Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Communications The Internet Your Rights Online

Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body 678

Posted by Soulskill
from the redacted-redacted-redacted-redacted dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body

Comments Filter:
  • one word! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 3seas (184403) on Friday October 12, 2012 @08:47AM (#41629625) Journal

    NO!

  • no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Friday October 12, 2012 @08:49AM (#41629647) Homepage Journal

    I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos. But this is way over the line. This asks for the ability to apply censorship rules to everyone. They should be bitch slapped and sent out of the room.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dskoll (99328)

      I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos.

      I am. Islam is a blight on humanity and evil things like those emanating from Iran [telegraph.co.uk], Saudi Arabia [dailymail.co.uk] and Pakistan [npr.org] flow directly from Islam.

      • by Jawnn (445279)

        I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos.

        I am. Islam is a blight on humanity and evil things like those emanating from Iran [telegraph.co.uk], Saudi Arabia [dailymail.co.uk] and Pakistan [npr.org] flow directly from Islam.

        Blaming the religion is the wrong approach. All you will accomplish by attacking a religion is to add to the resolve of those extremist followers who you seem to conflate with the vast majority of those followers who are not so fearful, ignorant, and hateful. Notice I said "a" religion. Not Islam. Christianity has it's share of nut-job followers too. They're not as well organized since The Enlightenment, but they are still there. We need to leave the religion out of it and deal with religious extremists for

        • by dskoll (99328)

          Blaming the religion is the wrong approach

          Why is that?

          On the contrary, blaming the religion is exactly the right approach because it is the religion that contains the evil. Most Muslims are quite decent human beings and are deserving of respect. Islam, on the other hand, is a set of ideas and philosophy and we should not hesitate to criticize it.

      • Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MozeeToby (1163751) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:21AM (#41629995)

        Mao didn't need a religious excuse to kill millions, neither did Stalin. North Korea manages to oppress their people to a degree the middle eastern nations can only dream about. Christianity was used as a rallying cry for countless atrocities throughout the middle ages. Evil flows from evil people. If the evil people couldn't use Islam to be evil they'd use something else.

        • Re:no (Score:5, Informative)

          by N0Man74 (1620447) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:51AM (#41630431)

          If the evil people couldn't use Islam to be evil they'd use something else.

          I agree with you, but yet I still have to concede that it is a lot easier for evil people to manipulate people into doing evil by using the Quran than it is by using My LIttle Pony episodes.

        • Yes, and the common ground here isn't religion. Religion is a symptom of the real problem.

          It desn't matter whether you are a Taliban shooting a little girl, or a member of the Red Army killing doctors and teachers--you know, those dangerous edjoomacated people--or a brainwashed 19th-early 20th century expansionist nationalist.

          Humans tend to.. not question their beliefs. We become emotionally attached to them. We place way too much value on them. Our beliefs are tribal--We tend to believe what we believe

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DaveyJJ (1198633)

        Islam is a blight on humanity

        Religion is a blight on humanity.

        Fixed that for ya. Doesn't matter whether intolerance and the desire for absolute control over morality and ethics emanates from Saudi Arabia, Rome, an Anglican pulpit or some intolerant, fundamentalist bigot in the southern US of A.

        Belief in mean, paternalistic sky fairies and an intense wave of misogyny is the problem, here. In other words, believe whatever you like, and practice whatever superstition you choose. But the minute you try to impose that belief on any anothe

        • by dskoll (99328)

          Reminds me of the recent Onion item

          That defeats your hypothesis that all religion is (equally) a blight on humanity. The Onion image insulted a bunch of religions but there wasn't any violence. It seems that Islam is unique in that criticism of it or satire of it provokes deadly violence.

  • by sanosuke001 (640243) on Friday October 12, 2012 @08:51AM (#41629661)
    How about we tell them to stop being so sensitive and they can just ignore it.
  • Drop dead (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday October 12, 2012 @08:51AM (#41629671) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12, 2012 @08:57AM (#41629705)

    Freedom of expression is supposed to be uncomfortable and challenge public order. That's the whole idea.

