Pakistan Blocks Twitter Over 'Blasphemous' Images 226
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.
Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:5, Insightful)
True religion at work.
Superstition is slavery.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the beginning of civilization clans and tribes have sought to extinguish each other so that theirs would thrive. In a world of constrained resources this actually makes some evolutionary sense. Now that our clans and tribes are defined as much by structures
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:5, Informative)
. . . theophobic (yep I just coined a word) . . .
No, you didn't. You just discovered a word you had never heard before.
And the AC used it wrongly, too. Theophobia [wiktionary.org] is the fear of one or more gods, and is therefore an attribute of a pious follower of some religion, and would likely be approved by that religion. More likely, the AC meant religiophobic, as religiophobia [wiktionary.org] is the fear of religions.
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:5, Informative)
Hijacking the thread here. The Twitter ban has been lifted.
“Pakistan’s telecommunications regulators shut down Twitter for about eight hours Sunday because the social networking site would not remove content the government found objectionable to Muslims, but the nation’s prime minister stepped in to reverse the ban, officials said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-blocks-then-restores-twitter-access/2012/05/20/gIQAPqBPdU_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This type of comment reduces complex issues to simple bitter theophobic (yep I just coined a word) rhetoric and it is no better than the folks who force their religious beliefs on other through institutionalized oppression and social shunning.
Nonsense. Your assertion that absence of superstition is no better than any of the contradictory superstitions which cripple our societies is a contemptible form of moral relativism.
A little introspection in the world would be a revolutionary thing.
And is explicitly banned by most of the big religions extant today ("don't ask the wrong questions or you're an apostate/heathen/whatever"), thus reinforcing GP's point that "superstition is slavery". Which was the point you disagreed with, and must confuse you quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Most people who believe in God/god(s) also don't believe in God/god(s). It's just the atheists are more thorough in their disbelief.
Christians/Muslims/Jews don't believe in Odin, Zeus, Ra or Shiva. Atheists don't either, they just add one more god to the list of gods they don't believe in. Which, if you think about it what's the difference in not believing in 1000 vs 1001 gods. If the first thousand don't exist, why would you believe in the thousand and first.
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:5, Insightful)
Most atheists fall into the disbelief category and have more in common with religious believers than they are willing to recognize.
I've found the reverse to be true. Atheism covers a pretty broad range. As with religious believers, there'll be plenty of atheists who don't realize how stupid it is to voluntarily assume the burden of evidence. If some guy tells me that he's in personal communication with Grabxil, Supreme Warlord of Venus, then why should I be the one paying for the ticket to visit Venus in order to disprove this guy's existence?
Of course it also depends on the nature of the God. In internally inconsistent god (all forgiving, yet refuses to forgive certain actions) is not disproven, but certainly cannot reasonably exist. Believers will most likely adopt special pleading or interpret away these inconsistencies. Why does a loving God send us to Hell? Why, he doesn't! We send ourselves there. Why was a loving God such a cunt back in the Old Testament days? Well, it's obviously because the Hebrews were barbaric, and for some reason or other God had to abide by that. Hey, perhaps it's all about free will and stuff? Why does an all loving god permit suffering to exist? Well, that's definitely free will, isn't it? Hey, it's the corruption of the world cause by man. Yep, your child is dying painfully of leukemia because two simpletons a few thousand years ago had a fruity snack, and certainly God couldn't possibly intervene to avoid blaming the innocent for something done by someone else. That's how the stuff goes.
From personal experiences, it's pointless trying to disprove the existence of gods. One can spend hours debating, running through arguments and "evidence", to end up with the frustrating last ditch defense that it requires faith. Fuck it, why not just say that right from the beginning! You have no evidence, and you believe this because you have faith - fine. Then why waste time with this evidence and these fancy arguments you picked-up from a William Lane Craig book, when they're simply not relevant to why you personally belief this stuff? I can see the value in Jeff Dee's approach of asking people to provide their best argument first. What is it that actually makes them believe in their God - not what is it that they think will convert me?
