Iran Blocks, Unblocks Access to Google 197
morpheus83 writes "Iran has blocked access to the Google search engine and its Gmail email service as part of a clampdown on material deemed to be offensive. Hamid Shahriari, the secretary of Iran's National Council of Information did not explain why the sites were being blocked. Google, Gmail and several other foreign sites appeared to be inaccessible to Iranian users from Monday morning. Iran has tough censorship on cultural products and internet access, banning thousands of websites and blogs containing sexual and politically critical material as well as women's rights and social networking sites." That didn't take long. Iran has now
unblocked Google claiming the censorship was an error.
Censorship is the last resort of a failing regime (Score:5, Insightful)
How stupid are these governments - really. Do they honestly believe that the problems of their country can be solved by stopping someone having a GMail account, or preventing them looking up camel porn on google?
Iran is in a desperate attempt to return to old school biblical times (great if you are not a woman - "Iran has tough censorship on internet access
Re:Censorship is the last resort of a failing regi (Score:3)
I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government? I know, I know... the bad guys have the guns. However, if they can get the guns (and more importantly, ship them to Iraq), surely those Iranians who want regime change can take matters into their ow
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But, ya know, it doesn't ever seem to work out so well. I think it has some to do with the way the government handles it, and some to do with how the people inside handle it.
We did it in Afghanistan, and it made a massive mess. We did it in Cuba, didn't work (I blame THAT 100% on the US government, but I doubt it would have worked anyway).
Did it to a lesser extent in Poland in WWII, everyone ended up pretty much dead.
It could work, but man, that'd be risky (what i
Re: (Score:2)
the greatest irony (Score:3, Insightful)
this should teach something the current crop of violently militant religious fundamentalists who wish to li
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but they mix very well.
But the results are always detrimental.
Religion worries me because it is prone to get hijacked by manipulative bastards for their own gain.
yes, that's possible (Score:2)
so make peace wi
Re: (Score:2)
And it will provoke exactly the kind of reaction that you don't want : further polarisation, more extremism.
Instead, setting up conditions in which extremism cannot thrive seems a better plan : good local economy, good education that promotes independent critical thinking, etc.
Why is this not happening more today ? My guess is that too many people derive their power from the current situation to the detriment of a lot of those they have pow
intolerance of intolerance (Score:2)
in fact, if you tolerate the intolerant, you are in fact working for the extension and deepening of intolerance
society needs a muscular response to these militant fundamentalist assholes. there is nothing that can be won by placating them
Re:Censorship is the last resort of a failing regi (Score:4, Insightful)
"I heard on Al Jazeera last week, from an American protesting in Washington, that there are a large contingent of the population is is pro-peace, and who are looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government?"
I'm looking at this from an outsiders perspective, but it seems to me that in both countries (United States and Iran), there are a reasonable, sane majority of people just trying to get on with their lives, who are being pushed into war by a vocal, fundamentalist minority.
Rational people on both side look out, and see only the extremists. Joe Washington doesn't want war but everything he hears regarding Iran is negative - they want to wipe out Israel, they want to build nukes. Joe Tehran has a generally pacifist outlook too, but when he reads about America, it is usually because of attrocities like Abu Ghraib, or some other massacre. Time passes, and the crazies on both sides get louder and louder, while the rational people - constantly exposed to this propaganda, start to feel that even though they want peace, the "other side" is giving them no choice but to go to war.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have taken the bait for another mass hysteria effort that is aiming for an invasion of a sovereign state. Here, have a cookie.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee... all the news outlets were reporting that Iraq had WMDs... I believe they got their information from the US Government...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a MILLION dead Iranians (Score:5, Informative)
I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government?
In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.
[...]
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[73] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction-- second only to Japan. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war
Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops.
Re: (Score:2)
Because their government, as awful as it is, stands between them and the enemies of their people. It just so happens that they know for a fact that the US and its imperialist buddy the UK have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be enemies of the people of Iran:
I totally agree. The most effective thing we can do to help Iran move towards liberal democracy is to stop attacking them.
I realize this is going waaay too far the current US administration but a commitment to adhere to international law in our dealings with Iran would be a good first step.
