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."

Comments

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[dj961]

Because the dixie chicks are dead. I'm sure you've forgotten about all that money they've made since their "Not Ready to Make Nice", fact is they had a bad pr guy the first time they tried to tackle bush.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[GreyPoopon]

Anything that is not favored by another is deemed to be "unamerican".

The difference being, of course, that the Dixie Chicks were not put to death for expressing views not in line with those of the government, and the consequences they endured were not handed out by the government, but rather their own fans.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[SirWhoopass]

Blogging in teh usa Takes courage too, look at the dixie chicks. Anything that is not favored by another is deemed to be "unamerican".

You can't possibly be serious. So, their latest album (Taking the Long Way) only sold a few million copies instead of ten million (Fly)? What does that mean? A few less trips on the private jet?? Such courage that must take. As opposed to, say, someone who will go to jail for expressing their opinion.*

* Note: not libel or slander; or trespassing, vandalism, or destruction of public property in the name of "protesting"; this is going to jail for simply stating your opinion.

Re:Can we send some of our muslims over there?

[DittoBox]

Is there a Christian equivalent country where we can send our fundies?

Middle-America?

Fucking grow up.

[s20451]

Human Rights Watch Iran
Amnesty International Iran

Take your jaded world weariness and shove it up your ass. The USA has problems, but comparing it to Iran with a smirk and a shrug is the opposite of helpful.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Wellington Grey]

You forgot a link or two.

-Grey

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[HappySqurriel]

How often does the Government of the United States of America execute Journalists for speaking out against the government? How many citizens have been executed without due-process?

Currenly, every western democracy has problems but in comparison to countries like Iran their problems are nonexistent.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[feed_me_cereal]

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.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Darth]

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?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[vertinox]

The USA has problems, but comparing it to Iran with a smirk and a shrug is the opposite of helpful.

Oh least we forget who put the Shah in power. So indirectly, our Government... Which is supposedly in the hands of the US people... Installed a dictator who was terrible enough for a people to wish a revolution that replaced him with a theocratic leadership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

So yeah. At home we aren't as bad as Iran, but we had a great big hand in causing them to turn into the country they are today. I suppose I could get into the issue of the Iran/Iraq war which we tried to fix our mistake by arming another which we had to fix ourselves 20 years later.

And now we are paying for it on a daily basis.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[halivar]

Yeah, I remember when those black helicopters and men in black came and abducted the Newsweek and NYT editorial staff. A dark day for America's freedom of speech.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[iMMersE]

Bzzt. "Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented 47 executions of child offenders in eight countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Yemen."

Read about it here

"The USA and Iran have each executed more child offenders than the other six countries combined and Iran has now matched the USA's total since 1990 of 19 child executions."

That's right folks, Iran has caught up with the USA. CAUGHT UP!

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Darlantan]

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?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[forgetmenot]

While those stories are indeed disturbing, what makes them so is the lengths to which the US administration goes to hide these activities. They can and should be held accountable for this behaviour. But... that's the big difference here. The US administration IS ultimately accountable to its people for its actions. What is also significant is that the journalist who published those stories do not now have to live in fear of American retribution. You can find a lot of fault in some of the things done by the U.S., but they have long loooooong way to go before you can make honest comparisons between them and somebody like Iran.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Lars T.]

How often does the Government of the United States of America execute Journalists for speaking out against the government? All too often?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[NonSequor]

The phrase "the ends justify the means" is a poor justification for one's actions. If you fail to achieve "the ends" then all you have accomplished is damning yourself (metaphorically and/or literally). This issue is of particular importance to the debate over torture since torture has a tendency to produce false information (as can be seen from the many witch hunts throughout history).

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." --Friedrich Nietzsche

We could easily bring order to Iraq using the right techniques. Guerrilla tactics are extremely hard for an army to combat (especially a foreign one), and there is only one method that is proven to work consistently to suppress guerrilla fighters: massacre civilians in response to each attack. So are you willing to order our soldiers to massacre civilians, even the women and children, in order to bring order to Iraq? Are you willing to become a monster to achieve your goals?

Of course torture isn't as evil as slaughtering civilians, but it's still something that we as a society decided was wrong a long time ago. I don't think we should try to bring back torture now, because some people think it would be convenient.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[couchslug]

All the offenders listed were 17 at the time of the offence, hardly the popular conception of "children" the use of the term obviously sought to invoke! They were "fucking grown up" enough to do what they did>
Their days of playing hopscotch were long over, methinks.

These folks were just under the arbitrary cutoff of 18, had comitted acts that were on examination heinous enough that the death penalty was sought by the state, and were tried and convicted by jury.
It is easy to believe they were beyond redemption, and apparently their juries did. If the crimes they committed were against you or someone you knew would you be so quick to invoke Amnesty International or would you be wanting them euthanized and turned off forever?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[shma]

. I suppose I could get into the issue of the Iran/Iraq war which we tried to fix our mistake by arming another which we had to fix ourselves 20 years later.

I'm sorry, is the parent suggesting that the US fixed Iraq?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Wizard Drongo]

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.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[JavaLord]

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.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[poopdeville]

As a citizen of the US, I have to say that US violations are more important[1] to me. We are in a position to do something about them. We can't do much about what's going on in Iran, as much as I -- and apparently you -- wish otherwise.

[1]Not really the right word. But I hope the context reveals my meaning.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[aplusjimages]

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.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[5ynic]

No, I think you'll find, it doesn't.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[xoyoyo]

The United States did not enter Iraq in the first Gulf War.

How's your map reading? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4 /Operation_Desert_Storm.jpg

I make US forces about 200 miles into Iraq. You?

The first Gulf War ended with a cease fire (that Hussein never signed but it served as a provisional end to the war);

Saddam Hussein didn't attend the ceasefire ceremony, but his military commanders did sign the ceasefire. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/ 02/iraq_events/html/ceasefire.stm

when Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of the country, he violated the cease fire and therefore aggressions should have resumed.

Once again, Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. He tried to kick the US inspectors out (and succeeded for about six weeks in 1997). http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronolo gyframe.htm

The inspectors were later withdrawn due to non-cooperation, and also because they were at risk from the Desert Fox bombing campaign, which was designed to force Saddam to allow the inspectors into the buildings they had been barred from.

And Saddam did not violate the ceasefire, the terms of the ceasefire simply read 'get out of Kuwait and don't come back, and give us a list of your minefields while you're at it'. The anti-WMD UN resolutions actually predate Desert Storm (see 612), and it's those Saddam violated by refusing to cooperate with UNSCOM.

Unfortunately, Clinton failed to act Except by bombing Baghdad.

and, after that, most people forgot about the implications for kicking the UN inspectors out because people have a short memory.

People do have such memories don't they? They forget the US invaded Iraq in Desert Storm, they forget the UN inspectors were not kicked out, they forget what it was that Hussein was supposed to have done wrong

If Japan had begun building its military back up directly after the end of WWII, should the US have begun bombing Tokyo again?

And sadly there's no real evidence that the Iraqis were building their military up, just failing to get rid of the old one in sufficiently transparent a manner. Why? Possibly because Saddam was stuck trying to convince his very pissed off neighbours to the east and south that he was still a big bad dog.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[aussie_a]

Just because there exists serial rapists doesn't mean a rapist who only does it once is any better.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[nightfire-unique]

So from "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave," to "Land of those doing better than Iran."

How nice.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[orzetto]

How exactly do you know they aren't terrorists?

A chill went through my spine as I read this statement. Build a time machine and go back to the Spanish Inquisition, that's where you belong.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[commodoresloat]

He already did. China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Yemen.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

By simply requiring multiple people to present coherent stories you've just eliminated the unreliability of torture.

No two people will make up the same story, and even if they agree beforehand, they'll disagree on too many points.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Raenex]

Look back in history, and you'll see freedom of speech has always been less than perfect. However, with the advent of the internet there has never been a time of greater free speech. The United States has no national firewall. You can criticize the government (Michael Moore isn't behind bars). Bush will leave office in 2008. I wish people would keep perspective instead of dramatizing so much.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Duds]

The fact that the government feels it's appropriate to execute citizens in ANY circumstance invalidates that arguement.

State sponsered murder is nothing to be proud of regardless of any supposed "process".

Re:Fucking grow up.

[HappySqurriel]

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?

Just because I say the USA isn't as bad as Iran doesn't mean I don't care about the issues, I just don't think that it is reasonable to claim the US' problems are on the same scale as Iran; essentially, the initial comparison was like claiming a C- student (the USA) was as bad as the F average student who murdered his Mother, Raped 3 women and burned down several buildings.

Sometimes American's sound like children who didn't get an XBox 360 rather than the PS3 they wanted for Christmas and then throw a tantrum.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[PinkyDead]

Hang on a second there...

The article does not describe 'worse abuses' in Iran. If it had been about women being killed for being raped, or children being executed then I wouldn't argue.

It's about censorship in Iran and the word 'abuse' doesn't appear once in the article. The most abuse I can see is that the women bloggers got hate mail/comments - something even Slashdotters are not above. No one was locked up - one guy lost his job. Are you suggesting that that doesn't happen in the US?

What's the difference between the GP using the story to condemn US policy and you using it to condemn Iran for 'abuses' (genuine or not) that are not in the story?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[FLEB]

Just an aside about this argument, in general:

If the crimes they committed were against you or someone you knew would you be so quick to invoke Amnesty International or would you be wanting them euthanized and turned off forever?

If someone did something against me or someone I loved, I would hope others would take my reaction with the skepticism and understanding of the situation to realize that I would probably not be the most logical, fair, or reasonable person to suggest a punishment, and that I should probably be politely disregarded.

Otherwise, let's publicly hang the bastard that stole my car stereo, and put their family on a permanent watch-list! If it didn't happen to you, you just don't understand.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Dog-Cow]

I really wonder at the intellegience of people like you. You'd kill a rabit pit bull that is just behaving as nature dictates, but you'd let a serial murderer who willfully CHOSE to commit his crimes live.

Sometimes I wonder exactly when these criminals became victims and the idea of public safety died. Violient criminals were executed as much as to prevent reoccurances as to be punishment.

Bottom line is that I value my own life infinitely more than anyone else's. If someone does something truly harmful, I see no reason not to kill them.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Dog-Cow]

If a punishment does not fit the crime, it will not be a deterrant. Additionally, if you do not punish a crime, the crime becomes acceptable. Do you really think it's normal for teenagers to be blowing each other away in schools or in their friends houses or stealing cars so they can do drive-by shootings?

By NOT killing people who commit such crimes, we belittle the very concept of life you are so hung up about. To treat the life of a murderer as MORE important than the life of his victims, you are saying that murder is no crime. That there is nothing wrong with it. And it shows.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[commodoresloat]

Here is the link to the information he provided. If you have a source that disputes Amnesty International, why not present it in the discussion rather than arrogantly asserting that the claim is "bullshit"?

