Slashdot Mirror
"Liberated" Tunisia Still Censoring Websites
In Tunisia, where dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was ousted one year ago amid hopes for a new era of freedom, the high court will decide on Wednesday whether to censor foreign pornographic websites in accordance with local law. Facebook pages that "call for violence" may also be blocked. Conveniently, all the machinery for censoring the Internet in Tunisia is already in place, having been installed under Ben Ali's dictatorship for the purposes of censoring and spying on Tunisian citizens (and, for a while, phishing their Facebook passwords). The irony recalls the situation in Iraq in 2009, when the government announced plans to start censoring foreign websites -- to which Iraqi citizens complained that they thought censorship would end with the fall of Saddam's regime. Actually, apart from the three outlier countries of Turkey, Israel and Lebanon, pornography remains illegal in every Middle Eastern country (and some conservative African nations), including the recently "liberated" ones including Egypt, Iraq and Tunisia. (Although, Iraq's street market in pornography thrives as long as the police have better things to do.)
I'm against such censorship in principle -- I think that even the right to publish and access pornography counts as a fundamental human right. But I think we have to take what progress we can get, and censoring just pornography and calls to violence, is a big improvement over censoring pornography and dissident political speech, which is the norm in most non-"liberated" Middle Eastern countries like Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Syria blocks foreign opposition sites like All4Syria.info, Iran blocks Facebook and YouTube to keep dissidents from posting or viewing anti-government material, and Saudi Arabia blocks Reporters Without Borders and filters the Amnesty International report on human rights in Saudi Arabia (but not the rest of the Amnesty International site!).
Saudi Arabia blocking the Amnesty International report on human rights in their country (while leaving the rest of the site unblocked), in particular, seems like the kind of thing that a government would do more as a "fuck you" to human rights activists, than a means to achieve a practical goal. For one thing, most of the facts in the human rights report about Saudi Arabia -- about sex discrimination and lack of political and religious freedom -- are already well known to the people who live there. And secondly, what percent of the citizens of a country would ever read the Amnesty International report on human rights in that country, even if it were not blocked? How many Americans even know that Amnesty puts out an annual report about human rights violations in the United States? So it seems more like a symbolic move to remind everyone who's in charge. For all the disappointment in the lack of progress for free speech in post-"liberation" countries, the non-"liberated" ones are indeed worse.
As for the Tunisian proposal to censor "calls to violence", I wouldn't always be against that, even in principle. In most countries, direct incitements to violence can be considered illegal (it depends on what you say and, of course, on what judge you get). In a developing country rife with ethnic tensions, even greater restrictions on calls to violence could be justified. When you finally watched Hotel Rwanda , weren't you hoping someone would bust in on that radio DJ telling everyone to kill Tutsis in the middle of a civil war, and blow him to hell? The biggest problem with a rule against "calls to violence" is that the government could stretch the definition to silence political speech. But it's possible to keep that kind of abuse in check, as has mostly been achieved in the U.S. For that, what you need is an independent judiciary, not an abolishment of all rules against calls to violence.
So the free-speech situation in "liberated" Tunisia may be nothing to write home about, but it sounds much better than it used to be, when writing home to complain about it could get you arrested. A Wall Street Journal article from July 2011 describes how, under Ben Ali's dictatorship, Tunisian cyber-activist Slim Amamou had been imprisoned and abused by the police for calling for peaceful demonstrations. Post-revolution, he was freed and asked to join the interim government, where the strictest restriction placed on him was to "stop sending Twitter messages during internal government meetings to his 25,000 followers". They may not have their porn, but that's still progress.
Of course, if someone in Tunisia wants to circumvent the government filters (using tools like proxy sites, VPNs, Tor, UltraSurf, Psiphon, etc.) and get to a porn site, more power to them. I just wouldn't make it a priority to set aside resources to help them get it. Not while there are Iranians who need help getting around the latest restrictions blocking them from Facebook and Gmail.
Two caveats. First, if someone wants to sell circumvention services to Tunisians who just want to get around the porn blocker, that doesn't count as "setting aside resources", so that's a perfectly noble endeavor. In fact, given the economies of scale in the circumvention business, selling to Tunisians could help to bring the price down for other users, including users in countries like Saudi Arabia where the government does engage in political filtering, and where circumvention services could be a tool for social change. Second, providing circumvention services (free or paid) to Tunisians, does probably make it less likely that the new government would revert to political censorship, knowing that many of its citizens have the tools to beat it, even if those tools are only currently used to access porn sites. So to that extent, setting aside resources to provide circumvention services in Tunisia might be a worthwhile cause.
