Wired on Defeating the Olympics Censorship 417
An anonymous reader writes "As discussed on Slashdot recently, Internet footage of Olympics events are being censored for US citizens. Wired.com is covering the issue in a recent story, discussing ways of defeating these measures. Duane Wessels, developer of the Squid caching proxy, and Len Sassaman, Mixmaster anonymity software author, are interviewed. Are they correct? Is geolocation content censorship impossible?"
FP (Score:2, Informative)
Re:FP (Score:3, Informative)
ssh -D 1080 user@remote.host.elsewhere
and set your SOCKS proxy to localhost:1080
Much Ado Over ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Olympics" (tm) is Globalization defined. Duh. Who wants to watch that?
Re:Much Ado Over ... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Much Ado Over ... (Score:2, Insightful)
The NBC coverage would appear to be the exact opposite, trite jingoistic nationalism interspersed with occasional glimpses of actual events.
They seem to be slightly better this time round than last when there would be like 40 minutes of comentary and 15 minutes of ads every hour. But even so you know that NBC is not going to show any event unless the US has won.
Case in point NBC keep showing arial shots of a curiously complet
Re:Much Ado Over ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and Wagner (composer of flight of the valkyries) was an anti-semite. Does that mean that we shouldn't listen to it? Does the olympic torch coming from Nazis mean we shouldn't do it? Personally I'm kinda pissed that Hitler ruined a perfectly good moustache - but I guess with all the bad stuff he did throwing that on there won't make much of a difference.
I don't think the "showing only events the US has won" deserves a response, but I'll give one anyway. The events that NBC shows are the ones that US citizens are interested in, and because they are interested in them, it is more likely that a US athelete will participate. Do you think the US is going to win the women's diving events? Almost certainly not, but we still watch it.
It takes a special kind of person to deride an international event based on the ideals of self improvement, national pride, and respect for other countries.
Re:Much Ado Over ... (Score:5, Interesting)
"It takes a special kind of person to deride an international event based on the ideals of self improvement, national pride, and respect for other countries."
I believe the parent post was primarily about the coverage by the American TV corporations. The bit about the torch was an aside. (And I agree with your opinion on that.)
The problem with showing only events where The Glorious US wins is that it panders to a rather degoutant idea: that America Rules All.
Nor is Olympic coverage the only example of this refusal to let Americans see that any other nation might be an equal. American movies are notorious for changing history so that The Heroic Americans Rescue the World (All By Themselves.)
From a review of the movie "U-571" [smh-hq.org] by Dr. Timothy P. Mulligan, archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration, specializing in captured German and related World War II records:
I don't slag this meme becuase it doesn't give others proper credit. That's a moral question, and I'm always rather queasy about imposing my morality on ohters. However, is it an ethical position? Does it give proper credits to people you call friends and allies? Do you expect them to love and admire you when you slight them thus?This attitude, I would also argue, is septic in that it deludes the American population into thinking that they are omnipotent, and that no one could ever be better or stronger or more clever than an American.
The ancient Greeks called this hubris, and they said that the gods punish it.
Re:American movie depictions of history? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's entertainment. If you want historical accuracy, watch a documentary - but the point of making movies (aside from the moneygrubbing and casting couch aspects of which there are many) is to entertain.
Should it be to educate? Probably, but the public seems pretty satisfied with entertainment and they're the ones driving the demand. Change that equation on the supply side, and it's a long downhill slide to the poorhouse.
Re:American movie depictions of history? (Score:3, Funny)
Ummm. Yeah. I'll get back to you on that when Quixotic Campaign to Labelize Everything According to It's True Nature has it's first meeting. Here on Planet Reality, we just assume that movies are for entertainment and if someone doesn't understand that, well, they sh
Re:Much Ado Over ... (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the Olympic ideals, let me just point out that Taiwan - which formally calls itself as the Republic of China - is forced to participate in the Games as "Chinese Taipei" and cannot use its own flag. So don't be stupid. The Olympics are every bit as political as everything else international.
Re:Much Ado Over ... (Score:4, Informative)
Same thing in Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sitting up here in Ontario, watching the Olympics on CBC, and it's the same thing. In the US television concentrates on the American team; in Canada television concentrates on the Canadian team. I watched the Sydney games in Scotland, and they concentrated on the British athletes. Why should that be so strange?
