Belarus Bans Use of Foreign Websites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Belarus Bans Use of Foreign Websites

Posted by Soulskill on Monday January 2, 2012 @08:01AM from the technological-island-nation dept.

bs0d3 writes "A new law in Belarus prohibits people from using 'foreign' websites. The law requires that all companies and individuals who are registered as entrepreneurs in Belarus use only domestic Internet domains for providing online services, conducting sales, or exchanging email messages. The tax authorities and the secret police are authorized to investigate violations."

59 of 361 comments (clear)

Geek perspective: websites by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-02 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Belarus is a dictatorship with a history of human rights abuse. All bets are off.
1. Re:Geek perspective: websites by houstonbofh · 2012-01-02 08:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Once SOPA passes, and US companies start to offshore both domain names and hosting, how long before a law like this passes here? Don't say it could never happen. A lot of "nevers" have happened in the past few years. I never thought US Citizens could be dissapeared on US soil either.
2. Re:Geek perspective: websites by Sponge+Bath · 2012-01-02 08:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Belarus is a dictatorship with a history of human rights abuse.
  Well, you certainly don't minsk words.
3. Re:Geek perspective: websites by LordLimecat · 2012-01-02 08:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Criticisms of SOPA or anything else will fall on deaf ears when you lose all perspective and compare the US to a repressive dictatorship.
4. Re:Geek perspective: websites by sortius_nod · 2012-01-02 08:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As a non-American, the US is viewed as repressive, & we all assume the dictatorship bit will come soon (not that it's really needed). More & more the US is looking like 1920's Germany.
5. Re:Geek perspective: websites by dkleinsc · 2012-01-02 09:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  whoosh
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
6. Re:Geek perspective: websites by Hatta · 2012-01-02 09:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As an American, I can assure you that you are absolutely correct.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Geek perspective: websites by roman_mir · 2012-01-02 09:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  On Decembe 31, 2011, Obama gave a black eye to the citizens of USA by signing NDAA with provisions that basically establish martial law and turn Obama into a dictator.
  It's only a matter of time before using a foreign website will be an offense that marks a US citizen as a terrorist.
  No foreign bank wants to deal with US citizens because of Patriot Act. When SOPA or something similar passes, foreigners will start avoiding online US clients and businesses.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
8. Re:Geek perspective: websites by Existential+Wombat · 2012-01-02 09:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Is this a load of .bs ?
9. Re:Geek perspective: websites by PopeRatzo · 2012-01-02 09:25 · Score: 2
  
  The US is an oligarchy with a history of gradual erosion of its founding principles.
  It wasn't that gradual. The ink wasn't dry on the US constitution before US president began engaging in policies and behavior that were counter to founding principles. It's most obvious in foreign policy and wars and imperialism, but you can see it clearly in domestic policy too.
  Fact is, the US constitution isn't nearly the perfect document that you would be led to believe. There are holes you could drive a truck through, not to mention outright hypocrisy. Don't forget that a lot of slaves in the colonies chose to fight against George Washington in the Revolutionary War because it seemed ridiculous to them to fight and die for a regime that embraced slavery.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:Geek perspective: websites by g0bshiTe · 2012-01-02 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  I'd say it's looking more Orwellian for sure. 1920's Germany though is a stretch, I mean you don't really see masses of people rallying behind the government. Hopefully there's alot of my countrymen that feel as I do, and thinks the government needs a gut check.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
11. Re:Geek perspective: websites by cold+fjord · 2012-01-02 09:58 · Score: 3
  
  As an American, I can assure you that you are absolutely correct.
  
