Slashdot Mirror
Blogging in Iran Takes Courage
netbuzz writes "This morning's Boston Globe has a thought-provoking profile of Iranian bloggers who are risking everything, quite literally, to bring a modicum of openness and truth to a society where the former is not tolerated and the latter strictly defined by government/religious authorities."
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Ah it's good to see that families are the same the world over. Even in Iran parents don't want to take responsibility for raising their own children.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
Figures. The first two comments are likening Iran to the US. As if there were any comparison between Iranian blogging, where honest journalism is overtly illegal if it's slanted too hard against the government, and American blogging, where every politician of note is compared to Hitler or Stalin on a daily basis. Get some perspective.
...but is it art?
You forgot a link or two.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
Dec 3, 2006 Prayed to Allah, nearly got ran over by Rasheed's goat cart again...damn him to hell, he will never learn to go 5 in a 10 zone down in the market!! Dec 5, 2006 Prayed to Allah, fell down the well fetching water for making bread, was stuck for nearly 3 hours before Ramsi rescued me on the way to the stoning Dec 7, 2006 I SAW AN ANKLE TODAY!! Allah be praised, it was a sexy ankle too!! It had no hair, and the skin was just a little dry and flaky!! I nearly lost control and crashed my bicycle into a cart full of figs.....I must go and relieve this stirring in my loins!!!
Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
As far as I can tell, free speech in America is working just like it's supposed to. The Dixie Chicks exercised their right to criticize the president, and fans and others chose to exercise their right to criticize the Dixie Chicks for their statements. The government didn't censor anyone, and no one had their rights trampled.
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
Are you going to wake up in a cold sweat tonight, truly and honestly afraid that that bump in the night was caused by government agents coming along to disappear you as a result of posting that?
Or are you expecting to be up-modded, congratulated, and generally receive social approval?
Wake me when the answer to the first is a non-rhetorical yes.
In the meantime, while life in the US isn't perfect, after six continuous years of screeching I'm getting a serious "crying wolf" vibe.
Yeah, that is exact parity with the hanging of homosexuals and the stoning of adulterers.
You are just another anti-American bigot. Any rights violation by the US is automatically more serious than that of any other country in the world without justification. What is worse is that you probably believe that serious rights violators in the world (like Burma, Iran, and North Korea) are justified because the US also violates rights (and they will continue to be justified until the US violates no rights at all). Sickening.
yeah, cause they waive their terrorist-detector over all the detainees first to make sure they're terrorists before they torture them. Oh! and the ends have certainly justified the means, haven't they! I mean, we're all so much freer and safer, and Iraq is a beautiful paradise! Hey, why don't you book your next vacation for Baghdad, we could use a few less blathering idiots voting in the states.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
The worse kind of blindness is that which is caused by not wanting to see.
Wake up and snap out of your lala land you pretend to live in your little head. The US is rotten and trying to compare it with other countries do not make it's track record any better. You claim that Iran is worse but you failed to remember that Iran didn't invaded a country twice in the last 10 years. You also fail to notice that the US has secret torture sites all over the world, where it holds up anyone who it sees fit independent of any wrong doing. You also fail to notice that right now the US's secret services targets and monitors political dissidents, ranging from anti-bush protesters to environmental activists.
Is that what you call innocence? Is that what you call freedom? I don't.
Hmm...
It seems to me that this is an article about Iran, not the US. The US gets plenty of criticism in articles about its policies, but to criticize the US in an article about Iran speaks only about trying to justify worse abuses by comparison. It seems you are the one who is blind. You see any international story about abuse and use it as your soapbox against US policies. But by doing so you ignore the abuses the story was about.
He didn't forget those links. They just aren't relevant.
Nothing in either of those links has anything to do with exercising freedom of speech in the United States or Iran. To claim the United States has a free speech record as bad as Iran based on those links would be like accusing someone of murder based on the fact that they stole a car once (obligatory slashdot car analogy).
Is there a reason you bring it up other than to prop up emotional rhetoric with an irrelevant appeal to emotion?
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
You, sir, are wrong.