Re:Much Ado Over ... (Score:3)
Good point. I started watching the Bob Costas show about an hour ago and had to turn it off. Those little sob story dramas they present before someone gets on a balance beam or whatever make me sick to my stomach.
Up until tonight I had been watching the "live" feeds in the mornings and early afternoons, wondering where the life story segments had gone, and thankfully it seems that the Bob Costas show i
Re:Much Ado Over ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The building is a historically and archeologically accurate reconstruction of the actual Parthenon in Athens, which was massively damaged, in the l
No thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to have a machine... just access to one. Free shell providers are a good source for SSH accounts, if you can find one not in the US.
Besides, you don't necessarily need SSH access, just a couple fast proxies, and there are plenty of machines with those.
Most people don't know anything until somebody tells them. When somebody writes a "How-to Watch the Olypics" document, they'll be quite able to download Putty, click on the menus, and type in the numbers, verbatim.
The stupidity is overwhelming! Look, the story is not about everyone in the country being forced to watch the olympics via their computer... It's about those that already WANT to watch it online. There's a hell of a lot of broadcasters spending a hell of a lot of money, effort, and bandwidth to provide these internet streams that you're certain nobody wants to watch.
Besides, there's always the PVR angle. Anything you can play on your computer, you can output to your TV. Even if you don't want to hook up your computer to your TV, maybe you would just like to record this stuff, and perhaps even burn it to DVD, or whatnot.
Personally, I like the idea just because announcers, who don't ever shut up, are incredibly annoying.
Re:No thanks (Score:2)
Re:No thanks (Score:2, Funny)
what ought to be done to your media (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:what ought to be done to your media (Score:5, Interesting)
NBC plays a big role in the internal "world feeds" that those smaller networks need in order to do anything at all.
Re:what ought to be done to your media (Score:5, Informative)
Re:what ought to be done to your media (Score:4, Informative)
Although I haven't seen it myself yet, I expect that the digital version of NBC's coverage to be very close to the style you're looking for. See, NBC-HD can only cover the events that the world feed has selected for HD coverage, and to make it to a 24/7 show it will have to repeat itself. The best coverage from a geek point of view, not surpriingly, is going to be the one that you must be a geek who has bought uncommon gadgets to see.
Re:what ought to be done to your media (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they would do what they always do and get the feed from the BBC.
Since what NBC is doing is being made available to other nations' media outlets through a content sharing relationship, a lower quality USA feed would effect a lot of smaller nations' TV outlets.
You mean that they would see more than the US competitor out in 6th place?
Re:what ought to be done to your media (Score:3, Informative)
As a result, all of the countries who have a major compeitor in the event send a crew focused on their competitors. The world feed is then able to pick and choose... NBC's camera 3 or CBC's camera 2 or BBC's camera 5 are at his disposal, but he doesn't have a direct ability to give an order to any of the camera operators, he
Re:what ought to be done to your media (Score:3, Informative)
and that applies to the world news on the hour... indeed I havn't heard anything but an apology out of the bbc world service since the olympics started.
Re:what ought to be done to your media (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a kernel of truth to this -- there are many people who care more about the Olympics than about sports. But the main reason it appears this way at the moment is that the poor Olympics coverage is news, while the poor coverage of world events (in the US) is something that's been going
Re:Dear smug self-important Canadian Prick, (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop seeing the world in black and white. It isn't a question of who's anti-American and who isn't. It's about the issues and you are not allowing for a fair discussion if all you care about is letting others know that you are blindly patriotic.
Re:Dear smug self-important Canadian Prick, (Score:5, Insightful)
Just more proof that Enlightenment democracy is hard.
Hide the content (Score:3, Funny)
OlympicsInColor.com would be for the American viewers and OlympicsInColour.co.uk would be the unfettered site. Simple, cheap, well, perhaps not effective in any way, but worth a shot.
Security thorugh obscurity is always the best, no matter what those GnuPG [gnupg.org] people tell you. After all the biggest software company [microsoft.com] in the world is a strong advocate of this.