Still, I think it's a lot less important than using circumvention tools to fight political censorship in truly autocratic countries like Iran. For the next generation of proxy servers that I'm rolling out, I'm working on setting aside some of them just for Iranian IP addresses. Even if Iranians just use them to get on Facebook, that's still contributes more to advancing the cause of social democracy, than Tunisians using them to get on Playboy.
censoring should not exist on the Internet...except for child pornography. Those people should fucking die on a pole. Vlad Drakul style.
Why is the word liberated in quotes in the article title? Sure, Libya is free from Ghaddafi (sp), but it still is and will remain a Muslim country, where such censorship would be normal.
Only small children or political naivetes would be surprised at this.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Don't be like the welfare program, which drops you when you save a couple bucks and have a chance of getting out of your predicament in order to guarantee a voting bloc which will continue to vote democrat in order to secure their benefits. Keep providing the assistance that the people need to gain their freedom!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Muslim brotherhood" . this is the organization behind all those 'revolutions' within n. africa and arabia. no exceptions : in libya they got the upper hand and immediately moved to sharia. in egypt, they were the main driving force, but was not the majority, hence they only were able to 'call' for a sharia government. in syria, they are the ones perpetrating the revolution. all of the 'revolutions' involve usage of social media and internet as you can remember - they were prepared for this. they are known to be working in libya for a decade now.
Read radical news here
I'm against such censorship in principle -- I think that even the right to publish and access pornography counts as a fundamental human right.
I don't understand this escalation from liberty to "fundamental human right." It's a liberty we enjoy ... I don't think tax payers should be paying for prisoners to have access to pornography nor do I think such taxes should be used to hand out pornography like we do with food stamps or welfare. Food, shelter, water. Those are basic fundamental rights ... not access to pornography. I think you meant to say "a liberty" and that you don't think it has any moral repercussions. I might just be nitpicking but what do you mean when you escalate it to "fundamental human right"?
My work here is dung.
Yes, censoring shouldn't exist. Like censoring when someone calls for the assassination of the president, and maybe all the rest of Washington's elected officials, of all abortion doctors you can think of, of all Jews, of all right wing americans who start wars, against all drug dealers and everything else I've forgotten. For good measure this should be done from a CBSABCFOX broadcast at 8 in the evening in a nationwide program with lots of "fuck", "piss", "cunt" and "barf" thrown in to a standing picture of the goatse man.
I mean, there is no child pornography in there and it shouldn't be censored, right.
Face it: EVERY society censors. No exceptions. First Amendment is a nice little bit of paper, but nothing more.
As others have pointed out, what does censorship have to do with whether a regime is tyrannical or popularly supported?
You can be pretty sure that a 'revolutionary' is against the previous regime and at least some of its policies; but that's about all the assurance you get.
It's not as though every revolutionary is magically also an Enlightenment libertine or something... It'd be nice; but that just isn't how it works.
Now, seeing as these particular revolutionaries are intimately familiar with the fact that a technological system of censorship, once established, can be used to suppress more or less any category of material with equal ease... there isn't anything architecturally different between the tools needed to block pictures of naked people and the tools needed to block pictures of the interior ministry special squads executing people, nor is there much besides dropping in a new dictionary file that separates squelching 'incitement to violence' from squelching 'criticism of the state'; one would hope that they would understand that such a system is simply too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Even if they get to bask in the warm glow of saving the children from smut today, they'll be maintaining and improving the system that will be turned back against them as soon as the wind shifts.
My money is on 'Ha. Ha. No they won't. "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?! wins every time"'. A pity
This is actually forgivable compared to how the Saudi public is using their internet freedom: tens of thousands have joined a Facebook page calling for a journalist to be executed for dissing Mohammed. At least this is a post-revolution law aimed at trying to restore civil order. Whether done right or not, at least the purpose is justifiable (which means hopefully there can be good faith negotiation on how to make it work).
