Slashdot Mirror
Iran Cracks Down on Bloggers
Wired News is reporting that dozens of Iranian Bloggers have been met with harassment by the government and some have even been arrested for voicing dissenting views in recent history. The article takes a look at some of the bloggers who are fighting for their rights and how. From the article: "The Iranian blogging community, known as Weblogistan, is relatively new. It sprang to life in 2001 after hard-liners -- fighting back against a reformist president -- shut down more than 100 newspapers and magazines, and detained writers. At the time, Derakhshan posted instructions on the internet in Farsi on how to set up a weblog."
The Iranian blogging community, known as Weblogistan, is relatively new.
I call SHENNANIGANS!
Seriously, is there some sort of competition between bloggers to see who can come up with the latest "5 seconds of fame" painful, buzzwordy neologism? I want to know, so that I can find the organization responsible for keeping score and bomb them.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...free and tolerant Islamic society we hear so much about!
(All religions are intolerant of each other, because each religion defines a mutually-exclusive lock on a God they believe exists (or in atheism's case, doesn't exist). Each religion fights over that lock, and therein lies the religious conflict. And all this fighting assumes their God -- or any god -- actually even exists; over 2000 years of non-proval of a god's existence sure paves the way towards a high probability that he/she/it does not.)
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
"The article takes a look at some of the bloggers who are fighting for their rights and how."
:D
Now, what exactly are those rights? I believe the only right you have in a state which is currently under the rule of Sharia ("Islamic law") is the right to remain *OBEDIENT* at all times.
This whole blogging business doesn't seem very obedient to me... so exactly what rights are they fighting for? A change of religion?
-pug
Relativism doesn't cut it here. John Paul II and Benedict have been very concilliatory to Jews. Compare that to Islam! Islam's relationship with other faiths is absolutely abysmal.
an ill wind that blows no good
FIRE!!!!
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Democracy ? Where ?
Opposants arrested before the election, partisan commitee invalidating many opposants candidature, a "Supreme guide" able to veto or force a law...
Elections does not imply democracy.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
. . . who are persecuted by their totalitarian government for exercising their natural rights than for the false bravado and excessive hubris of our own "dissidents."
What?
I just went to the Anne Frank museum in Amsterdam and the strongest things that stood out are:
- The first freedom to go for anyone before total authoritarian dictatorship is the freedom of speech.
- Repressing government are usually very very afraid of the spoken word.
- Anne Frank's diary and history is one of the strongest evidences of the Nazi oppression and attempt to bring certain races to extinction.
Look at the Mohamed drawings issue. The extremists didn't really care about depictions of Mohamed. What their problem with those depictions is, is the freedom of speech. They are afraid they'll no longer be able to brainwash free people into stupid theocratic thinking. They are afraid that they will no longer be able to engage humans into blowing themselves up in order to fulfill a focus group god'$ prophecies.
Makes me puke that we don't even want to keep the freedom of speech around in the US but it makes sense why it had to be legislated. Everyone who tries to control someone will attempt to take that freedom of speech away.
I have always wondered about this.
To me there is a world of difference between free speech (free expression of ideas) and speech which is primarily intended to cause actual damage.
FIRE! (in a crowded theatre) is a common counter-example to those who claim that speech should be free, but to me that seems like comparing apples and pears. You might as well say that speech shouldn't be free because someone might lie and get you accused of a serious crime.
I strongly support an absolute freedom to present unpopular ideas (Blacks are intellectually inferior, Hitler was right?), or the use of 'banned words' (nigger, bum, tit, wank?), but I can't see that I therefore am expected to support perjury in court, or an attempt to kill people by giving them incorrect directions.
To be fair, here in the U.S. is the choice of who runs for high offices really open to much choice? Democrat or Republican, many felt that both choices were awful (and I intend to agree). Pretty much the same can be said of any third party candidate, too. As South Park has explained so well, pretty much every election in history has been about choosing between a douche and a turd, when in reality you wouldn't likely ever choose either one.
