Slashdot Mirror
In Iran, Blogging May Be Punishable By Death
An anonymous reader writes "In Iran, crimes such as apostasy (leaving a religion, in this case Islam) and armed robbery are already punishable by death, but a new bill in Iran aims to add to the list 'establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy,' effectively giving the government a free hand in silencing bloggers. The internet is widely used in Iran, despite its previous attempts at censorship. Will this change as the censorship grows more rampant?"
Iran = Let us do what we want and you do what we say or the US will come get you.
US = Let us do what we want and you do what we say or the terrorists will come get you.
Politics of fear: it works. Sadly.
It is time people start learning and using Freenet more.
Everywhere you look, politicos are pushing freedom-restricting legislation for the intertubes.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
The problem you may be having is with your sampling group. Unless you happen to be traveling to Iran itself, the people you are meeting are travelers themselves, and possibly of a different overall mindset than hardliners, who would be less likely to travel. (I base this on my father, an American, who stoutly refuses to travel anywhere requiring a passport, simply because it's "not America")
Yeah, killing thousands of people and destroying their country will help establish a peaceful democracy!
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Actually, it's a Dodge, with a McCain bumper sticker. And he hates Obama for whatever reasons Fox News tells him to.
I notice you had to qualify your statement with "in the Middle East".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
..simply because I've had a boyfriend, I don't think this is particularily surprising. It is a supressive theocracy. Like other theocracies it has no qualms with torturing and even killing innocent people in order to silence criticism. This is common in dictatorships religious or not. The fundamental problem is the dictatorial rule and the regime's complete lack of limits in terms of what lengths it will go to in order to protect its own survival. Soviet was the same. Zimbabwe is the same. The only difference is what excuse these regimes use to justify their crimes. In soviet it was political ideology. In Iran it is religion. In Zimbabwe it is skin colour. What they have in common is that they kill and torture people in order to make the public afraid of organising opposition, their official reasons (religion,economics,race,culture) for doing so have little to do with their actual objectives. It's all about supressing dissidents, all other reasons is smoke and mirrors trying to obscure the true nature of the regime.
They kill robbers, and talk about killing apostates. Other countries kill murderers, and want to kill rapists. There is a difference, but it's not a fundamental difference. It's only a matter of being more moderate or more radical. The values that determine what is a crime and what should be punished by death is slowly changing.
A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period. A civilized country doesn't impose religion on their people, in an way.
Some countries are getting more civilized, for some others it's harder. Anyhow, history has taught us that war doesn't accelerate this process, and some times it makes it go backwards.
I'd have no objection to Iran applying Shariah law. My objection is that they go far over and above Shariah, subverting Shariah and instead practicing "Bid'ah law."
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Dictators usually use the technique of identifying a terrible enemy that only their regime can save country x from.
Not only dictatorships actually, but generally its what dictators do.
The fact is that if Iran stopped saying things like they want Israel to be wiped off the earth, and threatening the west, the problem almost certainly would go away. That's not going to help the regime stay in power though, so they won't want that.
Note that if they really wanted a way to end the tension, Ahmadinejad could have gone another way then declaring that the holocaust was a lie in a worldwide broadcast speech. They want this tension, it serves them well.
They almost certainly realise that the US is extremely wary of invading them, so they know that this technique may serve them for generations to come. The exact same method worked in North Korea. Sure the country's fucked, but the ruling faction are seriously rich, and quite powerful locally.
Unless of course some trigger happy nation or president decides its time to end the argument with a few large nukes. I *really* hope that doesn't happen, because the result may well be bad for the entire worlds population, but sooner or later some jerks going to think its the only way out. Then the question will be who is able to hold said jerk in check.
What worries me is that if the Islamic states continue down this fundamentalist route, they are going to cripple their countries economically as well as scientifically. Given that they were the originators of most of our mathematics and astronomy, that's a tragedy of epic proportions.
