Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

Iran Continues to Censor Internet Communications 448

Posted by timothy from the raise-your-stump-to-object dept.
eldawg writes "Iran has recently been in the news after electing a 'hardliner' president. But even previous 'liberal' Iranian governments have been putting together a sophisticated Internet filtering system to prevent their citizens from visiting 'questionable' websites and censoring dissent. An earlier posting at Slashdot outlined the crackdown on blogs, chat rooms and email communications. A more recent research paper from the OpenNet Initiative provides an update on the censoring activity in Iran. Reports indicate that the Iranian authorities are specifically targetting 'content in the local Farsi language using a filterning second only to China.' We know Cisco has played a large role in bulding the 'Great Firewall of China' but is the Iranian initiative homegrown?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iran Continues to Censor Internet Communications More

Iran Continues to Censor Internet Communications

Comments Filter:

  • Ain't nuthin' propa about your propaganda! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) * on Sunday June 26, 2005 @10:51PM (#12917568)
    I wonder if "freedom of information and communication" will ever become an internationally recognized human right? Maybe we'll invade another country in twenty years under the premise that their citizens are "deprived of a free press and subjected to a singular propagandic source of news?
    • Maybe we'll invade another country in twenty years under the premise that their citizens are "deprived of a free press and subjected to a singular propagandic source of news?

      By that logic and assuming things continue as they are, in 20 years we would have to invade ourselves.

      If things continue as they are, in 20 years the only "alternative" media (i.e., not owned and operated by corporate plutocrats) the USA might have is Pacifica Radio, and that's assuming there IS radio in 20 years or that it wasn't

      • Come down off that high horse before you get hurt (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Monday June 27, 2005 @12:22AM (#12917959)
        By that logic and assuming things continue as they are, in 20 years we would have to invade ourselves.

        If things continue as they are, in 20 years the only "alternative" media (i.e., not owned and operated by corporate plutocrats) the USA might have is Pacifica Radio, and that's assuming there IS radio in 20 years or that it wasn't bought out by AirAmerica and its corporate sponsors.

        Oh come on man. The US has blogs and media of all stripes and flavors coming out the wazoo. There simply is not censorship here even remotely similar to the horrible things that take place elsewhere, and to even hint we are close at it is to demean those that suffer from REAL censorship. Have you been arrested and thrown in prison and then beaten for suggesting you do not like the president? I don't think so. And in twenty years it will most likely be the same, only more so. I'm not likley in twenty years to be bricking up my old copies of Reason behind a wall so the governement can't find them.

        I just cannot stand to see people use the argument that America is the next Facist state when they obviously have no idea what the hell that really means or what happens when you are really in one.

        • I just cannot stand to see people use the argument that America is the next Facist state when they obviously have no idea what the hell that really means or what happens when you are really in one.

          well, instead of beating our chests and calling names, let's actually see how we measure up, shall we? ( definitions from wikipedia.org )

          Fascism (in Italian, fascismo)
          capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini.

          ok..

        • 1. You can't read.
          2. you're wrong.

          1. I said If things continue as they are, in 20 years

          You answered the statement you WANTED to answer by saying

          There simply is not censorship here even remotely similar to the horrible things that take place elsewhere

          I was not using the present tense - YOU WERE. I was saying that IF THINGS CONTINUE ALONG THE PATH THEY ARE AT PRESENT, we won't have much, if any alternative press in this country.

          YOU decided that I was saying that the USA is like Iran TODAY, an

    • It happened in 1948... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:25PM (#12917752) Homepage Journal
      The UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states (Article 19):
      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
      http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]

      Just saying...
      • Then Goddammit, you fucking UN pussies, kick China out for censoring their citizens overtly! I point out "overtly", because practically all governments censor their citizens subversively and indirectly.
        • kick China out for censoring their citizens overtly

          Well, it's not that easy - as most things in politics. The point of having China in the UN is two-fold: one so we can stop them from doing things to other peoples; two so that we include them (rightfully) among the other superpowers. If you don't think China is a superpower, then you don't understand why it is so hard to force change on them.

