Slashdot Mirror
Iranian Government Cuts Off Internet Access Again
AlbionTourgee writes "It is reported that Gmail and Yahoo mail at least have been blocked in Iran, along with many English-language sites. While news of demonstrations seems to be getting out of the country, the government appears to be trying to prevent people within Iran from communicating and from learning what's happening. It remains to be seen whether TOR and Freenets can be effective to combat this sort of effort to block communications, and whether the general circulation of information about the protests around the world will help."
No, sorry, I disagree. The USA was founded on the premise that human beings have some inalienable rights endowed by their creator. Whether you believe your creator is God, Mother Nature, your Mom & Dad, I believe this in this idea with all of my heart. For hundreds of years it has inspired oppressed people everywhere that their rights are independent of the capricious whims of the current dictator in charge. The Iranian people have a natural right to communicate with one another even if their current turd of a leader does not respect it at this time.
Don't worry, things labeled nukem have a habit of never getting finished.
This is true, but there's also a thing called "personal responsibility". The United States has gotten itself into a massive debt (weakening its status in the world in the process), in no small part because of our propensity to try to protect those inalienable rights for people who aren't even our own citizens.
I wish the people of Iran the best in this situation, but it's really THEIR fight to fight. If there's a small way people in other countries can assist with technology (hosting Tor servers or proxies or what-not), that's great! But individual rights and freedoms are only as "valid" as one's willingness to fight for and demand them. (Even United States law recognizes that people typically have the opportunity to "sign a right away", if they wish to waive it.)
They are the Government of that country, whether or not we happen to agree with their policies. If they want to ban automobiles and have everyone ride around on horses, it is their perogative.
If we follow that logic, then it would have been wrong for Germany's neighbors to make a fuss about how it treated Jews during WWII.
Are you sure that your policy is a good one?
Sorry, no. Moral relativism is complete bullshit. Some things are morally wrong ABSOLUTELY. One of them is supressing your populace's ability to communicate. I'm sick and tired of people justifying morally corrupt behavior just because it's state-sanctioned. Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable. Denying them basic human rights is absolutely not acceptable. Persecution of homosexuality is absolutely not acceptable. EVEN IF ALL THESE THINGS ARE STATE SANCTIONED. I'll take that one step further and say that it is even absolutely morally unacceptable for a radical state to possess nuclear weaponry, even more absolutely morally unacceptable for such a regime to have such unabashed hatred based on another people's religion.
The difference between a state and a mob is that one controls the military and one does not. Simply being a group does not magically grant anyone moral superiority or the ability to redefine basic human rights. Saying that its ok for ANYONE to do that is fucking retarded, and something that is continued by apologists. Your moral 'relativism' is the reason why atrocities like this are allowed to perpetrate.
And if Iran was the USA, you'd have a point.
What part of "inalienable rights" is so hard to understand?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Actually a lot of population of Iran is well educated and some what more liberal than a lot of Arab nations.
You might have seen the protests on the streets a while back. I think you may be under estimating the actually people. Now the current government is lower than what I scrape off my shoe but I think the people are better than you believe.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Rights, inalienable or otherwise, really don't mean a lot to the person holding all of the guns.
That's why the civilian population should be armed.
You can parrot on about your rights as much as you want, but they'll just shoot you in the head.
Yeah, they can shoot me. They can shoot my neighbor and his neighbor as well. Eventually though the population will start shooting back -- provided we are talking about a country where the population has already been disarmed in the name of "safety" or some other such nonsense.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.