Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body 678
Onymous Hero writes "Following the recent YouTube video 'The Innocence of Muslims' and the subsequent Muslim violence, Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.' The World Telecommunications Policy Forum (a UN body) is the vehicle by which Saudi Arabia (and possibly other states) will try to use to implement a global set of internet content standards."
Drop dead (Score:5, Interesting)
If your feelings get hurt every time someone calls you out on your religious convictions, either you're not confident enough of your religion or you need to stop believing in fantasies.
Either you believe in freedom of speech, and all the nastiness that goes with it, or you want the world to adopt your narrow-minded, pathetic excuses for why women shouldn't drive, be allowed to walk alone or meet with men who aren't their relatives.
When you drag yourselves up to the 20th century, then we can discuss things you have issues with.
What about our public order? (Score:0, Interesting)
We should be all in favor of this;) Content standard #1 should prohibit anything that doesn't respect equal rights for ALL and due process, since OUR "public order" is fundamental dependent upon those principles. We are offended by civilizations that don't abide by such policies.
Re:no (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't mistake good folks who pay only lip service to religion as Islam. You can't possibly be an observant muslim and a good person (as the holy book demands murdering infidels), but merely calling yourself a muslim does not preclude you from being fit for civilisation. You "just" need to disregard core articles of the faith -- fortunately, most do.
This is why USA control of the internet is best (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Saudi Arabia: (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck you, and your religion too.
Your pal,
OldSport
Re:Dear Saudi Arabia: (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, let's support this. Then use it to ban all Muslim writings. They disturb public order!
This sounds like their swan song (Score:4, Interesting)
This happens to exactly be one of the first telltale signs of their unwilling abdication, as their hateful 'religion of peace' disintegrates in the face of a collective, planet-wide yawn. A day to celebrate!!
Good riddance.
Practical suggestion: close yourself off from the rest of the world instead. Miss you we will not.
Good luck, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and thanks for all the (fossilized) fish oil!
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:2, Interesting)
Or use a simpler solution - just unplug the Saudis from the global net.
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
is there *any* country out there that doesn't censor the net in one way or the other?
Some for copyright (e.g. Youtube in germany), some for religious reasons (Iran), others call political comments a crime (China), others crush down on gambling sites cause that's a crime there (USA),
And they all have in common that they are "legal" and "fair" and "justified" as the gouvernment responsible for this or that souverign corner of the world declared it illegal. usually with best intents and in complete contradiction with the laws of that other corner of the world.
Deal with it. everyone is already censoring the net. And the differences become rather small if you recognize that the biggest difference is your point of view.
Re:What the fuck is the point of the UN? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bless, I actually wondered how far I'd get down the thread before someone started mouthing off about things they don't understand, which is often the case when the UN is in a story, I had to actually get quite far this time before I reached your post.
So let me explain for you, the UN is a bit like your government, except whilst your government represents the population of your nation, the UN represents the governments to the world.
So a bit like when a member of your government comes up with some braindead law and no one wants, the UN works in the same way, but with far more safeguards. Saudi may well be mouthing off about this sort of thing but it wont happen, because the only UN body that comes close to this sort of thing would be the ITU, and the ITU requires unanimity on votes, and as the West wont vote for this measure at the ITU, it wont actually happen.
Think of Saudi as that annoying representative in your government that cries think of the children, and comes up with ideas that frankly scare the shit out of you, but are thankfully so insane, that they don't actually ever get passed.
Really though, the UN is less scary than government in this respect, because sovereign nations can opt-out of it, or elements of it, whereas you can't opt-out of your government. There are some exceptions, if one member state threatens another, or if one government ceases to represent it's people through committing war crimes against them for example, then the UN may act, but for the most part, nations sign up to what does suit them, and don't sign up to what doesn't (i.e. some countries don't think the WTO would benefit them).
The point is though, for every fringe-organisation of the UN filled up by the nutjob countries, there are plenty of UN organisations that facilitate global cooperation, for example, the International Civil Aviation Organization helps facilitate global standards on air traffic control so that when a plane enters another country's air space they can navigate safely to land, or avoid other air traffic, without fear of conflicting standards on such things causing issues. The Universal Postal Union helps ensure you can send a letter from your house in the middle of whatever country your in, to just about any other address in the world and so forth.
So yes, don't worry, your sovereign nation's rights and laws will remain intact, providing it doesn't try and force them on anyone else, which is precisely why Saudi Arabia's bid is just noise that is doomed to fail. The UN still has a point, just as your government still has a point, even if it probably does a lot of things you dislike as most governments do. Just as at least some form of government is necessary for a civilised society to exist by enforcing laws against being able to arbitrarily murder people and so forth, the UN is necessary to ensure that certain international efforts and cooperation flow smoothly by mitigating the potential for cultural barriers and so forth to cause issues (i.e. imagine if an air traffic controller at a busy airport like Heathrow, or Chicago O'Hare had to know every language in the world to cater to pilots flying in from all over the world).
