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

[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: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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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

[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.

"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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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!