YouTube Blocked In Pakistan 299
kokoko1 submits this snippet from The Telegraph, which reports that Facebook isn't alone — now YouTube, too, is being censored in Pakistan. "The blocking of YouTube comes a day after a Pakistani court blocked Facebook amid a growing row over a competition on the social networking website to design cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad." Update: 05/20 18:58 GMT by T : According to an anonymous reader, Wikipedia and Flickr are out, too.
Update: 05/21 12:11 GMT by KD : And now add Twitter to the blocked list. This post claims that more than 1,000 sites are being blocked in Pakistan.
Update: 05/21 12:11 GMT by KD : And now add Twitter to the blocked list. This post claims that more than 1,000 sites are being blocked in Pakistan.
The problem (Score:4, Interesting)
This is great that people are pushing to force governments to drop their censorship. But it's not going to work, at least, not in the short term. The reason? Pakistan will be able to find at least a few people or companies that will build local versions of social networking sites, search engines, etc. that comply with their censorship requests. It's how capitalism works, only the government is saying "we've made you a captive market if you only play by our rules".
Ultimately censorship will be killed by end to end encryption and onion routing.
Muslims in Saudi and other places (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They don't even understand the history (Score:3, Interesting)
The funny thing is that "old-timer" Protestants often destroyed or vandalized Catholic paintings and statues precisely for the same reason: They were considered examples of idolatry. Just go to e.g. Malta and see the faceless statues in some of the old churches there.
Re:Ban /. (Score:3, Interesting)
O
/ ^ \
* | -- Mohammad Carrying a bomb
^
_/ \_
FTFY.
And if someone is more talented than me and the OP, please add a beard ---> #
Good (Score:1, Interesting)
How about Google? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Self-limiting (Score:3, Interesting)
The non-overly religious pakistani that WE - the westerners, should very, very much care about. Because they are the only thing that stands between nukes and religious fanatics.
If that isn't a reason enough for anyone living in the West, I don't know what could possibly be one.
Re:How about Google? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not blasphemy, that's massphemy!
Of course, there's no real offence going on - not like the kind of offence we feel when people are killed, buildings burned, or little girl's are genital mutilated, or raped then beaten for being raped or stoned, or any of the other atrocities commited by the "religion of peace". It's feigned offence for the political reason of giving their population something to hate because they're so oppressed that they need something to keep their mind off their poor miserable lives.
Pakistan News (Score:5, Interesting)
If only fluff pieces like this could bring attention to the more real issues in Pakistan. Like the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the first and only head of a muslim state. It's unfortunate in the extreme that the country's court has now been more effective and interested in this youtube and facebook ban than it's pursuit of Benazir's killers.
This ban is not the only thing that has been more important to many of Pakistan's leadership either. Since Benazir's widow became president, the entirety of the country's opposition parties, courts and media have given more attention to corruption charges against Benazir's widow than to the pursuit of her killers.
Former dictator Musharraf is a leading suspect as a co-conspirator in her assassination. The latest news from him is his intent to return to Pakistan, at the head of a new political party that will include the PML-Q. The PML-Q is one Pakistan's strongest conservative Islamic parties, and one the ones advocating the strongest for this ban, for charges of corruption against Benazir's widow, and one of the quietest about her assassins still running free.
Well, I guess that's my small part in trying to draw attention from the 'fluff' over this ban to the real problems it is a symptom of.
Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places (Score:3, Interesting)
they keep the silliness from going too far.
How far beyond a full-scale implementation of Shari'a law according to the interpretation of the strictest Islamic school (Salafi) can you get? I mean, we're speaking of public beheadings, stonings and amputations here.
Re:religion FAIL (Score:2, Interesting)
When are people going to learn that, though often the rhetoric we pay close attention to calls for action against the west because it is the "Great Satan", and all that goes with that, that the line many westerners have been fed in the lead up to the wars about Muslims hating the west because of its democracy, freedom of speech, and general ideals is a crock of shit. This is a line fed to the masses that has unfortunately become almost universally accepted by those with only cursory knowledge of Islam. Muslims hate the west for our international policy regarding them. A very good book I just recently finished explains this quite well (Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq ; Micheal Sheuer) even states that although our president and others starting talking about the importance that we bring democracy to the middle east, even bin Ladens early warning clearly stated the grievances muslims had with America in particular. Schueur says "the Islamists' indictment sheet against the united States has been precise...for more than a decade.
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula and other parts of the Islamic world
2. Unqualified U.S. support for Israel
3. U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India, and Russia, and the Arab police states.
4. U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price
All of these things are facts of our policy, and our neglect or unwillingness to recognize these as some of the core issues feeding not only radical Islam, but even moderate Islam. (Really, be objective and put yourselves in their shoes, would you not feel the same way?) In fact, Bin Laden and his ilk were around during Ayatollah Khomeini's utter failure to get Muslims to kill themselves by attacking America because they drank beer, voted in elections, and attempted to ensure that women and men are treated equally. "Even the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters who killed themselves in attacks against the U.S. and French targets in Beirut in 82-83 did so under the umbrella of the ayatolla's rhetoric, but they were in fact executing nationalist operations aimed at driving what they perceived as occupying Westerners out of Lebanon." ...If true... our choice is black and white simple: we can completely abandon our beliefs, our lifestyles, and how we behave in the domestic, political, and social arenas to appease our enemies, or we can undertake the task of killing every last Muslim because that is what they intend to do to us."
For anyone to believe otherwise, that "The Islamists and their supporters are warring against the United States because they hate Americans as Americans, as well as everything they stand for in the politcal and social spheres, and in the end intend to eradicate our society from the planet.
If we truly were on a campaign for hearts and minds, it would require an out of the ordinary grasp of reality and common sense from the elite, and would also require that the last 3 presidents "recant most of what they have sworn to be true about our enemies motivations, to take on the Saudi and Israeli lobbies, and to begin to destroy the energy-policy status quo..."
"This is the reason why Americans hear so few "moderate Muslim voices" opposing bin Laden and the Islamists; the moderates are out there and often do not approve of the Islamists' military actions, but they hate U.S. policies with just as much venom and passion as the Islamists, per the polls by Pew, Gallup, BBC, and Zogby."
Most of this is the result of an western population, political elite and else, who have studied little of the widely varying cultures, nations, and peoples that make up the "Muslim nation". By increasing deamnation of the entire Muslim religion, we enrage and "contribute to their silent acquescence in the face of the Islamists' arguments and military actions."
Also, often the fundamental difference between Shia and Sunni Islam is often overlooked and misunderstood. If you look at the history of what we in the west consider o
Re:Ban /. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes but is that really a justification? That's the same argument a child uses - "Well he did so and so". I'm guilty of this myself so I'm not above it. But it's not a sound argument.
Have you ever tried arguing like an adult with a two year old?
You can't. All you can do is BE an adult and ignore him. But guess what -- we can't do that with grown ups who are organized enough to sponsor terrorist organizations, armies, nuclear bombs, etc.
But all that said, is insulting for the sake of freedom worth the results? If the results are a culture rift then I say no. If the results are a better world, then yeah go for it.
That part is debatable, but at the same time, does it matter? Since we can't know in advance what the results are, you have to pick a principle and stand by it. Are you going to err on the side of promoting free speech and anti-religion, or err on the side of restricted speech and kowtowing to religion? For me the choice is simple. If the end result has a chance at becoming slaves to religion, let the rift commence.