Re:no (Score:4, Interesting)
It's impossible to really observe the bible, as it's a big pile of various works that often contradict each other (or even themselves!) on core points, such as whether afterlife exists (Job), whether other gods exist, whether Yahveh is the highest god or merely a member of the "god of gods" court (Psalms -- compare translations closely, as they often try to wriggle away), whether you are even allowed to _not_ genocide your neighbours if they don't immediately surrender into slavery, etc, etc. All while claiming that every piece of past law is still in effect.
On the other hand, the Koran has hardly any contradictions -- usually they can be blamed on being literary devices; and even if it would contradict itself, there's an abrogation clause that says a commandment issued later overrides earlier ones. The very latest sura, 9 (they are not numbered in chronological order, remember!) is also the most bloodthirsty one.
Thus, it is pretty clear whether you follow the Koran or not.
Read this from a Muslim (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/30/husain-haqqani-muslim-rage-is-about-politics-not-religion.html [thedailybeast.com]
Can't be racist since the author is a Muslim.
The basic message is simple: The Islamic powers that be see the decline of the Islamic world and instead of catching up by modernizing their world, they seek to keep what control they can by creating theocracies, where the rule is to not question those in charge. It keeps the population dumb and controllable but also backward and unable to matter in the real world.
A perfect example was shown with Olympics. Saudia Arabia had fielded a female Judoka but insisted she would be allowed to wear a headscarf. Probably the first thing you picture when thinking of Judo is the standard uniform, which has no head covering. It never had, wasn't needed to appease any country ever before. But Saudia Arabia needed to be appeased because else they might withdraw. So the woman was allowed to disregard safety, disregard tradition and wear a piece of kit nobody else was allowed to wear...
AND LOST
Immidiatly, she didn't stand a chance! Not even the slightest. She was the worsed to ever take part in the modern olympics.
She wasn't put into her countries team to win or even to compete, she was put in to be harmless enough to not upset Saudi Arabians while at the same time playing the "the world hates islam" card by hoping she would be barred because of the headscarf. She wasn't and it became clear thar SA biggotted nature simply meant they had no women worthy of competition.
It is easier to shout loudly "rah rah us" and blame everything on them, then to risk modernizing your country and have the people wonder why this old men are in charge. England works that way, "trust us the 1% conservatives, we will fix your country because you are great, trust us". The USA loves its rousing "We are #1" waving made in China banners.
And around the world, were the powers that be have made a mess of things, religion is a good card to rally your troops around the leaders in support rather then looking for a handy rope.
Why do you think backwater North-ireland had religious strife? Because it was managed so well economically? Why do you think the orthodox church is back in power in Russia, because the last time they were in charge, they did so well economically?
No, but in economic hard times when people can't improve themselves or society, they become susceptible to religious control telling them they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Because keeping the people stupid is a good way to control people, but when times are hard, people also prefer to be kept stupid. Easy answers are so much easier.
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
You know..if we could just become energy independent....we could just then pull out of the whole middle east and let those fuckers blow themselves up and be done with them.
I'd love to quit giving them so much money....
I think we need to drill our asses off locally, build more refineries to keep us going while we explore all other forms of energy.
The US needs to make energy independence our new "going to the Moon" quest.....
Re:The USA is already a global censorship body (Score:4, Interesting)
Kiddie porn? Boohoo.
AC didn't say kiddie porn, AC said under-18 porn. Presumably they mean something like 17 years old rather than 7 years old.
Not that I agree that it is a bad thing. A line should be drawn somewhere, and age 18 seems as good a place as any. Just pointing out that under-18 porn does not necessarily constitute kiddie porn.
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Grow up. No war has ever been fought on the reasons of morality. There are only three reasons for a war: power, resources and land. Which, of course, are pretty much the same as long as you keep your shit together somewhat.
Morality in a war is never more than a popular justification. The US Civil War? Not about the slaves, but it did use the promised freedom of slaves as a way to use them behind enemy lines. The invasion of Iraq? Not about freedom or democracy, but about keeping the dollar as the currency of oil trade. I dare you to find one that was really about morality.
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
What we need to do is develop renewable energy sources to the point where they are truly viable, and spread them around the world so everyone can easily use them.
Re:Drop dead (Score:4, Interesting)
Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains this better than I could ever hope to. [youtube.com]
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
But then they'd be China's problem, not ours.
?!?!?
False logic. They'd use the money they get from selling oil to the Chinese to fund attacks on Western targets. They wouldn't attack China - As others have said, the Chinese don't cower and start groping grannies at airport checkpoints when they're attacked the way North Americans do, so there's little propaganda value in attacking China.
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:3, Interesting)