  • Yes! Let's do it! (Score:5, Informative)

    by bradley13 (1118935) on Friday October 12, 2012 @08:58AM (#41629719) Homepage

    "international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order"

    I agree absolutely. Let's set the standard: public disorder - destroying property, killing people - is a crime. Freedom of expression is not. Pretending that freedom of expression forced someone to violence is a transparent and pathetic excuse.

    According to TFA, Saudia Arabia is still blaming the video clip for the violence. It is now well-established that the violence was pre-planned; the date of September 11th was picked carefully. The video clip was merely a transparent excuse, and the upload may, in fact, have been coordinated to coincide with the violence. Saudia Arabia is trying to use the situation to impose their fundamentalist values on the rest of the world. No thanks.

    So, yes, let's set a standard: Free speech is too important to compromise.

  • by FudRucker (866063) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:06AM (#41629789)
    they should do their own censoring and leave the rest of the world's internets alone, china did it, what nations should do is change their system to a nationwide LAN (sortof), and when connecting to websites served from IP address of other nations it should go through a filter if that is what they want to do, if i want to look at naked women eating barbecue pork while holding poker chips with her twat that is my business and should not be of any concern of some religious zealots in some other nation
    • they should do their own censoring and leave the rest of the world's internets alone . . .

      Exactly. Since that which threatens "public order" varies so widely by culture and country, attempting to find a global solution is pointless. As messy and difficult as it can be, censoring that which is perceived to be dangerous to a particular government is that particular government's problem, not everyone else's.

  • by BMOC (2478408) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:11AM (#41629839)
    Welcome to the 21st century. Want to be a part of it? ...then grow the frack up.
  • by Jawnn (445279) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:12AM (#41629851)
    If your deity needs intercession by mortals to prevent others from speaking against him, he is probably not what you are thinking he is. So there's that, but the real thing I want to say, to anyone who would presume to limit my speech on religious grounds is "Piss off!". Seriously. Get a fucking clue and realize that your spiritual path is yours, and yours alone, to walk. The rest of us don't have to join you. Get it?
  • by MachineShedFred (621896) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:13AM (#41629859) Journal

    - The Constitution of the United States says that any treaty to which the United States shall be beholden must be ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate.
    - The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and prohibits the Congress from passing legislation limiting expression.
    - Every single Senator took an oath to uphold the Constitution upon taking office.

    Any vote by the US Senate to ratify such UN action would be a direct violation of the Constitution which they swore to uphold. At the very least, I can't imagine that there are 67 senators looking to retire at the end of the term in which this treaty would be voted on for ratification; to say nothing of the Supreme Court throwing it out like a 105mph fast ball...

    Hey, if this thing gets passed in other countries, maybe the US will become the best place to host Internet content...

    • by alexo (9335)

      Any vote by the US Senate to ratify such UN action would be a direct violation of the Constitution which they swore to uphold.

      So?

  • by Big Hairy Ian (1155547) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:14AM (#41629871)
    and it wont offend you. Essentially you waived all rights to be outraged when you clicked the link and pressed play on the video.

    Ah hell go burn some books if it makes you happy

  • by mekkab (133181) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:16AM (#41629903) Homepage Journal
    the Global Internet Censorship Body will ensure equal unrest and humiliation for all.
  • by Ryokos_boytoy (259245) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:17AM (#41629931) Homepage

    Invading Iraq for oil, did not support
    Invading Afghanistan to build pipeline, did not support
    Nuking Saudi Arabia for stifling freedom of speech, Let me press the button.

    They need to turn off the computer if they are offended but growing the fuck up would be even better.

  • by hutsell (1228828) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:18AM (#41629941) Homepage

    Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.'

    There is a "crying need for international collaboration" to address the livid intolerance exhibited by the Monarchists (we've been there before -- self-absorbed, lazy and inbred) pissed that 6 billion people aren't under their thumb.

