Pakistani Court Rules On Internet Censorship: Unconstitutional 79
Fluffeh writes "It looks like some Pakistanis are taking on 'the man.' With plans laid by the Pakistani Government that could sink up to fifty million websites that it isn't a fan of, Pakistanis took the matter to court — which ruled that such action by the government was unconstitutional. Reporters without Borders was however a little more skeptical 'The high court's ruling, if respected, would make it impossible for the government to introduce any nationwide website filtering system. While welcoming the ruling, which penalizes the lack of transparency in the PTA's past website blocking, Reporters Without Borders calls for vigilance because the PTA could try to circumvent it by devising a constitutional procedure based on the anti-blasphemy law and national security provisions. '"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A US Court has ruled that Motorola can't force Microsoft to stop trading in Germany, if you read the BBC News version: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17924190 [bbc.co.uk]
"However, Motorola cannot enforce the ruling until a Seattle-based judge lifts a restraining order.
The restriction was put in place after Microsoft claimed that Motorola was abusing its Frand-commitments - a promise to licence innovations deemed critical to widely-used technologies under "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms."
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly somebody though May first was April 1st... nothing to see here move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So the camel jockeys of Pakistan care more about freedom of speech/expression than the 'home of the free'? LOL. I'm guessing they also don't submit people to grope sessions just to fly planes either.
It takes a bit more courage to take on the establishment in Pakistan than it does in the USA. In Pakistan the reactionaries can lock you up and torture or even 'disappear' their own citizens if they get too annoying, in the USA they are still stuck at the 'I'd like to be able to do that to people other than renditioned foreigners' stage.
Re: (Score:1)
So the camel jockeys of Pakistan care more about freedom of speech/expression than the 'home of the free'? LOL. I'm guessing they also don't submit people to grope sessions just to fly planes either.
It takes a bit more courage to take on the establishment in Pakistan than it does in the USA. In Pakistan the reactionaries can lock you up and torture or even 'disappear' their own citizens if they get too annoying, in the USA they are still stuck at the 'I'd like to be able to do that to people other than renditioned foreigners' stage.
Well, that makes the US citizens seem rather lame, a big bunch of pussies that don't do a thing to protect that freedom themselves. Relying completely on a government to protect that freedom while that government is showing time and time again that its trying to erode that very freedom.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
in the USA they are still stuck at the 'watch him long enough and eventually he'll commit a crime' stage.
FTFY. Here in the US, we get around the "well you can only arrest people who break the law" by creating so many laws and such a complex legal system that almost everyone is guilty of something.
Re: (Score:1)
FTFY. Here in the US, we get around the "well you can only arrest people who break the law" by creating so many laws and such a complex legal system that almost everyone is guilty of something
That's true in most countries but it's more due to laws piling up and nobody ever working up the energy to clean out the cruft. My uncle used to be a cop in a small fishing village, one day he caught a couple of foreign sailors who had stolen a goat and slaughtered it. When he looked up the relevant passage in his law book (nobody had stolen livestock in this place for over a hundred years) and immediately called the justice ministry to ask for advice. The lawyer at the other end got pretty annoyed over bei
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Insightful
Most people don't realize that we have such maze of laws that the average American breaks three laws a day [wsj.com], often without even knowing it.
Profits (Score:2)
Don't forget the prison-industrial complex buying and pushing 'law and order' politicians that then privatize incarceration (because government employees are to be eliminated) and increase their profits.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, you're on Slashdot, home of autistic geek filth that lives in tiny mental bubbles where the US has become the worst place ever in the history of the universe or any fictional work, and everything is measured in multiple Hitlers. For example, buying an iPhone makes you as bad as 6 Hitlers.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
No major government body in the US is trying to block fifty million websites
I guess lobbyists from the MPAA and RIAA are not technically part of the government; they only pad the wallets of politicians and draft legislation for them.
the US rejected any form of blasphemy laws as unconstitional quite some time ago
While simultaneously making other classes of speech illegal. Just because we violate free speech rights differently than the Pakistanis would does not mean that we are not violating free speech rights.
As to the matter of grope sessions to fly planes- Pakistan has essentially close to almost no equivalent of Fourth Amendment protections
So on the one hand, Pakistan has no privacy laws, and on the other the US simply ignores its privacy laws and publicly humiliates its citizens. Here is the question you were trying to answer, but failed to: does Pakistan grope its citizens en masse, the way the United States does?
there's no question that human rights have been getting better in Pakistan
Here is what you left out: human rights have been getting worse in the United States, and are worsening at an accelerating pace. Freedom of speech? Only if you do not bother the important people with it. Privacy rights? Only if you never travel or communicate electronically. The right to live a free and happy life? Only if you are not a member of the world's largest prison population, which in case anyone has forgotten is the prison population of the United States.
