journal

    The point of the ban is to try and force non-muslims to accept Muslim rules.

    An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine that Muslims must take an oath to renounce Islam(not having to choose another religion, just renouncing Islam) upon immigration to generic, prosperous Western countries. How many would give up a safe and comfortable lifestyle and a good education, for themselves and their families, for the sake of religious self-righteousness?

    Another principle-related thought experiment: Would the number of abortions increase if men were not obligated to pay child support?

  • What about Utah? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by elucido (870205) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:05PM (#32401652)

    Not a surprise either. States that have a state religion are firmly rooted in the age of ignorance and oppression. Calling them primitives would be too kind.

    Are you saying that Utah a Mormon controlled state is currently being run by uncouth primitives? I think you are ignorant and religiously intolerant for passing judgement on cultures you know little to nothing about. Yes there are aspects of Muslim culture which are backwards and primitive, but there are just as many aspects of American culture which are backward and primitive.

    Do you think our greed is good bigger is better sexist racist homophobic culture is any better? Are we better because we destroy peoples lives for money while they do it for honor, respect or something they value more than money? The action is wrong based on the fact that innocent people are harmed or is it only wrong because it's not done to increase profits?

    I agree that we have a responsibility to evolve and help develop other cultures but we should not assume that our culture is "better", or that we know everything and cannot learn from other cultures. We can learn a lot from these cultures just as these cultures can learn from us and the problem we have as a society in the west is that we refuse to learn from other cultures but we demand other cultures learn from us.

    On top of this we import the worst of our culture along with the best. So they'll get all the polluting Corporate personhood profit is everything mafia style political culture along with free speech and thats it? Look at China, they kept the worst of their traditional backwardness and merely added the worst of our culture on top of it and now they have the worth of both worlds. What they are doing right is they did end torture so thats a positive step but their culture in terms of their form of capitalism is even more destructive than ours.

    No culture is superior unless you have a quantitive measurement not based on economic growth but based on the happiness of the individuals living under that culture.

  • by stonewolf (234392) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:12PM (#32401730) Homepage

    Naw.... I saw my first posting by a dumb ass moslem screaming about how we are all going to be killed in the great jihad blah blah blahdy blah blah back on usenet when the Internet was young and you could still have an arapnet domain.

    This crap has been happening for centuries. Every time some poor bastard realizes that those fast moving lights in the sky were put there by us and that not one of their countries could do the same thing or when they saw the steam powered steel ships come into harbor and they realized that not one of their countries could... You get the picture. Contact with the west destroyed their image of themselves as a great culture so they have to kill us all.

    Sad sick puppies.

    Stonewolf

  • Re:Idiots (Score:2, Interesting)

    by icebrain (944107) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:24PM (#32401832)

    I don't think the "I signed a piece of paper" solution will do much good. Here's what I suggest:

    Two independent DNA tests disproving paternity are absolute cause to end child support payments and refund any money paid. No more getting stuck paying for a kid you didn't provide DNA for.

    Child support payments are no longer a check to be used for anything. The money goes on a debit card and all expenditures are recorded and audited. Spending on things not for the kids earns very harsh penalties. Payment amounts are to be adjusted every year and must provide a reasonable estimate of costs and be adjusted for the payer's income.

    Remarriage triggers new assessment of child support payments, and payments are only to be made if the new marriage cannot fully support the children.

    Custody of children is no longer to be automatically biased towards the mother. The court shall give a true and honest assessment of both parents' abilities and use that as a major factor in awarding custody.

  • funny muhammad pics? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by portnux (630256) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:25PM (#32401846)
    Where are these, so I can "like" them?
  • They never learned (Score:5, Interesting)

    by linumax (910946) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:37PM (#32401942)

    It's time for Islam to learn what Christianity learned hundreds of years ago.

