Slashdot Mirror
The Surprising Truth About Internet Censorship In the Middle East
An anonymous reader writes "Internet censorship is common in conservative majority-Muslim countries, but it may have more to do with politics and technology than with religion. I.e., Iran is not so different from Cuba and China. From the article: 'in an attempt to uncover the various reasons — and ways — that countries clamp down on Internet freedoms, the U.S.-based watchdog Freedom House investigated the issue in 47 nations and released a study of its findings this year.
Employing a number of factors ranging from blogger arrests to politically motivated website blockades, the study ranked each country according to its degree of online freedom.
And, as it happens, Islamic countries do not stand out for their degree of censorship.'"
This is a false dichotomy. The question is whether religion leads to oppressive politics and low technology, not whether oppressive politics are more correlated with oppression and low technology than religion.
Currently hooked on AMP
That's not surprising at all. Almost nothing about the alleged "conflict" between these countries and "the West" have to do with religion and it has a lot to do with post-colonialism and the Cold War. It's just that on both "sides" many people like to spin the issues in the direction of religion. It's ridiculous enough to speak about "Islamic Countries" as if they were a homogenous force or fraction.
Sorry for the many scare quotes but they are all appropriate in this case.
According to report linked to in TFA, the US government has no internet surveillance and does not spread misinformation! Sounds like their report was censored!
There isn't much of a difference in other countries either. China, North Korea, and the USSR were (are) primarily athiest, mostly because the emotions in religion were redirected towards nationalism.
Iran did the opposite, but the effect is the same. In those countries, either religion worshipping the government, or government worshipping religion runs your life, and you don't get to pick which.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Religious leaders are just another dictator. Religion is only another tool to accomplish the same thing as the politics that teach and exploit strong feelings of strong nationalism/culturalism. The real tool of abuse in all cases is psychology and the sociopaths work their magic on a person from the first day of his/her life..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What moron thought this was surprising? China doesn't censor internet for political reasons either, remember? It's due to porn and other moralizing.
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
I thought everyone realised that the conservative suppressive elements of a cuture are less to do with the religion itself but with the conservative suppressive people at the top.
If a certain ideological view point holds power over the masses, usually through fear, those in power will use it to their advantage. This is true whether it is a political, moral, or ethical idea.
Silence is a state of mime.
Islamic countries are asking for international censorship of the whole Internet. So let them block anything they don't like at home. But they should not be allowed to expand their censorship policies to the whole Internet.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Oppressive regimes in the Middle East rank among the worst (but not particularly worse than) other oppressive regimes in other parts of the world? Is that a "surprising truth"? If anything this just confirms what we already knew - those in power there are interested singularly in that power, and Islam has just been a convenient way to justify it to their population. Not that Islam is conducive to free speech or any other advancement of the human species - but it's not the main reason these countries are censoring the internet.
Money, Religion, Politics, people seeking power or in position of power and enjoying it (even if they started "innocent") is the key. I would go one step further : they are only symptoms. The real reason is that some type of people seek power, and power structure (as aforementioned) self-promote such thinking. No religion, plutocraty, or political regime is exempt of it. The trick is thru law, civil protest, constitution and the various tools the common folk have, to LIMIT and keep in check those pwoers. Even if it means getting the guillotine and axes sharpened and blooded from time to time. My only fears is that with the new technological tools, be it military , IT, or economics, a very small group can nowadays cocnentrate an enormous amount of powers, and hold it. And trust me on that one, if history teach us anything, is that those who hold pwoer are quasi never benevolent, empathic, and generous. More like egoistic, greedy, and with a sense of entitlement against the common folk.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state".
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Where the obvious and un-newsworthy are posted with impunity. Please give me more stories with studies finding tv as a babysitter is bad, religions are oppressive or fanatical and governments only care about their own interests.
With that out of the way, a fanatical religious leader who holds authority via his office over his people only leads to more extremes of the above mentioned.
Religious leaders are just another dictator. Religion is only another tool to accomplish the same thing as the politics that teach and exploit strong feelings of strong nationalism/culturalism. The real tool of abuse in all cases is psychology and the sociopaths work their magic on a person from the first day of his/her life..
not quite. religion is voluntary. that's the problem with the political sphere: if dictators ruled by voluntary consent of the people, they wouldn't be dictators, would they?
Yes, totally voluntary. All you have to do is say "You know what, I don't believe in Allah at all, I'm just going to life my life freely" and all the Muslims in the Middle East will take your decision respectfully and allow you to go about your business.
[censorship] may have more to do with politics and technology than with religion
There are only a few country where politics rule! Almost all of the world is ruled by religion!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
When you have a government stifling free speech and expression, a government that is not for the people by the people, than you have either a dictatorship(iran mullah, north korea jim "ding dong ill", etc..) or monarchy(saudi arabia). Theocracy is a another method used by dictators and monarchs who are really capitalist to control the people. Dictators and Monarchs have wealth and live a luxury life while the people live in shit. Castro lives like a king while the people live in poverty, who is the capitalist here? Castro, he is the one with capital. People need to stop worshiping governments and the so called religious leaders altogether. People in power will always look after #1.