As it stands there hasn't been any meaningful scientific research from a middle east nation for decades. Thats bad news for them in so many ways.
Mankind will never advance to the stars if we have two civilisations on the planet. One technologically advanced, and the other technologically illiterate, with each hating the other. That is an untenable situation.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Shariah is the only laws that hasn't changed since the time of Prophet Adam (peace and blessings be upon him and his family).
Unfortunately, the world those laws are applied in has changed. They are in desperate need of an update.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
So true. I wish we could get rid of this idea of "bringing Freedom" to countries that don't have the cultural prerequisites of freedom already growing within them. We might not have won the American Revolutionary War without the help of the French, but we started it on our own. Now if there is sufficient desire by the people of Iran (or any country) for democratic freedom, then they will fight for it. When that fighting starts it would behoove us to aid those fighting for freedom, but forcing freedom upon a nation is such an obvious oxymoron that I am appalled at the way such actions are paraded around like good deeds. If anything, the outside intervention cuts short any building cultural movement towards a democratic state. The Cold War is over, could we please not start another one.
We are all just people.
That was at times contradictory and at others, incoherent i think.
Your challenge is to "move to iran" if we complain? Why? Because we should shut the fuck up and take what we can get and be happy? No.
I also question your various claims about the intent of the constitution with regards to separation of church and state. There are some choice quotes from the time period from various figures involved in the forming of the U.S government who hint and in fact come out and say that there was an intent to keep church and state separate, and that it is reflected if not outright stated in the first amendment.
Poster - when talking about Iran:
I for one am sick and tired of Xian twats going on and on about the "end times." Tell you what - we'll ship you ALL to one spot, and you can kill each other to the glory of your individual gods.
What we REALLY need is a cure for religion.
The question is whether or not this is a casual relationship. Given that the elements in the USA which seem to be the ones advocating chipping down this barrier even just a little bit pretty much want to do that to other civil rights, I think there probably is. Religion, ultimately, wants to base its existence on "things are this way because we said so", which is ultimately incompatible with human-centric, rational governance.
No argument, of course, about USA versus Iran. We're talking level 2 versus level 100000. The Iranian theocracy are nothing but a bunch of murdering thugs.
Separation of church and state anyone?
Yeah, it's almost as if the First Amendment doesn't apply to Iran...
Just like it applies less and less in the US.
Haven't you read any of the records released by the Russians? Nothing would have stopped the collapse and the internal strife of that failed "union" had worn the nation so thin that what we did mattered little.
Reagan's unprecedented arms escalation was the final straw - but he was far from the guy who defeated the USSR - he just happened to be in office when they self destructed (sort of like what the US is doing right now).
In 1977 Jimmy Carter set us on the road to energy independence - and if we had followed his lead we wouldn't need to import oil. King Ronnie the First dumped that series of programs right after he broke up PATCO. So, today we have $4+/gal gasoline, no unions left with any power and the average family hasn't seen an increase in real purchasing power since 1980.
BTW, try a spell checker and using shorter sentences.
The United States and Great Britain have only themselves to blame for the current troubles with Iran. If they had left the democraticly elected govenment inplace instead of overthrowing it in the 1950s and puting a 'tin pot dictator' in charge we would not have this problem today.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Many or all of these things are already punishable by death in Iran if you do them without the internet. Go over there and start distributing literature trying to convert people from Islam to another religion, and you've got a potential date with the executioner.
Hence, it is not blogging that they are making punishable by death. They are simply closing a loophole that may have let yo escape punishment by using blogs instead of, say, print or radio.
If we are going to be upset, we should be upset at apostasy being a capital crime at all, not that they have noticed that blogs can be used for apostasy and are closing that loophole.
Separation of Church and State is by definition secular, since the definition of secular State is one that is not entangled with religion. But if you are implying that it is contrary to or not based on religion, I disagree. The concept in the U.S. developed when the country was almost entirely Christian. James Madison credited Martin Luther's two kingdoms concept, but that was a development of the general two swords approach that was traditional in Western Christianity.