          I don't agree with what they are doing to their citizens, and in a perfect world we would put a stop to it - but it isn't as easy as it sounds. Kicking China out of the UN would have the same effect as America leaving the UN: World War III. All bets are off and the world starts looking like Europe before World War II.

          But why not go into Darfur? Why not hold Saudi Arabia to the same standards? Saudi Arabia is a member of the United Nations and executes innocent people by the hundreds weekly. Why not stop all forms of tyranny everywhere? Because it isn't practical. When we (liberals) were trying to do it we were told to stop trying to save the world - now saving the world is lead policy to NeoConservatives (by their own admissions, see: BBC's The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear).

          Why not start to right the wrongs at home?
          http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/USA .asp [globalissues.org]

          Even China thinks we have problems:
          http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303 _175406.html [people.com.cn]

          Of course, I'm a "crazy liberal" when I start to talk about making America better. Let's start with things we *can* change...

    • Re:Ain't nuthin' propa about your propaganda! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kubrick ( 27291 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:43PM (#12917828)
      Maybe we'll invade another country in twenty years under the premise that their citizens are "deprived of a free press and subjected to a singular propagandic source of news?

      Only if there's enough oil there to make it worthwhile.

    • Re:Ain't nuthin' propa about your propaganda! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by andreyw ( 798182 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:57PM (#12917867) Homepage
      Single propagandic source of news? As is FOX, CNN, MSNBC,CBS, ..., qualify as "fair and balanced" news that matter?

      Whatever. I know some uptight ID-10T failure will mod this "flaimbait", but when was the last time our "free press" reported anything more than canned statments and irrelevant gossip? Moreover, when was the last time you actually looked forward to seeing the 9 PM news to learn about actual pressing North American and World news?

      Consider: Lacy Peterson, Lost boyscouts, Wacko-Jacko, family drama with that paralyzed person (as if this is the only person suffering), Iraq war "coverage", celebrity gossip, etc...

  • Is'nt americas working against Democracy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anandpur ( 303114 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @10:56PM (#12917589)
    Cisco built firewall for china and many other cos. helped china in a way that is in use against people who are working for Democratic or other free government. Then Microsoft censored contents for China. Now american cos. are working against the peoples of Iran ?!!!!

  • Filed under... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Spetiam ( 671180 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @10:57PM (#12917595) Journal
    This must have been accepted under the "Stuff that matters," because it certainly isn't news...

  • oh no! (Score:3, Funny)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:00PM (#12917614) Homepage Journal
    This just in:

    Tyranny extends to all forms of communication!

    Am I to act suprised?

  • Insensitive clods! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <(ude.tniophgih) (ta) (40rcneps)> on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:02PM (#12917631)
    So Iran centric! What about the rest of the world?

  • Opressive regimes (Score:5, Funny)

    by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:07PM (#12917655) Journal
    So this is almost as oppressive as, say, Utah?
    • Not even close. The Utah law mandates that ISPs provide filtering software to those who ask for it. In Iran, your browsing is filtered whether you like it or not. In addition, I don't seem to recall stories of women being stoned in Utah for having pre-marital sex.

      Understand the difference?
    • Iran is run by whacked out religious types, and has been for a while. The people of that country, however, seem to be content with the situation. If they are, in fact, not happy with the mullahs then give them guns. If they are happy, fuck it... why should I care that they want to practice a fucked-up religion as government and sideline half their workforce? Fuck being PC, these people have a middle ages " burn the witch" type of mentality, but now they are building atomic bombs. Tolerance is going to
      • these people have a middle ages " burn the witch" type of mentality, but now they are building atomic bombs. Tolerance is going to bite the US in the ass.

        Very neatly put.

  • It means that the government's scared (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tyates ( 869064 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:08PM (#12917659) Homepage
    Monitoring internal communications is about catching potential dissenters and organizers of course, but is also about promoting self-censorship. When people know their communications are monitored, they're less likely to say anything negative about the government. That's why the govt makes no attempt to hide the monitoring.
    I would say that this is just a sign that the government's scared of their own people and the potential for an uprising. (Which makes sense given that they were revolutionaries themselves.)