Re:Hide the content (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like sports leagues who try to limit distribution of their games to their local marketplace by teams, the Olympic carves the world's broadcast rights up by territory too. They just have larger zones to play with.
Olympics is a facist event (Score:5, Interesting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3
The Olympics have officially sold out (probably years ago but hey) you are not allowed into watch any of the games if you are wearing clothing thats clearly showing logos of a non-sponsering company. All non-sponsership adverts were pulled from bill-boards for miles around the grounds and you arnt allowed to eat anything other than mcdonalds or drink any water (consider the heat) thats not official Olympic water (read overpriced water).
Couldnt care less about the Olympics its nothing more than an advertising platform or a test-ground for new drugs. But damn its making someone a shit load of cash and i wanna be that someone..
Truer words were never spoken (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC, he resigned a while ago, but he sure set the tone for the whole damn Olympics.
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:2)
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:2, Funny)
Hmmmm... evil thoughts.. i wonder if the same could work for online games? Gandalf, do you wish to buy a +10 coke? i mean cloak...
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:2)
When you control a place or an event, you control it. If people want to pay less than your price, they can, but they have to leave the event to go do that, consume the product, and then come back and possibly pay for the re-entry right. It's not exactly fair, but it's just the way the system wor
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is. Once upon a time the olympics were aimed at being something other than that. It didn't last long, but it's always sad to hear further examples.
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:5, Insightful)
6 billion dollars is a lot of money in any country. But it's especially a lot in a country of 10 million inhabitants.
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be a bit of a shame though (I could get over it though) because part of the allure of the modern games, as a spectator, is the different city and culture every time. Makes our world feel a lot smaller than it really is (which is part of the goals of the games too).
Re:Olympics is a facist event (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, interesting. My favorite line in the article:
It won't be if the sponsors keep that up! Actually, we're probably already past that point.
Of course, any sporting event is clogged with advertisements these days, and it can be a real turn off. I was at an AHL (minor league, essentially) ice hockey game a year or two ago, and there were advertisements everywhere. Even the power plays, which have been a p
Re:How is different from others? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a reasonable explanation for this. It seems that the companies, like nike, adidas, etc which are not official sponsors have attempted in previous years to "ambush" the events.
What this means is plastering the city with their billboards, changing their advertising to suggest a connection to the Olympics where there is none, or to pay large groups of people to wear their logos and attract attention to themselves in the stadium and
Overseas bandwidth? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bandwidth may certainly be getting cheaper, but with a ping to an overseas IP takes over 100 ms, you'd better hope that everything arrives in order or else you'll suffer from too many dropped frames as packets get lost (especially as more people from the US try to get into the same relays online).
Besides, are the Olympics goi
Re:Overseas bandwidth? (Score:2)
It's not censored, we pay for the BBC (Score:5, Informative)
We the british public fund the BBC through our licence fee, it is because of this fee that we have impartial, and world wide recognised excelelnt broadcasts from the BBC.
This is not just restricted to BBC1 and BBC2 but also their digital chanels, where there 4 extra streams are being broadcast as well
I do feel bad for the American public have to put up with commercial crap during the games, but getting round the proxies is unfair on the BBC who are probably working hard on blocking non UK IP numbers.
Re:It's not censored, we pay for the BBC (Score:4, Informative)
No, you merely have to affirm that you don't own a television.
Re:It's not censored, we pay for the BBC (Score:3, Informative)
Also brings back memories of the license fee collectors in London turning up 1 day after I started renting a room in someone elses house and threatening to send me to court because they hadn't paid their license. I can see why people hate them so much.
I do think the license fee is a l
Re:It's not censored, we pay for the BBC (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you don't own a television, it is not necessary to pay the license fee. It's not a poll tax. I suppose a nicely worded letter from a solicitor might help-- but his fees would probably eclipse any possible savings.
Re:BBC NOT impartial (Score:4, Insightful)
Last televised summer games was 1976 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Informative? (Score:4, Insightful)
The 1980 summer games (the real olympics) were in moscow.
The 1980 winter games (a smaller, ancillary companion) were held n Lake Placid, New York.