It appears you never read, or if you did, you never understood the studies, and the notion of cultural, national, and peer pressure, etc that are applied from birth, and how they affect your decision making process. Please, try to get through psych 101, at least. And don't feel too bad, you are only one of the multitude that believe as you do.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Internet censorship is common in conservative majority-Muslim countries, but it may have more to do with politics and technology than with religion. I.e., Iran is not so different from Cuba and China.
Not really the most fitting use for "I.e." It translates as "that is," so would make more sense to write it as:
Internet censorship is common in conservative majority-Muslim countries, but Iran is not so different from Cuba and China - i.e., it may have more to do with politics and technology than with religion."
From the article: 'n an attempt to uncover the various reasons
"n an attempt"? That mistake leaps out of the page. I'd usually joke about editors not even reading submissions, but it's getting beyond a joke.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Theocracy means religion(religious) is the ruling political power. So pretty much "duh".
They shut down websites because they go against the values of their leaders, we also shut down websites because they go against the values of our leaders, only in our case those values are measured in US dollars and the driving motivation is not a (perhaps misplaced) belief in a higher power but instead pure, unadulterated greed.
Well, even more no shit... Religion is a method of people in power controlling people not in power... big woop.
You are making a point about apostasy, which is fair enough, but most of the muslims have no problem with my not believing in Allah, because I am not and have never been a muslim. There is a line between not following a faith and leaving one.
Extremists are another ball game entirely, but why is it that when americans think of muslims they think of terrorists, but when they think of christians they don't immediately equate with David Koresh or Theodore Kaczynski?
Question:
Do we really have more freedom in the U.S., or do we just permit freedom for ideas we believe in? Are we smug, hypocritical American exceptionalists?
Javed Iqbal was sentenced to 5 1/2 years for offering Al Manar on his cable TV system.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2009/04/2009423233919457969.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar#Banning_of_broadcasts
Occupy Wall Street wasn't allowed to express its First Amendment rights to assembly.
I'll take support for human rights whether it comes from the left or right. Freedom House seems to be the latter. I do wish they would show more concern about attacks on freedom of people like Javed Iqbal in their own backyard, but that may be an unreasonable request when you consider the source of their funds,
Here's what Chomsky said about Freedom House. Fair?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_house#Criticism
Chomsky and Herman argue that the group's history has been characterized by excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests while being unduly sympathetic to those regimes supportive of US interests. The authors suggest this can be most notably seen by the way it perceived the US ally El Salvador in the early 1980s, a government that used the army for mass slaughter of the populace to intimidate them in the run-up to an "election", but Freedom House found these elections to be "admirable". Chomsky further claimed in 1988 that Freedom House "had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League [sic], Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S) government and international right wing."
You are making a point about apostasy, which is fair enough, but most of the muslims have no problem with my not believing in Allah, because I am not and have never been a muslim.
And it's great that you were born so lucky. If your parents were muslim and you wanted to not believe, 33% of the UK's muslim would want you dead.
Not that your comment is even accurate on sharia. Muslims do not have any problem at all with not believing in allah. Not for muslims, not for non-muslims. However they will want to kill you for
1) any perceived insult to "the prophet" (insult allah all you want, another indication that islam's "god" is just a cruel stupid little medieval dictator)
2) any perceived insult to muslims as a group
3) not paying for their war on non-muslims (yes, you read that right. Also known as jizya)
Please note that this is not an exhaustive list. In particular, once they demanded any non-muslim give up their firstborn son in a system called "devshirme". Or just start a genocide for no reason in particular. Happened more than 100 times in muslim history, including by the paedophile prophet himself, both on muslims and infidels for mostly imaginary reasons, so please don't claim this is somehow not part of islam.
Yes, religion is voluntary. That's why no-one is taught religious practices until they are 18 and can give consent. Wait, what?
There's a billion Muslims in the world today. Billion, with a B. If they were really as violent and fucked up as the average American seems to believe, we would have turned the planet into a glass-floored parking lot by now.
Capitalism is a law of nature, like evolution.
So, it's okay to set my little sister on fire if I think I'm not getting enough food or attention from Mommy? How about if your little brother sets you on fire for the same reasons? Avian chicks push the weakest chick out of the nest, so it's natural, right?
I think humanity invented civilization in order to dull the edges of that sort of psychopathy. Capitalism is an economic system designed to maximize profit and minimize costs and is exemplary in rewarding its best practitioners and innovators. Its downside is that profit attracts second handers and freeloaders (including politicians), and many capitalists aren't principled enough to turn them away. They think getting ahead is getting ahead regardless of how low (morally and/or ethically) they have to sink to do it.
It has at times been a terrific system until the politicians inevitably mucked it up with descriminatory tarriffs, regulatory capture, protectionism, & etc.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Question: Why are there billions of muslims in the world
Answer: Because each muslim gives birth to 6 muslim babies, and no muslim baby is allowed to leave the religion without being killed.
