Malaysia Stages Internet Blackout To Protest New Censorship Law 76
redletterdave writes "Malaysian netizens, opposition politicians, well-known bloggers and non-governmental organizations staged an Internet blackout Tuesday to protest and raise awareness about legislation that could threaten free expression on the Web. According to Malaysia's Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), the second of two amendments to the Malaysian Evidence Act of 1950, also known as Section 114A, 'enables law enforcement officials to swiftly hold someone accountable (PDF) for publishing seditious, defamatory, or libelous content online.' In addition, those accused of posting this kind of content will be 'assumed to be guilty until proven innocent,' which completely flies in the face of the typical logic of the traditional judicial process, which is 'innocent until proven guilty.' The CIJ warns that 'if allegedly defamatory content is traced back to your username, electronic device, and/or Wi-Fi network, Section 114A presumes you are guilty of publishing illicit content on the Internet.' The CIJ organized Tuesday's blackout, where participating sites blacked out their names and services with messages that read, 'This is what the Web could look like.'"
First country that (Score:1)
became a free harbor for information, will flourish in a very near future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it will look like Pearl Harbor did in 1941 if anybody tries.
So, how widespread was this blackout anyway? Did Google and Facebook and Microsoft join in?
Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
Malaysia is an Islamic country
From Saudi Arabia to Malaysia to Iran to Bangladesh, we see a pattern --- Islamic countries aren't actually famous for their tolerance of free speech
But of course, not all countries that do not allow free speech are Islamic countries. North Korea and Cuba are not Islamic, but then, they are commies
I guess the commies are in bed with the Islamists on their quest to snuff out all free speech
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
The UK apparently doesn't tolerate freedom of speech/press either. Just take a look at the earlier story about that guy who is getting four years in prison simply for posting text on his web site.
Re: (Score:1)
America either for that matter. Nevermind that the navy plans to have ubiquitous flyover capability within the next 5 years. They'll watch you even in international waters. I'm sure you'll feel safe then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Commies bad", eh. Sounds like you are drunk on kool-aid.
Re:Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Troll alert...
Unless you have been living in a cave for the past 100 years you're wilfully ignoring facts... The communist countries wasted most of their money on preventing free speech and free thought, as well as free movement of its people. The rest was wasted on a stupid arms race they couldn't win. That was one of the primary reasons they failed.
For some reason Islamic countries are even more afraid of free speech, as well as free expression. The middle east almost melted down just because a local newspaper in the small country of Denmark (far, far away from the middle east) published some drawings of Muhammad. It's a very poor and insecure religion that fears open discussion about its premises and prophets, and this is usually due to real issues with these. I mean it is raised above any discussion that Muhammad was a pedophile when he married a 6-year old and consumated the marriage when she (Aisha) was 9 years old, but try mentioning this to a Muslim and you just might not survive the reaction.
Islam is a very violent religion, and any insult, no matter how insignificant, results in demands for blood, beheadings and worse, which of course explains the need for strong censorship in order to prevent roits and revolutions. But the issue is not the insults (which the censorship should prevent) but the mentality and reactions, and those are guided by the clergy (Imams). So they need to re-educate the Imams instead of imposing more censorship. That would solve many problems in addition to those relating to perceived insults, and open up for freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion is violent. Sexuality in a religious context is invariably screwed up and is invariably about women... controlling, limiting, branding and especially blaming.
Get over it. To me, one religion is pretty much as stupid as another. But be thankful too. We have a lot to thank religion for in our human societies.
1. ...
Okay I may have to post more on that later.. I can't think of any at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It amazes me that they can fight for the cause of non-attachment. It's like fighting for peace or screwing for virginity.
Re: (Score:3)
Sexuality in a religious context is invariably screwed up and is invariably about women... controlling, limiting, branding and especially blaming.
I remember reading a thesis saying it more of a cultural phenomenon ultimately targeted at children by way of the women. The idea was that in societies were you can trust mostly everyone else as individuals, women were (and are) freer because you can trust your neighbor or the guy from that other family to self control and not come make your wife pregnant for you. On the other hand, on those were another person's word to you is worth shit if his clan leader as much as sneezes and men have no self control, y
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. This fits with what I understand of people and cultures and of their willingness to bend religion to their beliefs rather than the other way around. (If God existed, he would be really pissed off about this... but since we're in his own image, he should have seen it coming!)