    • Another thing to keep in mind (Score:5, Informative)

      by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:35PM (#12917794) Homepage
      The average joe in Iran *hates* the mullahs. Unlike most other Arab governments (which encourage people to blame and hate the US for all of their home-brewed problems) the Iranian government has no easy scapegoat. (And 36 years of economic deprivation is a lot to answer for) That's why the people in power are so afraid of revolution.

  • /. iran (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:13PM (#12917683)
    would slashdotting iran be considered an act of war? who cares, gimme a link.

  • Iran vs. the US (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CyborgWarrior ( 633205 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:16PM (#12917703) Homepage

    Alright, I haven't RTFA yet, but if this is news that Iran is censoring the Net then I dont think it's anything new. There have been a number of recent events that are using the media to direct public attention against Iran now (the most recent of which is probably Rumsfeld's Slam of their elections [cnn.com]). As a concerned American citizen who is fast losing faith in the honor of his government, I think this is a ploy, to direct the attention of world citizens, and especially US citizens away from our own flaws and toward the flaws of other countries.

    Anybody who read the article a few days ago about the new use of eminent domain [slashdot.org] can see that the US government has major problems with the way it functions. Instead of anybody pointing out the US censors information also, we all hurry to jump on the band wagon to single out and bash Iran. No, they (the US government) don't prevent you from searching for certain words or anything, at least not yet, but they do force the removal of websites that portray a view contrary to what they want the public to know: see http://www.67cshdocs.com/ [67cshdocs.com], a blog that didn't disclose any classified information, but showed you what was really going on on the US war fronts, but was shut down by the government. I'm an American citizen and very patriotic, but I'm not blind. Our government is using the media. No, I'm not saying they are controlling /. or any other news source, I'm saying the media has become the lap dogs who go when the government says fetch.

    I don't approve of Iranian censorship. I don't approve of censorship of any sort. But it would be foolish of anyone to believe that the "axis of evil" are the only ones who do this. They simply do not have the size and power to cover up for the mselves and direct public attention elsewhere.

    Just my two cents....

    • Its posts like these that make me wish I have mod points.

    • Re:Iran vs. the US (Score:2, Informative)

      by eclectro ( 227083 )
      The problem with 67cshdocs.com is that he is an Army physician.

      If you are in the Army, they pretty much can tell you what to do (or what not to say).

      Unlike the general population that can say anything it wants.

      Besides, the truth about the Iraq war and the lies it was/is based upon is clearly evident to anyone who is not a Dubya fanboy.

    • Parent example of anti-US relativism (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @12:01AM (#12917879)
      It's not that there aren't valid things the U.S. government does that are, broadly, "anti-freedom". But drawing a parallel between eminent domain and the actions of a totalitarian theocracy (despite it's elections, Iran remains dominated by the Revolutionary Guard and its supreme religious leader) and saying "The US is just as bad" is foolish and naive.

      Sure, the U.S. government (or, more precisely, a small number of members of the U.S. government) are, time and again, doing something stupid that isn't what you'd expect of a free country, and the examples go back to the founding of the country (counting slaves as 2/3 of a person, etc). Things like Jim Crowe, Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran/Contra, etc etc.

      But almost without exception these events are noted in the press, analyzed, criticized, written about by thousands in letters to the editor, protested in the street and very often -- tada -- CHANGED. Civil rights act, voting rights act, Nixon's impeachment, Iran/Contra hearings. And no secret police organization decended on private citizens and beat them, impisoned or tortured them for having an opinion contrary to the government or its policies.

      Are we perfect? No way. Are we more free than just about any other place? Absolutely. Will we continue to make missteps from time to time? Sure. Human nature isn't always pretty.

      You can be a pessimist and argue that evidence points to a declining level of freedom and government accountability. Maybe. But that hardly means that we're even comperable to North Korea, Iran, Syria, or any of a number of other totalitarian/dicatorial/theocratic societies.

      • Re: Anti-US Relativisim (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CyborgWarrior ( 633205 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @12:28AM (#12917982) Homepage
        I understand that I am using "anti-US relativism" in my argument, but I am using it because the media is so far biased in favor of pro-US relativism instead and I believe it important to express alternative view points. That was pretty much the entire point of my post. I realize I do not have the best examples listed.