There is a key difference, though, that I will openly admit. Voting for a U.S. president (or senator, or representative, etc.) is basically choosing which jark will try to screw you and censor you. In these elections, such as Iran's, IMHO, it's essentially about choosing who's going to try and kill who and censor you. (A bit of a generalization, I'll admit)
Leaders across the authoritarian states of the M.E. use "issues" like those drawings as a way to vent the frustration of their own people toward "the west." They manipulate whatever-it-is as a sort of social "wedge issue" to keep people angry at someone else. That's what the cartoons thing was about.
Think Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage is something we should deal with, okay -- I'm for it, basically -- but is it among the biggest challenges for our society when compared to economic, environmental, foreign, and every other kind of policy in this country being run with only the enormous multinational business interests at the table and nobody from any other perspective having a voice? The monied interests behind the old Republican party discovered after the civil rights movement that they could patch together a coalition of fearful social conservatives and keep those fears yoked up to the party's economic interests. When the rank and file get upset, lo and behold, there will always be a distracting social "issue" to motivate them again. (Janet Jackson's bustier popped open -- OMG! OMG! Society is breaking down! Election cycle -- Oh No! Pass a bunch of anti-Gay-Marriage amendments, it's a crisis!)
It's all about preserving authority, not about the specific faiths involved. Authoritarian religion turns to demagoguery like this to release pressure.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
... why? Iran's entire "government" is based on radical Islam -- meaning, "kill everyone who doesn't believe in Allah." Not sure why this is news. This is how it is, and how it ever will be, with most Muslim countries.
Frammin' on the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
You are referring to Iran's brief brush with Stalinism, when the "one man, one vote, one election" dictator Muhammad Mussadegh sought to make Iran's oil wealth his personal property
Despite your ludicrous slur, it remains a fact that Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader and that the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry.
While the Shah and the US had some agreement [...] he wasn't the US's puppet. He tended to jerk the US around more than the US jerked his strings.
Not a good puppet perhaps, but a puppet nonetheless.
It is amusing that you call the democratically elected Mossadegh a 'dictator', and describe the US-installed despot as 'very enlightened'.
Pfft. "Many" believe in UFOs. "Many" people are in jail. "Many" believe what they see on TV. "Many" called the Coast Guard to tell them about this ship called the Minnow that was wrecked somewhere in the South Pacific.
Most people can come up with an alternative who they would prefer to their Congressman, Senator or President. But, most people would not agree with that alternative. And, even fewer people would agree once they found out about the alternative and his/her beliefs.
There are very, very few politicians who are very well regarded by a majority of the population. In an election between a candidate who is extremely well-liked by a minority and one who is only marginally well-liked by a majority, the latter candidate will win.
what south park leaves out is that there are other parties, or there would be if people would support their induction. I'm so tired of hearing this spout of non-sense that I believe actually partially originates in the media. Which is: yeah both parties suck but what are you going to do vote 3rd party, what a waste of a vote, wouldn't you rather have this guy, he's kind of what you are looking for even if he is the lesser of two evils. We are the ones voting, I say be the change you want to see in the world and vote for whatever party you want today and stop pretending like the two-party system is in our constitution or something.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Democracy and Fascism are not compatible.
To be fair.... Hitler was legally elected into power before he assumed control of the government.
Secondly, the annexation of Austria and Sudetanland was actually held to a German referendum (hence why referendum's are illegal in Germany these days).
So yeah... Democracy and Fascism can tie into each other and elections can be used to create fascist states and take away freedoms.
It is the reason why the founding fathers of the United States created the electoral college, bill of rights, and checks and ballances in the Federal government (Executive brance vetoes over the congress vs their 2/3rds over ride powers etc)
They were quite aware of the fact that sometimes people will willingly vote away their freedoms to those in power or those who were elected might usurp the democratic process. The best solution was to limit powers of elected officials or find ways to balance them out.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
If the US government censors, please explain Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, David Duke, Pat Robertson, DemocraticUnderground, Free Republic, DailyKos, Louis Farrakhan, Anne Coulter, Al Sharpton.
And your own damn post.
Both were dictators. Getting democratically elected once does not change it.
If Mossadegh was a dictator, he wasn't a very good one, as he didn't even manage to serve one full term in office.