  Patriotism is bigotry.
  Little wonder.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
12. Re:Geek perspective: websites by MrBandersnatch · 2012-01-02 09:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I've been avoiding the US since the Patriot act passed - there is no way I want to visit, work-in or deal-with (business wise) people from a country where as a "foreigner" they can lock me up and throw away the key without due process or oversight.
  Dictatorship no......oppressive regime? 'Fraid so!
13. Re:Geek perspective: websites by Mashiki · 2012-01-02 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The US is far from perfect, but saying that it's a dictatorship is far from the truth. Especially if you've never lived in one, or visited one, or even had family who escaped from one. At worst, you're using your statements to push an agenda. At best you're using hyperbole.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
14. Re:Geek perspective: websites by artor3 · 2012-01-02 11:12 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You might want to mention that Obama fought against those provisions, and managed to weaken several key ones, and stated "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens ... doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”
  The Republicans forced this through by attaching these totalitarian provisions to the NDAA (which is passed every year to set the budget for the Department of Defense). The Democrats tried their best to weaken the new provisions - voting all but unanimously against them (the lone bad Democrat was Peterson of Minnesota). In the end, the people to blame are the idiot voters who thought that the Republicans had changed since the Bush years and gave the House back to them in 2010.
  I don't see why you would fail to mention this, unless you were intentionally trying to mislead people about who exactly was behind these new laws.
15. Re:Geek perspective: websites by bfandreas · 2012-01-02 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  As a non-American I can assure you that the US has had darker moments throughout its history and has reinvented itsself quite often. As a nation it is like all nations neither good nor evil. It is true that it currently is in a rough shape, but so is the whole western world. But we've seen worse.
  Idiocracy may seem to be prophetic, but unfortunately it is quite universal, too.
  SOPA doesn't even remotely compare to what is going on in Belarus. The comparision denigrates those who are disappeared at night, a nation living under the heel of a boot and people who have to live in plain sight of that mustache.
  If you want to belittle a whole nation then you should at least add some substance to your poo-flinging.
  
  On second thought, please don't.
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
16. Re:Geek perspective: websites by roman_mir · 2012-01-02 11:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I don't see why you would fail to mention this, unless you were intentionally trying to mislead people about who exactly was behind these new laws.
  - maybe you should actually READ what I linked to, which is my journal entry?
  In fact I mentioned something, but it's the exact problem that I mentioned that you are displaying - being confused by the MSM, which are on purpose make it confusing for some people to understand that in FACT it was Obama who fought...... to EXCLUDE the provisions from the bill that would LIMIT the power against being applied to US citizens (not that these powers should be applied to ANY humans on the planet, but that train left the station back when the 'Patriot' Act was signed).
  Obama fought in order to ensure that the US citizens would in fact be included in the list of people that are targeted by this bill.
  You see, you got screwed by your MSM as I explained in my journal entry. Here is what you should know.
  So, I expect some form of a retraction from you for your false accusations here.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
17. Re:Geek perspective: websites by Bucky24 · 2012-01-02 11:52 · Score: 2
  
  >
  Fact is, the US constitution isn't nearly the perfect document that you would be led to believe.
  True. Though also bear in mind a lot of those holes are because the founding fathers never dreamed of the ability to wrangle words lawyers have developed today. A lot of phrases in the constitution can be interpreted a dozen different ways today simply because the meaning was clear back then and they didn't feel the need to clarify every single thing. I suspect if such a document were written today it would be 100 times as long.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
18. Re:Geek perspective: websites by LordLimecat · 2012-01-02 12:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  AAAAAAAAAND Godwin. I think we're done here.
19. Re:Geek perspective: websites by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-01-02 12:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I actually lived for some time in the US. My perspective is that US is no dictatorship but neither it is a modern democracy as defined by the standard set by modern Western European democracies. I find American political system quite peculiar.
  
  It is quite authoritarian at the federal level, between defacto one party rule (I refuse to consider R and D to be sufficiently different ideologically to be considered distinct parties, they are more like a liberal and conservative wings of the old CPSU) and absolutely mad lobbyism there is a real abyss between ordinary people and what is going on in DC. It's almost a total disconnect like in other authoritarian countries like Russia. It is very different in countries like Norway for instance.
  