I think everyone would agree that true child pornography should be banned, as it actively harms a child. Should drawings or depictions of illegal activities, such as child pornography or rape in general, be banned? I've heard the argument that it will encourage people to commit these crimes. How are these depictions any different than free-speech-protected hate speech? How are they different than grand theft auto style video games? Should a movie scene depicting violence be banned because it may encourage violence?
AC because people are crazy when CP comes up.
"Muslim brotherhood" . this is the organization behind all those 'revolutions' within n. africa and arabia. no exceptions : in libya they got the upper hand and immediately moved to sharia. in egypt, they were the main driving force, but was not the majority, hence they only were able to 'call' for a sharia government. in syria, they are the ones perpetrating the revolution. all of the 'revolutions' involve usage of social media and internet as you can remember - they were prepared for this. they are known to be working in libya for a decade now.
Okay, I Googled it, found the Wikipedia page and found their response to your criticism interesting:
According to authors writing in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine Foreign Affairs: "At various times in its history, the group has used or supported violence and has been repeatedly banned in Egypt for attempting to overthrow Cairo's secular government. Since the 1970s, however, the Egyptian Brotherhood has disavowed violence and sought to participate in Egyptian politics." Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, calls it "conservative and non-violent". The Brotherhood has condemned terrorism and the 9/11 attacks.
The Brotherhood itself denounces the "catchy and effective terms and phrases" like "fundamentalist" and "political Islam" which it claims are used by "Western Media" to pigeonhole the group, and points to its "15 Principles" for an Egyptian National Charter, including "freedom of personal conviction... opinion... forming political parties... public gatherings... free and fair elections..."
Yeah you used that scary word "sharia" and then oh god no they're Muslim. They must be evil. Well, you know, I know some of the other countries in the world see our Republican party as conservative and threatening to enact similar scary laws against gay marriage and even are seen as violent war mongers.
But as long as Democracy is in place and the elections are rigged and voters aren't threatened or coerced then we have the ability to change that. At one point in our own nation's history, people were voting in politicians who were okay with slavery! Imagine that!
Some people in these country want sharia law and if that's what their politicians are running on and win on then that's how democracy is supposed to work. Just so long as the voters can always change it.
I know it's hard for Americans to grasp this but "Democracy" doesn't mean that whoever you think is best should win the vote in foreign countries.
My work here is dung.
there is nothing the oppressed wish to become so much as the oppressor.
Dog is my co-pilot.
We were the first ones that were liberated by the USA and you haven't done a proper job with it. Germany censors many things (also hate speech) you mentioned and even most western music on Youtube.
So before you start to work on Tunisia, please think about Germany.
The headline just betrays an ignorance where Western ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy are assumed to be shared by Muslims no differently than others. But as the revolution not just in Tunisia, but also in Libya, Egypt, as well as elections in Kuwait and Morocco have shown, giving Muslims freedom simply means making them free to declare their countries islamic theocracies, and this in turn implies a curb, rather than a resurgence, of individual and collective freedoms.
Unlike Libya, Tunisia didn't have a real revolution. The military still rules the country, it just changed its unpopular puppet to a new one.
I'm sorry for posting OT (and such a stupid question, too), but my mod points will expire soon. If there's a better place to ask, please let me know (I don't think it rates as an FAQ suggestion.)
I have recently gotten mod points for the first time.
I see the dropdown box under comments. I select, say, Insightful on a +3 posting. But the score does not change. /. still tells me I have all 5 mod points left.
I tried reloading, waiting overnight and 2 browsers (Firefox and current Opera; Linux). For testing, I allowed all scripts.
How is it supposed to work? Just the dropdown box, and as soon as you select an entry, the moderation takes effect?
I'd be grateful for any helpful suggestions about what I'm doing wrong. I have read the FAQ and moderation guidelines.
It seems to me the current "liberation" as understood by Tunisians might be defined as freedom from Ben Ali and his family and associates, whereas "liberation" as understood by the author is defined as having the freedoms enjoyed by a handful of secular Western nations. So what we have here is some calling the first steps out of their shackles a liberation, and then someone else saying "you're not out of the prison yet." Maybe they're both right but they're looking at different goalposts.
