Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan To Scour Google, Yahoo For Blasphemy
sv_libertarian sends in this excerpt from an AP report:
"Pakistan will start monitoring seven major websites, including Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, for sacrilegious content, while blocking 17 other, lesser-known sites it deems offensive to Muslims, an official said Friday. The moves follow Pakistan's temporary ban imposed on Facebook in May that drew both praise and condemnation in a country that has long struggled to figure out how strict a version of Islam it should follow. ... 'If any particular link with offensive content appears on these websites, the (link) shall be blocked immediately without disturbing the main website,' [said Pakistan Telecommunication Authority spokesman Khurram Mehran]."
The department that will handle that will one day become larger than the IRS.
So does that mean they are only block my comment from being viewed, but not all of slashdot? I'd like to see how they plan on doing that.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Imagine if these companies sought to block Pakistan or any other Islamic country. There would be uproar and claims of racism, anti-religious behaviour etc. etc. Yet when these same governments block sites for religious purposes it's considered some sort of right to choose (nevermind that it's on behalf of so many whose rights are stomped). I don't have an issue with people blocking their own access out of stupidity, but this idea that they can choose on behalf of others is a reminder of why religious rather than rational reasoning is so dangerous and has no place in politics.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
It must be sad to so terrified that your religion will collapse if you don't control what the adherents read. Any religion that can only survive by censorship is a religion deserving of nothing but absolute scorn and the sincerest wish that it end up in the trash heap of worthless ideas.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Caller: I would like to report a picture of Mohammed with a man's penis in his mouth.
Steve: I see from your caller id that you are calling from the United States.
Caller: Yes, what does that have to do with it?
Steve: I'm afraid kind sir that it is not illegal to show pictures of your prophet performing fellatio on another man.
Caller: This is an outrage! If I was in Pakistan, already six suicide bombers would be dispatched to deal with this blasphemy.
Steve: If you like, I could transfer you to our Public Relations department. Just last week it forced the retirement of a cartoonist and the editing of a South Park cartoon.
Caller: Will there be a fatwah? Or at least the severing of some body part?
Steve: No, I am afraid that is illegal in the United States. But you can be assured the headline on tomorrow's New York Times.
Caller: So this is what has become of jihad. Very well, but want at least one simpering liberal to defend my outrage, and perhaps an Evangelical Christian to call for the banning of homosexuality.
Steve: That will be no problem, sir. Transferring you now...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just because someone is going to get mad, doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. I'll exercise discretion as I please, who are you to dictate your ideas of respect to me?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
If you're running a website, is there a way to detect visitors who are (probably) in Pakistan (like, is there a specific block of IPs that is assigned to Pakistan), to redirect them to a page explaining that you'd rather not risk getting a death sentence from Pakistan, so you are not willing to serve content in that jurisdiction?
I say everyone should just create an Internet Embargo against Pakistan if they're going to be like that. Cut em off.
If he's going to trample on other people's rights over it, you're damn right I should. This isn't about making people mad. I know some Muslims, they're decent enough, and I don't really care for offending people just for the sake of it, but this isn't about offending people. This is about people who want to control other people's inherent right to free speech , and I would rather stand up and say yes, I have free speech, and if you don't like what I, or anyone else, has to say, if you find it offensive, that's fine, you have the right to be offended, but if you want to stop anyone, go fuck a pig. Warning, link NSFP (not safe for Pakistan).
Oh, and maybe your idea that what other people think should influence what I can say is offensive to me, so you should stop.
So, this should be equally offensive to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Those of y’all who consider yourselves believers in a variation of one of those themes, pay attention:
If I were to tell you a story about a talking unicorn who gave a pep talk to the reluctant hero before instructing the hero in how to wield his magic wand, you’d know instantly that I was telling you a make-believe faery tale that has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
If I were to swap out the unicorn with talking shrubbery, you’d still come to the same conclusion, but you’d think it’s a particularly weird story taking even stranger liberties with reality.
But if I were to light the shrubbery on fire, name the hero, “Moses,” and call the wand “The Staff of Aaron,” you’d know that this is the absolute truth, the Word of YHWH, to be accepted uncritically as historical fact. (Exodus chapters 3 and 4, to be specific.) Or, at the very least, it’s some sort of utterly profound morality play from which deep meaning can and should be drawn.
And you’d be a complete and total blithering fucking idiot for doing so.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.