Here, let me pick apart the major points of your short troll:
1: The problem here is that these people, by and large, have not been proven to be terrorists. How would you like it if you were randomly grabbed off the street, called a murder, and thrown in prison? Here in the US, we used to believe that people were innocent until proven guilty. Obviously you don't.
2: Torture is not an effective means of getting reliable intel from people, despite what TV has told you. Torture IS very good at getting people to do what you want them to do. While the second statement may appear to counter the first, it doesn't. Torture attempts to force compliance through pain, threat of death, or extreme discomfort. When successful, the victim will do whatever they think you want, if it means you will quit torturing them. This includes signing false confessions, even admitting to things they know are untrue. If tortured enough (and HERE's a classic example) you can get someone to admit that 1+1=3. If you know enough beforehand to catch false statements and continue torturing the victim until you get a reliable answer, then you basically know the answer beforehand anyway. If you don't, then how do you know when to stop? The first answer may be unreliable, and so may the third, fifth, 86th, whatever. If they DO give you the correct information at some point, how do you know?
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
A counter statement might be "what goes around comes around".
Or, a history lesson: empires rise and empires fall. Be nice to people on the way up, and they might be nice to your children as your country declines in importance.
The unholy trinity. This is the real Axis of Evil.
These three nations are deliberately provoking each other to war. Lets get rid of some pretensions. It's about resources, nothing to do with spreading democracy or a War on Terror. It's all about control of resources, particularly oil.
The Iranians know that America can't afford another conventional ground war, Iraq is already destroying the US economy. Iran is using Israel to provoke the US into overextending itself, there's a load of talk about replacing Israel with an Islamic state which is pure provocation to Israel, who retaliate by announcing that Iran has a nuclear weapon programme able to produce a bomb within 3 years. Both are trying to get the US involved. Which is quite convenient for the US because Iran has huge oil reserves and they're planning to sell them for Euros, not dollars. Doing so will cause the US economy further damage, causing the dollar to slide further.
Iran wants a guerilla ground war to bring the US to it's knees, Israel wants the US to give Iran a kicking for them, with a nuclear response if necessary and the US wants to make sure the oil remains tradable for dollars, so preventing soaring inflation in the US. So, everyone's spoiling for a fight, which is very dangerous, this is how world wars start.
Deleted
The countries you mentioned, however, do not profess to be the bastion of "freedom" and "democracy", nor are they in a position to actively enforce those "freedoms" on the rest of the world. If you are a preacher it's a good idea to practice what you preach. Otherwise you're not likely to get many converts. You're more likely to be laughed at behind your back. It's not anti-American bigotry. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't buy the hypocrisy anymore.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The ends justify the means.
No they don't, because the ends, as in the effect, are a consequence of the means, as in the cause.
So if the ends you want are peace and democracy, and your means are violence and torture, then the ends you get are a non-stop insurgency, civil war, and lawlessness that will at best settle into a theocratic state run by the personal militias of religious extremists.
Are you paying attention to the news? What you are seeing is cause and effect. Are these the ends that you desired? No? Well guess what -- that's why the ends don't justify the means, because you don't get to pick what end your means will achieve! Wishing that torturing random people accused of being terrorists will bring peace and harmony doesn't make it so, and if it isn't obvious to you at this point it never will be because you are deliberately avoiding anything resembling a fact.
Well let me clue you in a little: Abu Ghraib had consequences. Very bad, very tragic consequences. While hardly the lone example of your misplaced philosophy, the fact is that those means have seriously damaged our ends, such that they are probably unachievable. The ends, whether you like it or not, stemmed directly from the means, and hence those means cannot be justified.
The enemies of Democracy are
It isn't as if people don't like celebrities using their fame to push a cause--all the country singers who supported the war were applauded, so it just comes down to "you can have an opinion and talk about it on stage, unless you disagree with me on something, then shut up, or you're evil." I felt they (the Dixie Chicks) were a bit naive and too brash, but I was embarassed at the hostility they got. There is nothing unpatriotic about saying "I don't think we should invade this country."
Intolerance for dissent does tend to cross political boundaries, so don't think I'm conservative-bashing. Though to be honest, I wonder how many entertainers got death threats for supporting the war? Not so many, probably.