Put another way, not believing in God/god(s) is not the same as believing there is/are no God/god(s).
Not even in the same league. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet a lack of evidence is reasonable grounds to assert disbelief. Let's say a guy is claiming that his car can fly. He believes this to be true, and I feel confident in asserting the opposite. He tells me that he can't give me a demonstration because the government radar will detect him. He claims the car has a super secret CIA made engine. I pop the hood and see nothing out of the ordinary. Overall, this appears to be a regular Chevy. Is my disbelief of his flying car the same as his positive beliefs? If not, then why is this any different to a belief in gods?
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You talk of "maybe this", or "maybe that", but until there is proof of evidence for what ever you want to assert is true, then it is not, no belief required.
It is not up to the person to prove something is untrue, it is up to the person to prove something is true.
Re: (Score:2)
And you failed to listen.
If you have no proof of something existing or not existing, you do not know whether it exists or not.
Thus it is a matter of belief.
Disbelief is having a belief, in an atheists case, the active belief that there can be no god in a traditional sense.
Lack of belief would be the case for an agnostic, not believing in the existence or non-existence of a deity but simply stating that you are open to evidence either way, but up until that point, no steps will be taken assumiing a deity exi
Re: (Score:2)
>Disbelief is having a belief, in an atheists case, the active belief that there can be no god in a traditional sense.
This sentence is fundamentally incorrect. The dictionary meaning of the suffix "dis" is "the opposite or absence of". Therefore "disbelief" is the opposite or absence of belief. "Absence" can be described as a lack of something. Thus "disbelief" is essentially "a lack of belief".
The dictionary meaning of the word "disbelief" is the rejection of belief. How you think that disbelief is a belief is beyond me...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it instructive to reframe discussions regarding belief in god as discussions regarding belief in unicorns.
"Not believing in Unicorn/unicorn(s) is not the the same as believing there is/are no Unicorn/unicorn(s)." is thus easily revealed as the semantic niggling that it is. Either there's unicorns or there ain't; if there are, you believe in them.
Also, Christianity in the U.S. only seems benevolent to the extent that it does because Christianity's become a toothless tiger after 200+ years of secular l
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you understand why you reject all other gods as possible, you will understand why I reject yours.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. They are "intro" in the sense that they think only inside their own safe definitions. There's no bible colleges where they teach Creationism instead of evolution, and have honest introspective debates about fossil and experimental evidence of evolution. They don't have honest introspective debates about the history of religions gradually dropping opposition to one or another scientific theory as their superstition became laughable and a net liability. They're not really introspective about th
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:5, Insightful)
Superstition is nonsense, unsupported by evidence and therefore deserving NO respect.
If it's not truth then propagating it is bad, end of story.
The only people who defend superstition ARE superstitionists. I have no use for the unsupported beliefs of flat-earthers.
Prove a deity exists and I'll recant then grovellingly kiss his/her/it's Noodly Appendage. Until then, fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
Yours is a false equivalence (and a false claim to inventing an existing word "theophobia" that means something different). There is a very substantial difference between insisting everyone believe in the same imaginary god as you, instead of their own imaginary gods, vs pointing out that any religion is slavery.
First, pointing out that religion is slavery doesn't insist anyone stop believing in it. It does say that religion isn't worth believing in, but it doesn't insist anyone stop.
Second, that's vastly d
Re: (Score:2)
Surprising it didn't work on you, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprising? Nobody confronted them about any delusion of theirs.
"I'm rubber, you're glue" is not an argument.
Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? And just how many conversions have you achieved by being an asshole?
Re: (Score:2)
True religion at work.
Your definition of "True religion". Not mine: I'd call it "bad religion at work".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If anything the age of the law lends it credit. Let me guess, the concept that murder is immoral is outdated because it was considered bad since the beginning of civilization?
