Slashdot Mirror
Iran to Filter 'Immoral' Mobile Messages
jb.cancer noted an article running on eweek about plans in Iran to censor phone messages sent within the country. At least it's not quite that bad here yet. But give it a few years!
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Just another trolling, what's better yet is that it was posted in full form and not condensed into simply
"Shocker: Iran censors thier citizens".
*Sigh*, When did slashdot become political? If I want my news with opinions I'll turn on the TV.
And I mean that with the most bitter sarcasm. Insightful? Give me a break! Every time there's a story on censorship you geeks race to try to be the first person to post a variation of the "First they came for..." theme. It's not original, nor is it insightful. It's tired and cliche. If you're really so disturbed by the Iranians censoring text messages, then why don't you go over there and raise hell about it instead of cowering in some server closet tapping out cliches on your keyboard and whoring for mod points?
First they came for the geeks, but I did not object because I enjoyed the fact that b.o. no longer filled the hallways of my office.
Then they came for the dweebs, but I did not object because I did not miss hearing I.T. war stories from days gone by.
Then they came for the nerds, but I did not object because I didn't have a nasally voice.
Then life was grand...
That was the Reagan years, and she did it with other bored Washington housewives, as it was fashionable due to Nancy's whining about drugs.
And really. A but-but-but Democrats! argument? Do you honestly think anyone here gives a shit what party it comes from? The conservative impulse knows no party lines.
Then, they came for the faggy emo kids on Livejournal, and that was awesome.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Now, I agree the original statement here is probably a bit overboard and reactionary, but let us go ahead and examine the trends. Attempts to ban Gay marriage ("immoral behavior") *Check*, Ban gays from the military *check*, Ban porn from the internet *check*, Spy on citizens because they might be related to the boogey man *Check*, Toss citizens in secret prisons to 'interrogate' them without any real charges and identity screwups *Check*, Refusing to allow citizens to travel due to identity confusion on relations to the boogey man *Check again*.
No, we are not Iran, but we are running down that road at breakneck speeds. Both the right and the left have been doing bang up jobs of attempting to legislate morality at every turn and destroying our constitution when they see fit. Eminent domain, banning gay marriage, banning free speech (Free Speech Zones are an absolute admission of this one), controlling the press (FCC nipple fiasco anyone), warrantless searches (phone taps, email taps, and the TIPS program is dangerously close), giant government database to keep track of potential boogey men (TIA), no my friends, our constitution is all but dead. Oh, except for when people are called to testify like good ol Condy, whips out that constitution in a heartbeat and starts talking about how it would be constitutionally wrong if she testified. Bastards, hard to hide behind a shredded paper.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Right... Like the submission was not a call for a "flame". Why don't you shove your stinky moderation system with ridiculous "trolls", etc. up your stiff upper asses?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Humans are the only species that will protect the most dangerous members of the population.
The Secret Service is just doing their job.
The purpose is to remove dangerous members of society from the population. This is because it's far more important to make everyone safe than to not feel guilty for killing someone.
You're begging the question: does the death penalty make everyone safer? Given that every law that can be abused will be abused, do you really feel comfortable allowing government sanctioned murder? If we could trust the government the death penalty would be fine, but we can't so it's not.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Ah, selective name pulling -- what a great way to assess an overall situation!(/sarcasm) Let's pick a bill and look at the actual roll call. How about COPA (HR 3783)? Hmm, this one's a bit tricky because it got merged in with a popular internet commerce bill that banned internet taxes. However, we can look at its sponsor and 65 cosponsors before the merger here. Let's count...
Introduced by: Oxley, Michael G.: R
Aderholt, Robert B.: Republican; Bartlett, Roscoe G.: Republican
Barton, Joe: Republican; Bilirakis, Michael: Republican
Blunt, Roy: Republican; Burr, Richard: Republican
Burton, Dan: Republican; Buyer, Stephen E.: Republican
Callahan, Sonny: Republican; Calvert, Ken: Republican
Christensen, Jon: Republican; Cubin, Barbara: Republican
Danner, Pat: Democrat; Deal, Nathan: Republican
Doolittle, John T.: Republican; English, Phil: Republican
Foley, Mark: Republican (oh, what irony...)
Fox, Jon D.: Republican; Franks, Bob: Republican
Furse, Elizabeth: Democrat; Ganske, Greg: Republican
Gillmor, Paul E.: Republican; Gilman, Benjamin A.: Republican
Gordon, Bart: Democrat; Greenwood, James C.: Republican
Hall, Ralph M.: Democrat; Hobson, David L.: Republican
Hoekstra, Peter: Republican; Hutchinson, Asa: Republican
Istook, Ernest J., Jr.: Republican; Johnson, Nancy L.: Republican
Kasich, John R.: Republican; Kelly, Sue W.: Republican
Kim, Jay: Republican; Largent, Steve: Republican
Lazio, Rick: Republican; Manton, Thomas J.: Democrat
McHugh, John M.: Republican; Metcalf, Jack: Republican
Myrick, Sue Wilkins: Republican; Nethercutt, George R., Jr.: Republican
Neumann, Mark W.: Republican; Norwood, Charles W.: Republican
Pappas, Michael: Republican; Paxon, Bill: Republican
Peterson, Collin C.: Republican; Peterson, John E.: Republican
Pickering, Charles W. "Chip": Republican; Pitts, Joseph R.: Republican
Sandlin, Max: Democrat; Schaefer, Dan: Republican
Sessions, Pete: Republican; Smith, Lamar: Republican
Smith, Linda: Republican; Snowbarger, Vince: Republican
Solomon, Gerald B. H.: Republican; Souder, Mark E.: Republican
Stearns, Cliff: Republican; Taylor, Charles H.: Republican
Upton, Fred: Republican; Watts, J. C., Jr.: Republican
Weldon, Dave: Republican; Weller, Jerry: Republican
Whitfield, Ed: Republican; Wilson, Heather: Republican
(verify parties here) Dems: 6, Repubs: 60. That's a 10:1 ratio. I encourage people do this with other bills. I've done it before -- each time, you find that while there always are a handful of Dems backing it, it's the Repubs that are the drivers behind it. And why should there be any shock about this? "What, the party of the religious right is pro-censorship? Never!"
Why do we get this silly "both parties are the same when it comes to censorship" myth? Two reasons.
1) A few high-profile Dems that do support censorship. These include Tipper Gore (probably the most famous example), Joe Lieberman, and to a lesser degree, Hillary Clinton. However, these are by far the minority.
2) The fact that liberals tend to encourage "political correctness". However, almost never will you see this take the form of censorship. Rather, PC tends to come in the form of guidelines. For example, "In official correspondence, don't refer to short people as "midgets", because this is an offensive term; the term "little people" is preferred." However, almost never will you see anyone introduce legislation anything like "HR. 12345: Protecting Children From The Word 'Midget'". The ones who want *actual* censorship come from the right, 90% of the time. From the left, you get the touchy-feely "please don't use words that offend others, or else... we'll be really hurt" type stuff.
"It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.