Slashdot Mirror
Internet Censorship's First Death Sentence?
mrogers writes "A journalism student in Afghanistan has been sentenced to death by a Sharia court for downloading and sharing a report criticizing the treatment of women in some Islamic countries. The student was accused of blasphemy and tried without representation. According to Reporters Without Borders, sixty people are currently in jail worldwide for criticizing governments online, fifty of them in China, but this may be the first time someone has been sentenced to death for using the internet. Internet censorship is on the rise worldwide, according to The OpenNet Initiative."
True, but considering the country was recently 'liberated' and democracy was 'brought' to it, it is a little weird.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
No, let's say thank "god" no one was ever killed on behalf of religious skepticism, or agnosticism, or whatever you call it.
Any kind of blind belief, where faith never bends to reason, is evil, no matter if it's faith in Islam or Jesus Christ.
Robert Heinlein said it best, in "If This Goes On -":
"Yet you are willing to assert your own religious convictions and to use them as a touchstone to judge my conduct. So I repeat: who told you? What hill were you standing on when the lightning came down from heaven and illuminated you? Which archangel carried the message?"
"I believe that a man has an obligation to be merciful to the weak
"I believe very strongly in freedom of religion - but I think that that freedom is best expressed as freedom to keep quiet. From my point of view, a great deal of openly expressed piety is insufferable conceit."
If the nation that is voting is that fractured, it has no business being a nation
Alas if it is left alone, we get a repeat of the same situation that led to the reason we had to 'help' [koff] them in the first place.
The Taleban used to execute women for, well, pretty much anything. That's not good, but neither is it representative of the entire population.
The problem is, there are a fair few million people who are Afghans, and they'd rather not leave, what with it being their ancestral home of many tens of thousands of years. What do you think would happen if, say, Utah lost proper government for a while and became a place ruled purely by the whims of religious men with absolute power and no desire to let things change?
Do you think the normal folk in Utah would all think it was ok to leave and let the state collapse/be fenced off? Or that they might perhaps want a little help to sort things out.
What is WRONG with you people--you jingoists, you untiring flag-wavers, you twin-tower-tattooing rednecks, you support-the-war-or-you-aren't-a-patriot fucks?
There's a certain segment of the population that just likes things to be simple. They don't understand the world, and they don't want to. They rely on the President or Bill O'Reilly, or hell, even Susan Sarandon to tell them what's right. If the leadership tells them something simple like "we gotta get them terrorists" they'll defend that forever. Questioning that would be going down the path of trying to understand something they don't want to.
Everyone does that to SOME degree with some topic. If my mechanic started talking about how bad Chevy transmissions are compared to Ford transmissions, and how Chevy was a rotten company for making bad transmissions, my eyes would glaze over, especially if I heard all the time how great Chevy transmissions are from my friends, family, etc. Obviously I think international politics are more important than transmissions... but my point is there's a certain amount of willful disengagement with the populace.
Your message is right, but your approach is wrong. You sound like Ron Paul (in the sanest thing he's ever said) talking about Iraq at the Republican debate the other night. People, at least in the US, don't like to listen to ranting and raving people. It doesn't matter what they're saying, it's just an automatic "this guy sounds crazy, whatever he's saying is crazy".
AccountKiller
people lead themselves into tyranny when they get themselves into the mindset that personal self-defence is not the single most important; fundamental; inalienable and absolute right that exists for all.
Totally agreed.
However, accept that you're going to get royally fucked unless you're in the majority. Your rights are great and all, but the herd hates a mutant.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
His hope springs from the fact that there are others in this world who are aware that the only way to keep tyranny at bay is to be prepared to fight it. "Si vis Pacem? Parabellum!".
Your Orwellian rant is the speech of a man who expects always to be in the majority, and expects others to protect him if he's not. While your attitude may serve you in a pluralist democracy, it hinges on the existence of the men whom you despise - men who understand that vigilance is not just a necessary evil, but a way of life.
Vigilance and self defence do not mean having a private arsenal in a concrete bunker, and being paranoid of anyone who comes near you. They DO mean keeping informed of the world around you, being ready to defend yourself and others, and seeking to cultivate similar attitudes in those around you. It can be as simple as starting a neighbourhood watch, or as complex as organizing an armed neighbourhood militia to defend your streets, as some of your fellow citizens had to do recently in Louisiana. Ask yourself, how well could you provide for your family tomorrow if a New Orleans scale disaster hit your city? Only fools and sheep depend on others for their defence. It's YOUR life! Protect it!