Re: (Score:2)
Man created murder
Man created morality.
Man created law
where lack of law, man created religion
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistan blocks yet another place for failing to obey diktats from the stone-age. Maybe they'll just discard everything with origin from the Renaissance onwards.
I'm guessing they'll be holding on to the modern weaponry.
Re: (Score:2)
They will probably need to ask God which way to point their weapons. Damn near every Muslim state militarises are incompetent in the extreme. The only thing they do well is kill their own people.
Two issues... (Score:5, Insightful)
The second issue is whether it's worth trying to block the offending sites when it's unlikely to be effective and there are pre-existing legal mechanisms. If I was to call for the murder of all members of $ethnicMinority then that's illegal in the UK, so should the UK government's response be to block Slashdot or to prosecute me? I'd argue that the latter is far more effective in every way, whilst protecting the freedoms of other Slashdot users.
Should I do the same but breaking the rules of another country (eg holocause denial is legal in the UK but not Germany) then it's down to the pre-existing extradition channels.
Re: (Score:2)
Country also doesn't have the right to dictate own laws to companies in other countries. Pakistanis asked for good will gesture. Twitter refused as it would violate rights stated in their country laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but I fail to see how depicting an image of a dude is the same as advocating the extermination of a people or copyright violations.
I think a better comparison would be the depiction of nudity in public in the US. Ashcroft even covered up lady justice because of her filthy boobs.
We have the same idol hang-ups as the Pakistanis and they're driven by retarded right wing extremist assholes. The constitution is intended to protect us from them, but it even fails to work in the US.
ONE main issue (Score:3)
There's only one main issue, and that's the basic human right of free expression, unfettered by state or religion sponsored oppression.
The examples you cite aren't even remotely related and none actually justify morally or practically suppression of free speech.
Criminalizing Holocaust Denial, whatever it's achieved or claimed sociological benefits in Germany, is a political restraint on free speech probably no longer justifiable in Germany, even by it's supporters' standards. Now it's merely a technique to
Re: (Score:2)
Criminalizing Holocaust denial is a lazy shortcut. It obviously failed to stop some Germans from being Nazis, since there are still plenty. Meanwhile its abuse of free expression undermines the governments that enforce it.
It's much harder to actually stop nazism, especially in Germany where it has an actual legacy in families. But of course the harder course is necessary. Germany is at fault both for opposing liberty and for failing to snap all Germans out of their interest in one of the most hideous opposi
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistan isn't going to promote itself as a regional center in Asia. Eventually its power to cause problems for everyone that's based on its nukes will be circumvented by everyone else's interests that oppose it. The nukes that Reagan helped it get to promote the Star Wars "missile defense" will have run the course of their purpose and they'll be taken away. Iran, India, Russia and China will carve it up, either into actual countries or just markets.
If Pakistan really did promote itself as a regional center
Re: (Score:2)
Then do it already. Instead of jerking off into some Slashdot post while you fantasize about American theocratic talking points.
I'm sure you also insist on having guns "to protect the Constitution", especially since Obama was elected, even though you've done nothing especially since Bush/Cheney were inaugurated despite losing the election. Despite the disapproval of that Jesus would show on the second coming, if it weren't purely superstition.
Your psyche is totally screwed and illogical.
Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Privileges taken by Mohammed were not common among Muslims, nor are they now, any more than are privileges taken by Christian popes, kings and other lords throughout European history.
Muslim law recognizes the age of consent starting at 7 years old. So does Christian law, as explained in this article [faqs.org] that cites its sources:
Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Muslim law recognizes the age of consent starting at 7 years old. So does Christian law, as explained in this article [faqs.org] [faqs.org] that cites its sources:
Re: (Score:2)
Islamic art is fascinating, because depictions of humans and nature are discouraged to a greater or lesser degree, from "no pictures of the Prophet Moha
Re: (Score:2)
Just try being called MacDonald and opening a cafe...turns out you can't even use your own name in the west any more...