Is geolocation content censorship impossible? (Score:5, Insightful)
but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work for the tv networks purposes(which is why these clausees that make bbc & etc limit the feeds only to their areas). their purpose is just to make it hard enough that the average customer will wait for the time delayed showing in the states rather than go on and somehow proxy it.
It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
Grow up. This is not censorship. It's licensing. Confusing the two makes you look stupid, your arguments weak, and provides ammunition to those whom you may have a legitiamte gripe with regarding IPR whilst reducing the travesty of true censorship to something akin to you not being able to watch some TV.
I'm actually pretty disgusted that you've used the word censorship like this. This will get modded down as trolling, but I really think you guys need to get things into perspective. I feel sick.
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:2)
Slashdot, News for Nerds, and baseless zealotry.
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:5, Informative)
There is a difference between a brutal, corrupt and oppresive force preventing the masses from knowing what their government are really up to, in order to prevent a revolution (censorship, a la China, North Korea, Fox News) and a broadcaster not being prepared to pay for the rights to Internet broadcast of somebody's legitimately owned IPR.
You forgot one country in this list.
The United States of America.
Sorry to put it that way, but I think that coverage of the second gulf war in Europe was a lot better.
First, we had pictures from non-embedded media.
Second, we don't suffer from hidden censorship like they have in the US.
If you want accurate information try to get a sattelite receiver with a large dish and even in most parts of the US you would be able to receive BBC world and some other news stations.
With less biased information.
(guess why the whitehouse don't invite BBC reporters anymore (-; )
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:2)
Kinda makes your censorship argument a little weaker, doesn't it.....it doesn't make it go away, but it does make it weaker.
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not censorship, it is monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I say government supported monopoly? I am sure there is some obscure law somewhere that makes it illegal, although it is a little incovenient and impratcical, to tap into the British only BBC streams. They will not be using government funds, just government muscle.
What can you do about this? Well, if you live in the US, just boycott the NBC broadcasts completely. If a product is bad, do not use it. Everybody in the US complains about problems and issues and erroding rights, but no one does anything about it. If NBCs ratings are bad, then they get a clear message that something is wrong.
Of course, if they see their online ratings are bad, they will just paint it as no one wanting to see online coverage, as opposed to no one wanting to watch their spotty, incomplete, pleebian coverage. Peel back the paint.
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:4, Insightful)
They have been attempting the same tactics abroad the last few years. Maybe they figure once people have forgotten about Taiwan, they can invade the place without any ruckus.
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:3, Insightful)
"IPR" (bleurgh) IS censorship, all nice and legal. Fundamentally, it is an imposed law telling me that I MAY NOT PASS ON INFORMATION.
IT IS CENSORSHIP. Copyright and Patent are stealth fascism.
I'm sorry that you don't see that. But it's time for the free world to stop pandering to those who would presume to restrict our right to communicate.
There should be a "doctrine of first communication" that says that once you transmit information t
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:4, Funny)
Fascism [wikipedia.org]
no (Score:3, Insightful)
Here the Olympic Committee is saying that, in the US, only NBC, who paid them a lot of money, is allowed to show their compet
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
I call logic foul! Very nicely done, how you conflate "don't like" and "don't pay" -- but that's invalid. You're missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Censorship means, stopping the messenger because you dislike the message. That's it. The IOC hasn't decided that they don't like Americans and so won't allow broadcast. They haven't said that the Olympics will somehow undermine society. They've said, "NBC paid us a boatload of money for exclusive rights in the US and we're respecting that agreement." It is not content-based! (Secondarily, it's also not state-imposed, so it's technically not censorship for that reason, too.)
Exclusive licensing is not censorship. It might still be wrong but it's not censorship. You don't get problems solved by mis-labelling them; in fact, you often entrench the problem further.
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:2)
I wish I had some mod points, so that I could fulfill your expectations.
Repeat after me:
I am not a conformist.
I am not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
I will think for myself.
It's not licensing, it's anticompetitive practices (Score:2)
In a free market, any network that wanted (after paying a fee) could show the Olympics. The networks would be competing for viewership, and thus would have to pay attention to what people wanted to see.