If we adhere to the author's standard for "liberated" then very few countries can be described as "liberated" without the "quotation marks of irony". Not that I disagree with the sentiment, it's good to hold countries to higher standards, but just as parent post says, putting the word in quotes implies the author was somehow expecting a very improbable thing.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Freedom and liberation are relative terms. For that part of the world they've got about as much freedom and liberty as any country in the region is going to allow. This is the same neck of the woods where people are arrested in foreign countries and returned home to be executed for tweeting their thoughts.
This area has thousands of years of tradition of people having little in the way of rights, education or choice and that isn't going to be overcome in the tiny 'revolutions' that are occurring. All they are doing is replacing one oppressive regime with another.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Yes, the dropbox selection is all that is needed. I only had your problem when working behind a company filter (shocking I know). Possibly something do do with how form posting is handled. Not my specialty, try a different login location/server if you can.
Firefox generally works better than IE, but I have not tried Opera.
Thanks. I use an ordinary connection: PC behind consumer router. I'll wait for other comments; as a last resort, I'll try upgrading Firefox (risking broken plugins; Opera is current already).
That's the real problem.
Just because governments change doesn't mean cultures have to.
Regards;
Depending on which interface you are using, you may need to scroll to the bottom of the page where you'll see a moderate button.
[FUCK BETA]
I'm pretty sure "calls to violence" are not legal speech in the West, either.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
It's interesting that while _everyone_ on Slashdot has read "1984", it seems that no one has read "Animal Farm".
Last I checked, the US Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, and is thus subjected to local "community standards" and jurisdictions. Before everyone gets all outraged that Tunisia bans pornography (and likely overreaches), maybe you should look at your own laws first.
Here is the reality: societies with oppressive governments, be they dictators or pseudo-democrats, have oppressive governments because they have oppressive cultures.
Revolution is an opportunity for small, marginal political change. Yes, Russia is not quite an unfree as it used to be, and Iraq is slightly less free, but neither of these countries compare with freedom in the West (or even when compared with some countries in South America like Chile). Until their oppressive cultures change, government there will not change much.
This should be kept in mind when trying to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of military intervention in foreign countries to achieve political change.
Ding! We have a winner... and a fool. Thanks! I'm using the Classic Discussion System.
muslim brotherhood is the mirror of an organization that is present in my country. dont tell me what it is. its everything islam, sharia is to be, however yet watered down FOR NOW, so that they will be readily accepted by mainstream. once they have the majority in a country, it turns upside down. like it happened in my country. as you can understand, im not american.
Read radical news here
You have a limited number of mod points, and thus they do not apply until you apply them. There should be a button at the bottom of the page.
Heh. I invariably moderate, then forget to press the button when I get to the bottom, if I haven't closed the tab in disgust by that point.
[FUCK BETA]
In regards to the previously mentioned Ohio law, it was passed last year in part of a "defense of 'traditional' marriage" legislative package intended to keep homosexuals from wedding.
Ohio passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage being between a man and a woman in 2004 - eight years ago. No statutory law would have greater power to define or limit marriage than the state constitution.
Furthermore, guardians are court appointed and have to make regular reports to the court about the status of the ward and their property. What judge wouldn't consider it a direct conflict of interest for a guardian to marry a ward? Do you think the judge would find the guardian swearing that he really loves his ward and isn't at all doing it to get at the minor's property to be in any way serious or believable and not at all unethical? If teachers can't date students that are technically adults, what makes you think a guardian could date and marry a ward who is a legal minor given the higher duty of a guardian?
GUARDIANSHIPS
The term 'irony' doesn't even begin to describe the situation there.
I think the term "pure BS" most likely describes what you wrote. Any lie will do to further the cause of "gay marriage", I guess.
And yes, "gay marriage" will have wide spread impact, including school curriculums taught to students about expected behaviors and attitudes, and will bring increasing conflicts between established constitutional rights and those stemming from a newly manufactured right to gay marriage. Think of all the peace and agreement that Roe v. Wade brought to American society, and double it.
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
Lesbian Divorce Shocker
'Poster couple' for gay rights in California is divorcing
The rhetorical and legal machinery that is being used to punch down society's laws and customs will leave a big enough hole that much more mischief will follow. Polygamists are already filing lawsuits using the same legal theories used to support gay marriage, and support for the normalization of pedophilia is entering the stage that homosexuality was in 50 years ago. These battles will only get worse.
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