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Wizard Drongo]

No. I'd euthanise a rabid-pitbull because it is suffering from a terminal disease and is in tremendous pain. Just as I'd euthanise a human in that position, unless something can be done to stop them from dying from said disease. If there was suddenly a cure for rabies, neither the dog nor the person would die.
Criminals are NOT victims. Nowhere did I say or suggest that. Certain people who are labelled criminals but are in fact people with mental health difficulties are victims of said mental health, and should be treated, if possible. But if someone who has a sound mind chooses to do something that is wrong, then they are a criminal, and deserve to be suitably punished and rehabilitated. If such rehabilitation is impossible, then they should be locked away in a secure facility where they can do no harm to others or themselves. Is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Public safety is paramount. Never said it wasn't. What I did say is that an overriding respect for life is also paramount. Lock them up, by all means. But don't torture them. And don't murder them. If we were to assume the right to kill these people for their crimes, then we become no better than them.

Most of the western world has rejected the death penalty. Only a few uncivilised boondocks still exist in the west that permit it. Sadly one of them thinks they run the world and invented democracy-freedom-tolerance-justice-civilisation.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Duds]

Iran would probably say the same thing about cutting off the hands of shoplifters.

I remain amazed a supposed 1st world religious country is quite happy to ignore one of its ten commandments when it suits them.

An eye for an eye and we're all blind?

Once again, the death penalty is nothing more than state sponsered murder. And America is the only 1st world country that still practices it.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[FLEB]

Damned if I didn't walk out the door five minutes after this post and find my car window busted and my stereo stolen... again.

Death penalty!

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Darlantan]

Okay, if you've captured an entire cell to cross-check stories against, certain methods of torture may yeild some results. I'll admit that. On one person, torture is still pretty worthless, though. I don't know enough about the breakdown of the people we're torturing to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion about whether or not this is what is going on.

As to your first point, I think I can counter it quite simply: How do we know you aren't a terrorist? How does the government? Realistically, nobody but you (and possibly your wife/kids) know that. Perhaps your family is really a terror cell? Well, their goes their reliability.

If the government can PROVE that the detainees are terrorists, and it is a situation where they might get some good intel (such as the capture of an entire cell), then go for it. Torture them. I really don't care.

The burden of proof is on the government. That's the big thing that keeps police and enforcement agencies in check. Otherwise, one abusive person in a position of power could effectively lock up whoever he likes for as long as he likes. This has been a big problem with governments in the past, and it was one of the first issues addressed in the founding of this country. I happen to beleive in that.

Oh, as a final note, don't try to pull out the 'enemy combatant' BS, either. Unless they're uniformed or visibly bearing arms against our citizens or armed forces, they aren't combatants. Otherwise, you could be labeled one just as easy as you could be called a terrorist, and that doesn't fly.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[Darlantan]

Remind me not to argue things before breakfast. I doubt my previous post even counts as English. Oops.

Re:Fucking grow up.

[commodoresloat]

You haven't provided any information whatsoever; all you've done is assert things, and call me names. Grow up.

Think of the Children

[Wellington Grey]

Amirhussein Jaharuti, the manager of a major Internet service provider in Tehran, said the government's restrictions focus on pornography, and he feels that filtering is appropriate.

"This is the demand of Iranian families, that they don't want their children to use these kinds of sites,"

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

Re:Think of the Children

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Even in Iran parents don't want to take responsibility for raising their own children.

It's very easy to repeat this popular /. mantra. But if you, as a parent, believe that it is wrong for your children to be exposed to pornography, then it is complete fucking impossible to bring them up right in modern liberal society without enclosing them in a solid steel cube and burying them 20 feet underground. So the fact that some parents would like a little help from the government in bringing up their kids is hardly people failing to take responsibility for their own kids. The truth is that you repeat this mantra, not because you care about how anyone brings up their kids, but because you'd like free access to various materials on the web. I certainly won't hold that against you, but please don't dress up your wishes as anything other than what they are.

Re:Think of the Children

[Dunbal]

But if you, as a parent, believe that it is wrong for your children to be exposed to pornography

      You know, I'm a parent. My two daughters know all about pornography. They CHOOSE not to look at it because they think it's gross and crude, rather than have my beliefs imposed on them by telling them it's "WRONG". Some people like pornography. Others don't. Turning something into a "taboo" or criminalizing it is not a rational way of dealing with the world. I swear to you that if your kids LIKE pornography, there is nothing at ALL you can do to prevent it. They'll do it behind your back. At school. At a friend's house. Are you going to lock them up? Talking about this stuff with your kids is far more rational than pushing for a law that makes it "illegal" and hoping the government will do your job for you.

Re:Think of the Children

[Dunbal]

the trouble with ragheads

      The trouble with "niggers"...
      The trouble with "spics"...
      The trouble with "chinks"...
      The trouble with "gringos"...

      Now the word for the day is "raghead" is it? You know, every cultural, political, religious or ethnic group will have its extremists. These are the few that tend to put the majority in a bad light - but only for shortsighted persons like yourself. You sir, are PART of the problem. Name-calling and generalizing only serves to perpetuate the hate and recruit more extremists on either side of this cultural, political or religious "divide" that seems impossible for people like you to cross. People all around the world are different. Look different. Act different. They even think different. And the big question is - SO WHAT?

Re:Think of the Children

[Mike Blakemore]

I agree. The only way to protect kids is to educate and monitor them the best you can. The internet should be free - free of government regulation.

Re:Think of the Children

[NeutronCowboy]

Just because you don't want your kids exposed to something doesn't mean that they should't. People die in this world, and it is a traumatic experience. Do you think your kids should never see a death? People cheat, lie and cuss everywhere. Do you think your kids should never be exposed to a lie, a cheater or a cuss word?

Here's a little hint: if something's so pervasive that it is not possible for you to shield your kids from it without getting the government to ban it, it's probably something they should get used to sooner rather than later. Note that this is not an endorsement for anything that's happening - it's merely an endorsement for the idea that if something happens on a regular basis, kids should learn about it sooner rather than later. Because they will find out about it - and don't you want to be around to guide them when they see death, lies, cheats, famine, disease, abuse, and all the other horrors of life?

So yes, the fact that you want a little help from the government in protecting your kids from being exposed to things *you* (and I can't stress the *YOU* enough) is indeed *you* failing to do your job. So stop trying to impose your morality on me, just because you're too lazy to raise your own kids.

Re:Think of the Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Follow the example of most American parents: tell them that if they disobey the invisible man in the sky they will be set on fire and tortured.

Re:Think of the Children

[ScentCone]

Talking about this stuff with your kids is far more rational than pushing for a law that makes it "illegal" and hoping the government will do your job for you.

Interestingly, this is also the right approach to take with cars, alcohol, guns, and Elrond Hubbard books.

Re:Think of the Children

[mmdog]

Elrond - Elf from Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit.)
L. Ron Hubbard - Science Fiction writer who founded a religion on a bet with a bunch of other sci-fi writers and got carried away with himself. (Also wrote westerns.)

While I know almost nothing of Scientology, I've read all of L. Ron Hubbard's sci fi and found most of it to be quite entertaining.

Re:Think of the Children

[ScentCone]

Elrond - Elf from Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit.)
L. Ron Hubbard - Science Fiction writer who founded a religion on a bet with a bunch of other sci-fi writers and got carried away with himself. (Also wrote westerns.)

No, I prefer Elrond Hubbard. Some things just should be different, and that's one of them, I think.

Re:Think of the Children

[foreverdisillusioned]

They CHOOSE not to look at it because they think it's gross and crude,

Not to rain on your parade or anything (because I totally agree with your post), but I think there are very, very few people in this world that honestly find ALL pornography (this means all art intended to sexually arouse--this includes soft core and artistic stuff) completely unappealing. My sister can launch into a very convincing anti-porn tirade, but played with her laptop enough times to figure out that she's a huge yaoi fan.

A lot of people out there have been exposed to nothing but "mainstream", plastic, horrible crap only to find out how wonderful and full of joy porn can be from a site like, say, Abby Winters. If sex interests you at all, then there is some form of pornography out there that will also interest you. People who claim otherwise either 1. Have absolutely no imagination whatsoever or 2. Are in deep denial.

Anyway I'm not advocating that you NOT "talk to your kids"--by all means, do!--just don't delude yourself into thinking that they're going to be completely open and honest with you about their opinions on sex and masturbation and porn.

Re:Think of the Children

[demi]

This dialog always goes:

1. Parents who want to restrict what is seen in public forums don't want to take responsibility for raising their children: they want the government to raise them.
2. Since I do take responsibility for raising them, I would like to have some control over what they're exposed to, or at least when and in what context.
3. You shouldn't restrict what your kids see! You should raise your children in the manner I see fit.

The parent post is just step 3. Isn't it interesting how the people who first want parents "taking responsibility" for raising their children in fact do not want that, they want to impose a child-rearing method on parents.

Re:Think of the Children

[jimicus]

This is pretty OT, so mods do as you will, but it reminds me of a story (I can't remember the name of it or a lot of detail, so if someone else can fill in the blanks, please do). Relevant to the idea of parents trying to cover their kids in cotton-wool though.

Many years ago, there was a king. He was very rich, he lived in a nice castle and had anything he wanted. Anyhow, one of his wives fell pregnant and he consulted a soothsayer.

The soothsayer predicted that his son would see a poor man and a sick man, and on so doing would give away all his wealth.

The king was shocked at this, and went to extreme lengths to ensure that his son be brought up without ever seeing anyone poor or sick.

Many years passed. The prince grew older, and as a teenager sneaked out of the castle with some guy who worked there. He'd never been out before, and teenagers being what they are, he desperately wanted to see the world. They went into the city, and while they were walking they passed a man begging in the streets.

"What's he doing?" said the prince.

"He is poor", said the palace aide, "He has no food, he is hungry."

"No food? That's terrible!"

And so they continued. Before long they met a leper, covered in festering sores.

"What's wrong with him?" asked the prince.

"He is a leper", said the aide. "He has a terrible illness which makes him look like that."

"An illness? Terrible!"

They walked on. But as they did, the prince couldn't stop thinking of the poor man or the leper. He'd never seen anyone poor or sick in the palace, and it shocked him to think that there were those who were worse off than him. When he returned home, he knew what he wanted to do. He wanted to give all his great wealth to the poor and needy, such that they might have a better lot......

Re:Think of the Children

[freemywrld]

Thank you! It gives me a glimmer of hope that there are still people in this world that understand this.

Re:Think of the Children

[bloobloo]

That's the story of the Buddha.

Re:Think of the Children

[junglee_iitk]

Yeah but different people have different ways. Different societies employ different tactics for common problems. Saying 'my' way is better than that way, is wrong. If the method is wrong, people will realize it by themselves sooner or later. There IS not absolute right and wrong!