I'm not going to say it's censorship, because censorship is done by governm
Re:It's not licensing, it's anticompetitive practi (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that's an incredibly narrow view point to hold (and a dangerous one, IMHO). Censorship can be performed by any entity which has control over lines of communication. This could be the government, or it could be a giant media conglomerate. After all, what happens when the giant media conglomerate is in cahoots with the government and chooses to "select" only content that's favourable to the incumbants? I'd call that censorship...
OTOH, what's happening with the Olympics is most definitely *not* censorship, and the submitter should be severely chastised for invoking that word in this situation, as it simply serves to further confuse people regarding what does and doesn't qualify as censorship (an incredibly important issue in this day and age).
Missed the point (Score:3)
http://www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html#C [imuna.org] defines censorship as "broadly, any government restrictions on speech or writing; more precisely, government restrictions on forms of expression before they are disseminated".
Regardless of how "accurate" this definition may seem to you, a lot of people think of censorship in this way. The parent to my post was thinking this way. It is precisely because this kind of thinking is dangerous that I (half-sarcastically) suggested we develop a new word
Re:It's not censorship, it's licensing (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically you're right, of course, but I think that the bad feelings over it stem from a confusion that the sponsors promote quite deliberately. I.e., that of the Olympics as a kind of "world event," the myth of which transcends the sponsored show that they're really putting on. They pay to sponsor it not only to buy eyeballs for their advertising, but also (and maybe more so) to drape themselves in the myth. Seen
Slashdot Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Censorship (Score:2)
But seriously, censorship is just the removal of anything objectionable. It is objectionable to NBC and the Olympic committee for U.S. citizens to watch streaming video over the BBC, so the BBC censors it from them. Don't be mad because the article uses a different, yet correct, use of censorship than you're used to. Censorship doesn't have to
The Opening Ceremony (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Opening Ceremony (Score:2)
It's possible, alright (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, it's tough enough for Joe Sixpack to use teh intarweb, so adding an extra layer of proxies and SSH port forwarding mechanisms, just to watch the Olympics is waaay too much work. Paying the Corporate Tax is more feasible.
It may catch on with the tech crowd. However, someone has to pay for the bandwidth, and I can't imagine it being reliable, so...
You want to end this "We bought exclusive rights for North America" crap?
Do it the ole fashioned way - fight through cong
Peercast (Score:5, Informative)
PeerCast [peercast.org] is an Open Source (not sure about the license but the sourcecode is available using Subversion) P2P broadcasting system which works great! I've not tried broadcasting/viewing videostreams, just listened to radiostations, but it has support for MP3, OGG Vorbis, Theora, WMA, WMV and NSV streams.
Very easy to install and use, it's just a single executable!
You just point it to a streaming source (for example your own IceCast server, a WMV stream which you have access to or your favourite internet radiostation) and the stream is available on the PeerCast network for everybody to listen to or watch, just pointing your favourite player to a http://localhost-URL.
This isn't censorship! (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to pay NBC to get the digital service, but you do need to provide the hardware to get access to it, and you have to hope that your local station has done the same. DirecTV is also offering the digital feed on their service, but you must have an HD decoder for DirecTV and your local NBC station or stations must have signed off.
Censorship is the intentional destruction of information in order to kill off a taboo topic. That's not what's going on here, NBC is simply letting its business need to sell ad content affect in what ways they're distributing coverage. And part of that means that no Internet coverage from other nation's rightsholders can be tolerated.
If you're not NBC but ESPN, you must comply with NBC's rules and limits on the usage of the TV coverage to put highlights on SportsCenter. In fact, even if you're the sports reporter on an NBC affiliate station, you have to agree to those rules or not use them.
Sports highlights are not free. There are strings attached to their usage usually dictated by the league who wants the right mix of promotion of their sport while also not giving away the store when it comes to their TV rights money.
No, they aren't (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason for this is that the strongest US medal contenders in fencing are sabre fencers.
This is great for people who want to paint their face with the stars and stripes and chant USA USA, but not very good for fencers (who, I think, this is sort of geared toward.)