Your statements have been added to my collective position on these matters.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading a thesis saying it more of a cultural phenomenon ultimately targeted at children by way of the women. The idea was that in societies were you can trust mostly everyone else as individuals, women were (and are) freer because you can trust your neighbor or the guy from that other family to self control and not come make your wife pregnant for you. On the other hand, on those were another person's word to you is worth shit if his clan leader as much as sneezes and men have no self control, you restrict your wife (a single person), because there's no way you can restrict everyone else.
I am a man. I am definitely not a card carrying member of the "Political Correct" movement, but even so, I have to say that the thesis you referred to, is full of shit
It does not matter what 'cultural phenomenon' one is in, the fact that male chauvinism thrives in some societies is because the male species there are chauvinists.
Human are human, no matter if that human originates from the Middle East or from Europe or from China or Africa.
Male chauvinism is everywhere - but is expressed in di
Re: (Score:2)
...so much so that it is written in their so-called "holy book" that every single man is permitted to marry four (4) wives at any given time - which is to say, that little head can get to visit 4 different holes instead of one
It says so, but it also says you have to give a house and full pension to each one so that each can live as if she were your single wife, they all not being allowed to live together (harems were one of the common pre-Islamic practices Muhammad tried to abolish -- in which, as is the case in others, he was only partially successful: as the thesis proposes, culture wins). In practice then only very rich Muslims have more than one wife. The huge majority is monogamous, if for no other reason than that they si
Re: (Score:2)
Religion is violent.
Not 100% true. Religions are what it's follows make it. Islam and Christianity use to be violent many many moons ago but so were non-religious people. Humans have evolved beyond that. Today Islam and Christianity are generally peaceful however each group has it's fare share of crazies that still want to live in the 9th century and will do whatever it takes to get that even if it means killing anyone that doesn't agree.
Also I am not a religious person yet I do believe in the a few of the christian ten co
Re: (Score:3)
Islam and Christianity use to be violent many many moons ago but so were non-religious people. Humans have evolved beyond that. Today Islam and Christianity are generally peaceful
Islam is "generally peaceful"?
Bull farking shit !!
A religion that encourages its followers to kill people of other religion cannot be said to be peaceful. Not at all, not in my book !!
Re:Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
All countries where the psychopaths in charge hide behind religion or enforced credo, hate free speech and persecute those that attempt it. This also extends to monarchical systems. Pointing out one religion over another is disingenuous and racist, well history has made it clear, as soon as politicians claim to the the interpreters of the 'national' religion abuse becomes rampant and in direct contradiction to the principles of the religion. Especially when then abuse takes on a core of sadistic sexual exploitation not only by those at the top but also by their core enforcers.
Christianity is only a less violent religion because it was forced to be one due to rebellion from within and breakdown of the religion into multiple sub-sects to break up the power of those exploiting the religion for their own purposes.
A prime example of current abuse of religion is by Paul Ryan who for years exposed the atheistic beliefs of Ayn Rand and objectivism which denigrates all Christian principles. Paul Ryan did this while claiming to be a devout Catholic a direct and blatant contradiction but one that does adhere to the principles of objectivism ie. it is acceptable to lie for personal advantage and whilst all religions are nonsense and for the weak and parasites, it is sound and acceptable to pretend to adhere to a religion if one gains personal advantage by doing so.
It is not the religion and never has been, it is it's pretend adherents who abuse religion for their own political, greed and lust based advantage basically the credo of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not the religion and never has been, it is it's pretend adherents who abuse religion for their own political, greed and lust based advantage basically the credo of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this reeks of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I don't want to pick on religion here, so I'll use the word "ideology" to group together religions, political movements and philosophies.
