Pakistan Blocks Twitter Over 'Blasphemous' Images

Diggester writes with this news from the Times of India: "Pakistani authorities on Friday further widened the crackdown on websites with blasphemous contents by restricting access to popular social networking website Twitter. Pakistani users were unable to log into Twitter after internet service providers blocked access to the site." The block was prompted by Twitter's refusal to take down messages promoting a cartoon contest to which the Pakistani government objects for its depictions of Muhammad. This end-run falls right in line with the pessimistic reaction from Reporters Without Borders to the Pakistani court decision calling Internet censorship unconstitutional.

Re:This is none of your fuckin business

[Jawnn]

What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.

I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.

Free speech?

[GofG]

Before we get all high and mighty about stupid a-rabs getting upset over pictures of muhammed, lets remember that holocaust denial is illegal pretty much everywhere in eastern europe and is strongly censored everywhere else in the modern world. This is important because even though holocaust denialism's arguments have been thoroughly refuted on every front, they still aren't allowed to make them. This is a very strange policy and likely leads to more suspicion in this day and age, with censorship of an idea almost automatically giving weight to that idea.

So when we have mass huge contests for drawing pictures of muhammed, demonstrating our right to free speech with such a dividing, needless, harmful exercise, alienating an entire region of the earth, just remember: you aren't allowed to be disgusted when the islamic world responds with an International Holocaust Cartoon Competition [wikipedia.org].

Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17

[bhlowe]

Mohammed had 12 wives. You have evidence of polygamy on that scale in Christian Europe?
Mohammed was 52 years old when he consummated his marriage to the 9-year old Aisha. This was common in Christian Europe?
How was this progressive? How was Europe worse? Do tell defender of Islam. .

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval

[Psyborgue]

Phobia implies irrational fear. Fear of religion is not irrational. If anything the absence of fear towards religion should be considered irrational.

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval

[englishknnigits]

Actually, Bible colleges are incredibly introspective and address "controversial" questions. I suppose that is only one religion (assuming you group all forms of Christianity) which would still make the statement "most of the big religions" true.

Also, most atheists confuse "lack of belief" with "disbelief." Lack of belief is rational and not in any way equivalent with belief. Disbelief is in the same category as belief in that you take it to be true even though you do not know it is true. Most atheists fall into the disbelief category and have more in common with religious believers than they are willing to recognize.
Put another way, not believing in God/god(s) is not the same as believing there is/are no God/god(s).

Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval

[njen]

A new tactic of religious followers I have seen lately is to try and elevate atheists to the same level of what is "unknowable" (and I use that term loosely) as themselves, and it is maddening. I disbelieve in many things that I know to be untrue: unicorns, dragons, FSM (sorry to all the Pastafarians out there!), teapots circling the sun, etc.

The sheer amount of things to disbelieve in is absolutely infinite, there for it is safe to say to disbelieve in it all as a starting point, unless there is proof for it's existence.

Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17

[Psyborgue]

It matters because Muhammad is considered an example for all Muslims to follow. His marrying Aisha at 6 (and bedding her at 9) sets the precedent for modern day child marriage and sex in the Muslim world. One famous example: Ayatollah Khomeni, who married a 10 year old. You don't have to look far to find thousands of other examples. What about Qur'an 4:34 (pick a translation on quran.com) which commands a husband to beat his wife. Could that not have something to do with the 90% of women in Pakistan who have suffered domestic abuse (or the one in four in Turkey, considered the most "progressive" of Muslim countries?) All religion is poison but some are worse than others.