I didn't even know it was on! (Score:2, Funny)
Difficult? No way! (Score:4, Informative)
getting the message across to NBC (Score:5, Interesting)
nbcolympicsfeedback@nbcuni.com [mailto]
They've got the monopoly so they will get the ratings regardless so the message to send them is that you'd love to watch more but find the overemphasis of successful americans and inane chatter of Costas and Couric to much to take.
Not only in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
In Belgium, the national station has only the rights to broadcast 6 hours live per day, because they could not pay more. Furthermore, they don't have the rights to put video reports about the Olympics on their news and sports site, not even for Belgian citizens.
Re:Not only in the US (Score:2)
From the Slashdot FAQ:
Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can
licensing aside they still have censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm talking about the one where only US athlete will be shown, when they win or could and before the dope test, so as to again falsely give the impression to the american population that they are the best. Hell on forums troughout the net most americans will tell you they've been the most cheered country during the countries announcement when, actually, they were boo'ed. This is not a coincidence, some stuff is happening before it gets on their TV. How many time in the past did world athlete did exceptionnal stuf and it wasn't even covered in american medias, all that was covered is their guy loosing, they just can't stand not being the center of attention. The country which is the least aware of the world is the one that judge it the most, how sad, one wonders why?
Oh, for non-biased reporting... (Score:4, Interesting)
While I guess I can understand NBC's position: they've paid enormously for this, so they should be able to try and make some of the money back. There's not very many people who would be up at 4 in the morning to watch a swim meet, but there's a bunch who'll watch the same thing in the evening. Trying to sell ads for $1 million per second at 04:00 would be a disaster.
What really annoys me, though, is being forced to listen to such blatantly political commentary. What am I talking about, you ask? During the opening ceremony, those morons doing the commentary for NBC made every attempt to point out the places where Islamic groups were "causing" strife. They couldn't seem to resist talking about the problems in the Sudan caused by the Muslims. They also made every effort to talk up how much the US has helped our little brown brothers we liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and had the gall to complain about the torture used by the Iraqi training program! I guess torture is OK in the name of national defense but not in the name of national pride.
For all the high-falootin' ideals that the Olympics supposedly stand for, it makes me want to puke every time I hear the American media make some snide comment so they can use the forum to propegate a political agenda.
Streams are shut down (Score:2)
Not that I support this (Score:3, Interesting)
Apart from a stunt like the above, (which is probably going to cost KPN its Internet business) it is technically difficult to limit a true netcast. I was rather surprised how easy it was to get on the BBC netcast without paying. This is only for hack sake. The price BBC charges is fair and I intend to subscribe. They should completely ditch the
The Olympics Should Be Cancelled Or Renamed (Score:2)
The Olympics stopped being about amateur atheletics a long time ago. Now it's just about money. The committees that pick the locations take bribes, the atheletes use steriods, blood transfusions and any other method to get ahead, and it's all done in pursuit of more money for the broadcast rights. What passes for the Olympics now doesn't deserve the name.
If you want to have a proper Olympics you would have to prohibit endorsement contracts, broadcast the games for free all over the world, etc. It will
Who cares? (Score:2)
Islamic Censorship. (Score:5, Informative)
August 14, 2004 -- THE Greek organizers of this summer's Olympics, which began in Athens yesterday, claim that more women athletes are competing than ever before. Women are also playing a high-profile role in making the whole enterprise, the biggest of its kind in Greek history, run as smoothly as possible. Seen from the Muslim world, however, the Athens game will look like a male-dominated spectacle in which women play an incidental part.
According to officials in Athens, the number of Muslim women participating in this year's game is the lowest since 1960. Several Muslim countries have sent no women athletes at all; others, such as Iran, are taking part with only one, in full hijab. And state-owned TV networks in many Muslim countries, including Iran and Egypt, have received instructions to limit coverage of events featuring women athletes at Athens to a minimum.
A circular from the Ministry of Islamic Guidance and Culture in Tehran asks TV editors to make sure that women's games are not televised live: "Images of women engaged in contests [sic] must be carefully vetted," says the letter, leaked in Tehran. "Editors must take care to prevent viewers from being confronted [sic] with uncovered parts of the female anatomy in contests."
Women athletes in Athens are unlikely to wear the Islamic hijab or full-length manteaux that cover their legs to the ankle and their arms to the wrist. The ministry's order thus could mean a blanket ban on images of female athletics.