Re:Think of the Children

[xtal]

But making drugs illegal did a great job of keeping them away from kids!

Re:Think of the Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of this:

The highest form of man is one who rules himself. Call me an idealist, but I disagree with your liberal view because there IS a better way: self rule.

However, to get here you have to be self disiplined.

Liberal societies are right that most people cannot control themselves, and Conservative societies are right that some people can and should.

These are truths, independant on how a society is run. There is a right and wrong and it is situational and there are well defined rules to determine what that is.

Re:Think of the Children

[quarterbrain]

Sadly, Keanu taught me the story of Buddha...

Re:Think of the Children

[tehcyder]

You know, I'm a parent. My two daughters know all about pornography. They CHOOSE not to look at it because they think it's gross and crude, rather than have my beliefs imposed on them by telling them it's "WRONG".

Yes, because obviously children don't need to be taught anything at all by anyone at any time, as they come into the world just knowing everything already, with fully developed moral, aesthetic and social awareness.

Heaven forbid that as their mere parent you should dare to interfere with this perfect knowledge by imposing old-fashioned ethical standards on them.

Re:Think of the Children

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Just because you don't want your kids exposed to something doesn't mean that they should't.

Well, that's a point of view. But it's not a reply to what I said.

So stop trying to impose your morality on me,

Morality is about interpersonal relationships. Asking someone to stop imposing their morality on someone is like asking someone to eat without ingesting food. Any time a bunch of people need to share some space to exist there are going to be interpersonal conflicts with different sides having different views. Again "imposing morality" is just another /. mantra that doesn't mean what it says. What it really does mean is "I want to have my way even if it comes into conflict with you so I'm going to describe what you want to do as 'imposing morality' so that from some vaguely libertarian point of view I can take the moral high ground."

Re:Think of the Children

[Fozzyuw]

Isn't it interesting how the people who first want parents "taking responsibility" for raising their children in fact do not want that, they want to impose a child-rearing method on parents.

Indeed. After all, social values are basically the majority ideal of the people. Those people include parents. If the parents decree that those social values are wrong and work to have laws passed for their wishes, this would be making a parenting decision, in a holistic sense. Only, in this particular case, it is effecting those who are not parents and might wish to engage in the now illegal activities. Yet, one cannot say that the parents are not trying to raise their children, when in fact they are, but they're just doing it in a less than desirable way for other people who do not share their values.

Though, in this particular case, I would claim that the banning of internet by the government is a suppression of a freedom (of speech), where if a parent did not want their child to see porn, they have the ability to lock-down their own computers rather than force their values upon everyone else, like it or not. This, of course, doesn't prevent the kid from accessing it from a friends house or another location, but it would be their responsibility to make sure said friends house imposes the same restrictions that the parent feels right for their child, and if they don't, then they should prevent the child from spending time at the house.

Of course, if a kid really wants to do or see something, there is nothing that can really stop them. That's when a firm understanding of family values is in order and a parent needs to make it clear what the consequences are if those values are broken, and stick to their word.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Think of the Children

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Boys used to beat off over lingerie catalogues.

Life must have been easy in the old days!

Re:Think of the Children

[NeutronCowboy]

Oh please - stop being condescending. In all your rambling about how you're being oppressed by others' wishes for peace and quiet, you're completely failing to see the 2 by 4 in your own eye. What your main complaint is that people aren't taking your crap lying down, and your whining amounts to little more than "No fair! You're taking the high ground!"

Let's start from the top. #1, Morality is not about interpersonal relationships. It is your code of conduct, which can range from something like "I shall not kill" to "I will honor the stars every night with a bonfire." Yes, at some point your morality will intersect and interact with others, but that's not the primary focus of morality. It's a secondary, though necessary effect. #2, you don't get to decide whose morality prevails, and certainly not with an argument as lame as "but I wanna!" #3, people have been arguing for a couple of thousand years about this problem, and one of the more popular approaches is that as long as no harm is done to someone else, you are free to exercise your own morality. Certainly, it put a stop to things like execution of protestants in France, witch hunts and general bigotry. Furthermore, harm is defined in direct terms. Merely exercising my beliefs in your presence does not count as harm.

Finally, be careful what you wish for. Resolving conflict by running to a higher or more powerful authority can easily backfire on you. You might think that that's a great solution, but that's just because you've never been part of a persecuted minority (and I'm talking persecution as in extermination, not merely evil looks).

Re:Think of the Children

[jimicus]

Is that so? Knew someone would be able to help me. Thanks!

Re:Think of the Children

[Impotent_Emperor]

Interestingly, this is also the right approach to take with cars, alcohol, guns, and Elrond Hubbard books.

Should I ever have kids, I'll introduce them to firearms at an early age so that they get some experience and learn some respect for them.

Re:Think of the Children

[npsimons]

The parent post is just step 3. Isn't it interesting how the people who first want parents "taking responsibility" for raising their children in fact do not want that, they want to impose a child-rearing method on parents.

You know, this is the first time I've *ever* heard of anything like this happening, and as it happens to come from one side attributing it to another, I'm going to have to call straw man.

I have *never* heard any anti-censorsip proponents claim that you shouldn't restrict what your kids see (except perhaps as a vague sidenote that kids can't be shielded forever). I'm fairly certain that the people in favor of _more_ freedom and personal liberty are probably in favor of people raising their children however they see fit. What anti-censorsip people are opposed to is being *treated* like children because parents can't seem to take the responsibility of actually being good parents. It's epitomized in this quote:

Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby
can't chew it.
        -- Mark Twain

Want to control what your kid sees on the Internet? Install a personal firewall/proxy to filter out whatever you deem "bad". DON'T try to deny the rest of us access to information merely because you think it's wrong. You have no right; we are not your children, we are adults, and can decide what we can see for ourselves.

Re:Think of the Children

[npsimons]

But if you, as a parent, believe that it is wrong for your children to be exposed to pornography, then it is complete fucking impossible to bring them up right in modern liberal society without enclosing them in a solid steel cube and burying them 20 feet underground.

Maybe you should have thought about that before having children. I hear they have these really neat things called "condoms" that allow you experience the joys of sex without the responsibilities of parenthood.

So the fact that some parents would like a little help from the government in bringing up their kids is hardly people failing to take responsibility for their own kids.

Asking someone else for help is all well and good until you just give up trying to be a good parent and insist that everyone else change just to suit you and your lack of parenting.

The truth is that you repeat this mantra, not because you care about how anyone brings up their kids, but because you'd like free access to various materials on the web.

Yeah, that's true. I don't give a damn how you raise your children. I do care when you try to treat adults as children. Do you have any good reason why I should *not* be allowed access to those materials? And "my children might see it!" is not a good reason. Get a fucking filtering proxy.

I'll close with a quote and a question:

Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby
can't chew it.
        -- Mark Twain

Do you like steak? Are you willing to give it up because your children can't handle it?

Re:Think of the Children

[Walter Carver]

Children need guidance, not directives.

Slashdot

[Bongo Bill]

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.

Re:Slashdot

[Clever7Devil]

Whereas, in Iran it's moot to compare your leaders to those of the Axis. Without the Holocaust, they are just failed conquerers...

Re:Slashdot

[Omnifarious]

I agree with you. There is currently no comparison. But that is not a reason for complacency or self-congratulation either.

Calling people 'unamerican' for not sharing the government's view of things or the president stating that atheists are not citizens and certainly not patriots is edging right up there. It's not that far from uttering that statement and enforcing it, especially now that habeas corpus has been suspended for whoever the president decides are 'enemy combatants'.

We are kept from becoming Iran by the thinnest of lines. It galls me that probably two the biggest factors in the Republican's losing the legislative branch are sex scandals and the fact we're doing poorly in Iraq. The president's horrible abuse of power, condoning of torture, and his statements like those about atheists probably weren't that important to most voters who switched sides.

Most Americans seem to think that it's just fine if we become Iran as long as they don't have to actually think about any public figure having any sort of sexuality or see any sort of evidence that can't be ignored that our star is falling in the world.

Re:Slashdot

[RyanFenton]

Good comment, but the George Bush comment on atheists was a bit off - that was George H. W. Bush, the former president, not George W. Bush, the current President.

First link on Google for the quote

Ryan Fenton

Re:Slashdot

[starkravingmad]

In Iran most politicians would be proud to be compared to Hitler or Stalin

Re:Slashdot

[Omnifarious]

*nod* Firebombing Dresden was a tactic we used to get Hitler to target civilians rather than military installations. *think* If I felt we had a clear strategy or some idea what we were doing, I could perhaps forgive a bit of spilled milk to get there. But I don't think we do.

I've heard anecdotes of prisoners in our various torture prisons who aren't there for any particularly good reason. We can't, in fact, muster even the tiniest shred of evidence for their incarceration.

Additionally, the existence of Abu Gharib was a horrible move from the standpoint of actually winning the war in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if that, more than any other single factor (including the natural inclination of the populace to fall into civil war over religious and ethnic differences) has been what has hurt us in Iraq.

Our leadership no longer knows how to win a war. They never did. They know how to have their strings pulled by various moneyed interests in the US. And none of them care about the war in particular, they just want stability so they can suck out all the oil.

And, as for the war on terrorism, we are doing pretty badly there. We're consistently failing to understand the problem, and seem to be bending over backwards to make it worse. And we favor tactics that harass people and look scary over tactics that actually work.

So, as I said, if we had even vaguely effective leadership, I might be willing to overlook (with some amount of distaste and muttering about how ugly war is) some human rights abuses. As it is, nothing is being done that will end the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism quickly, expediently and with a minimal loss of life.

Lastly, pointing out other people's human rights abuses and using that as a reason we shouldn't care about our own is kind of disturbing. Most of Bush's supporters would claim that they abhorred moral relativism. So your invocation of it is interesting to say the least.

Re:Slashdot

[Omnifarious]

Oops. *sheepish grin* I should've done a bit of research. I, in fact, should've known. The actual quote is a coherent sentence that makes sense and shows even a bit of elegance in its construction. This is not what I would expect of George W. Bush.

But I don't really think that mistake on my part invalidates my point.

Re:Slashdot

[Bongo Bill]

Another difference!

Re:Slashdot

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

It's not that far from uttering that statement and enforcing it

Although you said it with the best intentions (I'm sure), it's that kind of reasoning that is the biggest enemy to free speech. We use it to regulate those who we don't agree with, which is exactly what you are doing now.

People can say what they want, and others can respond by calling them un-American, and the original party can then respond by saying that it's not only untrue, but a piss-weak response to an opinion that potentially has merit. It's only when the president decides they are "enemy combatants" that an infringement of rights occurs.

Re:Slashdot

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>See you lose credibility when you complain Bush condoned use of torture. College fraternities do worse

I suppose I should be thankful that he spelled "lose" correctly...