While ideology can indeed be vehicles for a despot's agenda, it does not follow that "true belief" can't lead to pretty terrible results! If we look at terrorists, are none of them driven by ideology? Are all Islamic terrorists not true believers, or perhaps they're abusing their religion o
Re: (Score:2)
Never confuse the leaders with the followers, the fallacy is yours if you consider them to be the same species. Psychopaths as the leaders, narcissist as the followers and the rest of use as the victims. There is also nothing as absurb as, ohhh my, right wing nut burger or what, 'Extreme Socialism', sure some groups have made use the name socialism but they certainly didn't adhere to it's tenets and as such weren't socialists pretty much the same as GOP and Christianity (they just use it for the votes and
Re: (Score:2)
Which fallacy is mine? You've a pretty clear no true Scotsman there, and a strawman in the way you characterize all leaders as being just in it for the power and money. Do you accept some of these "leaders" actually hold the beliefs they purport to hold? Sure beliefs tend to dovetail nicely with personal wishes, needs and psychoses, and the same is true of "followers". The world is far for nuanced than you think it to be. Maybe L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, who almost certainly began as conscious frauds,
Re: (Score:2)
on a side note, i don't get the 72 virgin thing either. you die, you're in an eternal afterlife, and you get 72 chicks with zer
Re:Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Turkey is an Islamic country too. They don't have this problem. The problem isn't Islam. It's the jackasses who use Islam as an excuse. That said, we see the same crap in the US on a lesser scale you know. "Blue laws"? Religious crap getting in my way at every turn as far as I'm concerned.
And you don't have to be in a Muslim country to have your free speech threatened either.
It's easy to want to blame a particular religion especially when they speak a non-English language, often have non-white faces, and wear strange clothes. I actually tend to want to do that myself. The reality, though, is much different. There are probably more versions of Islam practiced than there are versions of Christianity. It's all the same crap when you break it down... if an interpretation doesn't agree with you, change it... fork it if you will.
I'm with you in that religion is to blame for a lot of broken thought and a lot of inhumanity. But at its core is humans... doing inhuman things.
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Turkey is an Islamic country too. They don't have this problem. The problem isn't Islam. It's the jackasses who use Islam as an excuse.
Uh. You might want to pay a bit more attention to the world, back in 2008, when the Islamist's started rising to power [wikipedia.org] they amended a bunch of stuff restricting free speech, and a bunch of other things. Hey guess what, you remember Egypt? Wanna guess what's happening there, or do I need to spell it out for you as the Islamists are rising to power there. Goodbye freedoms.
You can believe what you want, but the last time I looked. If someone took a glass filled it with piss and dumped a cruifix in it(let's not forget that it's already been an art exhibit too). You'll get some disgusted looks here in the west, and you'll probably get some people protesting you. Now you try that with a Koran, I'll bet you'll get your first death threat inside of 10minutes, and have your first riot inside an hour. And of course, you'll probably need to go into hiding. That's much more serious than say, oh ... drawing a cartoon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Turkey is listed as an internet censoring country by OpenNet Initiative and is 'under surveillance' from Reporters Without Borders. Citation provided [wikipedia.org]. Islam may not be the only jackass ideology that promotes censorship but it certainly is a major one.
Re: (Score:2)
Turkey is an Islamic country too. They don't have this problem.
Turkey is not an Islamic country. They are a majority Muslim secular country. And it kinda took a lot of effort [wikipedia.org] to make it that way - and it still requires a military coup d'etat every now and then to keep Islamist parties in check.
So, yes, it's possible to have moderate forms of Islam that do not restrict human rights. However, they are fairly maintenance-heavy. Islam has not yet evolved into the kind of toothless religion that Christianity had over the last couple centuries. They're only having their Refo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I guess you might be right. When there are more middle class muslims they will have a lot more to lose if they get all radical and so will have to reconsider any extremist positions. And that's the real key to peace isn't it? Let people have at least enough stuff so that they will behave better for fear of losing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you don't get a solid middle class simply by throwing money at people. It's a cultural change as much as it is an economic one, and it takes pretty harsh measures to implement it quickly. In Turkey, it took 15 years of dictatorship that pretty much forced secularization and westernization on the unwilling populace.
Re: (Score:1)
It depends on how you define "free speech." Many people in America think that its definition is to say or express "whatever" they want. Well, it is a two-edged sword because there is always a consequence of an action whether or not it is significant. Too many people do not realize that and over do the what you call "free speech."
In Thailand, saying anything bad or insult the royal family in public could easily open the door to their jail. Is the action a free speech? Yes, but it is not acceptable because of
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, you can't simply take back what you said because the damage might have already been done once you said it.
Here in The West, we've somewhat of an axiom: "'Tis better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and confirm the fact."
Speech doesn't cause damage of any kind to anything. Children often say foolish things, yet we discount their foolishness understanding they just don't know. How is it that the Thai royal family, or Islam ..., can't just discount insults against them as simple ignorance to be ignored, instead of throwing the perp into jail or calling for Jihad?