That alone would rule-out "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes; something Bush has so far been unwilling to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely, I never said anything about the Iranians wanting the United States to invade their country. I said that according to the report, many Iranians are "pro-American". They would rather have peaceful relations with the United States than the current nuclear brinksmanship that is being practiced by their government. I was just wondering: if that's the case, why aren't they taking bigger steps to do something about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Censorship is the last resort of a failing regi (Score:5, Interesting)
it's easy to have big balls (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Armed Citizens In the Modern World (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, that works. So, we'll see some guy with his grocery bags standing in front of a Russian or Chinese supplied tank, stopping the entire Iranian Army from running down protesters that "grew some balls".
Have we seen this before?
In an age where the government has much more firepower than the armed citizenry, its difficult for citizens to rise up like they did in 1776.
Back then, with the exception of a Navy, the people in the American Colonies were a lot more closely matched with the British. What they lacked, they were able to get through guerilla action. Hell, back then, even privately owned vessels were armed.
Modern tyrannies are better armed than the citizenry, even where the citizens are permitted to own firearms. Back then, a handfull of armed farmers could take over an artillary battary, and use it. Now, farmers might be able to knock a plane out of the sky. Or disable a tank, but, the average farmer, tribesman, stockbroker, pimp, is going to be hard pressed to come out on top when a division of tanks comes at him while jets providing support for the ground troops create a no-mans land where neighborhoods stood.
Yeah, your idea worked for the students in China.
And yet (Score:2)
Pay Attention, Don't Just Spout (Score:2)
If you read the GP:
The assumption is that a popular revolt can stand against the government without outside help.
As for the "Iraqis" (most are foreigners), Iran and Syria are supplying them with sophisticated equipment. As for the Afghanis during the Soviet occupation, the U.S. was supplying them.
Do try to pay attention to the course of the conversation. The GP had posted that he thought the masses should "grow some balls" and do it themselves w
Re: (Score:2)
It may well be true that Iran at least, if not Syria, is supplying certain more advanced rockets to the Iraqi Shia (but not likely to the Iraqi Sunni insurgency). Doubtful Syria is doing the same to the Sunni insurgency, but not impossible.
However, the EFP crap is just that. The Iraqis are more than capable of producing their own EFPs.
They also have enough weapons and ammo to fight the US for a decade without running out. Practically every Iraqi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Armed Citizens In the Modern World (Score:4, Insightful)
supplied tank, stopping the entire Iranian Army from running down protesters that "grew some balls".
The Iranians are quite capable of overthrowing a government. They did so relatively recently (1979ish) when they overthrew the CIA-coup-installed US-backed douche Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (aka the "Shah").
Sadly the revolutionary forces had too many religious wackos and too few young liberal students and the poor bastards got stuck with a theocracy/democracy/republic. Kinda like the USA but with a different(worse; ya, i said it**) religion.
There is of course very little chance of another revolution soon because no sane person would overthrow their own government while it is under imminent threat of invasion/pre-emptive nuclear attack.
In fact, there is nothing quite like an irrational, powerful and belligerent enemy to strengthen the position of a bad government.
** just to be clear, all religions suck-ass and have no business anywhere near a government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's happened. But, I was illustrating that it was a possiblity, but futile. There have been cases where well placed shots have done damage to helicopters and jets. There were a couple of incidents in Vietnam. But, you basically make my point when I say that the modern citizen just cannot stand up to modern governments, the way they were able to during the British Civil War, American Revolution, F
Re: (Score:2)
Or his plane blown to crap while it was on the ground...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a key difference between the Iranian situation and the democratic revolutions in the former Soviet Bloc. In the latter case,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds like you have the mistaken notion that the US is some benevolent "peace keeper". However the vast majority of the time (every single US involvement except for serbia) was unwanted intervention to support either US ideology or US economy. standing up for themselves... I'm sure most nations would prefer if the US just went back to their pre WW
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm sure most nations would prefer if the US just went back to their pre WWII isolationism"
OH RLY?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/world/main665329.shtml [cbsnews.com]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/index.htm [gwu.edu]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801640.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp [globalissues.org]
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/008.html [hartford-hwp.com]
and how exactly does that prove most nations would not prefer if the US Went back to isolationist? You provided links on small amounts of criticism about US aid. Although it's admirable the US would like to donate wealth you don't seem to notice how political their "donations" are. US aid comes with strings. Political and Economic. Egypt has aligned itself with the US partly out of desperate dependence on US food aid as it's pop is greater then it's agriculture could sustain comfortably. A large amount of
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks of the US, so my vote is to drop this world police idea. But people who actually get to make decisions do care it seems, and not for benevolent reasons like "spreading democracy".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But, not to worry, Google will provide the Iranian government a complete list of users and their searches.
