Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body
Onymous Hero writes "Following the recent YouTube video 'The Innocence of Muslims' and the subsequent Muslim violence, Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.' The World Telecommunications Policy Forum (a UN body) is the vehicle by which Saudi Arabia (and possibly other states) will try to use to implement a global set of internet content standards."
NO!
I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos. But this is way over the line. This asks for the ability to apply censorship rules to everyone. They should be bitch slapped and sent out of the room.
How about we tell them to stop being so sensitive and they can just ignore it.
-SaNo
If your feelings get hurt every time someone calls you out on your religious convictions, either you're not confident enough of your religion or you need to stop believing in fantasies.
Either you believe in freedom of speech, and all the nastiness that goes with it, or you want the world to adopt your narrow-minded, pathetic excuses for why women shouldn't drive, be allowed to walk alone or meet with men who aren't their relatives.
When you drag yourselves up to the 20th century, then we can discuss things you have issues with.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Freedom of expression is supposed to be uncomfortable and challenge public order. That's the whole idea.
"international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order"
I agree absolutely. Let's set the standard: public disorder - destroying property, killing people - is a crime. Freedom of expression is not. Pretending that freedom of expression forced someone to violence is a transparent and pathetic excuse.
According to TFA, Saudia Arabia is still blaming the video clip for the violence. It is now well-established that the violence was pre-planned; the date of September 11th was picked carefully. The video clip was merely a transparent excuse, and the upload may, in fact, have been coordinated to coincide with the violence. Saudia Arabia is trying to use the situation to impose their fundamentalist values on the rest of the world. No thanks.
So, yes, let's set a standard: Free speech is too important to compromise.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
they should do their own censoring and leave the rest of the world's internets alone, china did it, what nations should do is change their system to a nationwide LAN (sortof), and when connecting to websites served from IP address of other nations it should go through a filter if that is what they want to do, if i want to look at naked women eating barbecue pork while holding poker chips with her twat that is my business and should not be of any concern of some religious zealots in some other nation
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Welcome to the 21st century. Want to be a part of it? ...then grow the frack up.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
Yeah or create your own separate network for the caliphate. You can call it camelnet.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
the Global Internet Censorship Body will ensure equal unrest and humiliation for all.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Invading Iraq for oil, did not support
Invading Afghanistan to build pipeline, did not support
Nuking Saudi Arabia for stifling freedom of speech, Let me press the button.
They need to turn off the computer if they are offended but growing the fuck up would be even better.
If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it. -- Calvin Coolidge
Fuck you, and your religion too.
Your pal,
OldSport
To which the United States replied: "But if we don't let them say what they want on the internet, how is the NSA supposed to spy on everything they do?!?"
In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.
Oh, really? So what was this all about?
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Go read some history books! What a crock!
Take your censorship and go f*ck yourself with it.
Sincerely,
The Free World
p.s. we can still buy your oil, right?
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
Are you arguing that what non-Muslims should do is commit genocide against Muslims? If you're not, could you explain how invading Iraq and Afghanistan and applying economic sanctions to Iran, Syria, and the Gaza Strip constitute "appeasing"?
I am officially gone from
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
Have you forgotten the Mongolians? What about the European Colonization period? Or the creation and expansion of the Chinese empire? Or the subjigation of the neighboring tribes by the Incas? What about the Aztecs and their demanded subservience of the tribes around them? Egypt certainly never crushed Kush.... and hell, Assyria played very nice.
What, this wasnt "the world?". Back then "the world" was limited by technology.
Stop being so naive.
Those are things called "facts". They are just inconvenient things that get in the way of unsubstantiated rants.
Along the tortuous path of life, certain things irreversibly change over time. Accelerating the path to freedom from the mental shackles of organized, dogmatic religion would appear to be one of the direct consequences of inter-networked people freely and finally comparing notes between different brands of those good old 'All-powerful-being / be very scared / you should feel guilty, you unworthy scum' methods of mind control that have been in place for hundreds of years.
This happens to exactly be one of the first telltale signs of their unwilling abdication, as their hateful 'religion of peace' disintegrates in the face of a collective, planet-wide yawn. A day to celebrate!!
Good riddance.
Practical suggestion: close yourself off from the rest of the world instead. Miss you we will not.
Good luck, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and thanks for all the (fossilized) fish oil!
Then why are Muslims also attacking in so many other countries? There are Muslim terrorist attacks, all over the world, every day, and it's been going on like that for decades. Muslims are actively attacking not only Jews, and Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, and of course, other Muslims.