Question: Reason why the planet hasn't been turned into a glass-floored parking lot
Answer: America. And other non-muslims.
They're also isolationists... According to surveys here in Denmark, most non-western immigrants gets nicely mixed in with the native population in just a few generations - mixed marriages with both male and female immigrants - with the significant exception of Muslim immigrants. Even though they're one of the biggest non-western immigrant group, the number of marriages that does not involve a conversion to Islam by the native part can be counted on one hand. It just almost never happens. The actual numbers are 4-5 between a male immigrant and a female native, and ZERO where the immigrant is female. Even the numbers involving conversion are heavily skewed - while there's hundreds of male immigrants marrying female natives converted to Islam, the number of female immigrants marrying a danish native converted man are still less than a dozen. Most female immigrants basically marry either fellow immigrants or men from the homeland.
This all means that the integration of Muslims is bound to fail. And has failed consistently all over western Europe.
As a nice counterpoint, Asian non-Muslim women married to Danish native men are actually the biggest group by far within the mixed marriage community. And these Asian-Danish families are usually well integrated with higher-than-average income, higher-than-average educational level and zero ghetto issues (gangs etc.). The asian immigrants work and learn the native language. They dress like the natives too, don't make a fuss about weird dietary 'rules' and interact quite normally with everybody else, no matter what gender etc.
So, it's obvious to everyone that what the Muslims are doing is wrong. They either need to do what other immigrants are doing or go somewhere else. It can't continue like it has been. The tensions are getting stronger and it will end badly and then go to worse.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Before you get the free will of childhood, you're circumcised or baptised. You are described as a $RELIGION child not a child of $RELIGION parents.
You DO NOT GET a choice when you're born to religious parents.
You may want to walk around in a few muslim countries, and check how it looks outside of tourist reserves. Just for kicks.
This ironically also explains why the whole planet is not a glass-floored parking lot. Learning nuclear physics effectively is not as easy in what we would consider a warzone stricken with dead bodies and constant violence for stupidly small offences.
most of muslim holy wars were/are against other muslims.
just like most christian religious differences wars were against other christians.
and ALL of those wars were/are political.
this surprising truth is stupid since it's all about politics
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Much like America then. And before someone whines that there's a separation of church and state consider this:
There are very few openly atheist members of Congress. Pete Stark is one.
You have "In God We Trust" on your money
You have "One nation under God" in your pledge of allegiance.
I think you misunderstand the intent of the Jizya. Jizya (for non-muslims) and Zakat (for muslims) are merely the Islamic version of the taxation system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority prefer you to be poor/subservient/defenseless so that they can promote/protect their hegemony in the pretext of patriotism/democracy.
Casteism
a muslim country? the EU raison d'état a polireligious thing and the echelon project an urban legend i guess. How better we are because ... they have a saying here : in the land of the blind, one-eye is king (roughly translated), they got lots of wisdom here but no one seems to get it
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
You misunderstand. Theocracy means that religion is in power. Not just religious following a reasonably secular law. As in religious law is the law of the land.
America is very VERY far away from being a theocracy. It can perhaps be called a fascist state if you stretch your imagination enough (conglomerates are in power drafting laws). But not theocracy (religion is the law).
Not me, of course.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
So what do you call all the laws being proposed that redefine when a foetus is alive?
Anyone with any amount of common sense in a free society would have no objection to a woman's right to choose an abortion
The fact that "don't ask, don't tell" was even in place is a sign that the administration saw homosexuality as a cause for concern - if not an outright sin.
Arkansas law says in order to be elected, you must believe in a supreme being, despite the supreme court ruling it unconstitutional.
And this isn't just limited to crazy assed Republicans - the Democrats are just as bad.
You're right, America is a fascist state for the reason you point out, but there are some incredibly strong religious laws. The only reason they aren't called religious laws is because the legislation would be struck down in a heart beat because of the second amendment. The politicians won't talk about it because they don't want to give their opponents ammunition.
I call them issues of ethics. You have to assign values to things and decide which one is more valuable. In case of abortion, it's a value of a foetus vs a value of choice over your own body after insemination. Most countries already assign specific values - abortion for "social reasons" is typically limited to a few weeks to a few months after insemination and forbidden afterwards.
These are very culture dependent regardless. Most people miss for example that many "christian" values are in fact cultural values that got ingrained into christianity by local culture as to make christianity more acceptable to general public, and many of the beliefs you talk about are not about religion but about local culture in general.
Personally I find the abortion laws in my country quite reasonable. You can abort in first 12 weeks for social reasons, and after that you can abort if doctor views pregnancy dangerous for mother's health or if foetus has serious health issues. In another country, these would be viewed too restricting, and in yet another they would be viewed as too lax. And we still haven't officially separated church and state here, believe it or not (Finland).
Middle East will witness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika
Casteism