Fear of Muslim viewers seeing bare female legs and arms on television is also shared by theologians in several Arab states. Sheik Yussuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian theologian based in Qatar, claims that female sport is exploited as a means of undermining "divine morality."
Ayatollah Emami Kashani, one of Iran's ruling mullahs, goes further. In a recent sermon, he claimed that allowing women to compete in the Olympics was a "sign of voyeurism" on the part of the male organizers.
"The question how much of a woman's body could be seen in public is one of the two or three most important issues that have dominated theological debate in Islam for decades," says Mohsen Sahabi, a Muslim historian. "More time and energy is devoted to this issue than to economic development or scientific research. "
Click to learn more...
Islamist theologians are divided on how much of a woman's body can be exposed in public. The most radical, the Sitris, insist that women should be entirely covered from head to toe, including their faces and fingers. The less radical Hanbalis say a woman should be covered all over, but recommend a mask with apertures for the eyes and the mouth. (A version of this, known as the burqa, was imposed on Afghan women by the Taliban).
The Khomeinist version of the hijab, invented in the 1970s and now popular in many countries, including the United States, covers a woman's entire body but allows her face and hands to be exposed. Hijab theoreticians agree on one claim: a woman's hair emanates dangerous rays that could drive men wild with sexual lust and thus undermine social peace.
But the problem of women athletes goes deeper. Some theologians claim that any form of sporting activity by women produces "sinful consequences." In 2000, for example, the Khomeinist authorities in Tehran announced a ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles. The rationale? Riding bicycles or motorcycles would activate a woman's thighs and legs, thus arousing "uncontrollable lustful drives" in her. And men watching women on their bikes in the streets could be "led towards dangerous urges."
The problems don't end there. According to some theologians, a woman should not be allowed to venture out of her home without a "raqib" or male guardian. But that guardian must be either her husband or her father, brother, grandfather, uncle or son.
Re:Islamic Censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
According to officials in Athens, the number of Western women participating in this year's game is the lowest since 1960. Several Western countries have sent no women athletes at all; others, such as the United States, are taking part with only one, in full clothing. And state-owned TV networks in many Western countries, including Canada and Britain, have received instructions to limit coverage of events featuring women athletes at Athens to a minimum.
A circular from the FTC in America asks TV editors to make sure that women's games are not televised live: "Images of women engaged in contests [sic] must be carefully vetted," says the letter, leaked in Tehran. "Editors must take care to prevent viewers from being confronted [sic] with uncovered parts of the female anatomy in contests."
Re:Islamic Censorship. (Score:4, Informative)
Which event is she entered into? The 800 meter swimming race?
Acording to Google she is actually entered into pistol and/or rifle shooting and Iran may also may have attempted to enter women into Taekwondo and canoeing but they failed to qualify. But I still like the gag of attempting to swim a half mile in full hijab.
-
Definitions (Score:2)
If you have a firewall at your business or home, are you "censoring" info or merely restricting it..?
AFAIC, NBC paid a lot of money for exclusive rights. Whether that was wise or not is a separate discussion, but they have the right to get the most value out of their investment.
I used to love the Olympics... (Score:2)
If someone can bring back sports (amateur) without the garbage, I would love to see it and be part of it again. I would not even know how to make it happen.
InnerWeb
Re:Didn't the US go apeshit over this before... (Score:4, Insightful)
The ignorance of some of you astounds me.
Re:Didn't the US go apeshit over this before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Important difference: there's no actual censorship going on here; the Olympics made a deal with NBC and that deal included blocking any other "broadcasts" (loosely defined) of the Olympics to the US. If you're going to blame someone, blame the IOC for selling us all down the river; the US government's only role here is that its court system enforces the contract and the copyrights (held by the IOC) of the broadcasts. Read the Areopagitica for more on censhorhip.
Re:Didn't the US go apeshit over this before... (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Whoredom of Olympic Proportions (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Whoredom of Olympic Proportions (Score:2)
How do you propose it be done? It they allow all the
Re:US and ISREAL both BOOED in ATHENS? (Score:3, Interesting)