        As for press coverage of scandals within the United States, there are two inherent flaws in this belief: first of all, if the mainstream media does not focus on it, then how would the general public know that it happened at all? They wouldn't! This sounds all conspiracy-theory and theoretical on the surface, but my favorite example is the Chinagate scandal. Ask your average citizen walking out the door of your local supermarket about it and I can guarantee that 49 out of 50 or more will respond with a blank look. I know because I've tried it for a history class.

        For those not in the loop with this, the Chinagate scandal was the event that was manipulated by the government and the press to become the stupid and superficial Monica Lewinsky scandal. It occurred in the mid-90's and it boils down to Bill Clinton providing China with classified US nuclear technologies and bringing them up to a full scale threat. Regardless of his reasons for doing so, the press got ahold of this in the mid 90's and began printing stories.

        The 'letters to the editor' that you speak of were beginning to come off the home desks of the American public. But there was a problem: neither of the two major parties in the US wanted the public to know about this!! The democrats of course because Clinton was in office and the blame would fall partly on his shoulders. The Republicans because Bush Sr. had been doing the same thing!! Of course it would be disasterous to both parties if the public knew they were both involved with it, so both parties wanted it hushed. The result: the Monica Lewinsky scandal grabs American attention instead. The press did not have to be forcefully silenced or censored: they chose to write about those stories on their own, but they were manipulated into that position by politicians. This how the government runs its censorship.

        The Chinagate scandal blew over. You can still find it from third-party sources all over the web, but it never really got the public!! If the government can censor something like that, then what is to stop them from using the same means to censor other events? None.

        And I am being the pessimist here and pointing at our declining freedoms. You say that we're not even comparable to the Axis of Evil, etc, and I would like this to remain true. The only way for it to continue, however, is for people like me to point out our own flaws. If the American public remains in the dark and directing their attention toward other countries, then by the time people like yourself believe that we ARE comparable, it will be far too late!

        As for the "secret police" argument, I say to you that if a single American citizen is held by his own government against his will, without evidence and because he has stated views contrary to those of the US government, then it is just as bad as the many who are suppressed in other countries. One is one too many. But guess what? It happens! That one actually gets to the news fairly regularly! But does the public care? No, because the media soon directs their attention to the evil OTHER COUNTRIES.

        It is you, my friend, who are foolish and naïve to argue that there is not a parallel between the US and these other countries. The US may not be "just as bad", but without vigilant citizens, it will be.
      • Or perhaps, more importantly, not yet.
    • As a concerned American citizen who is fast losing faith in the honor of his government, I think this is a ploy, to direct the attention of world citizens, and especially US citizens away from our own flaws and toward the flaws of other countries.

      And who's behind this ploy to poison the world's opinion of Iran to deflect the world's attention away from the US? Who's behind the OpenNet initiaive? Must be the US government, right? Oh wait, no, it's the University of Toronto, Harvard University, and Cambr

  • of course, what do you expect from a religious... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ramsés Morales ( 13327 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:20PM (#12917724)
    ...government? Hopefully this will serve as a warning to countries that are forgetting about what separation of church and state means. Although it is more likely that it will serve as motivation to eliminate separation of church and state :-(
    • Although it is more likely that it will serve as motivation to eliminate separation of church and state...

      That's what an Islamic state like Iran (and many others) are. That's what Iraq would like to be. But on the other side of the coin, many people think that's the sort of thing GWB has in mind for us here in the USA, a Christian state. He would probably like it for Iraq as well. Remember, just like with Islamic fundies, it is the mission in life of all Christian fundies to either convert or eliminate.

  • I don't see the problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:24PM (#12917747) Journal
    But even previous 'liberal' Iranian governments have been putting together a sophisticated Internet filtering system to prevent their citizens from visiting 'questionable' websites and censoring dissent.

    Who ever said that every country on the planet must have USA values?

    Maybe the people of Iran don't want to watch the stuff we do. Does 1 person who wants to see that content have the right to tell 1,000,000 other people to put up with his crap?

    Even in the USA we have community standards. There are some small pockets inside the USA where it is illegal for adult companies to send DVD's. There are places in the USA where the communities want old fashioned values, they want to be able to keep the front door unlocked at night.