So, President Ahmacompletewhackjob can sleep at night knowing his has fulfilled his duty to the mullahs.
Re:Censorship is the last resort of a failing regi (Score:2)
Koranical times
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Censorship is the last resort of a failing regi (Score:2)
Re:Censorship is the last resort of a failing regi (Score:2)
Unblocked (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unblocked (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Unblocked (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Good for them (Score:4, Funny)
Just Curious (Score:2)
That's the least of the problems with Iran today (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.iranian.com/Milaninia/2005/August/MKO/ [iranian.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Iran should stop executing children"
Bad, but we try an increasing number of childern as adults, and states keep lowering the age at which children can be tried as adults.
"Iran hangs three in south-west"
We are in good company here, not only do we execute plenty of people, but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?
"Western countries on Thursday voiced concern at the rising number of executions in Iran"
Didn't Bush and Texas execute a horrific number in his term
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize you're stupid, but execute doesn't mean the same thing as incarcerate.
"but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?"
No. No, "we" don't.
I realize drawing moral equivalence between Iran and the US is what keeps you people going, but pretending what happens here is as horrific as what happens in Iran is unrealistic and intentionally inaccurate.
Why do you go so far out of your way to make the things that happen here look as bad as what
Re: (Score:2)
Another quote from the Christian mythology: "Judge not lest you be judged"
Why is it that in this so-called 'Christian nation' that me and my athiest friends believe in Jesus' teaching more than the Christians?
"Why do you go so far out of your way..."
Wow, clicking on a link and posting a few sentences is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The United States Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for offenders under the age of 16 in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), and for all juveniles in Roper v. Simmons (2005)." (source [wikipedia.org])
Better late than never...
Actually, that one is true [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From iranfocus.com
"Iran should stop executing children"
Bad, but we try an increasing number of childern as adults, and states keep lowering the age at which children can be tried as adults.
There is no bullshit like this [iran-press-service.com] in the US, where a 16 year old girl is executed on "vague charges of un-Islamic behaviour." That is why people are so abhorred by Iran's executions.
A gang of 16 year olds who beat a homeless guy to death is a different animal than a 16 year old girl who is raped but doesn't have 4 male witnesses to testify on her behalf. So let's not equate all "child" executions.
"Iran hangs three in south-west"
We are in good company here, not only do we execute plenty of people, but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?
I don't know how you leapt from hanging in Iran to "incarceration rate" in the US. This page [amnesty.org.uk], though not about Ir
Re:That's the least of the problems with Iran toda (Score:2)
Why is this not a big problem for Iran again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it.
Iranians (despite hardships) are better off than most of the region, including economics.
Iran is hardly the breeding ground for suicide bombers that Iraq is.
Iraqi's refer to most suicide bombers as "Arabs", because most come from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Kuwait (non-Arab Pakistan weighs in heavy here).
That's not to give Iran a clean bill of health, but all this linking of Iran to Iraq's problems smells like war-drums (again) to me.
The
Why never the Saudis? (Score:2)
I find it quite interesting that while Iran gets lots of flak these days for their Sharia-based legislature and lack of democracy and liberty, Saudi Arabia, where conditions are actually quite similar, is almost never mentioned. I wonder why ...
P.S. Saudi Arabia actually rates lower than Iran by some standards: Example [bbc.co.uk].
You can't "slap a Jap" anymore (Score:2, Interesting)
In the obvious run up to the war with Iran, it seems like the media is all too happy to paint them with the bigot, sexist, and totalitarian brushes. We are doing this with China. We did
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would you pick on if you were part of a group of social misfit? The complete loners, ofcourse!
So why pick on a country with practically no human rights?
Re:You can't "slap a Jap" anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact A: The US has a history of stereotyping other cultures
Fact B: The US executive administration wants to go to war with Iran.
False Conclusion C: We are not allowed to paint Iran as bigoted, sexist or totalitarian.
The fact that the US has problems does not correlate to Iran being pure as the wind-driven snow. In fact with all of our problems, I'd much rather live here we have the opportunity to fix our problems.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not take a look at all the other horribly run countries in the world? China is acting far worse towards it's people than Iran is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was in America visiting family when the mass-media collectively decided they 'hated' the French, and between the outright bigotry of the right wing Radio, and the 'jokes' of the Television comedians very very few people actually addressed what the French government had said..