Re: (Score:2)
And it's for the same reasons, too. Muslim churches want a monopoly over the use of any reference to Mohammed. Prohibiting all images of him (including their own) creates a symbol vacuum into which the churches pour rhetoric that gains power from occupying that role. They insist on a monopoly over rhetoric about Mohammed, too.
Yes, that is all exactly the same as copyright and trademark monopoly, except without any "fair use" allowances. Which is where the US and Europe are marching, too.
Re: (Score:2)
All religious action except prayer is for political reasons. And even prayer is often for political reasons.
Religion is the politics of metaphysics.
Streisand fail? (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually read TFA, hoping to see what, exactly, pissed them off, but apparently Pakistan's not telling.
Either Pakistan found a way to get around the Streisand Effect (if you just mass-block an entire large site and never say which particulars caused it, it gets no publicity), or they just wanted to censor it and found blasphemy to be a decent excuse.
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (Score:5, Informative)
I almost missed that it was back again today [battleswarmblog.com]. I participated in 2010 [battleswarmblog.com], but nobody seemed to be doing it in 2011. Glad to see it's back, and I would have missed it if Pakistan hadn't brought attention to it.
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day serves three important purposes:
1. It reaffirms that the First Amendment is alive and well, and that the United States legal system cannot, should not, and will not knuckle under to transnational demands for Sharia-compliant suppression of "blasphemy" as defined by oppressive theocratic Islamic states.
2. To prove that in the 21st century censorship is self-defeating, as it only draws more attention to whatever is being censored than ignoring it would.
3. To provide so many targets for would-be jihadists to assault that the give up due to the futility of the task. Theo Van Gogh is dead [city-journal.org] and Molly Norris is still in hiding [battleswarmblog.com]. Standing in solidarity with them proves to jihadists that using violence to achieve political ends in a free society is counter-productive (something people eager to attack Chicago cops with Molotov cocktails evidently haven't learned).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Where are Sharia courts established that are recognized as replacements for UK law?
Every democracy has groups that try to replace existing law with ones derived from their own personal heritage or interest, and many of those conflict with universal liberty as much as Sharia and other theocracy. Yes the US faces far more threats from Christian theocrats, atop existing laws that are just only according to Christianity (No alcohol sales on Sunday? No gay marriage?), than from Sharia. Anyone bringing up Sharia
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry Islam apologist. If you want to see what happens when sharia law is in place, please look at: Pakistan, Malaysia, Maldives, Iran, Saudi Arabia, various African countries, etc.
Remember, a women's testimony is only worth half of that of a mans. And is worth less than that of a non-believer. Remember that treating women like chattel, is perfectly a-okay. Remember that beating your chattel, is perfectly a-okay, the Ulama happily point out the ways and publish materials on how to do this so you
Re: (Score:2)
>upset about Sharia and consider it a threat
I don't see why you Christfags don't get all bent out of shape about Dominionism and Prosperity Gospel and all the other shit the Evangelicals seem to keep trying to shove down everyone's throats.
Fuckhead.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why you Christfags don't get all bent out of shape about Dominionism and Prosperity Gospel and all the other shit the Evangelicals seem to keep trying to shove down everyone's throats.
Fuckhead.
So, want to feel and look like an asshole now? Well that's okay. I'm not christian, sorry to burst your bubble. I'm Jewish, reform at that.
As for priorities? Perhaps you'll get off your ass, and look at the cases of judges in the US trampling all over individual rights of people in the name of sharia law. Remember that guy in Ohio who was assaulted for wearing a Mohammed costume? No? Well google is there for you! Look it up. How about the mandatory prayer groups that are being forced on kids in var
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I'm Canadian.
Then you should be aware of the Dominionsts in Canada who would subjugate your ass.