    • respect their citizens wishes

      it is true what you say if the other country in question had a government whose policies reflected that of the governed

      that is not the case in iran or china

      therefore, criticism of iran and china is perfectly valid, unless you don't believe the citizens of china or iran deserve a say in how they are governed

      the notion of universal human rights is more and more important in today's world, not less

      it matters
      • respect their citizens wishes

        it is true what you say if the other country in question had a government whose policies reflected that of the governed

        that is not the case in iran or china

        therefore, criticism of iran and china is perfectly valid, unless you don't believe the citizens of china or iran deserve a say in how they are governed

        The USA paid millions and millions of dollars to put the SHAH in power. We supported him, we gave him money, we gave him miliraty power. And what happened?

        • is slavery evil?

          if i go south of the rio grande, does it become legal?

          in 1994 hundreds of thousands were exterminated in genocide between hutus and tutsis in rwanda

          did you care?

          i hope you did, and if you did, you did because you were a human being

          being a human being is being a member of something that is more important than being a member of a nationality

          a nationality is a tribe, a false arbitrary geopolitical boundary

          you mention female genital cutting: that is evil, and should be fought

          not from an
          • do you understand the difference between an american perspective and a world persepctive?

            Once again, I ask, what is a world perspective? Who decides? You? Your group of people? Or my group of people? How about the people that live together?

            There is no world perspective. There never will be. You will have a hard time getting people who live in the same area, with the same religion, to agree to a complete set of values. Now try and toss in a value that is incompatibe with their beliefs.

            I'll give you

    • This is certainly an interesting problem for "liberals" like me. Which is better? Pushing Western-style Democracy on people that have said they don't want it, or allow what they do want even though we find it repugnantly oppressive to dissenting views and certainly sexist and homophobic?
      • This is certainly an interesting problem for "liberals" like me. Which is better? Pushing Western-style Democracy on people that have said they don't want it, or allow what they do want even though we find it repugnantly oppressive to dissenting views and certainly sexist and homophobic?

        Think of values as ethnic food. Places that serve food that you find pungent and offensive to the senses, with strong nasty smells. Now imagine a place where people can't get enough of this food. They love it, they smile

    • You don't see because you are blind (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe the people of Iran don't want to watch the stuff we do. Does 1 person who wants to see that content have the right to tell 1,000,000 other people to put up with his crap?

      How is having access to information forcing others to put up with your "crap" Unless someone is forcing you to view information or material against your will, why should you care what they are doing?

      Or are you one of those people that finds the very existance of opinions that differ from yours offensive?

      There are places in the

  • How is this different than what the USA does? True the USA let's its citizens speak freely. However, the government does control the flow of information to its citizens via the media. Just pick up a newspaper in Canada and the USA and you can see differences.

    • Re:No different than the US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @11:38PM (#12917808) Journal
      How is this different than what the USA does? True the USA let's its citizens speak freely. However, the government does control the flow of information to its citizens via the media. Just pick up a newspaper in Canada and the USA and you can see differences.

      In the USA free speech is only possible with money. Look at elections, the candidates with the most money wins most of the time. And whenever there is a law which tries to limit how much money special interest groups can give to candidates, the courts say that money is speech, and they throw those laws out.

      How much does a US Senate seat cost? 7 Million dollars? A US Congressional seat is over 1 Million dollars. Who can get this kind of cash? How? If I raise $200,000 in a fund raiser for a candidate, and that candidate wins, how much of an ear do I get? How much influance? What if I am not even from his state, will he take my call over a local constituent? I bet if I call him and say "Law Z is being voted on tomorrow, and I would really like to see you vote for it". If he does not get my $200,000 the next time, he might not win. What does he do?

      There is no free speech in the USA. In the USA there is SPAM from advertising, it drowns out everything else. 10 minutes of sit coms or reality TV followed by 4 minutes of commercials. If I was more cynical, I would wonder if they were trying to train my brain to accept information in small tiny sized nuggets.