'The prisoner died in a position known as "Palestinian hanging" '.
'When the men lowered Jamadi to the floor, Frost told investigators, "blood came gushing out of his nose and mouth, as if a faucet had been turned on." .

Yes, it's officially condoned: "...the decision to deport Arar was made at the highest levels of the U.S. justice department, with a special removal order signed by John Ashcroft's former deputy, Larry Thompson." "Deported", you see, to Syria. The Syrian torture the US knowingly sent him to made him say later "I forgot every moment that I enjoyed in my life".

The Canadian authorities have acknowledged that Arar had no connection to any terrorist group or activity.

Re:Slashdot

[Omnifarious]

I don't disagree with you about Clinton.

Re:Slashdot

[cold fjord]

'The prisoner died in a position known as "Palestinian hanging" ' [foxnews.com].
'When the men lowered Jamadi to the floor, Frost told investigators, "blood came gushing out of his nose and mouth, as if a faucet had been turned on." . [newyorker.com]

The interesting things you can read in those links .....

Navy SEALs apprehended al-Jamadi as a suspect in the Oct. 27, 2003, bombing of Red Cross offices in Baghdad that killed 12 people. His alleged role in the bombing is unclear. According to court documents and testimony, the SEALs punched, kicked and struck al-Jamadi with their rifles before handing him over to the CIA early on Nov. 4. By 7 a.m., al-Jamadi was dead.

Navy prosecutors in San Diego have charged nine SEALs and one sailor with abusing al-Jamadi and others. All but two lieutenants have received nonjudicial punishment; one lieutenant is scheduled for court-martial in March, the other is awaiting a hearing before the Navy's top SEAL.

Re:Slashdot

[Duds]

Exactly, one oppresses people on purely religious grounds, attacks other countries on flimsy pretexts, detains hundreds of people indefinately in camps without trial or representation and attempts to bully other countries into not having nuclear power when they themselves rely on it.

And the other one is of course Iran.

Re:Slashdot

[N8F8]

And then you have the revisionist Americans who confuse the world as they believe it was/is with the world that was/is. OR the ones who complain about nobody doing anything then criticizing anyone who tries to do something.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Blogging in teh usa Takes courage too, look at the dixie chicks.

You can't possibly be serious.

I agree that the USA is less oppressive the Iran. However, both the Dixie Chicks and the Iranian bloggers were receiving death threats for their views. I'd say that's pretty scary in both cases.

What's interesting to me is the question "Did expressing their views make a difference?" Did the Dixie Chick's opposition to the Iraq war prevent the Iraq war? Are the Iranian bloggers effecting change in Iran?

As far as I'm concerned, the real measure of freedom of speech is not how much is spoken but how much is heard.

Iranian Blog Entries...

[Skeetskeetskeet]

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!!!

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[JeTmAn81]

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.

Re:It's a good thing...

[Gaian-Orlanthii]

Why do I get the impression that if high-speed internet access was banned in YOUR homes, you guys would (probably literally) be up in arms about it and not just making remarks on a forum?

Straight from the propaganda machine

[kurish666]

This story makes me so mad that I want to throw the big Newspeak Dictionary at the image of Emmanual Ahmadinejad during today's Two Minutes Hate.

Re:It's a good thing...

[Jerf]

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.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[Darth]

Well, they did receive a lot of bad press from fans and other artists. The point is that in a society that is supposed to cherish free speech americuh is pretty backward.

what are you talking about?

The Dixie Chicks exercised their freedom of speech without any repercussions from the government. Their fans and the other artists also exercised their freedom of speech without interference. Everyone involved expressed themselves as much or as little as they chose to without any interference or influence from the government.

In what way is that not freedom of speech? In what way is that backward?

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[EtherealStrife]

Funny, I must've missed the "put to death" reference in TFA. In Iran people are permitted to express opposing POVs to those held by their government, so long as they don't cross certain lines that the government associates with radicalism. Kinda like in America, you don't want to get too radical in your opposition to the treatment of animals and the environment (PETA, Green Peace, ELFs, etc), nor do you want to call your friend Jack on an airplane, nor do you want to debate the validity of security arrangements in U.S. airports while standing near some security officers in a security check line (unless you enjoy being strip searched by the same sex and having your cavities searched, which some fetishists may). And the list goes on. Just because they have different restrictions doesn't mean the U.S. is any better than Iran. Same bullshit, in the name of national security (for both nations). What one calls a freedom fighter, the other calls a terrorist/radical (and vice versa).

Re:It's a good thing...

[WhyDoYouWantToKnow]

Why do I get the impression that if high-speed internet access was banned in YOUR homes, you guys would (probably literally) be up in arms about it and not just making remarks on a forum?

Not to mention the complete collapse of the porn and MMOG industries.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[vertinox]

The difference being, of course, that the Dixie Chicks were not put to death for expressing views not in line with those of the government, and the consequences they endured were not handed out by the government, but rather their own fans.

So the Dixie chicks were stoned and hanged from a crane by their fans rather than the government?

Re:It's a good thing...

[ackthpt]

... that stuff like that doesn't happen in the good 'ol US of A oh wait...

Yeah, like, have a singer express her honest opinion of the leader of the good ol' free world.

Sometimes it seems people welcome the mob to control their thoughts and lives...

Re:It's a good thing...

[ArcherB]

View my previous posts as a fine example! Still prefer that to having my typing fingers cut off though!

(Granted, some of my posts may qualify as troll, but most do not by far!)

Advancement of the species....

[blankoboy]

We are only as advanced as the level of freedom we permit our fellow man. On the whole, we as a species are still monkeys swinging in the trees. How can we expect to flourish throughout the galaxy, beyond this earth, if we cannot live in peace with ourselves. Sigh....there's so much more out there for us than to destroy ourselves. We need a good kick in the collective pants.

Re:Advancement of the species....

[TheDarkener]

I completely agree with you... People as a whole need to be conscious that we will *always* be disagree with each other, no matter what. We just need to figure out how to be PRODUCTive with it instead of DESTRUCTive.

Of course...I dunno. You got me thinking now, and I'm about to go to bed... There's not much we can do but be ourselves; do the things we believe in, and things will balance the way they balance. Hopefully they'll balance in a positive manner.

Re:It's a good thing...

[ArcherB]

Yeah, like, have a singer express her honest opinion of the leader of the good ol' free world.
I presume you are taking about Natalie Maines? Have we cut her tongue out yet?

Sometimes it seems people welcome the mob to control their thoughts and lives...
Like here on /.?

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[ArcherB]

Do you fear for you life because of that comment?

No? Then your comment is proven incorrect.

Dixie Chicks

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Would you consider book burning to be repressive?

Is running over CDs with a bulldozer analogous? That's what happened at a rally arranged, not by "their own fans", but by Cumulus Media, which controls 262 radio stations nationwide.

Clear Channel stations, not Dixie Chicks fans, banned them from the airwaves. Clear Channel owns 1,225 radio stations. That's almost as effective as government censorship, without the icky court battles. Clear Channel denies any involvement in the anti-Dixie Chicks rallies organized by many of their stations (but nobody else's).

Reference: The Columbia Journalism Review.

Clear Channel vice chairman Tom Hicks is a longstanding very good friend of George W. Bush.

>the Dixie Chicks were not put to death

I take little comfort in the fact that nobody has carried out the death threats.

Re:Dixie Chicks

[Monkeyman334]

They only got popular because of dealing with Clear Channel (like any other pop band). Heaven forbid that the opposite happens.

Re:Dixie Chicks

[Cro Magnon]

If Cumulous Media OWNS the CDs, they have the right to run over them.

And Clear Channel, a private company, has to ban who they want, and even to organize rallies.

The only problem I have is the number of stations those behemoths control. A monopoly in media is even worse than a monopoly in software!

Iran is in good company

[MrSteveSD]

I'm sure Iran is not exactly a bastion of free expression, but I've seen plenty of Iranian people who have been interviewed on camera criticizing the Iranian government and calling them all a bunch of idiots. Then there was the recent case of Iranian students jeering the President, burning a picture of him, and throwing fireworks (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1 462_2043334,00.html). That's not the sort of thing you do if you are terrified of your government. Iraqis would certainly never have dared do that to Saddam Hussein (backed by the US et al, for many years), and Iranians would probably not have dared do it to the brutal US/UK-backed Shah of Iran either.

I've worked with a number of people from around the Middle East and all of them said that Saudi Arabia was far worse than Iran. Perhaps it would be wise to tackle the most oppressive countries first.

I have no idea whether Iranian police normally herd student protesters into "Free Speech" Zones well away from President Ahmadinejad, as is common practice in the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) or whether the Iranian government enforces huge protest exclusion zones in Tehran, using the threat of terrorism as some kind of bizarre justification. In the UK there is a half-mile protest exclusion zone around parliament, which was introduced in 2005, 2 years after a million angry citizens marched outside Parliament in full view of the media. Maya Evans, a woman who read out the names of dead soldiers within the zone was arrested, charged and convicted of breaching the "Serious Organised Crime and Police Act" by staging an unauthorised protest. I think it was Chomsky who said "The worst enemy of a government is its own population". It's certainly beginning to seem that way.

Re:Iran is in good company

[NeutronCowboy]

You're right. In Iran, people aren't herded into free speech zones. Instead, they are beaten to a pulp. This is just one case. There are several more. I invite you to just dig through the results of "iran student protests", or to find out what happened to prominent politicians who got a little too close to the West.

Re:Iran is in good company

[anaesthetica]

Iranians would probably not have dared do it to the brutal US/UK-backed Shah of Iran either

I believe they did, in fact, do this. It was called the 1979 Iranian Revolution, if I recall correctly.

I think it was Chomsky who said "The worst enemy of a government is its own population".

Leave it to a Chomskyite to glorify an otherwise utterly trite observation, made countless times before, and by more insightful individuals at that.

Re:Iran is in good company

[MrSteveSD]

I believe they did, in fact, do this. It was called the 1979 Iranian Revolution, if I recall correctly.

Well, of course yes, there was eventually a revolution. I was talking about the odd protest though. The Shah had a secret police called SAVAK which was trained by CIA. They ruthlessly repressed any opposition to the Shah. SAVAK had a large number of student spies, even operating in the US.

Leave it to a Chomskyite to glorify an otherwise utterly trite observation, made countless times before, and by more insightful individuals at that.

Really? I think its a pretty interesting observation. Most people do not think of things in that way. i.e. That the public are effectively viewed as an enemy by government. Occasionally they use violence, e.g. in dissuading people from protesting, but violence is mostly not an option anymore, so most of the time they can only wage propaganda warfare. A relevant Chomsky quote (which you may again find trite) is "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." It's not just a throwaway sound bite either. It has real meaning. If you look at the history of the US, UK etc, violent repression becomes less and less of an option over time, and has been replaced with a propaganda model of control.