How could this all be due to US mid-east policy?
parent poster seems to forget that the islamic MISSION is to forcibly convert the world. now, later, they don't care: as long as the world gets converted, their book is happy.
christianity also wants to convert the world and it did it in quite a bloody way in the middle ages. but the moslems also were just as bad, just at different periods of time.
and today, they are THE WOST in the world when it comes to tolerance. there is no culture that is less tolerant, in fact.
and there is no perma peace with them. there can't be. until you are one of them, they consider you evil and either convertable or kill-worthy.
yes, its in their scriptures. those stupid, twisted, madlib sounding scriptures they love so much.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
is there *any* country out there that doesn't censor the net in one way or the other?
Some for copyright (e.g. Youtube in germany), some for religious reasons (Iran), others call political comments a crime (China), others crush down on gambling sites cause that's a crime there (USA),
And they all have in common that they are "legal" and "fair" and "justified" as the gouvernment responsible for this or that souverign corner of the world declared it illegal. usually with best intents and in complete contradiction with the laws of that other corner of the world.
Deal with it. everyone is already censoring the net. And the differences become rather small if you recognize that the biggest difference is your point of view.
bickerdyke
Bless, I actually wondered how far I'd get down the thread before someone started mouthing off about things they don't understand, which is often the case when the UN is in a story, I had to actually get quite far this time before I reached your post.
So let me explain for you, the UN is a bit like your government, except whilst your government represents the population of your nation, the UN represents the governments to the world.
So a bit like when a member of your government comes up with some braindead law and no one wants, the UN works in the same way, but with far more safeguards. Saudi may well be mouthing off about this sort of thing but it wont happen, because the only UN body that comes close to this sort of thing would be the ITU, and the ITU requires unanimity on votes, and as the West wont vote for this measure at the ITU, it wont actually happen.
Think of Saudi as that annoying representative in your government that cries think of the children, and comes up with ideas that frankly scare the shit out of you, but are thankfully so insane, that they don't actually ever get passed.
Really though, the UN is less scary than government in this respect, because sovereign nations can opt-out of it, or elements of it, whereas you can't opt-out of your government. There are some exceptions, if one member state threatens another, or if one government ceases to represent it's people through committing war crimes against them for example, then the UN may act, but for the most part, nations sign up to what does suit them, and don't sign up to what doesn't (i.e. some countries don't think the WTO would benefit them).
The point is though, for every fringe-organisation of the UN filled up by the nutjob countries, there are plenty of UN organisations that facilitate global cooperation, for example, the International Civil Aviation Organization helps facilitate global standards on air traffic control so that when a plane enters another country's air space they can navigate safely to land, or avoid other air traffic, without fear of conflicting standards on such things causing issues. The Universal Postal Union helps ensure you can send a letter from your house in the middle of whatever country your in, to just about any other address in the world and so forth.
So yes, don't worry, your sovereign nation's rights and laws will remain intact, providing it doesn't try and force them on anyone else, which is precisely why Saudi Arabia's bid is just noise that is doomed to fail. The UN still has a point, just as your government still has a point, even if it probably does a lot of things you dislike as most governments do. Just as at least some form of government is necessary for a civilised society to exist by enforcing laws against being able to arbitrarily murder people and so forth, the UN is necessary to ensure that certain international efforts and cooperation flow smoothly by mitigating the potential for cultural barriers and so forth to cause issues (i.e. imagine if an air traffic controller at a busy airport like Heathrow, or Chicago O'Hare had to know every language in the world to cater to pilots flying in from all over the world).
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/30/husain-haqqani-muslim-rage-is-about-politics-not-religion.html
Can't be racist since the author is a Muslim.
The basic message is simple: The Islamic powers that be see the decline of the Islamic world and instead of catching up by modernizing their world, they seek to keep what control they can by creating theocracies, where the rule is to not question those in charge. It keeps the population dumb and controllable but also backward and unable to matter in the real world.
A perfect example was shown with Olympics. Saudia Arabia had fielded a female Judoka but insisted she would be allowed to wear a headscarf. Probably the first thing you picture when thinking of Judo is the standard uniform, which has no head covering. It never had, wasn't needed to appease any country ever before. But Saudia Arabia needed to be appeased because else they might withdraw. So the woman was allowed to disregard safety, disregard tradition and wear a piece of kit nobody else was allowed to wear...
AND LOST
Immidiatly, she didn't stand a chance! Not even the slightest. She was the worsed to ever take part in the modern olympics.
She wasn't put into her countries team to win or even to compete, she was put in to be harmless enough to not upset Saudi Arabians while at the same time playing the "the world hates islam" card by hoping she would be barred because of the headscarf. She wasn't and it became clear thar SA biggotted nature simply meant they had no women worthy of competition.