  On the other hand below state level it's quite a lively democracy with real political competition and shifting balance of power. And the whole "legislation by court" is a rather unique American thing not present in other countries.
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
20. Re:Geek perspective: websites by roman_mir · 2012-01-02 12:28 · Score: 2
  
  The point that parent was making was in fact nonsense. As to SCOTUS - it's actually not getting enough attention by the public, as the transgressions of SCOTUS allowed the country to descent into totalitarian nightmare, starting all the way back with it not ruling correctly against the power of Federal reserve and Treasury to monetize government debt, print money (and it's nonsense that the Fed is an 'independent bank'), and all of the other stuff, including the violation of the 5th and 13th amendments by not working to strike down the 16th, the SS and Medicare and minimum wage and Patriot Act and TSA and EPA and FDA and all the rest of the destruction of the Constitution. (SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the law, which is the Constitution, but this also must mean it must uphold the Constitution completely, which means preventing new amendments from taking rights of people away that are guaranteed by the previous amendments).
  The Constitution needs to be reworked, but that's not going to happen and it's not going to achieve anything until the current power structure is changed, until people force the politicians to give up powers that they are unauthorized to hold.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
21. Re:Geek perspective: websites by artor3 · 2012-01-02 12:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why would I read a journal entry with such a hyperbolic title as "The End of the Republic"?
  But okay, let's go read it...
  
  [The bill] ends the Democratic Republic of USA and installs a dictatorial power of the 'elected' POTUS.
  Well, that's a flagrant lie, right off the bat. Perhaps you should look up the term "dictatorial"? Also, I like the scare quotes to suggest that Obama wasn't elected.
  
  The MSM propaganda machine has been deployed to ensure that the population of USA (and probably of the world) does not understand that it was the President himself, who required that the current NDAA, which has provisions for 'indefinite detention' of 'suspected terrorists' by the military would also apply these powers against US citizens, which means that at this point the POTUS (any POTUS, Obama or anybody who comes after him), can capture and detain anybody in the world, including US citizens and hold them in military containment without a trial, without even possibility to contact any lawyers for any length of time.
  That is one sentence. Try as I might, I can't parse it. It's an absolute train wreck of missing and misplaced commas and incomplete thoughts.
  
  At this point it is clear that the powers that govern USA are making their last preparations before the USD collapses and ensures the survival of the elite with this dictatorial nonsense and basically establishment of the martial law.
  Uh-huh. Right. The big bad THEY all know that the country is about to collapse, and are thus laying the legal groundwork for the following chaos. Because if the country does collapse, a few words on paper are going to make a difference.
  
  Say hello now to the Fourth Reich
  And there's the Godwin, a great note to end on.
  You are paranoid and delusional. Scream about ad hominems all you like, the fact is you come across as no more trustworthy than the homeless crazy guy a few blocks from my apartment. Come back with sources, or don't come back at all. Better still, seek help from a professional before you hurt yourself or others.
22. Re:Geek perspective: websites by grainofsand · 2012-01-02 13:09 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with this and would add one more observation.
  Americans confuse universal suffrage with democracy. They assume that because leaders are elected that it is a democracy. America has universal (well kinda sorta) suffrage but it is not a democracy.
  
  --
  A dream is good. A plan is better.
23. Re:Geek perspective: websites by houstonbofh · 2012-01-02 13:26 · Score: 2
  
  Most dictatorships start out looking good to the people. Hitler was seen as a hero. Castro was a man of the people. Dictatorships and fascism sneak up while people like you are pointing to straw men.
24. Re:Geek perspective: websites by roman_mir · 2012-01-02 13:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So you call me 'crazy person' instead of taking back all of the nonsense that you've been spewing here.
  Fact - this section, that was in version 4 of the bill is not in the final version (7) of the bill, it's skipped.
  Let's look at the section that is missing from the final bill, and it's taken out by the order of the Obama and his administration:
  
  SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.
  In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--
  (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
  (2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.
  you can continue with your propaganda, that somehow Obama fought the evil Republicans tooth and nail to prevent the bad things from happening to the US citizens.
  But he is the one who forced that section to be taken out, he is the one running the Gitmo concentration camp (as in a prison, where individuals kidnapped by a government force are placed without any lawful recourse, without ability to challenge their confinement in a court system).
  Sure, it says: terrorists, bad people, Al Qaeda.
  I say: anybody who a dictatorial 'elected' official deems to be a bad person, a terrorist, Al Qaeda 'member' or 'sympathizer' (or maybe a relative).
  Just a matter of fact - now POTUS kills so called Al Qaeda members and their children that are US citizens found abroad, given the new power it's just going to be possible to put people into military concentration camps without any legal recourse, including US citizens, eventually those who are in US.
  And I am crazy? OK, now good night, it's very late where I am.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
25. Re:Geek perspective: websites by PopeRatzo · 2012-01-02 13:41 · Score: 2
  
  Though also bear in mind a lot of those holes are because the founding fathers never dreamed of the ability to wrangle words lawyers have developed today.
  