What is "Chomskyite" supposed to mean anyway? Just that I quoted Chomsky? Or perhaps you are implying I believe everything he says without question, and am thus an idiot. I have read a number of Chomsky books over the years and I usually check up on everything he says, not because I don't trust him, but because you shouldn't really trust what any one person writes.

Re:Iran is in good company

[anaesthetica]

A relevant Chomsky quote (which you may again find trite) is "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." It's not just a throwaway sound bite either. It has real meaning. If you look at the history of the US, UK etc, violent repression becomes less and less of an option over time, and has been replaced with a propaganda model of control.

I don't find this one trite, but I do find it essentially incorrect. For example, Mao's one great weapon was the propaganda organs of the PRC, not the PLA or other state security apparatuses. And Mao knew it too--he wasn't a "numbers guy", didn't have economic credibility, didn't have the chops to run the PLA, wasn't a diplomat (in this aspect, Zhou Enlai was indispensable right up until his death). Mao's key tool was propaganda, and what a tool it was.

Mao used the propaganda organs to incite mass uprisings against the state itself, destroying, humiliating, and killing veteran CCP cadres and bureaucrats, and even taking on PLA units. This mass insanity--with students wearing Mao pins and carrying around his Little Red Book as authority/justification for their actions--was the Cultural Revolution. So Chomsky's propaganda:democracy::bludgeon:totalitarian analogy is a false one, because in totalitarian states propaganda is just as, if not more, powerful than traditional state levers of power (the bludgeon).

Popular formulations of Chomsky's like this are either intellectually dishonest or remarkably poorly informed. Either way, they obscure more than they illuminate.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What is "Chomskyite" supposed to mean anyway?

It is easy to categorize other people as mental automatons when you are one yourself.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Stonehand]

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.

Re:Iran is in good company

[FleaPlus]

I'm sure Iran is not exactly a bastion of free expression, but I've seen plenty of Iranian people who have been interviewed on camera criticizing the Iranian government and calling them all a bunch of idiots. Then there was the recent case of Iranian students jeering the President, burning a picture of him, and throwing fireworks (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1 462_2043334,00.html). That's not the sort of thing you do if you are terrified of your government.

Are these by chance the same students who have now gone into hiding in fear for their lives?

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

If you were to believe Internet experts, the US is far worse than every brutal, totalitarian or otherwise evil regime in the history of humanity. Also, the Americans are directly or indirectly responsible for all of them (yes, even the prehistoric ones). These guys would have an orgasm if they heard that Iran has just launched nukes at Washington DC.

Re:Iran is in good company

[nightfire-unique]

I have no idea whether Iranian police normally herd student protesters into "Free Speech" Zones well away from President Ahmadinejad, as is common practice in the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) or whether the Iranian government enforces huge protest exclusion zones in Tehran, using the threat of terrorism as some kind of bizarre justification.

It's sad to see this so widely tolerated in the US. Perhaps I tend to wear rose-coloured glasses when thinking about the US as it was 10 or 20 years ago. I remember people who would never have allowed this to occur.

I was recently in an argument with someone who thought they were a good idea, for precisely the reason you gave. To protect us from the libera^H^H^Hterrorists. That they wanted to destroy the US, and these measures would prevent it.

I asked him what exactly it was about the US he felt was worth preserving, if it wasn't freedom, and the rule of law? He stood like a dear in headlights. :)

Re:Iran is in good company

[cold fjord]

I have read a number of Chomsky books over the years and I usually check up on everything he says, not because I don't trust him, but because you shouldn't really trust what any one person writes.

Especially Chomsky. A brilliant man.... 50 years ago...when writing about linguistics.

The Anti-Chomsky Reader

Re:Iran is in good company

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So Chomsky's propaganda:democracy::bludgeon:totalitarian analogy is a false one, because in totalitarian states propaganda is just as, if not more, powerful than traditional state levers of power (the bludgeon).

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that "all leaves are green" is false because some flowers are green. Sure totalitarian states use propaganda too, but that doesn't stop it from playing a different role in a democracy that is more analogous to totalitarian uses of violence.

Your example of all the violence that Mao incited during the Cultural Revolution is even further off the mark because the end result was the exact kind of violence that Chomsky was talking about, silencing critics and opponents (through death and threat of death) by the state organized Red Guard. Whereas in a democracy the step of violence is skipped, the propaganda leading directly to the silencing of critics and opponents through social ostrization.

The typical totalitarian state uses violence in a regular fashion, both directly through secret police and other state organs (like the Red Guard) and by convincing the regular citizenry to lynch people through propaganda. The typical democracy does not regularly use violence in either fashion, instead relying on propaganda to directly get the job done.

Re:Iran is in good company

[john.r.strohm]

If you were at the University of Texas at Austin, in the 1970s, as I was, you remember the never-ending stream of Iranian Students Association protests. A small minority of them wore hoods to conceal their faces from SAVAK; most didn't.

If you were in Harvard Square in the 1980s, as I was one week, you saw Iranian student protests then as well. The one guy I talked with was not wearing a hood. (I asked him if the people of Tehran prayed behind the Ayatollah. He didn't know. If you know about Islam, and Iranians, you know why this is an important question.)

The difference between UT Austin in the 1970s and Harvard Square in the 1980s was the government they were protesting against. Everything else was the same.

In 2003, I had the opportunity to be a student at UT Austin again. I found myself missing the ISA protests: they were amusing theater.

The key point is that they weren't THAT afraid of the Big Bad Government Guys, then or now.

Re:Iran is in good company

[MrSteveSD]

That was in the US though, which is a little different. If you are actually in the country whose government you are protesting against, that is a whole different situation. That said, they certainly didn't seem scared towards the end, even when violence was used against them.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Impotent_Emperor]

To protect us from the libera^H^H^Hterrorists.

To be fair, the "free speech zone" at the Democratic Convention was far worse than the one at the Republican Convention.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

On the other hand, Das Modell has an orgasm every time a Muslim is imprisoned without a trial.

Nope. I believe in fair trials.

Some would say he's a xenophobic lunatic, but they're missing the point.

It has nothing to do with xenophobia. Going by your logic, people who opposed the Nazis were xenophobes.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Anonymous Coward]

See, that's what I love about Das Modell.

He sees himself as a fighter for justice, almost like someone fighting the Nazis. Indeed, he stands brave before us, willing to sacrifice everything (of ours and his) to stomp out the Terrorist Threat. He, more than any of us, sees the terrorists in every nook, down every alley, under every table. He knows the fear. Das Modell is the model citizen we all wish to emulate: a man so afraid of a threat blown wildly out of proportion that he strives, with all his might, to crush those whom his fantasies implicate as part of that threat.

So what if he's more like the Nazis than like the fighters of Nazis with whom he identifies? So what if he's madly rallying to the cry of power-hungry bigots? He, in his heart, believes that he's on the side of justice. That's all that really matters.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

This was apparently a longwinded way of expressing that you actually have nothing to say, although you like to throw around the cliched, misguided Nazi accusations that multicultists have become so fond of.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

Such honest racism.

Please go ahead and explain what makes me a racist. Go on.

When I read your words, I feel transported, away from this era of scary people with different-colored skin, and toward a better, perhaps even medieval, time.

Why do you assume that skin color has something to do with this? I never said anything about skin color. It's funny how often you guys accuse me of being racist even though for you everything always boil down to race or skin color. Multicultists and leftists are typically the biggest racists of them all, and they don't even know it.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

It seems that you are evading the question, which is what I expected.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

Ah, now I get it. You aren't even arguing againts me. You're not even reading what I write. Instead, you're simply imagining my opinions and responses. You're essentially arguing with yourself. A split personality? In any case, you don't need my presence for that. Carry on.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

Tell that to the thousands of people who have died since 9/11 in the hand of Muslim terrorists. The bodycount is somewhere around 7,000 at the moment. You seem to be forgetting that terrorist attacks are completely routine in Iraq, Afghanistan and southern Thailand, not to mention Israel. Do you have an ideological reason for downplaying terrorism?

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

And once again you revert to arguing with yourself, using those elaborate strawmen that you've managed to construct. You're also still oblivious to the fact that terrorism exists outside the US, but I guess you're just unable to think on a larger scale.

Re:Iran is in good company

[Das Modell]

Jesus fucking Christ. You're actually denying the existence of terrorism. You're obviously batshit crazy. Goodbye.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[Qzukk]

Ah right, because censorship and oppression is all fun and games until someone gets killed?

I hope you don't call any TSA officials an idiot. Wouldn't want to have the cops come and "inconvenience" you.

Re:It's a good thing...

[deanoaz]

"Yeah, like, have a singer express her honest opinion of the leader of the good ol' free world."

I haven't heard of any singers being arrested, or audited, or denied visas for anti-Bush comments. Some singers have lost market share as a result of airing views that shocked their customers. That's the risk you take in a free market, nobody has to buy your stuff.

If you piss off a large enough segment of the market, advertisers won't want to have their products associated with you, because they think it will hurt them. So, you can lose positive media exposure for your work at the same time you are getting negative media exposure for your views.

Free speech is a right. Risk-free commercial speech is not.

"The ends justify the means" - no they don't

[fantomas]

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.

Re:"The ends justify the means" - no they don't

[inviolet]

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.

They might be. But they won't.

Karma is a very satisfying idea... and indeed every religion embraces it to some degree, because we like to hear about it. But you and I both know it isn't true. That's why we have to go so such lengths to construct artificial karma systems, such as money, laws, slashdot . . .

America, Israel and Iran

[Colin Smith]

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.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[joe 155]

well, I wouldn't get too bothered about it. Sure the US economy might take a hit, they might even need to consider changing the dollar for the Euro as the main oil currency if thats the way everyone else seems to be going - its not the end of the world. I highly doubt that Iran could do any real damage in a total war situation; they don't have nukes and it doesn't seem like any country who does would care enough to retaliate and risk total nuclear war over Iran. Iran will know this, I know Armenijad might want some kind of final battle and the end of the world (at least he hints he does) but the supreme leader of Iran doesn't and just won't let it get too far; even if he has to take down the government.

Besides, Iran has recently voted in reformers anyway, so the extreme anti-west side might be losing its influence

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[NeutronCowboy]

Thanks for pointing this out. I had the same exact thought a couple of days ago. This is the real danger in the Middle East right now: the posturing of Iran and Israel to get the US involved in the Middle East - each in their own way and for their own goals.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[tom's a-cold]

This is the real danger in the Middle East right now: the posturing of Iran and Israel to get the US involved in the Middle East - each in their own way and for their own goals.