Ah what a great fucking country this is then when the answer to all the problems is "well at least we're not Iran".
How bad do things have to get before you actually do give a shit?
I'm surprised that this book isn't mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia article's references or bibliography. For anyone with an even passing interest in the parent post's claim that we (the USA that is) put the Shah in power, you'll find the book informative. I wasn't interested when I started the book, but it's well-written and tough to put down.
I would be. I'd want them taken somewhere where they are no danger to anyone else or themselves anymore, either to a point when they are genuinely rehabilitated, or in cases where that just isn't possible, locked up forever (there are a fair number of people who aren't reformable; particularly so with those who aren't mentally ill in any way, merely see what they did as the right thing) No one. I'll repeat that slowly for you. N-O O-N-E has the right to end another sentient beings existence unless said being wishes it (consensual euthanasia) and is of a sound mind, or said being is directly and seriously threatening the first parties existence. Nobody should be able to kill anyone else. Not some guy who's found his wife screwing the milkman. Not some women who's been pushed too far by a drunken arsehole and wants him gone. Not a drunken mob intent on blood from some child-raping scumbag. On the surface, all of these are fairly just reasons for being extremely pissed off. But they still don't have the right to kill someone. Governments, by definition, are the people leading the people. If I can't shoot someone because I think they killed a child, why should the government have that right. Answer? They shouldn't. And in modern civilised countries, they don't. It's taken us a number of centuries to get to this point, and some would argue my country, for example (the UK) is still illegally killing people, by puttng armed men in the presence of other armed men and telling them to defend themselves (war is a tricksy one, probably beyond the scope of my post, but I stand by my 'don't kill people' stance..unless someone's invading, why should troops be in the presence of other troops. I'm not sure I understand why Iraq was a clear and extreme danger to my personal safety, or that of my countrymen). My country last executed someone in the 1960's. The twentieth century will hopefully go down in the history books not just for nuclear weaponry, Hitler, Stalin, The Beatles and the internet, but also as the century when the civilised world turned around and said "we've not the right to kill people". Maybe the weird little third-world nations that still cling to mob-rule and legalised murder will be able to say the same about the twenty-first century. I really hope so.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
You, sir, are wrong.
Or perhaps you are. Let me pick apart the major points of your short troll:
1. How exactly do you know they aren't terrorists? Could is be that you just assume the government is wrong because you dislike their policies? Here in the USA, we used to believe in our country, I guess you don't.
2. Torture, depending on what methods is a reliable way of getting Intel, despite what your left wing friends tell you. If you can tear yourself away from your friends reenforcing your opinion, google up the CIA book on how to effectively interrogate people from back in the 80's and you will see what techniques work and which ones don't. It basically involves mindfucking your prisoner into believing they are torturing themselves, and it's very effective. I could also point you at various techniques the police use on local levels successfully, but I'm sure you don't want to see anything other than what your worldview will support.
While I doubt this insight will do you any good, I hope some of the brighter people on slashdot will go out and read up about this stuff from places other than the Daily Kos and such. There are intelligent arguements against our foreign policy, specifically in Iraq. Making up propaganda like 'TORTURE DOESNT WORK!!!" flies in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary, and waters down the real debate that should be going on in America, about when our armed forces should be used.
There are effective interrogation techniques that work, and yes the US military uses them.
Here in the USA, we used to believe in our country, I guess you don't.
What the hell does that mean? What is with people thinking that if they support the war or torturing of people that they are more patriotic than those who don't. I'm sure everyone believes in the country we live in, we just don't believe in the people leading it. Ask yourself this, if Clinton was doing all things that Bush was doing, would you "believe in our country"? I'm guessing not.
Can I bum a sig?
A cynic might suggest that there is a difference between criticizing a president who is largely a loudmouthed figurehead, and something more substantial such as criticizing the Guardian Council or the very structure of the Iranian government in so far as said Council has the most of the actual power. The Council may be happy with letting Ahmadinejad take some heat, if it makes themselves look more reasonable and their own power is unquestioned.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Lets pretend I am a Republican. Let us also pretend that I am an awesome punk rocker that all the punks love. One day I get up on stage and start railing against how stupid it is to be pro-choice, let gays merry, or have weak drug laws. What do you think happens? My fans would get pissed off, no matter how much they like my music.