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2011/08/30/why-dominionism-matters/ [benedictionblogson.com]
They have been influencing the Harper government a fucking whole lot more than you think.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Sharia law outside of the US is not a threat to freedom inside the US.
Politicians inside the US buying into the Christian equivalent of Sharia (Santorum, et al), however, *are* a threat to freedom inside the US.
Priorities.
Get some, asshole.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Americans who seek to establish anti-Shariah legislation are idiots.
Fixed.
The first amendment requires that the government not endorse a religion. This includes Islam too. Officially sanctioned Sharia courts would be therefore per-se illegal. We don't need more legislation, it's already done.
The only people who complain about Sharia courts in the US are politicians trying to ingratiate themselves with their "base."
All the while it's just fine with the RWNJs that Republicans wear their religion on their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again. Both are a threat. I acknowledge that. I think most people would. It's you who is refusing to acknowledge Islam as any threat to western society despite the over 18,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11.
1. You are inflating statistics as if those happened here in the US.
2. You have not proven that all those are Islamist
3. That is a number you pulled from your ass
It's you who refuse to acknowledge Islam is even "bad" in any way shape of form,
I fucking *dine* at a restaurant where it's Family Night ever
Re: (Score:2)
Even Christian fanatics don't advocate subjecting non-Christians to Biblical laws,
This is the biggest load of horse shit in the entire thread and you have wilfully pulled the blinders over your eyes to not see this shit.
I got wind of Dominionism back in the *1980s* by listening to preachers on shortwave radio. Dominionism is *all about* subjugating everyone who doesn't buy into Dominion Gospel to the worst sorts of oppression.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know too many atheists who think more of Islam than Christianity. Both religions are pretty absurd, and both have plenty of blood on their hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't been paying attention? Until recently Islam was the "religion not to touch" because it might brand you a racist.
Re:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (Score:4, Insightful)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Should we have a child porn day, too? Maybe soften it a bit and just draw the pictures. That would serve to show that we will not knuckle under to oppressive countries full of uptight rednecks on a jihad. "Blasphemy" is entirely subjective and totally in the eye of the beholder.
Sure. Here's Muhammad drilling his 12 year old wife:
o-,
o-x
Now that's broken the Law in both Pakistan and the UK (in the UK the London 2012 logo is illegal given what 8-year-old Lisa Simpson's doing)
Free speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Of course you are. And the Muslims are allowed to be disgusted by the Mohammed competition. It's when you move from disgust to censorship that there's a problem. By the way, I *do* feel the European decisions to censor Holocaust deniers is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
As an European, so do I.
Re: (Score:2)
you aren't allowed to be disgusted when the islamic world responds with an International Holocaust Cartoon Competition.
On one level, that is correct, tit for tat, on another it really isn't (IMHO). Drawing pictures of Mohammad is more like when Family Guy makes fun of Jesus, it is kind of taboo, and bothers people, but in the end no harm done. Making fun of 6 million people dying is on a completely different level, infinitely worse then "cartoons".
Re:Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you aren't allowed to be disgusted
Your reasoning unraveled right there. By juxtaposing offended feelings in the second paragraph with censorship taken to limit offended feelings, you blur the moral distinction between feeling offended and taking action upon others to prevent feeling offended. People have the right to give and take offense, there's nothing wrong with Europeans taking offense at Holocaust denial, nor is there anything wrong with Muslims taking offense at blasphemy. The trouble comes from the action of silencing others. By tra
I am from Pakistan, Twitter is working for me. (Score:3, Informative)
I am from Pakistan, Twitter is working for me.
My ISP is the local telecom monopoly(PTCL), so I doubt it's a case of selective application by ISP's.
RUMOUR IS FAKE (Score:3)
https://twitter.com/#!/SenRehmanMalik/status/203961375087788032 [twitter.com]
So that Douchebag Minister of ours is finally good for something :p
Now while I really hate the Indo-Pak rivarly that pops up on the internet, I have to say, that source in the link is an Indian newspaper.