Yeah, but... that assumes that we have no choice but to be influenced by them. The US doesn't have to get involved in the Middle East at all. How about this for a start? Cut off the billions a year we're sending the Israelis-- they've never done a damned thing for us besides used us as muscle to keep the Arabs down so they could keep their little apartheid state going. And how many times have our so-called "allies" in Israel ever shed a drop of blood to help the US? Zilch. The first thing we should be doing is correcting the wrong thinking that those guys are the 51st state. Sorry, kids, but they're not. They have their national interests, and they're not identical to ours. It's a sign of the gutlessness of our leaders that nobody who's elected in the US can stand up and state that obvious fact. Entangling alliances indeed.

And anyway, so what if the Iranians have a couple nukes? They're not pointing them at us, and we have tens of thousands of nukes ourselves that we can use if they ever so much as think of doing so. And we didn't seem to mind all that much that the Israelis have a few hundred of them. And as for how odious the Iranian regime might be, why should we care? Humanitarian reasons? Since when have we been in the business of doing anything about murderous, repressive regimes unless there's a buck to be made for Halliburton in the process? Or if suddenly the world has changed and now we really are in that business instead of just being a bunch of hypocrites, why don't we start by cutting off foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan and plenty of other criminal governments we directly support? It's not like that weasely dictator Musharraf is helping us catch Binladen. The Pakistani ISI is more likely sheltering him.

I'm not advocating isolationism. But our government's tendency to indiscriminately stick their noses into other people's business contributes to instability, stirs up anger against Americans, and kills huge numbers of innocent people in the process. And yet there are still people in the US who are looking for another fight.

Repressive governments deserve to be driven out. But sadly, the US government is not in a position to do that for anyone else. And at this point we in the US should be more focused on rolling back the repression that our own government is inflicting on us and the rest of the world before it gets even more out of hand. Everything else, even oil, is secondary.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[FranklinDelanoBluth]

I know Armenijad might want some kind of final battle and the end of the world (at least he hints he does)

Let's not be the pot that called the kettle black. We're (sorry, I'm an arrogant American who thinks everyone else is or should be one too :)) the country that sold 65 million books (and now a video game) about the Apocalypse. Has it occurred to you that the US' religious right might use the correlation between the current Middle East situation and the Book of Revelation as a reassurance that "we're on the right side?"

Regarding the grandparent, he's exactly right. We inch closer to world war every day, though I think we could easily add to the Axis the rest of the Middle East (at least Hezbollah/Lebanon, Syriah, and Hamas/Palestine as active players and the rest for their passivity) and all of Europe (UK as active the rest as passive). WWII started because of pacification of a couple crazy leaders... I think the current situation is just about every major/minor power's fault.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[camperdave]

And anyway, so what if the Iranians have a couple nukes? They're not pointing them at us, and we have tens of thousands of nukes ourselves that we can use if they ever so much as think of doing so.

The threat of mutually assured destruction is pointless if one of the parties doesn't care if they die, so long as they take out the enemy. You can be sure that if Iran had nukes, they would most certainly be aimed at the US. America may not be their prime target, but you're definitely on the list.

But our government's tendency to indiscriminately stick their noses into other people's business contributes to instability, stirs up anger against Americans, and kills huge numbers of innocent people in the process.

If only your government could get that through its collective skulls. Hopefully you guys will get through the next couple of years without Bush somehow rewriting the laws so that he can run a third time. [grin] Personally, I would like to see that young black candidate I saw on TV as the next president, just to shake up the whole "old boys network" that seems to be running the country. It would probably do a world of good.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[Raenex]

It doesn't make any sense that the Iranian government would want the United States to attack them. Even if the situation became a quagmire, the Iranian government would face huge upheaval. After seeing what happened to Saddam, do you really think the Iranian heads of state want the US knocking on their door?

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[cold fjord]

The cost of the Iraq war is a pimple on the behind of either the American economy, or the US Government budget. The annual costs of the Iraq war are on the order of $100-150 billion. The US Government budget is $2 trillion. The US economy is on the order of $12 trillion. From an economic perspective, the cost of Iraq is an annoyance, nothing more. The US Army during the Vietnam war was 3x its current size. During WW2, it was 16x larger while the country was half its current size. Militarily the Iraq war is uncomfortable for the current size of the Army and the policies they want to keep, but that is about all.

Iran isn't simply provoking Israel, its President is making statements suggesting a threat of genocide that even various Arab governments condemn. Maybe you can understand why the Jewish state might be sensitive to that? Or, maybe not. I can't imagine you advocate them accepting annihilation just to keep the peace.

Europe has been taking the lead on the Iran problem*, and is failing. Is that because Europeans want oil priced in Euros, a nuclear armed Iran (soon) with missiles capable of reaching Europe (now), they are simply feckless, or maybe the Iranian government is run by fanatics who have an agenda of their own that they value above Europe's carrots & sticks?

Wars tend to start when one country attacks another. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism across the region, providing arms to Iraqi insurgents, and is making threats against other countries. That isn't a recipe for peace.

By the way, how does suicide bombing work into this? Since we "know" that religion isn't involved, but oil is, how do they convince suicide bombers to do it? Do they offer to bury the bomber's remains in pure kerosene or something?

* Yet more evidence of US unilateralism.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[Colin Smith]

he annual costs of the Iraq war are on the order of $100-150 billion. And yet, funnily enough, you're running a deficit of around $600 billion. The $120 billion or so spent specifically on the war isn't the only spending dedicated to the war. You'll have noticed your interest rates creeping up. That's going to continue as long as the war lasts, and beyond. That's damaging to the economy. Since the 70s, America has exported much of it's manufacturing capacity and is already borrowing heavily to fund existing lifestyles. The lenders are now becoming unwilling to fund a lifestyle which involves warfare.

The US Army during the Vietnam war was 3x its current size. It's not the size, it's the spending. An M1 tank costs $3-$4 million each these days.

Iran isn't simply provoking Israel, its President is making statements suggesting a threat of genocide that even various Arab governments condemn. Of course they are. How else would you provoke the US and Israel? As I said, they're trying to get the US involved in a wider guerilla war.

or maybe the Iranian government is run by fanatics who have an agenda of their own that they value above Europe's carrots & sticks? Or maybe they're playing a game of brinkmanship and have specific goals. Like the end of the US as the world superpower.

Wars tend to start when one country attacks another. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism across the region, providing arms to Iraqi insurgents, and is making threats against other countries. That isn't a recipe for peace. Lol. Oh come on. Iraq, Afghanistan are because of US sponsored terrorism. Both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were created by the US, please don't try to get sanctimonious about geopolitical strategies.

By the way, how does suicide bombing work into this? Pawns. Like the US soldiers. It's handy to be able to persuade someone else to die for your cause/wealth.

Re:America, Israel and Iran

[Isao]

...Iraq is already destroying the US economy.

It seems instead that the war is ruining the U.S. Military. The economy is doing fine.

Technical solutions all seem to be gone

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Invisiblog took submissions by Mixmaster email and used gpg signing as the authentication mechanism. They seem to be defunct as of about a year ago. The eelbash anonymous remailer announced a replacement, but the page for that is 404 now.

Torture is counterproductive

[rhinokitty]

Correct, and if I may add:

No matter what "intellegence" you get from a subject of torture, it is not going to be helpful because the subject will tell you whatever you want to hear. If you ask someone the location of a terrorist cell, and they actually don't know, they are as good as dead in a place like Guantanamo. This lack of knowledge may not save their life, but on the other side of the electrode is the American soldier who is asking the questions. Whatever blubberings this victim may give you will be totally counterproductive and will not help further any military objective, they will be garbage intellegence. And we all know,

Garbage in = garbage out.

Try asking nicely.

Re:Fucking grow up (2006 not 2003).

[Tyson W]

Your Amnesty International link seem to be to the 2003 report. It would probably also be a good idea to provide the links the US reports as well, since you are (presumably) doing a comparison. A good summary is that you don't want to be in the wrong group in either country:

Iran:
amnesty international
human rights watch

US:
amnesty international
human rights watch

It's also worth remembering, whenever Iran is being discussed, that the present government is a fairly direct outcome of Operation Ajax, in which the US and Britian overthrew the original (and very progressive) Iranian democratic government and installed a very brutal dictator (the Shah) because Iran planned to nationalize its oil (which was the result of, amongst other things, them being denied the right to even audit British Petroleum's books).

Unless of course...

[Zebra_X]

You are the president.

Re:Unless of course...

[Raenex]

"To view the site you shuold enable Javascript!"

No, don't tell me...

[matlhDam]

...they've dragged out their Commodore 64s, gotten some help from a guy named Junis to get them connected, and are blogging while watching "Baywatch" and "Temptation Island". Through all this, they're providing their own voices from the hellmouth.

Have you been paying any attention?

[Chris Burke]

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.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Then I guess we do not need to send the police when someone is torturing your wife/daughter/mother ? After all that would be using VIOLENCE (oh no !) to create peace. "Obviously" that would not work. Except ... obviously ... it would work. Ah hm. How about that ?

You are very correct that the ends are met by the means. They are NOT identical to the means. At all. If history teaches us anything, it is that violence is REQUIRED to create peace in a violent situation.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[cold fjord]

What most people think of as the Abu Ghraib scandal was a small group of bored, stupid soldiers engaging in some sick thrills which mostly occurred over a period of a few days. They have been punished for it. What they did was for "fun" not policy.

Japan, Italy, and Germany are presently peaceful democracies after suffering severe violence and occupation for up to seven years. Germany did have a short lived but violent insurgency (the Werewolves) that was put down. Germany seems to have come through it OK, the Nazi pagans didn't take over. The coup attempt by the Japanese Army didn't have legs either.

Iraq has just reached its one-year election anniversary, the Iraqi economy is strong and growing, the Iraqi security forces are leading increasing numbers of operations, and Iraqi tribes are turning on Al Qaeda in Iraq which has lost at least 7,000 terrorists killed or captured. If the Iraqi people, government, and the Coalition Forces can start getting a handle on the surging sectarian violence, much of which seems to be emanating from Al Sadr's militia which may be spinning out of his control, Iraq could do well.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[bloobloo]

APPROPRIATE violence may be required to stop violence. Properly planned armed response to hostage taking etc is perfectly reasonable. This does not mean that arbitrary acts of violence will do what you want.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Ow cool. Great idea. Proportionality. Let's look closer at what the more recent enemies of america did, what they consider "appropriate" violence.