  I'm pretty sure that the guys that wrote and signed the US constitution were plenty aware of lawyers' ability to wrangle words. Those guys could have run rings around the lawyers of today when it comes to as you say, "wrangling words".
  Lawyers were invented well before the late 18th century, and I highly doubt that today's lawyers are more sophisticated at legal argument than the lawyers who were working back in the 1770s and 1780s. They would have eaten guys like John Yoo, Alberto Gonzalez and Antonin Scalia for breakfast. They'd have had chunks of Clarence Thomas in their stool.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
26. Re:Geek perspective: websites by PopeRatzo · 2012-01-02 14:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  but if the founding fathers could "run rings around lawyers of today", don't you think they would have taken the time to be more specific about the wording in the constitution?
  No, because the guys who wrote and ratified the constitution had a LOT of disagreements. We tend to think about the Founding Fathers as this group of guys who all had the same opinions, goals, agenda. It wasn't like that at all.
  Like today, their biggest concern was getting something that would actually pass - actually be adopted.
  The Founders didn't expect their Constitution to last 240 years. Franklin thought that there would be a constitutional convention before the turn of the 19th century, in fact. They just wanted to get it done and get on with it. That's why they left so much to be decided by future Americans.
  Maybe the biggest thing that the Founders did NOT forsee was the huge amount of corporate money that would impact future elections, and just how much it would cost to get elected in the future. They even made sure that the Post Office was subsidized so that there would be a medium for politicking.
  So now, I'd say that we ought to have a constitutional convention except for the fact that we'd be royally screwed because the richest corporations would have an outsized influence on the outcome and we'd get something infinitely worse than what we've got. No doubt about it, we're in a pickle unless we figure out a way to take the direct purchase of government out of the picture.
  It wasn't "the lawyers" who have messed things up for us, it's "the money".
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
27. Re:Geek perspective: websites by flyingfsck · 2012-01-02 16:57 · Score: 2
  
  No, the USA is a democracy, but it is not a Republic, it is a Federation. Some of the US states are Republics, some are a Rechtstaat and some are Free States. These are all different political concepts.
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
28. Re:Geek perspective: websites by grainofsand · 2012-01-02 19:03 · Score: 2
  
  Democracy is government by the people. America is not governed by the people to the extent necessary for it to be considered a democracy.
  For example the majority of the most powerful and important government roles (Secretary of State, Treasurer, Secretary of Defence etc etc etc) are appointed - not elected. That is the opposite of democracy and is a situation that would never be tolerated in most of the world's actual democracies.
  I restate, universal suffrage does not equal democracy.
  
  --
  A dream is good. A plan is better.
29. Re:Geek perspective: websites by Hatta · 2012-01-03 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  This law does not apply to US citizens.
  Do the principles of justice only apply to US citizens? Are foreigners no better than animals to us? This attitude of yours is almost as alarming as the NDAA itself.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Thank you, Belarus by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-02 08:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Thank you for providing us anti-SOPA people with a rhetorical example of an internet rights disaster that is less politically sensitive than China. (Also, it may be time for another revolution.)

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
SOPA by kurt555gs · 2012-01-02 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is different from post SOPA USA how?

--
* Carthago Delenda Est *
1. Re:SOPA by impaledsunset · 2012-01-02 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  SOPA is a tool. If it corresponds to something in Belarus, it's the dictatorship itself.
  The ban on foreign websites as described is just a use of that tool and, yes, an example of how SOPA might be used.
  The possibilities that it opens are frightening, but it's not as bad as what's going on in Belarus already. And the Great Firewall of China might be a better example of how SOPA might be actually used.
Trajic and misguided... by Coldmoon · 2012-01-02 08:09 · Score: 2

This will do nothing more than work to isolate the Belorussians and stifle their growth going forward. Shortsightedness leading to stagnation in the name of security...

