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.

12 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 K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Informative

      How can he be "theophobic" when he does not believe in all that crap? You can't be afraid of something you know that does not exist.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. 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."
    4. 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?

    5. 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:Whoah... hold up by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative

    The story is that this ban is illegal according to a recent Pakistani court ruling, not that they're upset about depictions of Muhammad. After the Danish cartoonist thing, that's kind of old hat.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  3. Re:This is none of your fuckin business by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.

    I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.

  4. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day by Nova+Express · · Score: 5, Informative

    I almost missed that it was back again today. I participated in 2010, but nobody seemed to be doing it in 2011. Glad to see it's back, and I would have missed it if Pakistan hadn't brought attention to it.

    Everybody Draw Mohammed Day serves three important purposes:

    1. It reaffirms that the First Amendment is alive and well, and that the United States legal system cannot, should not, and will not knuckle under to transnational demands for Sharia-compliant suppression of "blasphemy" as defined by oppressive theocratic Islamic states.
    2. To prove that in the 21st century censorship is self-defeating, as it only draws more attention to whatever is being censored than ignoring it would.
    3. To provide so many targets for would-be jihadists to assault that the give up due to the futility of the task. Theo Van Gogh is dead and Molly Norris is still in hiding. Standing in solidarity with them proves to jihadists that using violence to achieve political ends in a free society is counter-productive (something people eager to attack Chicago cops with Molotov cocktails evidently haven't learned).

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  5. Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 by bhlowe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mohammed had 12 wives. You have evidence of polygamy on that scale in Christian Europe?
    Mohammed was 52 years old when he consummated his marriage to the 9-year old Aisha. This was common in Christian Europe?
    How was this progressive? How was Europe worse? Do tell defender of Islam. .

  6. 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?

  7. Re:Mohammad was anti American 1100 years before 17 by Psyborgue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It matters because Muhammad is considered an example for all Muslims to follow. His marrying Aisha at 6 (and bedding her at 9) sets the precedent for modern day child marriage and sex in the Muslim world. One famous example: Ayatollah Khomeni, who married a 10 year old. You don't have to look far to find thousands of other examples. What about Qur'an 4:34 (pick a translation on quran.com) which commands a husband to beat his wife. Could that not have something to do with the 90% of women in Pakistan who have suffered domestic abuse (or the one in four in Turkey, considered the most "progressive" of Muslim countries?) All religion is poison but some are worse than others.