    That never happened. Christianity never learned anything, in fact they lost control as a result of not learning and adapting. They were thrown out of governments for good and lost the power to enforce their ways on the rest of us. Give Christianity back the power they had a in the dark ages and in a decade or two "peaceful" and "tolerant" Christians will be burning heathens on crosses in the name of their lord. If you have any doubts about that keep in mind how with the tiny bit of power left in hands of Vatican they systematically and on a global scale sexually abuse innocent children, silence the victims, protect the culprits and still consider themselves righteous. Then imagine what would happen if church had unlimited powers

    The reason there are relatively few terrorist Christian militias or individual Christian [wikipedia.org] terrorists [wikipedia.org] is fear of harsh repercussions, specifically prosecution by the state. Bring back church to the state and their fears will vanish, then you'll see how hurting Christians' feelings, including you and I's innocent jokes about Jesus would result in "bodily harm".

    tldr; It is Islamic states (or generally religion+state) that are the problem, not Islam per se. For more proof, I was in Iran during the original cartoon controversy. Not a single person knew or cared about the cartoons until state media started blasting them. Not a single grassroots protest happened, not a single gathering, until government sponsored protests (which most people have to attend) started.

  • by Pharmboy (216950) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:56PM (#32402126) Journal

    Just for the record, some of us Westerners find Christians, Jews and Muslims all pretty annoying. Not all of us are Christians. 20% openly say they are not, many who say they are have never gone to church, thus they are on paper only.

  • by biryokumaru (822262) <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Sunday May 30, 2010 @07:58PM (#32402142)

    Well, here's an interesting article [wordsandwar.com] on the subject... and here's some choice selections:

    “Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure” (Koran 61:4)

    “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them [an infidel]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (Koran 5:51)

    “When ye meet the unbelievers smite at their necks” (Koran 47:4)

    I guess you're right. Those are clearly all sentence fragments. The rest of that last sentence will obviously be "smite at their necks... with explanatory pamphlets, so that they are at eye level and clearly readable!"

  • Re:What about Utah? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by unkiereamus (1061340) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @08:19PM (#32402330)

    Are you saying that Utah a Mormon controlled state is currently being run by uncouth primitives?

    Well, I wouldn't say uncouth, since as a rule Mormons are exceedingly polite, but otherwise, sure, why not?

    Why is it assumed that just because I loathe certain practices of other countries and cultures, I must love all practices of my own? For the record, I don't like Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's witnesses, Scientologists, Catholics, Muslims, Judiasm, and oh, well, pretty much most religions (Oh, let's not forget the People's Temple [wikipedia.org]). It's not that I find the concept of religion disquieting, it's that I find religions (or more accurately, sects of religions) that seek to force it's adherents to live carefully proscribed lifestyles abhorrent.

    Now, I know the arguments, that people aren't forced to stay in the religions (mostly true, and certainly some do.), that they lead the lifestyles in order to get into heaven etc etc. Problem is though, that if you raise a child, and you, and a large part of the community around you, teach them their entire lives that playing a bongo drum is tantamount to murder, ods are quite good, they'll never play a bongo drum. To put is succinctly, indoctrination.

    To me, that style of religion is infringing on one of the few things I believe to be a basic human right, self-determination.

    If anyone has bothered to read this far, I'll note explicitly that with the exception of the People's Temple and to a lesser extent, scientology, I have no problems whatsoever with people who subscribe to a sect of a religion wherein what is preached is harmony, love and peace, being a generally good person and you'll be rewarded etc. (And yes, I realize that this is a inconsistency with my earlier statement of self-determination, so sue me.).

    I'm sorry, I rambled a bit there, didn't I?

  • by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @08:47PM (#32402534) Journal
    A lot of people blame Islam, but really it's more a story of the region being in the dark ages still. They have kings who bring their vassals in line by threatening to kill them, or by killing them when that doesn't work. Look at the relationship between Syria and Lebanon for a clear example. They still have religious purges from time to time, similar to what Europe did in the 1500s.

    In fact it wasn't that long ago we were dragging ourselves into world war over some misguided ideas about patriotism and the idea that war is 'fun.' In the middle east, they haven't gotten to the point where they realize it is ok to let people with different ideas live.
  • by LingNoi (1066278) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @09:55PM (#32403030)

    Only an idiot like you would ever consider it a civilised action to make fun of people that are held in great esteem

    Only an idiot like you would consider someone/thing above criticism. Only an idiot like you would defend a thousands of years old fairy tail.

  • by pete6677 (681676) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @09:57PM (#32403042)

    This would require fundamentalist Islam to move past the 12th century, which they stubbornly refuse to do. Its sad how Islamic nations once lead the world in innovation and creative thought and then went into a Dark Ages which they have yet to emerge from. When will Islam have their Renaissance?