It's like a positive fee
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You can't "slap a Jap" anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Oddly enough, I find it hard to be sympathetic toward a country that hosts a Holocaust Denial [go.com] seminar. Maybe I really am part of the problem.
Re:You can't "slap a Jap" anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, due to the fact that the US is partly responsible for the current Iranian government (Operation Ajax blowout with the Shah) I would have to say us Americans are part of the problem. We replaced a socialism sympathizer with a dictator who brutally ruled his people and then we get all uppity when he gets replaced by a theocratic revolution. Then we back Saddam in hopes that he'll take care of the problem and it all goes to hell.
Things would have been find and we wouldn't be talking about Iran's nuclear program today had we not interfered with a legal election.
Speaking of which, in theory, 9/11 would have never happened because we wouldn't have been arming Saddam against the theocratic Iran which later lead to the invasion of Kuwait which lead to Osama getting all pissy about American bases in Saudi Arabia.
This is what we call "blowback". We've been over there for 50 years interfering, overthrowing people, supporting dictators, and selling weapons to everyone and you wonder why they hate us.
I don't approve of Holocaust denying and hope that Israel will be recognized as a sovereign nation by all, but to say we didn't make this bed in Iran and share some responsibility of it is just not learning history correctly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Women are not equal under Iran's constitution, adopted in 1979 after the revolution that overthrew Shah Reza Pahlavi. The constitution mandates that the legal code adhere to Sharia law, the Islamic moral code based on the Koran. Article IV of that constitution stat
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want every culture and country to have exactly the same rules as you ? ... and I doubt you, your wife, or your sister have any intention of going to Iran or any other middle eastern country.. and I would question whether you have even been out of the US
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you attribute an argument to him that he never made?
"The veil thing happens to be part of the religion, So you don't want freedom of religion.. if it differs from yours."
And if you're a woman who isn't muslim, what then? Is it still about freedom of religion when you can't opt out?
So you don't want freedom of religion... at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with saying "Iran could have a nice culture if they weren't so sexist?" You are actually implying that Iran's sexism is their defining characteristic. Is that what you meant?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
unless iran deserves to be tarred (Score:4, Insightful)
now judge the government of iran on the basis of those criticisms
in other words, on the basis of the principles on which you vocally criticize the west, you should be loudly criticizing tehran
"And if you buy into any of this at all, you're the problem with this country."
ok, there's a criticism of yours: the drumbeat up to war, the propagandizing of a populace towards conflict
dude!
ever since 1979, the government of iran has been on propaganda full alert about demonizing the decadent immoral great satan of the west. constant rhetoric, demonstrations, down with the great satan. all through the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s
so on YOUR BASIS for criticizing the west: dmeonization of another people for a drumbeat up to war, on YOUR BASIS!: tehran comes out orders of magnitude worse than any criticism you could level at london, paris, washington dc, etc
using YOUR RATIONALE, you should be 10-100x angrier at tehran than any government in the west
so go to the front of the line sir, and hurl some of your venom at tehran, unless you want to forfeit your claim to intellectual honesty
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Welcome to the desert of the real." -- Morpheus
That's so pathetic.
That's reality. Life and the world will never be perfect. The best you can do is be less imperfect than anyone else.
There's also the fact that much of what is being said about Iran (the government) is fairly accurate.
is the west superior to the rest of the world? (Score:3, Insightful)
but you apparently do
if the world is ever to achieve peace, then every government in the world must be judged according to the same standards... sooner, rather than later, for the sake of peace
and when you begin to do that, and ONLY when you begin to do that, do you begin to move towards world peace. but if you continue to think of the west as somehow (ridiculously) "superior" to other parts of the world, then in your own mind you perpetuate the cycle of violence, by positing an "us" versus
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, I don't buy it. The theocratic medievalists that are running that country are doing a FINE job of ridiculing themselves and making us all feel sorry for the poor shmucks who are being raised there right now amidst a mysoginistic culture and a frail, failing economy. Even what many here would consider to be a highly biased new source (say, Fox) don't have to work
2 things (Score:3, Interesting)
2. it is ethnocentric to only criticize the west. that the west is only party that can be held responsible. this is soft racism: those poor iranians, they can't be held to the same standa
Re: (Score:2)
Information needs to be free (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran, you might have a culture that demands things, but if you force them onto your population, you will create resentment, resentment becomes anger, and anger begets revolution. Remember the Shah? The current government is running along the same path, and will meet with the same end.