      • Where does the money come from... most likely the WTO. The last thing I heard were that the elections weren't actually fraud. Instead the scheme was brilliant. I'm not sure how all the extra convicts even voted, that wasn't part of the plan. In areas where Bush was predicted to win, they just added extra polling boths. In areas where he expected to loose, limit the polling boths so people would more likely not want to wait and line and walk away. And this strategy is completely legal. I think we need a fe
        • In areas where Bush was predicted to win, they just added extra polling boths. In areas where he expected to loose, limit the polling boths so people would more likely not want to wait and line and walk away.

          This happened in the primaries in South Carolina. John McCain unexpectedly beat Bush in the previous primary. McCain, a republican, was getting lots of votes from independents and democrats. McCain was also a vet from the Vietnam war and highly respected because as a prisioner of war, his father who

      • Re:No different than the US (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @01:09AM (#12918113)
        There is no free speech in the USA.

        And you are not presently reading this message either. Slashdot is a figment of your imagination.

        10 minutes of sit coms or reality TV followed by 4 minutes of commercials. If I was more cynical, I would wonder if they were trying to train my brain to accept information in small tiny sized nuggets.

        Maybe Steve Jobs has the answer:

        When you're young, you look at television and think: There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth.

        In short: most people are dumb and demand to stay that way.

  • Actually (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xquark ( 649804 )
    Its an American software maker that is providing the software solutions
    for such large scale filtering.

    To be honest, the company has stated that they do not have an clients
    representing the Iranian government.

    This leads one to conclude that the software is either being used illegally
    or a 3rd party is interfacing between the company and the country.

    regardless, filtering of the internet for Iranians will be here for sometime
    yet, though through experience i have seen that those that want to circumvent
    the syst

    • Re:Actually (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Ph33r th3 g(O)at ( 592622 )
      Any American company providing these kinds of services to an oppressive regime like Iran, China, North Korea, or what have you should have its corporate officers clapped in irons and dragged to The Hague. Once there, they should be sentenced to death for crimes against humanity and hanged. Slowly, like the Nazi officers hanged at Nuremburg. Before being hanged, though, they should be stripped of their American citizenship.
  • ... that this is gonna stop their jobs from being outsourced over the internet, they sure have a big clue on the way! ;)

  • What? And you don't think the American government participates in a bit of monitoring and censorship? They're just much more clever about it and avoid getting caught.
    Comes from experience you know...

  • Maybe Iranians have Different Values? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @01:52AM (#12918280) Homepage Journal
    Maybe Iranians have different values than us, and they want the good stuff that technology provides, but not the bad.

    Sort of like the Saudis: they want the cars, lobster and Switss watches. They don't want the porn, feminism or modern art.

    A lot of the Iranians in the country are probably happy that the arrival of internet doesn't mean they'll be flooded with things they consider degenerate.

    Besides, they are smart folks. They'll find a way around it, if they really want the tubgirl, goatsex, etc.

  • different in degree, not kind (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:44AM (#12918686)
    The Chinese and Iranian governments probably do engage in something that can be legitimately characterized as objectionable censorship. But where should the line between censorship and legitimate restrictions be drawn?

    The US tracks and prosecutes the copying of music and videos, distribution of pornography showing individuals that appear to be younger than 18 years, and information related to bomb making and terrorism. The latter can land you in indefinite detention without the benefit of a trial, other offenses may result in long jail sentences, prison labor, and may effectively constitute a death sentence given the realities of the US prison system. Germany and France crack down on the distribution of Nazi-related content, even if it not intended to promote Nazi ideology, but they are more liberal on sex and copying. And France seeks out certain kinds of linguistically undesirable content. I suspect most people in each of those nations support most of those policies. Likewise, we don't actually know what the Chinese and Iranian people want; it is wrong to assume that, even if they could decide democratically, they would want to draw the line where we want to draw it.

    Before we criticize nations like Iran and China, it's good to reflect on what we actually want them to do and what the people in those nations want. We apparently don't want them to have a free and unrestricted Internet, since we don't have that ourselves. Nor can we expect other societies to tolerate some of the content that we have learned to live with (goatse etc.). So, what do you actually want Iran and China to do? Only filtering and enforcement for the benefit of Disney? Or what?

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close