  • by Forethought (1822710) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @10:06PM (#32403116)
    Related: My parents have never gone to church, don't pray, and don't have a bible of any kind in the house. They consider themselves Christian.
  • by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday May 30, 2010 @10:43PM (#32403406)
    If one state marries two people, they are married in all 50 states. That's the way it works. But if two males marry in a state where it's legal, is that legal in all other states? The general rules among the states laid out in federal and state law regarding marriages and contracts say "yes." As such, there has been a move to make sure that such marriages can't be recognized in any one state. Thus a pro-active move to explicitly ban gays from being married in that state, regardless of where they were married. I'd call that an attempt to ban gay marriage.

    The funniest thing about it all is that it's the "conservatives" that want smaller government and want the government to stop telling their religions what they can and can't do who are wanting to have the government have more rules and have those rules apply to church marriages. But then, there are no liberals or conservatives in the US, just big government conservatives and bigger government conservatives. And no one can tell them apart, other than what they want to spend the most money on fastest.
  • ..."marriage" is a sacred institution, meaning it is of religious value only.

    Hello there -- ever actually been married? You really should try it sometime. You might learn something.

    "Religious value" has very little to do with it -- a marriage is a contract, with legally binding economic and other consequences, such as:

    -You agree to share your home and property/assets, and you may (depending on the jurisdiction) become liable for any debts your spouse incurs.

    -You agree that any children born or adopted into your household are your joint responsibility.

    -Your spouse gains the right to make medical and other decisions on your behalf, should you become incapacitated.

    -Your spouse gains the right to inherit your benefits, such as pensions and insurance payouts.

    -And so on.

    (In many places, you don't necessarily have to participate in a ceremony, and it might be called something like "common-law marriage", "cohabitation", "de facto relationship", etc. In Sweden, it's called samboförhållande [wikipedia.org] or "sambo" for short -- which has absolutely nothing to do with race, but is rather a contraction of samboende, meaning "same dwelling". But in all such cases, the intent and effects are generally the same as with "marriage".)

    These are the sorts of practical issues that gays and others prohibited from marrying are complaining about: social and legal recognition as a unit.

    Such a unit is sometimes referred to in the vernacular as a family.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with an (in)ability to conform to the dicta of some Imaginary Dude Upstairs.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 31, 2010 @04:22AM (#32405232)

    Whats funny about that?

    How about the fact that progressives demand "tolerance" towards countries that publicly murder a hell of a lot more "LGBT" people ?

    Clearly one has to differentiate arguments for progressives :

    muslims are victims, even when stoning jews, gays or collaborators. It is plainly accepted from them to deny the holocaust, advocate stoning gays in the middle of New York, defend genocides (not just the holocaust, but sudan etc), and defend historical genocides (like the many genocides comitted by their prophet) and even paedophilia (the rape of a 7-year old girl by their prophet)

    This has to be tolerated ...

    right-leaning people (and everyone living in "the west", except the "progressivist" currently talking), even just normal moderate republicans, are "rich racist white people", even when they're black ("race-traitor" is a term of the left today, and apparently black women are race traitors if they're republican [wikipedia.org]). Even if genocides are comitted against them (such as Iran 1972, or the situation in the middle east) do not count as genocides. A constant rocket barrage, like Israeli's are demanded to endure, againt them do not even count as agression

    These people must be eradicated !

    Can someone tell me ...

    WHY ?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 31, 2010 @06:30AM (#32405774)

    Thankfully, America and Europe has largely evolved past such behaviors (like the Crusades and the Inquisition), and the people who insist on performing or advocating such actions are marginalized and punished according to the law when they act inappropriately. Society does not condone or encourage *any* of their behavior whatsoever.

    I bet the people in Afghanistan and Iraq would disagree there. I know, officially they were invaded to capture Osama and find those WMD's, and as soon as that's done, the Taliban and Saddam will be put back in control. However, even our Government here in Denmark has by now admitted that it's an attempt to force our ways of living upon them, instead of their own Muslim ways. Sure, WE think that our way of living is better than theirs, but needing sending armies over to force it upon them is pretty good evidence that they do not agree.

    And just in case someone is going to claim that the civilians want us there, it's only the governments we are fighting, if that was really the case, we wouldn't need to kill civilians. Even when they say that they didn't attack civilians, they add "women and children were allowed to leave before the attack".

    I guess there are no civilians on Slashdot then.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...