Slashdot Mirror


Syrian Blogger Sentenced to Three Years in Jail

blind biker writes "The AP reports (via the Herald Tribune) of Tarek Bayassi, a 24-year old Syrian blogger sentenced to three years in jail for 'undermining the prestige of the state and weakening national morale.' The original sentence was six years but it was commuted on appeal. Apparently, this isn't an isolated case in Syria."

3 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. I'm not any error Cham train! by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Better story about Tariq Bayassi here:
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.almarfaa.net%2F%3Fp%3D117

    His "Free Tariq" site:
    http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://ahmadblogs.net/freetariq

    The problem I have with all of this is that we simply don't have very much evidence to go on as spectators. If someone was being brought up on trumped up charges, it would make a difference to me whether he was Fred Phelps or Fre Rogers. Justice should be blind, but sometimes taking the blindfold off and snuffing out truly vile people for the sake of the rest of us.

    There isn't enough information at all about Tariq that is easily available, so we don't know if he was just bad mouthing Assad or if he was organizing assassination attempts on the President. Without context, I guess we should just cry for Free (as in Speech) Speech.

  2. He had a trial, at least. by glgraca · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least they gave him a trial.

    People are being freed from Guantamo after 6 years without ever even having being charged with anything. Can you imagine the torture of not even knowing when you are going to get out?

  3. Re:somebody should explain the court by adpsimpson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is actually very insightful.

    The point of free speech is more than just to allow anyone to say their bit. It includes the fact that reasoned and fair debate will do more to undermine any truly dangerous people than any system of censorship could.

    There are many examples of this, but the one that springs to mind is BNP (British National Party - right wing skinheads aka Neo Nazis in the UK) being invited to open debates versus simply being sidelined. Every time they are invited to express themselves and engage the mainstream media, they make complete fools of themselves, proving themselves to be nothing more than racist skinheads. Banning them would fan the flames - allowing them free (even if racist and offensive) speech does far more to kill their support.

    Suppression of an ideology almost always does more to drive people towards it than free discussion.

    --
    Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
    John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."