To put it another way, is it the US or Pakistan that has paramilitary police forces that shoot innocent people with assault rifles and add personal assets to their budgets, with the approval and encouragement of the government?
Re: (Score:2)
So on the one hand, Pakistan has no privacy laws, and on the other the US simply ignores its privacy laws and publicly humiliates its citizens. Here is the question you were trying to answer, but failed to: does Pakistan grope its citizens en masse, the way the United States does?
The point you may have b
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, ISPs in the US don't block copyright infringing websites
Up until the point where the US government seizes domain names.
As to your claim that other areas of free speech are restricted in the US, exactly what speech are you talking about?
How about praising terrorists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?ref=terrorism [nytimes.com]
Or publishing articles with controversial views about terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_churchill [wikipedia.org]
Or publishing books about making drugs (note that Shulgin lost his license to do research -- including research on drugs that he discovered):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pihkal [wikipedia.org]
Or recording the police:
Re: (Score:2)
Most of your reply isn't really relevant because I've agreed with you that the US has serious problems and that some of them are getting worse. In that context, pointing to specific problems doesn't really do much. But it may be instructive to look at your examples:
Tarek Mehanna is an appalling example and not the only such case. Ward Churchill was guilty of severe plagiarism. It is true that people paid more attention to him and the plagiarism accusations because of his politically controversial state
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Mouth-off to an EU policeman and he or SHE will beat the living crap out of you in public with no fear of reprisal".
You, dear Sir, are completely bonkers.
Re: (Score:2)
So the camel jockeys of Pakistan care more about freedom of speech/expression than the 'home of the free'? LOL. I'm guessing they also don't submit people to grope sessions just to fly planes either.
We understand. You just go ahead and keep telling yourself whatever it takes to get you out of bed in the morning.
Well, that beats the U.S. Supreme Court at least (Score:4, Insightful)
Our guys have been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years. I'm pretty sure at this point that most of the U.S. Justices don't even know there *is* a 4th Amendment, much less what it says.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry, citizen. Everything the government does is to keep you safe. Lying, molesting people at airports, warrantless wiretapping... it's all for you! You should feel honored that we're keeping you safe!
Re:Well, that beats the U.S. Supreme Court at leas (Score:4, Insightful)
And don't forget about being the one's who come up with the terrorist plots in order to foil them. [slashdot.org]
Here's the difference (Score:1)
The difference between banana-republic-style, "third world" oppression and superpower, "first world" oppression is merely the shiny package it comes in.
Re: (Score:3)
And the price tag.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for the justices, but I can speak for my elected representatives!
My congressman and both senators don't know what the 4th Amendment is: http://slashdot.org/my/journal [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Your Journal: http://slashdot.org/~Scarred+Intellect/journal/ [slashdot.org]
Not My Journal: http://slashdot.org/my/journal [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs a 4th amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
What, you want to have privacy? What are you trying to hide?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure at this point that most of the U.S. Justices don't even know there *is* a 4th Amendment, much less what it says.
Uh, wouldn't this be a first amendment issue in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Our guys have been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years. I'm pretty sure at this point that most of the U.S. Justices don't even know there *is* a 4th Amendment, much less what it says.
I'm pretty sure there is another possibility - that they in fact do understand it, as applied, and you don't. One of the big stumbling blocks is people keep refusing to acknowledge the difference between procedure under ordinary criminal law, and the law of war, or national security law more generally. Most people here have a better understanding of cheese, which still baffles them, than they do of how the Constitution applies to armed conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I missed the part of the Constitution that said "All provisions and amendments of this document are to be suspended during any period when the President says the country is at war."
Re: (Score:3)
I missed the part of the Constitution that said "All provisions and amendments of this document are to be suspended during any period when the President says the country is at war."
Especially, when it seems your nation is always at war with someone or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Our guys have been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years. I'm pretty sure at this point that most of the U.S. Justices don't even know there *is* a 4th Amendment, much less what it says.
Actually, to the surprise of quite a few observers (myself included), the Supreme Court just unanimously ruled that law enforcement agencies can't simply slap a GPS tracker on your car [washingtonpost.com] without a warrant. The majority's ruling was actually relatively limited, but was based on 4th Amendment grounds. Alito and several of
Re: (Score:2)
It's the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.