  • Dear Saudi Arabia: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OldSport (2677879) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:19AM (#41629953)

    Fuck you, and your religion too.

    Your pal,

    OldSport

  • But wait (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:19AM (#41629959)
    To which the United States replied: "But if we don't let them say what they want on the internet, how is the NSA supposed to spy on everything they do?!?"
  • A modest proposal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrLint (519792) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:21AM (#41629989) Journal

    In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.

  • Dear Saudi Arabia (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarkGriz (520778) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:26AM (#41630039)

    Take your censorship and go f*ck yourself with it.

    Sincerely,

    The Free World

    p.s. we can still buy your oil, right?

  • by terjeber (856226) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:35AM (#41630171)

    We really should support it. There is nothing at the moment that creates more public disturbance than the Qur'an. We support Saudi Arabia in this and instantly work on banning this book all over the world. Then we can start on the Bible and other religious texts.

    The sad thing is that these morons don't understand the words that are coming out of their own mouths.

  • by zuki (845560) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:39AM (#41630215) Journal
    Along the tortuous path of life, certain things irreversibly change over time. Accelerating the path to freedom from the mental shackles of organized, dogmatic religion would appear to be one of the direct consequences of inter-networked people freely and finally comparing notes between different brands of those good old 'All-powerful-being / be very scared / you should feel guilty, you unworthy scum' methods of mind control that have been in place for hundreds of years.

    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!
  • So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bickerdyke (670000) on Friday October 12, 2012 @09:47AM (#41630363)

    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.

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday October 12, 2012 @10:36AM (#41631139) Journal

    Are soldiers to blame for acting out the orders of the leaders? The idea in the west with REAL soldiers is that any western soldier has the duty to question his superiors if they order him to do something that is against higher laws. This is at least what I was told when I was drafted, it is in the dutch soldier manual.

    So... what about mobs? Is the mob incited by a leader responsible for their actions?

    What about a payed mob? Many arab protest are of the dial-a-riot variaty, there is nothing spontaneous about them. They are organized by leaders who decide NOW is the moment to take offense and find something to take offense at. Protests have been held over decades old material OR material so obscure it is unlike to have been found by accident by the protesters.

    But lets go further. Where does reponsibility end when it comes time for collective punishment.

    It is very PC to cry over the poor victims of Dresden and Hiroschima. Countless innocent children died who weren't even old enough to know the world outside their garden let alone know the politics of the world. But how many of the women who burned and died had cheered their troops? Had hugged their mass murdering sons?

    Part of the crew of the Titanic accepted a reward/bribe for rescuing passengers, this was an outrageous thing to do and over of the mothers of the crew slew the door shut in her sons face when he came home and refused to ever speak with him. How many mothers of SS soldiers, Japanse child raping infantry and Islam terrorists have done the same? The father of the muslim who killed 3 French soldiers and 2 jewish kids, didn't even apologize but instead sued the french state for killing his son.

    I am not reponsible for the actions of others, in my eyes, goes only so far. If you go to the same church as someone who does something you disagree with, you have to take action, either leave that church or bar that person but you can't just shrug your shoulders and claim the others actions shouldn't reflect on you.

    Many talk about the hate of Muslims in the west but so far, Muslims deaths at the hands of white westerners is a fraction of westerners killed by muslims.

    Terrorism is not isolated to Muslims but in other parts of the world, what has happened is that the people part of the terrorist group started to protest, held marches to condemn the violence to show they were not supporting it. Often at great danger to themselves.

    There have only tiny handful of muslims who publicly showed on their own accord in front of their own people, that the terrorists were not acting in their name.

    Plenty hold that every US citizen deserved the 9/11 attack becsuse of US actions. None of these people believe that ALL Muslims deserve the Iraq/Afghan war for Muslims terrorist actions.

    Ultimately these people are racists. White people are responsible for the action of their society. Muslims are not responsible for the actions of their society.

    I don't think that attitude is right.

You are an insult to my intelligence! I demand that you log off immediately.

Working...