Certainly the modern U.S. version has much more separation than the original medieval one. But the justification is at least as much religious as secular. I'll be speaking from the Reformed perspective. Reformed Christianity is particularly concerned about the impact of sin on human lives, and finding ways to structure society to best protect against it.
Separating religion from governmental power protects both the Church and the State from corruption. In Christian understanding the need for governments is because of human sin. While real Christianity is based on love and proper intent, because of sin we can't rely on these motivations entirely in ordering our society. In order to safeguard human life, we need to set up structures to protect each other. In setting up governmental structures, we need to be aware that members of government are themselves sinful humans, and thus set up the structures in ways that minimize temptations and potential for abuse, and which provide for the maximum degree of accountability for power.
Separation is a key element of this. In areas that do not do have separation, you can see religious leaders who become more politicians than true religious leaders, and politicians who become hypocrites, and do things that are ill-considered in order to curry favor with powerful religious elements. Separation of Church and State is ultimately a protection for the Church. It is also essential for the Church to be able to call the State to account. Basic principles of auditing say that the auditor has to be independent; he can't be overly involved in the authority being audited. For the Church to play its proper prophetic role, holding the State accountable, it has to be reasonably independent of the State.
There are examples of the problems that occur from lack of independence in both Christian and Muslim-majority countries.
The other major concern is religious freedom. Both Christianity and Islam hold that there is no compulsion in religion. Both have also honored this more in the breach than the practice, some to the extent of finding creative interpretations to deny the principle entirely. But setting up structures to protect religious freedom is something that has justification in both of our religions. HIstory is pretty clear that when you give religious leaders too much power, they soon abandon their principles of freedom, finding it too tempting to use force to keep people from making what they see as religious mistakes. You can see this change happen in the lives of famous people such as Augustine and Luther. To avoid controversy I will not cite Muslim examples, but they are certainly there. The safest thing is not to let religious leaders get political power.
Sometimes the most responsible thing to do is accept that something is broken and your attempts to fix it will just make it worse. America can't "fix" the dictatorship in Iran, just like it couldn't "fix" the dictatorship in Iraq. People hate living under a dictatorship, but they hate living under foreign occupation even more.
OK i guess this will be modded as flamebait, but perhaps it's US's responsibility to just stop messing with other countries altogether, no breaking, no fixing, just leaving them alone.
Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
So yea, they are partially to blame but so are we.
What's more is that the only reason the Iranian revolution succeeded is that two philosophically opposed groups joined forces under the belief that "mine enemy's enemy is my friend." Namely the religious right (mullahs, et al) and the radical left (student reformers). Together they were able to kick out the american-appointed dictator (the shaw).
But the students and reformers made a fatal mistake. They thought that once the shaw was out, they would be able to deal with the mullahs. They were wrong, The mullahs quickly kicked their former partner's asses - imprisoning many, killing others. So that by the time the dust had settled, the mullahs (whom live in vast palaces now, and enjoy great wealth against the tenants of Islam, for what that's worth) were solidly in control.
So to say that "they chose to radically overthrow their own government to put that ridiculous religion into power" is categorically false. The only reason the mullahs were able to come to power is because the democratic reformers felt they had no other choice. It wasn't the overthrow of the shaw that put the mullahs into power, it was the power-struggle that followed the overthrow that did it.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
But for our intervention, where would Iran be today?
Probably still a democracy of sorts. Some of the most bloody US meddling has been in South America though. The US criticises Castro (and he is a dictator albeit pretty benign as they go) yet he is Mother Teresa compared to the dictators the US supported in the region.
As for Iran being oppressive, Saudi Arabia is worse, yet is a close US ally. I used to work for an Iranian who fled the regime there and even they said they would rather live in Iran that Saudi Arabia.
Philosophically speaking, it applies to all people, not to just our government; which is why it's appalling when this administration seems to want to apply it only to Americans..and not even all of us.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on