Look, if you are a celebrity, you are taking a risk every time you come out and make a political statement. It isn't like you are analyst with access to CIA intelligence or an economist whose understands the deep inner workings of the economy. You are one stupid person in 6 billion who just so happens to perform some form of art good enough (or at least marketed enough) that a lot of people appreciate. You are not an authority on anything other than your art. If you take an invitation to express your art as an invitation to express your political opinions, fans will rightfully we get pissed off that you are wasting their time spewing your self righteous stuck up opinion. They don't like you for your opinion, they like you for your art. Get over it.
The Dixie Chicks took the stage, looked their fan base in the eye, and told them all that they were stupid for liking Bush. Now, I might not agree with the stupid red necks, and I might not like Bush, but I am unsurprised and unsympathetic about the treatment Dixie Chicks received. If they want to be politicians, they should be politicians. If they want to be well loved stars, they should work on maintaining the love. Part of maintaining the love is not preaching to your fans the exact opposite of what they believe. The moral of the story is that if you make a living by having millions of red necks loving you, don't call them stupid. Either accept that they are going to stop liking you and make your speeches, or in the words of our fine internet generation STFU.
Finally, free speech is just that; free speech. Free speech means that I can turn to a democrat and call him a pussy ass terrorist lover with the fighting constitution of a Frenchman because he wants to pull out of Iraq. I can turn to a Republican and call him a racist, women hating, vile little bigot who won't be happy until every black person is back on a plantation and women have their feet bound and clits circumcised. I can also flick off the Dixie Chicks, call their music pure shit, and swear to never listen to their crap again because they are a bunch of flaming liberals who want queers and terrorist running around the street.
This is free speech.
People need to harden themselves up a little and get over it. Free speech includes name calling and telling people who disagree with you to fuck off. Free speech does not imply rational debate or a thoughtful and open mind (though free speech certainly helps those things). Free speech is for racist KKK shit heads, neonazis, stupid red necks, whiny little pop punk bands, brain dead pop artist, self righteous actors living in mansions hypocritical to their beliefs, and all the people who hate all the above and would sooner plug their ears with their fingers if they were not busy using them to give a big two handed New York hello.
This is mother fucking free speech. No one said that it was nice.
There are thoughtcrimes in Europe also. Try living in Germany and voicing a non-sanctioned opinion on, or even just pose the wrong question about - the Holocaust. Yes, the one with the capital H.
That may very well land you in prison for a long long time.
Free speech and thought ought to reign supreme everywhere, but it doesn't. No matter what the opinion or message is, who it may offend or who may get generally upset by it - nothing should be banned from being printed, stated, or otherwise communicated. No fact, historical event, or assumption should be illegal to question.
The US may not have gotten as far with killing free speech, but give the repubocrats a while longer and we will soon not only catch up with Europe, but probably surpass and become even more draconian.
Bash Iran all you want for being oppressive, but stop being so f:ing ignorant of what is going on in the west, in our own backyards.
Free speech is an all-or-nothing idea. It ceases to exist the moment it is encroached on, even if ever so little.
Sam has one liberty, which he sacrifices for one security. Can you tell me what Sam has now?
Stars get death threats all the time. I can promise you that Limbaugh gets death threats daily. You might not get death threats, but I am sure some left wing nut job sends them out daily in the same way some right wing nut job sends them out to the Dixie Chicks. Death threats are a fact of life when you are a public figure. I mean seriously, someone made an entire movie about killing Bush. There is a website called killbush.net. If you are not a society that embraces free speech, unless no one makes death threats, then there is not a free society in the world.
So, is it sad that a few hundred dumb red necks sent death threats to the Dixie Chicks? Sure. Does the fact that the US has a few hundred dumb red necks willing to send empty threats to the Dixie Chicks out of 300,000,000 other people prove that US is some how fascist state that doesn't allow free speech? No. Get 300,000,000 people together in one nation and someone is going to act like a douche. That is life.