--
Coldmoon over Dark water...
1. Re:Trajic and misguided... by OzoneLad · 2012-01-02 11:17 · Score: 2
  
  Look at North Korea.
  I can't. Google Maps won't show me anything but a blank map.
Clueless Government by assertation · 2012-01-02 08:11 · Score: 2

Sound like a country determined to be poor.
1. Re:Clueless Government by assertation · 2012-01-02 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  Governments that make sure their people have their basic needs met and a future can get away with a lot. Think of "bread and circuses" with the ancient Romans......or TV and beer with modern America :). That is something a lot of greedy, power hungry regimes haven't figured out yet.
Dumbshits. by kheldan · 2012-01-02 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you live in that country you may as well just stop using the internet completely then, since it's effectively not the internet anymore, just an extremely small walled garden. Anyone want to take bets on exactly how many weeks this continues before they rescind it? A move like this couldn't be good for any country's economy.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
1. Re:Dumbshits. by Hatta · 2012-01-02 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You assume Lukashenko cares about something other than his own personal fortune and control over his country. This is not the case.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:Dumbshits. by tgd · 2012-01-02 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  If you live in that country you may as well just stop using the internet completely then, since it's effectively not the internet anymore, just an extremely small walled garden. Anyone want to take bets on exactly how many weeks this continues before they rescind it? A move like this couldn't be good for any country's economy.
  Maybe I misread it, but it sounded to me like Belarus companies have to use Belarus domains -- you can't run a site on ilovebelarus.com if you're a Belarus company, but a Belarus citizen can use any non-Belarus sites they want on any URL they want.
Re:Sensationalist Title! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-02 08:12 · Score: 5, Informative

"Additionally, the Law states that the owners and administrators of Internet cafés or other places that offer access to the Internet might be found guilty of violating this Law and fined and their businesses might be closed if users of Internet services provided by these places are found visiting websites located outside of Belarus and if such behavior of the clients was not properly identified, recorded, and reported to the authorities."
From TFA
Re:Sensationalist Title! by Fireking300 · 2012-01-02 08:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

I overlooked that. Alright people downvote me!
Re:They're not banning people from using foreign s by Grishnakh · 2012-01-02 08:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Wrong. From TFA: "Additionally, the Law states that the owners and administrators of Internet cafés or other places that offer access to the Internet might be found guilty of violating this Law and fined and their businesses might be closed if users of Internet services provided by these places are found visiting websites located outside of Belarus and if such behavior of the clients was not properly identified, recorded, and reported to the authorities. The Law states that this provision may apply to private individuals if they allow other persons to use their home computers for browsing the Internet."
If you're not allowed to go to an internet cafe and visit slashdot.org without being identified and reported to the authorities, that sounds pretty close to being banned from using a foreign site to me.
I bet the US by future+assassin · 2012-01-02 08:20 · Score: 2, Funny

will be right over to liberate the Belaruse people.... right over....any time now... oh they only have trees....

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
1. Re:I bet the US by viperidaenz · 2012-01-02 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  Belarus is reliant on Russian oil, They can't manage on their own. They also transport Russian oil and gas further west to the EU. Do you think Russia would like USA to invade one of their biggest oil exports?
2. Re:I bet the US by cyfer2000 · 2012-01-02 10:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Even the name Belarus means "White Russia". Now I hope people could understand the relationship between Russia and White Russia better.
  