Let's react with "appropriate" violence, I find this a great idea. What violence is appropriate ? Let's see what the different people of this world think is appropriate :

muslims : blowing up random unrelated citizens, murder out entire villages, pillage burn and rape, as dictated by the quran
iraqi baathi's : hanging anyone with an even slightly dissenting opinion, if necessary killing tens of thousands at once with nerve gas
afghani's : drag any women that can read (or *gasp* tries to teach another women to read) around the town by her hair then shoot her
hezbollah : randomly firing rockets into a foreign population, bombing people that are perceived as a threat
syrians : killing of hundreds of thousands of people, because they are immigrants and tried to stop the police from murdering them
Americans, Israeli, Europeans, Australians, ... i.e. "the west" : starting up a police force of reasonable people that have as their main purpose preventing violence from escalating

Tell me, who is right about what is "appropriate" an what is not ? Are the muslims right ? Is the quran correct about what is proportional ? The entire premise of proportionality is something that is a central part of the new testament, of Jesus' life, I do hope you realise that. Proportionality is not a valid principle in the arab world, not even in the highest courts in supposedly "moderate" nations :

http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/12/17/todays-bahai- protest/

As you would probably say. RESPECT others' culture and religion. ESPECIALLY in a war. Do NOT attempt to predict their reactions by christian standards. It's dumb, incorrect, foolish and disrespectful. Withouth accepting the violent, mass-murdering basis of muslim culture (as evidenced by the life of the paedophile prophet himself) you will never ever remain peaceful with a muslim for a reasonable amount of time. Either you accept muslims, including mass-murders, violently enforced religious discrimination, subjugation of women, and tribal nepotism trumping all other affiliations, or you don't.

"They" won't stop if america retreats. On the contrary, their attacks will intensify, as can be clearly evidenced by the situation in somalia.

"The west" is NOT an army, it's NOT a geographic location, it's NOT a people, it's NOT a religion, it's an idea. It is capitalism, equality, democracy, enforced secularity, religious individualism and, most importantly, the absolute rule of law. It is worth fighting for. It is worth dying for.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

If I have any request it's this. Don't moderate if you don't agree. Reply !

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[Chris Burke]

What most people think of as the Abu Ghraib scandal was a small group of bored, stupid soldiers engaging in some sick thrills which mostly occurred over a period of a few days. They have been punished for it. What they did was for "fun" not policy.

So that law Bush signed wasn't policy either?

There have been asphyxiations during CIA interrogations, and many allegations of torture and abuse outside of the specific incidents of Abu Ghraib. If at this point you think that those things which you can find pictures of on Google Images are the most that has occured, and a law authorizing the President to decide what is and is not torture when they were known to already have an extremely liberal definition is just hot air and not indicative of policy, then I have to say you're very naive.

Japan, Italy, and Germany are presently peaceful democracies after suffering severe violence and occupation for up to seven years. Germany did have a short lived but violent insurgency (the Werewolves) that was put down. Germany seems to have come through it OK, the Nazi pagans didn't take over. The coup attempt by the Japanese Army didn't have legs either.

Thank you. Referring to the time 60 years ago when the U.S. new how to actually accomplish something and reconstruct a nation really puts the current failure in Iraq in sharper relief.

Do you think Japan would have done as well if MacArthur had gone in with absolutely no plan on what to do, no understanding of the culture, and no intention of trying to fix things that were blatantly broken? Rumsfeld said he "doesn't do nation building". Well, nation building is the job he got, but he "didn't do" it in the sense that he didn't have a plan for it.

The coup, by the way, occured before the Emperor surrendered and was an attempt to stop him from doing so. The reason peace prevailed there was because the people were loyal to the Emperor and he told them to lay down arms, and MacArthur was wise enough to retain a ceremonial position for the Emperor, saving face and not giving the people a reason to revolt to protect him. Those poor soldiers stuck on Pacific atols still fighting the war twenty years later? That would have been every Japanese had things been slightly different.

If the current Admin. understood the differences beteen WWII and Iraq II better than you do, maybe Iraq would be going better. Sadly, they think "it worked before, therefore it will work now even if we have no idea what makes now different than then" is sound logic.


Iraq has just reached its one-year election anniversary, the Iraqi economy is strong and growing, the Iraqi security forces are leading increasing numbers of operations, and Iraqi tribes are turning on Al Qaeda in Iraq which has lost at least 7,000 terrorists killed or captured. If the Iraqi people, government, and the Coalition Forces can start getting a handle on the surging sectarian violence, much of which seems to be emanating from Al Sadr's militia which may be spinning out of his control, Iraq could do well.

And a year later, those elections, which were supposed to solve everything, have proven to be largely irrelevent. The current government is as widely held as corrupt and incompetent as the U.S. appointed one before it. If all you wanted was an election irrespective of the situation surrounding it then Saddam held elections too that were also useless outside of appearances.

Did you read your article on the economy? Yay, economic indicators are going up due to the influx of foreign money and oil money. Is it being felt by the average person? No, unemployment is at 30 to 50 percent, and Iraqis are burning through their savings. That might make the economy look good because there is more money churning, but it does not make the prospects of the average Iraqi look good. Still I'm glad that even if they can't walk in the street without fear of being abducted and tortured for wearing the wrong clothes in the wrong neighborhood, at least we've ma

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[Tolleman]

The problem isnt in the religion per say. Thats just a excuse for other things. The problem is that you got shitloads of poor people in a few rich countries that doesnt get shit from it while others gets rich on their behalf. Lots of poor people that can't read with lots of anger are quite easy to fool into doing various things. Religions are adapted to current situations, and blaming the religions shows that one hasn't understood the situation. Basicly we got a bunch of poor and "stupid" people that has had shit trown in their faces and their land stolen from them and we wonder why they are pissed? How to solve it? No idea, whats being done now seems to not work that great. Making sure it never happends again would be the best solution to future conflicts of the same nature. Oh, by the way, I hate everyone.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Oops ... the terrorists are not the poor people. You will find that just about every terrorist has at least a university education. Case in point : the 9/11 bombers. These were NOT poor people.

The londen bombers ... again ... these were rich individuals.

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[cold fjord]

Bullshit. There was no Nazi insurgency after WWII. Rumsfeld and Rice made that up.

You're wrong, it did in fact exist. People were being killed and intimidated well after the German surrender. Examples: On June 4, 1945, a police station in Bremen was blown up, killing five Americans and thirty-nine Germans, and injuring many more. The NKVD liquidated 42 Werewolf groups in Saxony in 1946.

Werewolf! - The History of the National Socialist Geurilla Movement 1944-1946

Re:Have you been paying any attention?

[cold fjord]

This is laughable.
I agree, your post is laughable. I didn't write that one bombing constituted an insurgency, I listed the bombing as an example of an attack from it. I also specifically stated that five (5) Americans were killed in that one incident, not the mention the Germans killed. "ROTFL!" isn't really a counter-argument.

Somehow I doubt that you have any relatives that died fighting as "anti-Nazi partisans". At the very least I can't believe that you ever spoke to any survivors. If you had, I doubt that you would find the idea of Nazis engaging in post-surrender terrorism and guerilla warfare as being a subject of humor, particularly since as a minimum there would be some fascists fighting to avoid the hangman's noose for things like this. Frankly, it is you who insult their memory and sacrifice, not me.

Re:It's a good thing...

[Lars T.]

Why do I get the impression that if high-speed internet access was banned in YOUR homes, you guys would (probably literally) be up in arms about it and not just making remarks on a forum? High-speed internet access isn't banned in Iran - and they don't block English sites either, no matter how often the mass media repeats that.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[misanthrope101]

I agree that there was a lot of hyperbole that they were "silenced," when obviously they weren't. But they, and many others, were surprised at the level of hostility they got for opposing the war. They weren't silenced, but they recieved death threats and a lot of hate-mail. Were they criminally oppressed? No, but we are much less tolerant of dissent than our freedom-loving self-image would lead one to believe.

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.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[The PS3 Will Fail]

"As far as I'm concerned, the real measure of freedom of speech is not how much is spoken but how much is heard."

So if some Neo-Nazi expresses his opinion and it does not cause immediate change in society (and, in fact, few listen to him), then that means that society doesn't have any freedom of speech? As far as I'm concerned, your measuring stick is broken.

"However, both the Dixie Chicks and the Iranian bloggers were receiving death threats for their views."

The Dixie Chicks were not being threatened by the government. The government investigated the death threats. Big difference.

pray for the rapture

[misanthrope101]

In theory, the rapture could happen at any second and they'll all vanish. I was going to start a petition to get the ball rolling, but I didn't know where to submit it.

Re:pray for the rapture

[lbrandy]

In theory, the rapture could happen at any second and they'll all vanish. I was going to start a petition to get the ball rolling, but I didn't know where to submit it.

You already have.

All the Shah's Men

[alphafoo]

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.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[misanthrope101]

Natalie learned the hard way that speech has consequences. You just don't go to a different country and put down your leader and then expect many of your fellow citizens to not express their disgust with you.

If the consequences were just "disgust," or people not buying their records, I take no issue with that. I don't buy Ann Coulter's books, for example. But death threats are not among the consequences that are okay for speech you don't like. Death threats, by definition, are signs of a pretty serious problem. A problem that infects everyone right of center? No, of course not. If someone starts making death threats against Limbaugh or Coulter, I'm not going to say "well, speech has consequences," because that would imply that I approved of the death threats. Death threats are not tolerated by civil society. But I have no objection to someone not buying their records or not attending their concerts because of their political beliefs.

Mod Parent UP!

[mmdog]

Whoever modded this flamebait needs to switch to decaf. That's some funny shit.

Re:It's a good thing...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Would you be satisfied that people are not crying wolf if something clear-cut were to happen, like, say, hypothetically, someone sent to Guantanamo for three years for a satirical opinion piece?

Re:It's a good thing...

[Jerf]

I'd be satisfied that people are not crying wolf if people weren't constantly pulling stories from three years ago, but three weeks ago.

We aren't going to live in a country where no shit ever happens, anywhere. If you take the worst of the worst, and base your opinions on nothing else, you can make anywhere look like a cesspool. I'm increasingly of the opinion that's what's going on.

How many years are we supposed to hold our breath for the jackboot of fascism to fall on all the brave posters of Slashdot, before we start questioning the idea that we're in the grip of some sort of unique evil? Shouldn't we have a few million stories about people being mysteriously disappeared by the Bushitler squads, not the same ten stories repeated over and over and over and over and over?

A few words for YOU:

[foreverdisillusioned]

...what "ends" are you referring to? A shitty economy? MORE pissed-off Arabs willing to sacrifice themselves in order to avenge their loved ones? (50,429 to 55,926 CIVILIAN DEATHS as compiled from English-language media reports by the Iraq Body Count project. That's over 10x the number of USA civilians killed on 9/11.) Capture of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction? The assassination/capture of Osama that still hasn't happened? The creation of a horribly UNSTABLE, violent Iraqi state?

Why don't you name one fucking good thing that's come of this entire fucking ball of shit and try and convince me it's because we tortured "terrorists".

Re:War Propaganda

[Sneakernets]

Apologies, but, what the fuck?
What part of "he has a nuclear programme" did you not understand?

solution

[quakehead3]

This is making me dizzy...Why wouldn't everyone just use Linux?!

This is Mother Fucking Free Speech

[Shihar]

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.