They're just other forms of insecure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, instead they will find who really did it by investing resources into it.
But the average citizen, well... good luck.
A review of Malaysia by an outsider (Score:3)
If you still have doubt on the savagery of the regime that has controlled Malaysia for the past 55 years, read the following:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040712015617/http://www.waseda-coe-cas.jp/jcas/images/shinozaki_jocas.pdf [archive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's political. Period. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing more than political maneouvering [nst.com.my] by the ruling government.
It's been done before, and will continue to be done. Especially because a General Election is coming up. If you read that link I posted, it was reported that the Malaysian prime minister said "Whatever we do, we must put people first,". If that were truly the case, why wasn't that position taken in the first place before the law was passed?
Basically:
1. Pass draconian law
2. Wait for public outcry
3. Repeal draconian law
4. Look like a hero
5. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say a lot of "democratic" countries are really false-democ
Re: (Score:1)
What you mentioned was Sodomy I back in the late 90's. The semen was probably planted evidence as the DNA sample of the ex-Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) was tempered by a police officer (jude Pereira). The mattress which was ceremoniously brought into court daily was eventually expunged as evidence and Anwar was eventually cleared off any sodomy charge, but was convicted for obstructing justice.
Sodomy II the sequel took place recently with the accuser, Saiful an Anwar ex-aide, going to PM Najib Razak's office
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing more than political maneouvering by the ruling government.
It's been done before, and will continue to be done. Especially because a General Election is coming up. If you read that link I posted, it was reported that the Malaysian prime minister said "Whatever we do, we must put people first,". If that were truly the case, why wasn't that position taken in the first place before the law was passed?
Basically:
1. Pass draconian law
2. Wait for public outcry
3. Repeal draconian law
4. Look like a hero
5. Profit!
That regime that controls Malaysia for 55 years can do that, time and time again, simply because the average IQ of the Malaysians - especially that of the majority Malays - is below 75
If you follow the following links, you will understand how easy it is to manipulate the majority Muslim Malays -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#Malaysian_institutional_racism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_head_protests [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_attacks_against_places_of_worship_in_Mal [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
The original plan was to give the government teeth to frame and persecute the opposition and the liberal minded citizens, during the coming General Election (GE). They have cybertroopers that are paid to plant seditious remarks on anti-government/independent newspapers, blogs, websites, etc. and then wield the law to arrest them.
However, the GE was postponed for the umpteenth time thanks to the never ending scandal exposes. And this gave the people time to launch the campaign to repeal this draconian law.
Po
Re: (Score:2)
......
0 surreptitiously post defamatory content in the names/ip addresses for all the members of malaysian parliment.
1 ???
2 profit
Oh, the regime that controlled Malaysia for the past 55 years already have a ready-made solution for that
They will create a race-riot, then declare martial law, then dissolve the entire elected parliament
They had done that before - in 1969
Read the following - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_incident [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They will create a race-riot, then declare martial law, then dissolve the entire elected parliament
No need to create a race-riot. Already happening, via Muslim religious extremists and the current government is bending over backwards to appease them in order to avoid race riots. In turn, the Buddhists have been doing things like setting themselves on fire to protest the fact that they're being murdered in the streets. If anything, the muslims have been ratcheting it up, and blaming them for just about anything you can think of.
Heck, they've been banning books for awhile to stop from offending the musl
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who set himself on fire near the PM's office a few weeks ago was from some extremist Islamic cult, not Buddhist, if that's what you're referring to.
What you need: (Score:1)
Simple ... swamp the system (Score:2)
Those able to do so, should hack in to every system they can in Malaysia and insert illicit content. When it becomes apparent how easy it is to make anyone guilty of posting any content, and when the justice system finds itself overwhelmed, maybe someone will rethink the legislation.
That said, this could be a convenience law ie. never used except when law enforcement is looking for a way to 'get' someone.
Cool (Score:1)
> Malaysia Stages Internet Blackout To Protest New Censorship Law
Hey, Malaysia, we support you!
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
innocence lost (Score:2)
How is this a free speech issue? (Score:2)
If somebody makes a scientific claim, do you assume they're correct until somebody else proves otherwise?
So why would you require Obama to prove that some internet troll's claim of "Obama sucks goats" is untrue?
It seems to me that laws like this simply put the burden of proof on the person making the original claim (the allegedly libelous comment), as opposed to requiring the victim to prove