Blocking Google sounds non-trivial, no accident (Score:2)
If you have a regime set up for such censorship even, you'd imagine that there would be enough red-tape to make sure that such things don't accidentally happen. This is one of those things akin to the nuclear weapons being flown over the US that just don't logically seem to be things that within reason can occur by accident.
Moreso Google has so many IPs, portals, links into them from Google Search on
trying to care ... trying to care ... fail! (Score:2)
I just don't get why I'm supposed to care about the internal problems of every nation on Earth.
Did you know that in America [and Canada] that two responsible gay people can't live together without contempt, or marry in a willing church? Did you know we still permit affirmative action to take place. etc, etc, etc. How about we concern ourselves with our country, they concern themselves w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"We"? "They"? I'm sure people in Iran read slashdot, in which case this article is relevant to their country. I'm sure plenty of people in Germany (or wherever) read Slashdot, in which case the North American stories, by your metric, are irrelevant. So, are you arguing that all stories which are specific to a certain country should be expunged from Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, in France it would be illegal for me to post on a blog "I support the Nazi party, hail hitler!". Yet here in Canada and the USA it's perfectly legal [maybe not acceptable but it's legal]. If the Internet is so "global" why is it not illegal here too?
Oh that's right, because you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Should all countries have free speech? I think so. Does what I think count? Not really.
The Internet is global, just not all countries choose to participate in the same fashion. In this case, Iran wants to censor websites they deemed harmful. Do I agree with their position? No. But should I really care? Not really. Let the Iranians fix their own damn
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the Tsunami. Who honestly gave two shits about the locals 1 day before the Tsunami hit? Nobody. Were they living a first-world life? Hardly. They lived in mud huts along a flood plain. Now all of a sudden we're all made to care about them?
In reality, a society that can't itself adjust to an enlighten state can't become one by having reason forced u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But then people will do "man on the street" surveys and declare "Americans is stoopid" because an insurance claims adjuster in Kansas City doesn't know that the current Vice President of Burundi is Martin Nduwimana. Don't you see? All this important and scientifically precise research must be done to paint the one of the most diverse citizenries on the planet as a pack of groupthink doubleminus troglodytes. Shame
They're Right! (Score:3, Interesting)
In a "recent" post [blogspot.com], I included a link to a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's not even posted to the blog - it's just a link.
Well, hot damn! I start getting hits from all over the world, especially Asia. And what are they for? You got it - they're lookin' for hunky body builder pictures! And the first one was a Google hit from Alborz in Khuzestan, Iran looking for pictures of weight lifters.
I actually have a (different) post on the blog that mentions a town in Iran by name (Masshad, Iran). How many Iranians stumbled on that post? Zero!
Looks like the Iranian government is right - their pervy little citizens just use Google to find hot pics of buff studs.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, how else are we going to find that picture of Vanessa Hudgens... um, for "research"!
What really happened. (Score:2)
One branch of the government baned and cut off all access to Google.
All other branches of government were suddenly unable to use the WWW/Google as a research too.
Original branch of the government turns Google access back on.
Way to make a big deal out of nothing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Iranians are FAR worse than any western government when it comes to gestapo-esque strategies, to with-holding freedom and breaking the rule of law. Why do so many people want to make out like we are the bad guys in the world? why all the self hating?... or at least; why the self hating if not backed up with an equal amount of criticism for other who are worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Iranian laws don't affect American rights,. People are going to focus on the laws that affect them directly.
Also, you can't use Slashdot as a good gauge. The Gaussian bulk of people here are narcissistic technogeeks who desperately and continually seek a reason to feel superior. You don't get that same self righteous buzz criticizing people in another hemisphere as you get calling your fellow citizens idiots b
Re: (Score:2)
1. Because it's easier to hate your own country and countrymen due to their immediate proximity.
That's odd, historically people have found it easier to hate other countries due to the lack of immediate proximity.
2. Iranian laws don't affect American rights,. People are going to focus on the laws that affect them directly.
And yet German laws don't affect American rights either. So why did the TOR arrest story get those tags? Oh yeah, because this site talks about other countries and we comment about them.
Also, you can't use Slashdot as a good gauge. The Gaussian bulk of people here are narcissistic technogeeks who desperately and continually seek a reason to feel superior. You don't get that same self righteous buzz criticizing people in another hemisphere as you get calling your fellow citizens idiots because they bought a Tivo instead of investing thirty-twelveteen hours setting up MythTV.
Heh that's a good point.