Re:This is Mother Fucking Free Speech

[Vengeance2001]

The reason this all didn't just blow over with the Dixie Chicks is because they didn't let it. They posed on magazine covers wrapped in the flag as the new literal "poster girls" for free speech. The Left in America has embraced them like Cindy Sheehan, because like mothers of Marines, country music singers who agree with them are so rare. They like their celebrity and have escalated that one offhand remark into a whole new theme. Their whole new album is about how they believe what they believe and no one can shut them up, etc.

I believe what I believe too. I agree that no one can shut them up and that they can say whatever they want. No one can make me buy their albums either though.

Blogging in Europe can also take courage

[paltemalte]

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.

Re:Blogging in Europe can also take courage

[slothman32]

Regarding that and hate crimes, that is one area I am less shamed of the US.
Noticed how I didn't use "more proud".

The US has to be more free than other countries at [i]something[/i].

death threats=bad

[misanthrope101]

They got death threats. Do you have any more questions? Stop pretending that left-wingers are enraged that the fan base didn't embrace them and convert to communism or whatever the right thinks the left's fantasy is this week. My reaction to Limbaugh and Coulter is pretty gut-level, and I have a right to that reaction, but I don't have a right to make death threats.

Re:death threats=bad

[Shihar]

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.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[nightfire-unique]

The difference being, of course, that the Dixie Chicks were not put to death for expressing views not in line with those of the government

Give it time. Iran wasn't always the way it is now.

He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it...

Proxy access in Iran

[patrick0]

I spent 3 weeks backpacking around Iran in May last year.

Their blocking system is fairly limited. Each ISP implements its own set of manually updated filters (not a central blocking system like China). I was trying to access certain sites -- www.sitename.com might work at one place but be blocked at another, though at the other net cafe sitename.com or IP address would often work just fine. I found the blocking policy inconsistent, though not that many sites were blocked (mainly gay sites were blocked).

Because of the Iran/Iraq war the population is very young -- 70% of Iranians are under 30 according to the Iran Lonely Planet guide. I imagine that'll mean plenty of blogs, whether insightful or the usual blog trash. People were quite politically aware and well educated. The news media seemed no more biased than Fox News in the US!

It's a beautiful country and well worth a visit. Persepolis is amazing. Tehran was like any other big city -- lots of expensive houses, cars and more liberally dressed women. The latest model mobile phones were available everywhere. I was offered alcohol quite a bit (especially by taxi drivers). It's illegal for Muslims to drink but the Christian and Jewish population are able to drink. Incidently, Iran has the highest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel.

I didn't know much about Iran before visiting, I'm just glad I went. Unfortunately if you're American/British it's difficult (though not impossible) to get a tourist visa unless you're in a tour group. I presume this is due to reciprocal restrictions applied by the UK/US on their citizens.

The last few years there have been fairly low in terms of tourism numbers and people were incredibly friendly to me - offering to take me to their homes for dinner and so on. Plenty of people were critical of their government but were just as critical of the American govt.

Funnily enough I just visited Israel last month and had a 45 minute interrogation because I'd visited Malaysia (a very westernised 70% muslim country). I'm glad I wasn't using the passport with the Iranian stamp in it!

I took photos of the nuclear installation between Kashan & Abyaneh despite the taxi driver panicking I'd get caught (you're not allowed to take photos of military installations). Though you can get a much better view of the place through Google maps!

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[syousef]

Um, others chose to excercise their *SARCASM* "right" to threaten them unlawfully with death, which caused a retraction of their original free speech which in turn was retracted when the situation cooled and the threats were no longer as immediate a danger.

If I say "Kill _____" that's not free speech, it's incitement to do violence.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[dkf]

If I say "Kill _____" that's not free speech, it's incitement to do violence.

Boy, am I glad that my name isn't five underscore characters!

Re:It's a good thing...

[ThePhilips]

+100. Had I any moderation points, I'd mod you up Insightful.

The point is of course that no society is ideal. Or to put it better that society is based on some ideal. Different ideals - different societies. For European civilizations common ideal is of course money. Talk is cheap so we count all in money. The ideal behind Asian civilizations... I do not know. Notably, unlike us, they value what people are saying and lying (what is perfectly Ok in EU/US) is more or less regarded as crime in Muslim world. Anybody who has friends from e.g. Iran obviously have noticed that.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[lixee]

Get a clue, people! Censorship is common practice all over the Arab/Muslim world, from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. The only difference here is that those countries have governments that are US-friendly (and, trust me, that's a euphemism!).

So, while I'm totally against Mahmoud&co's methods, I think it's unfair to demonize Iran in this way just because they dared to challenge US hegemony and refused to put up with the government forced on them by the US. Hold FREE elections in any of the aforementionned countries and you'll end up with Islamists in power (Just like Lebanon and Palestine recently, and Algeria in the early 90's). Of course, we all know how it turned out for Algeria; a civil war and hundred thousands dead. Palestine, under tremendous strain from the west, is about to dissolve a perfectly legitimate government. Lebanon ended up with most of its infrastructure in flames, millions displaced and a thousand dead.

Why is it that Islamists are bound to win in the Arab/Muslim world even if their agenda clearly calls for such aberrations as banning bathing suits on the beach? Well, because even rational thinkers like myself (who indulges in alcohol, smokes, and has casual sex), saw the Arab nationalism be put to death by the west and grew sick of decades of immobilism on the Palestinian issue. Yet, this is unlikely to happen as free elections in the Arab/Muslim world are a myth (with the previously introduced exeptions).

...And US is the oasis of Freedom?

[master_p]

If I was a US citizen and started a blog against the US government and its policies, how long would it take before CIA rung my bell? ...wait a minute, there is someone at the door...

Re:...And US is the oasis of Freedom?

[vishbar]

Oh, please. At least 90% of blogs on the web today are highly critical of Bush and the American government, and not 1 has been shut down by the CIA. I hope you were joking.

Re:...And US is the oasis of Freedom?

[GeneticDrifter]

Probably not before you have grasped the concept of free speech from the people who created it.

Re:...And US is the oasis of Freedom?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

They'd shut this site down first.

Read a bit, and grow up.

[Dasher42]

Yet what I don't see mentioned here is that Iran had a pretty good democracy going until the CIA worked to overthrow their elected leader and put a jackbooted dictator in his place to get their hands on some oil.

We've been getting blowback from this ever since, but most people in the USA don't know we're paying for the actions of unscrupulous spooks and their handlers.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[Monkeyman334]

What? Like Turkey? They have a muslim government, refused to support the US in Iraq, but they don't support terrorism.

Re:Can we send some of our muslims over there?

[Cro Magnon]

No thanks! We already have Fred Phelps, and trust me, most of "Middle-America" would be happy to send him to the Middle East and let their fundies deal with him.

Re:Blogging in teh usa

[lixee]

What? Like Turkey? They have a muslim government, refused to support the US in Iraq, but they don't support terrorism.

Turkey isn't an Islamic state [thanks to/because of] Mustapha Kamal. Also, Turkey refused to support the US in Iraq for reasons; It was a blatant breach of international law and more than 95% of Turks were against it. It is understood that when talking about the Arab/Mulsim world, Turkey stands out as an exception. Sorry for not pointing that out in my post.

Re: Blogging in the USA

[evansvillelinux]

Takes courage too, look at the dixie chicks. Anything that is not favored by another is deemed to be "unamerican"

Doesn't that just make you sick. Ever since 9/11 you hear people say crap like that. When I hear those words my blood just boils. I tell them that I am an Air Force veteran and served proudly during the first Gulf War but just because I don't agree with something now doesn't mean I'm against America. Now I am neither Democrat or Republican but I do blame the Republican President for starting that little "if you disagree with us you're for the terrorists" line of BS. Ponderous!

One day

[80's Greg]

I hope some day we find the ability to broadcast high-strength connections to countries where the Internet is filtered. If only we could make it as easy as getting a wireless card you could connect anywhere in the world unfiltered, then all information would truly be free.

It's not rocket science, but it takes effort.

[tshak]

But if you, as a parent, believe that it is wrong for your children to be exposed to pornography, then it is complete fucking impossible to bring them up right in modern liberal society without enclosing them in a solid steel cube...

Put the computer in the family room or some other room with public foot traffic and walk by occasionally. You can also buy some very effective filtering software which allows *you* to make the choice of what content you get filtered to your home and not your government.

This is Mother Fucking Hate Speech

[audj]

What you said isn't actually free speech - your examples involving racist remarks and what those stereotypical groups "want" are considered hate speech. I say this because you're using them in such a way that a Dixie Chicks fanatic might consider them fighting words. Or perhaps that democrat is a boxer and ends up whooping your ass for calling him a pussy. Anything speech that purposefully incites violence is hate speech.

Of course there are other exceptions to free speech, including copyright protection, the Miller test for obscenity and regulation of advertising. There is also the FCC - Federal Communications Commission - whose sole job is to regulate the world we see on radio and TV.

Free speech is a fine, fine line. We occasionally jump back and forth on the issue, but the truth of the matter is that free speech is only free until it infringes on someone else's rights. Also:

Like all other constitutional freedoms, freedom of speech is more a contested terrain than an absolute principle...Internet and new forms of low power radio stations have increased it [freedom of speech]. What steps the courts of the United States will take to enforce freedom of speech depends somewhat on the identity of the judges appointed and the advocates for clients who appear before them.

FYI, since not everyone is from the US here, internationally, the free speech is applied this way:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

(wikipedia.com)

Re:It's a good thing...

[Jerf]

Flip your point around. When are things good enough not to panic?

If you end up proposing a standard that can't be met, then why should I care?

If you propose a standard that can be met, are you sure that it isn't already met?

Progressive

[pkphilip]

Iran is far more progressive than most people know. This is primarily because of the biased reporting by the western media. Iran is one of the few middle-eastern states with a democracy, and also the only one which has allowed women to take on important political positions.

Heck, they even had a lady vice president - something which the US still hasn't!

Iran has just had a round of elections and the Ahmadinejad's government has lost a lot of seats because the Iranian people are losing patience with his desire to inflame the middle-east when the economy itself is in shambles.

All this indicates a fairly strong democracy; and even considering the fact that there is, no doubt, not much openness to dissenting opinion, it is still a far cry from America's primary muslim-majority, middle-eastern ally Saudi Arabia.

Iran and Iraq have both had strong democracies in the past, and these have been mostly undone by the fact that US installed dictators in the place of elected ministers. However, Iran has still managed to retain a democracy.

they might be?

[fantomas]

Conversations with various friends of different nationalities suggest that the UK might have done a better job than the French or the Belgians when retreating from their empires - it would be interesting to examine this further; I think the USA would be wise to learn from these countries mistakes. Anecdotally, it's been suggested that the former colonies of UK are more well disposed towards their occupiers than those of France or Belgium due to some (and definitely not all) of their actions.