It is easier to shout loudly "rah rah us" and blame everything on them, then to risk modernizing your country and have the people wonder why this old men are in charge. England works that way, "trust us the 1% conservatives, we will fix your country because you are great, trust us". The USA loves its rousing "We are #1" waving made in China banners.
And around the world, were the powers that be have made a mess of things, religion is a good card to rally your troops around the leaders in support rather then looking for a handy rope.
Why do you think backwater North-ireland had religious strife? Because it was managed so well economically? Why do you think the orthodox church is back in power in Russia, because the last time they were in charge, they did so well economically?
No, but in economic hard times when people can't improve themselves or society, they become susceptible to religious control telling them they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Because keeping the people stupid is a good way to control people, but when times are hard, people also prefer to be kept stupid. Easy answers are so much easier.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Kiddie porn? Boohoo.
AC didn't say kiddie porn, AC said under-18 porn. Presumably they mean something like 17 years old rather than 7 years old.
Not that I agree that it is a bad thing. A line should be drawn somewhere, and age 18 seems as good a place as any. Just pointing out that under-18 porn does not necessarily constitute kiddie porn.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
As an Ex-muslim I say mod parent up.
Anonymous because I don't want to be beheaded.
Grow up. No war has ever been fought on the reasons of morality. There are only three reasons for a war: power, resources and land. Which, of course, are pretty much the same as long as you keep your shit together somewhat.
Morality in a war is never more than a popular justification. The US Civil War? Not about the slaves, but it did use the promised freedom of slaves as a way to use them behind enemy lines. The invasion of Iraq? Not about freedom or democracy, but about keeping the dollar as the currency of oil trade. I dare you to find one that was really about morality.
FCKGW 09F9 42
What about non-militant Islam, is that evil? These aren't the "death to America" types, but the much more common "I want to go to work, come home to my family, and help raise the best and brightest kids I can, and maybe I stop by Friday prayers at the mosque" types.
For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:
1. Regular personal declaration in belief in monotheism, and that Mohammed is the messenger of that 1 god. This conceptually would be like a Christian reciting the Nicene Creed.
2. Praying 5 times a day. Totally harmless for anyone who's not doing this.
3. Giving at least 2.5% of ones income as charity towards the less fortunate. This seems positively virtuous.
4. Fasting, particularly during Ramadan, if practical (exceptions are made for children, pregnant women, etc). Again, harmless to anyone who isn't fasting.
5. A pilgrimage to Mecca. This could potentially support the Saudi government, but it's also basically harmless to anyone who isn't doing it, and often quite moving to those who do (Malcolm X is a great example - his experiences led him to stop hating white people due to their race).
And I should point out, for the record, that I'm not Muslim myself, but I've noticed that those who think that Islam is completely evil often know very little about what Muslims actually believe and how they practice their faith.
I am officially gone from
As an Ex-muslim I say mod parent up because I want to be beheaded.
So your proof is "because it has to be"? The Spanish inquisition was about 150,000 people, at most (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls). The Salem witch trials were 19 (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/asal_de.htm). By all means, give me the rest of the numbers that add up to 99.849981 million. Now, do we get to count atheistic communism in this comparison? Because Stalin (20 million), Hitler (50 Million) and Mao (70 million) (http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm) killed or were responsible for the deaths of quite a large number of people... and in about 2.5% of the time of Christianity.
There were any number of horrific experiments performed on Jews in the name of science during World War II; the USSR, with state enforced atheism, murdered millions of its own people and shipped uncounted more off to die in Siberia. Does that imply that science and atheists are evil? No, that would be a silly argument. Violent people will use anything they have at their disposal to justify themselves, but we need to remember that it's the people who are doing the evil, not the concepts they purport to support.
Good point, but I've also noticed that many who are comfortable bashing religion and certain devotees, or are silent when others bash them (often times the target is Christianity or Christians), become agitated and assume a protective role when the same is done to Islam. Not a Christian (or even religious) myself
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
So tell me again... who are the ones promoting hatred and violence?
That's easy - anyone who believes that people who believe differently than they do are fundamentally and typically irredeemably evil. Which is where Islamic nutjobs (e.g. Al Qaida) and Christian nutjobs (e.g. Xe, formerly Blackwater) and atheist nutjobs (e.g. the Soviets) all are much more similar than they'd like to admit.
I am officially gone from
Except there's Israel. We'll never be free of their over-large influence (and I'd say co-opting) of US politics. Sorry about the Holocast, and you're better than your neighbors, but that doesn't justify your willful and active meddling in US policies foreign and domestic.
If there was no religion of any sort, present day would be like living in Star Trek.