Should I pull out my tinfoil hat?
See? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Religion can be a force for good (even if it's accidental).
God I love sarcasm.
Thought Experiment: (Score:2, Insightful)
Depict MLK as an ape
See the reaction in the US (and elsewhere).
Re: (Score:2)
There's a whole genre of racist cartoons depicting blacks as primitive creatures. It goes back before the Civil War and is much in evidence on the internet:
http://www.resist.com/CARTOON%20GALLERY/NIGGERS/page_0002.html [resist.com]
Trayvon Target:
http://www.amsterdamnews.com/news/national/hiller-armament-uses-trayvon-martin-image-as-gun-target/article_697026a6-9fa4-11e1-b3 [amsterdamnews.com]
Dear Pakistani government: (Score:3)
Nobody's forcing anyone to look at these images. Anyone who really wants to will anyway. By making unenforceable laws, you simply make yourself look foolish, weak and powerless.
American Sharia (Score:3)
In the USA the Catholic Church and other cults are working hard to prevent health insurers from paying for women's healthcare like contraception, even though that investment reduces payouts for the prevented conditions and reduces the amount the cult churches pay for the insurance. Despite the economics, logic and compassion arguing for the coverage, these cults are obsessed with preventing anyone from "blaspheming", even if the blasphemers aren't part of their cult.
Pakistan is far worse. But it's more a difference of degree than of category compared to the modern USA. Theocrats everywhere have more in common than divides them.
Re:Whoah... hold up (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
++interesting and informative
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark and copyright prevent plenty of websites, books and other publications in the US. The US is careful to act quickly, before popularity makes it harder. "Pornographic" cartoons have been declared unlawful, even when later generations find them harmless. Churches used to get burned down with the tacit approval of the state all the time.
The fact that Pakistan is worse than America doesn't mean America doesn't also practice these repressions to an unacceptable degree. "Not as bad as Pakistan" isn't rea
Re: (Score:2)
No, we should not wait to knock on our neighbor's door. We should indeed clean up our own backyard, too. But consistency and a sensible strategy (to say nothing of ethical behavior) insist we oppose censorship wherever it damages anyone's rights.
Re:This is none of your fuckin business (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 sensible
however the article should have mentioned how the block was implemented (dns, IP) and if there were workarounds people could use (simple as proxy?) making it more relevant for the "news for nerds" moniker.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
It's their country and their culture. They WANT it this way. Pakistan means "Land of the Pure", after all. Their capitol city is "Islamabad". This is what they want. As long as they're not invading your country, let them do as they damn well please. Oh, and their "dip-shit religious government"? They like it, thanks.
You are living proof that the left has just as many people seeking dragons to slay abroad as the right does. Have you ever considered... just for a moment... that Pakistanis don't share your ide
Re: (Score:3)
1. No, many Pakistanis don't like it. Especially the many Pakistanis who have left Pakistan to live elsewhere.
2. Pakistan's religious oppression of rights and corrupt manipulation of communications both public and private in the service of an Islam that lets its rulers exploit its people is essential to the Afghanistan from which the Qaeda attacked America. It remains essential to the Taliban that form the core of that continuing threat to the US. It protected Binladen for years from being eliminated as an
Re: (Score:2)
I am so very, very glad I don't live in your world. Say hi to Big Brother for me.
Re: (Score:3)
Whenever one human oppresses another, particularly with ridiculous superstitious nonsense, it becomes the business of all of us. And when whole governments do it, the situation escalates into not just offensive, but an outright human rights issue.
Re: (Score:2)
When their cult gains influence in your backyard it will be too late to foment effective resistance.
Re: (Score:3)
What we need is to switch sides and help progressive India and China instead of the Pakiban.
The only cure for Pakistan is an Indian first strike, and the only thing barely keeping the Pakiban in their box is the Indian military.