The land of the free and the home of the brave (Score:2)
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
Pakistan? :\
You have to understand Pakistan's politics (Score:5, Insightful)
The government can't be seen offending their own people. They're more progressive than they let on. Because of the threat of violence from the religious fundies, the progressives often disguise their actions or appear to be "arguing for" something they are actually against.
All of the institutions in Pakistan have to walk lines between the progress the lawyers and intellectuals and professors want to see happen and what the religious fundies will tolerate. It's not that different in the US. as the etch-a-sketch positioning in the Republican primaries reveal. You can't alienate that much of your (stupid) electorate and expect to get or stay in power.
The government and most of the military in Pakistan hates the Taliban as much as anyone and was as glad as we were when we did bin Laden Of course they had to act outraged.
Pakistan is chock -o-block full with highly intelligent forward looking progressives who aren't drinking the Kool-aid. That's why the drone program is a great thing. The religious head cases in Waziristan are hated by many Pakis as much as they're hated by us, and both the Pakistan government and its military smile every time a fundie gets dished out to him what he earnestly sought to dish out to civil society.
Just like with any other country, you can't understand the international headlines unless you have at least a basic grasp of the domestic politics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistan's fundies , just like our fundies in the US, may use terror to intimidate the voice of Pakistan's progressives, but rest assured if they got into power, banning websites with which they disagreer would be the first order of the day, just as Rick Santorum was planning to make p0rn sites illegal.
But there are tens of thousands of expat Pakis who can and do put up websites to combat extremeist thoughts and if they're not blocked in Pakistan, there's little the fundies in Pak cn do to stop people in
Re: (Score:2)
Look at what's happening to the conservatard hatred of homosexuality in the US. They themselves admit they've lost "this battle" against gay acceptance. That's the power of ideas.
Rick Santorum made it to the level of Presidential Candidate, not to mention Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and GWB. That's also the power of ideas.
It's on. It's on between the forces of darkness- the religious fundies in every nation- and civilization. My bet is on civilization. Let's roll.
I applaud your optimism but think you're way too optimistic. Renouncing Islam in Pakistan is still a capital offence. Being raped in Pakistan can land a woman in jail. Just walking to school can buy a girl a face full of sulphuric acid. Allah akbar. A religion of peace.
Plenty of countries throughout history have let themselves be held hostage by a minority compo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that strikes you as unlikely, consider this. bin Laden had every reason to be paranoid- the full power of the US intelligence community was looking for him. One leaking person and it's game over. What's he going to do?
Not let anyone not in his family or his inner circle know where he is. Even if the majority of the upper echelon of Pakistani armed forces was FOR him- and they're not- but even if that was true, he'd still have to worry about someone tel
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistani military, no.
Pakistani intelligence service (ISI?), yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why Pakistan intelligence services keep supporting Islamic extremists in neighboring countries, as they did during Soviet-Afghan war?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is; the ISI is shot through with people who are tali sympathizers. Some of those are in a position of power in the ISI and they're in a position to tell their underlings what to do the same way your boss is, except with the implicit threat of personal harm added in if you don't do it. It's just like any other organization in which there are power struggles. There's in fighting and conniving and looking the other way and wanting to hang on to your job.
Look at how Chicago was when Al Capone was
Re: (Score:2)
There's the secrecy issue. Then there's the problem of finding people who both have the access they would need to alert bin Laden and also the indubitable sincerity and uncompromising world view that would permit them to keep that secret to only themselves for what appears to be years.
But even given such a fortunate (not!) assembly
We need a Constitutional Amendment (Score:1)
I'm sure everyone here loves spending every waking hour fighting CISPA/PIPA/SOPA/ACTA or every other incarnation that will be silently pushed into law. We must demand a Constitutional amendment that clearly defines personal privacy and Internet usage as an inalienable right. The days of hoping your representative Democracy will work for you are sadly over.
Re: (Score:3)
We must demand a Constitutional amendment that clearly defines personal privacy and Internet usage as an inalienable right. The days of hoping your representative Democracy will work for you are sadly over.
You're right. I'll contact my representative to demand he get the amendment process moving and- oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
We must demand a Constitutional amendment that clearly defines personal privacy ... as an inalienable right.
Hmm, how about this as a starting draft:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
That seems pretty clear to me about enforcing personal property. But I'm not sure we could get that one passed these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that help? They don't respect the amendments we already have.
In Soviet Russia (Score:1)
Downside (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2)
...all of the members of Pakistan's high court were replaced today, as the previous members all died of, according to the official government report, accidental bullet wounds to the chest and head.