  --
  There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
3. Re:I bet the US by Ihmhi · 2012-01-02 22:03 · Score: 2
  
  They named their country after a cocktail?! Classy.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
4. Re:I bet the US by jgagnon · 2012-01-03 07:09 · Score: 2
  
  That's pink... the land of pink.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
5. Re:I bet the US by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-04 12:17 · Score: 2
  
  Kievan Rus was a predecessor state to Ukraine and Belarus (via Grand Duchy of Lithuania) as well as Russia (via Grand Duchy of Muscovy). It doesn't really make much sense to state that Russia is Rus' exclusively.
  So, no, the two words aren't quite the same.
Re:They're not banning people from using foreign s by ZorinLynx · 2012-01-02 08:27 · Score: 2

I get the impression that this only applies to commercial transactions... So visiting Slashdot alone probably won't run afoul of the law, but donating money to Slashdot might.
Either way this law is ridiculous. Trade is a good thing; they're basically cutting themselves out of the global market.
Alexander Lukashenko by sirdude · 2012-01-02 08:27 · Score: 5, Informative
For those who are unaware, Belarus is ruled by a turd named Alexander Lukashenko. He's been their president since 1994 and initially increased presidential term limits from the standard five years to seven and later removed presidential term limits altogether.
Some of his memorable moments include:
1. He warned that anyone joining an opposition protest would be treated as a "terrorist", adding: "We will wring their necks, as one might a duck".
2. Addressing the "miserable state of the city of Babruysk" on a live broadcast on state radio he stated: "This is a Jewish city, and the Jews are not concerned for the place they live in. They have turned Babruysk into a pigsty. Look at Israel—I was there and saw it myself ... I call on Jews who have money to come back to Babruysk."
3. "My position and the state will never allow me to become a dictator, but an authoritarian style of rule is characteristic of me, and I have always admitted it. You need to control the country, and the main thing is not to ruin people's lives."
... and so on.
In other words, such stories while shocking are, IMO, hardly surprising ...
1. Re:Alexander Lukashenko by bfandreas · 2012-01-02 10:49 · Score: 2
  
  He is the last dictator on the European continent and one of the most despicable persons ever treading into a dog turd. If he died today the reaction wouldn't be as polite as with the death of Kim Jong Il. If he were on fire he would be doused by being wanked upon by any passer-by. I actually think of his mustache burning up in a kerosene propelled fire as sexually arousing.
  The really intersting thing here is(hence the dog turd reference) that lukasenkos is actually the ancient Greek name for the shade of white a dog turd becomes once it has bleached sufficiently in the sunlight.
  Now why would such a great man like him shun anything that has to do with freedom of speech? I can not imagine why.
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
no iran and / or NK may be the next place to get by Joe_Dragon · 2012-01-02 08:30 · Score: 3, Funny

liberated!!
We're Number Two! by Bob9113 · 2012-01-02 08:42 · Score: 4, Funny

We're Number Two! We're Number Two!
Yeah, Baby! We are now only the second stupidest country on the planet regarding writing Internet laws that completely misunderstand how the Internet works. Thanks Belarus! You've shown that our politicians are not quite the most ignorant twits in positions of power on Earth!

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Sensationalist Title! by aenigmainc · 2012-01-02 08:45 · Score: 2

I guess there won't be any WOW players in Belarus
Re:Belurusan World Web by anomaly256 · 2012-01-02 08:49 · Score: 2

Because the law says websites, not ftp or irc servers! Teehee..
Re:Sensationalist Title! by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-01-02 08:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Fortunately the country's benevolent leadership has created "Worlds of Belarus", which provides Belarusian youth with hours of endless online fun!
Activities include marching, buying bread, and standing in line. As you gain experience levels, you can compare how short Belarusian lines are compared to those in corrupt western states.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Sensationalist Title! by Raenex · 2012-01-02 14:24 · Score: 2

Where is this list of blocked websites in the USA?
You have to wait for SOPA to pass first. In the meantime, there's always domain seizures.
Re:Go troll somewhere else. by Joe+U · 2012-01-03 03:22 · Score: 2

I don't think it's open to impressions or interpretations. It's very clearly spelled out what the Bill of Rights is and what their intention was.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the intention of the amendments were to grant rights, then 9 and 10 would not be necessary, or they would use terms like specific and defined rights.
The intention of the Bill of Rights was to set a series of rules that the government can not break. The fact that they find ways around most of them I chalk up to human nature. We are still seeking a more perfect union.