Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pakistan Blocks Twitter Over 'Blasphemous' Images

Posted by timothy on from the omnipresent-omnipowerful-omniscient-government dept.

Diggester writes with this news from the Times of India: "Pakistani authorities on Friday further widened the crackdown on websites with blasphemous contents by restricting access to popular social networking website Twitter. Pakistani users were unable to log into Twitter after internet service providers blocked access to the site." The block was prompted by Twitter's refusal to take down messages promoting a cartoon contest to which the Pakistani government objects for its depictions of Muhammad. This end-run falls right in line with the pessimistic reaction from Reporters Without Borders to the Pakistani court decision calling Internet censorship unconstitutional.

6 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Blocked for being post-mediaeval by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pakistan blocks yet another place for failing to obey diktats from the stone-age. Maybe they'll just discard everything with origin from the Renaissance onwards.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True religion at work.

      Superstition is slavery.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Superstition is nonsense, unsupported by evidence and therefore deserving NO respect.

      If it's not truth then propagating it is bad, end of story.

      The only people who defend superstition ARE superstitionists. I have no use for the unsupported beliefs of flat-earthers.

      Prove a deity exists and I'll recant then grovellingly kiss his/her/it's Noodly Appendage. Until then, fuck off.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most atheists fall into the disbelief category and have more in common with religious believers than they are willing to recognize.

      I've found the reverse to be true. Atheism covers a pretty broad range. As with religious believers, there'll be plenty of atheists who don't realize how stupid it is to voluntarily assume the burden of evidence. If some guy tells me that he's in personal communication with Grabxil, Supreme Warlord of Venus, then why should I be the one paying for the ticket to visit Venus in order to disprove this guy's existence?

      Of course it also depends on the nature of the God. In internally inconsistent god (all forgiving, yet refuses to forgive certain actions) is not disproven, but certainly cannot reasonably exist. Believers will most likely adopt special pleading or interpret away these inconsistencies. Why does a loving God send us to Hell? Why, he doesn't! We send ourselves there. Why was a loving God such a cunt back in the Old Testament days? Well, it's obviously because the Hebrews were barbaric, and for some reason or other God had to abide by that. Hey, perhaps it's all about free will and stuff? Why does an all loving god permit suffering to exist? Well, that's definitely free will, isn't it? Hey, it's the corruption of the world cause by man. Yep, your child is dying painfully of leukemia because two simpletons a few thousand years ago had a fruity snack, and certainly God couldn't possibly intervene to avoid blaming the innocent for something done by someone else. That's how the stuff goes.

      From personal experiences, it's pointless trying to disprove the existence of gods. One can spend hours debating, running through arguments and "evidence", to end up with the frustrating last ditch defense that it requires faith. Fuck it, why not just say that right from the beginning! You have no evidence, and you believe this because you have faith - fine. Then why waste time with this evidence and these fancy arguments you picked-up from a William Lane Craig book, when they're simply not relevant to why you personally belief this stuff? I can see the value in Jeff Dee's approach of asking people to provide their best argument first. What is it that actually makes them believe in their God - not what is it that they think will convert me?

      Put another way, not believing in God/god(s) is not the same as believing there is/are no God/god(s).

      Not even in the same league. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet a lack of evidence is reasonable grounds to assert disbelief. Let's say a guy is claiming that his car can fly. He believes this to be true, and I feel confident in asserting the opposite. He tells me that he can't give me a demonstration because the government radar will detect him. He claims the car has a super secret CIA made engine. I pop the hood and see nothing out of the ordinary. Overall, this appears to be a regular Chevy. Is my disbelief of his flying car the same as his positive beliefs? If not, then why is this any different to a belief in gods?

    4. Re:Blocked for being post-mediaeval by dissy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Once you understand why you reject all other gods as possible, you will understand why I reject yours.

  2. Re:Free speech? by Psyborgue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. We're allowed to be disgusted, just as Muslims are allowed to be disgusted. What we aren't allowed to do is go rioting through the streets, stabbing people, killing the artists, burning down embassies, and causing actual physical harm to others in retaliation. When was the last time you saw a Jew do that over a holocaust cartoon?