Pakistan Lifts YouTube Ban For 3 Minutes, Finds More Blasphemy

On Saturday, Pakistan briefly lifted the months-old ban on YouTube, spurred by the widely distributed U.S.-made video presented as a trailer for a film titled "Innocence of Muslims" and decried in many places around the world as blasphemous toward Islam. "After months of criticism of the ban, the government decided to allow Pakistanis to have access to YouTube again, saying steps had been taken to ensure that offensive content would not be visible. But those efforts apparently failed, and the authorities quickly backtracked," writes the New York Times. "Quickly" is right: access to YouTube was apparently open for just three minutes, which seems about right; it shouldn't take longer than that to discover things on the site to which adherents of any particular religion might take umbrage. What's surprising is that this took lifting the censorship on a wide scale, rather than just taking a smaller peek through tunneling software.

Comments

Re:Something needs to be done about these Governme

[Anonymous Coward]

There are millions of people in these countries that support this. You will have to change their minds first.

Censorship backfire

[EmperorOfCanada]

I suspect that the average Pakistani thinks little of their government; thus anything the government blocks must be good and should be checked out. I suspect that the total amount of blasphemy watched is higher in the end as the population end runs any poorly implemented systems the same way Canadians end run the whole "This content not available in your region."

Re:Who cares?

[amiga3D]

Hey! I voted for Ron Paul!

Re:Go, blasphemy, go

[pwizard2]

The way to kill religion is to laugh and ridicule it to death. Violence just strengthens it.

Re:Boo hoo

[MysteriousPreacher]

It's no the sensibilities of your god that worries me. It's the sensibilities of the primates that have appointed themselves as his/her/it's guardians and spokesmen.

If there really is a wise and loving god, he must surely be sitting there wondering firstly, why the fuck people are dying over cartoons and silly videos, and secondly, why he doesn't do something to stop it? It'd save use some hassle if he could ditch this vague communication through personally revealed and contradictory revelation to some yahoo in a cave. I remember back in the old days when, if God was pissed, he'd be personally smiting your arse. None of this vague tossing of tornadoes in to areas already known for naturally occurring tornadoes - with churches and brothels alike being smashed. Of course personal appearances would fuck with free will, while tornadoes and allowing nut jobs to run wild is free will for the poor victims. I'm not even sure how free will is any different whether the information is provided via divinely revealed texts, or a simple one-one-one communication with every single person? Either way, free will is impacted by external interference. I'm not even convinced that free will is necessary, if the angels who rebelled lived in Heaven and still had the free will to rebel. Fuck it. Tell us the deal and let us decided. Unless that happens, we'll continue to live on a ball of rock infested with people who hurt and confuse people by claiming to speak on behalf of a god that no-one seems to understand.

Re:Who cares?

[Grishnakh]

It doesn't matter if you vote or not; you're a Citizen, so the government is your responsibility, just like Arab countries' governments are those citizens' responsibilities, and when they got sick enough of them, they rose up and overthrew them. If you don't like your government, it's your responsibility to overthrow it.

Re:Boo hoo

[X0563511]

Or they could stop claiming to speak on behalf of a God that they do not actually speak for.

God told us to kill the infidels! God told us homosexuality is evil! Bullshit. You decided that on your own, and you're sticking divinity on it for the power.

Re:Something needs to be done about these Governme

[clarkkent09]

Several things are wrong with your post but let me just point out three things:
1) you do not have to be perfect in order to pass judgment on evil (otherwise evil will always get a free pass)
2) we may not be perfect but we don't have laws requiring a raped woman to provide 4 male witnesses or else whip her for adultery and we do not hang gay people off cranes in public squares, so there are degrees of perfection you may wish to explore
3) Not being able to right every wrong does not mean you should not right at least some wrongs

Re:Who cares?

[fustakrakich]

That's bullshit. Only the people that voted for Romney voted for Romney. People who voted for Ron Paul voted for Ron Paul. Don't try to lay the guilt trip on those who didn't vote for your favorite candidate.

Blasphemy in whose term ?

[Taco Cowboy]

While the majority of the Pakis are Muslims, the Pakistan population is *NOT* 100% Islamic.

There are Hindus and Christians living in Pakistan.

Just because something is viewed as "blaspheme" to _some_ of the Muslims that doesn't mean it is blasphemic to the Hindus or the Christians.

To ban Internet just because of the "Islamic blaspheme" is to exercise the "Tyranny of the Majority" rule.

Imagine if America set up a law banning open prayer due to "noise pollution" - that would certainly makes the lives of many Muslims that bit tougher, wouldn't it?

Re:Blasphemy in whose term ?

[emt377]

Imagine if America set up a law banning open prayer due to "noise pollution" - that would certainly makes the lives of many Muslims that bit tougher, wouldn't it?

Umm, no. Loudspeakers and giant horns is the form of expression while prayer is what's expressed. In this case, the form of expression is banned, not prayer itself. The Pakistanis ban the expression (blasphemy), not the form (youtube). So it's not at all similar - it's in fact the exact opposite.

An expression we DO ban here in the U.S. is child pornography; the form doesn't matter. It can be on youtube, anime, photos, videotron, drawings, etc. This is a better analogy to Pakistan's ban on blasphemy.

Re:Blasphemy in whose term ?

[PsychoSlashDot]

Where your logic is (horrifyingly) wrong, so I'll explain instead: Child pornography is banned because it causes harm. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DRAWINGS OR ANIME DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in the U.S., because no one is harmed -- or potentially harmed -- in drawings or anime.

Incidentally, in Canada (for instance) such drawings or renderings are illegal.

More to-the-point, it is the view of religious exclusionist-extremists that blasphemy is harmful to the soul which is seen as a much more serious problem. Damage to the body can heal. Damage to the mind lasts a lifetime at worst. Damage to the soul is forever. The position of (extremist) religion is that one's relationship with God is more important than anything else. Which is to say... sensible regimes ban child pornography (which involves actual harm) while non-sensible regimes ban "blasphemy".

Re:Blasphemy in whose term ?

[davydagger]

bullshit.

As much as I loathe our own brand of fundies, they are orders of magnintude better than their paki equivilants.

Re:Something needs to be done about these Governme

[clarkkent09]

The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to understand that things are like this in those countries because the people in those countries like it that way.
 
The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you don't seem to understand that not ALL the people in those countries like it that way. And no, I am not one of the morons who through Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators but I am one of the morons who thinks that Iraqis will be much better off in the long run as a result of the invasion and that other countries in the region will be better off as well as a knock off effects of the invasion, already visible in the "Arab spring" and protests in Iran. Yes "those people" are really just like us, they like freedom too. People act in accordance with cultural memes of the their time and place not by rational thinking. 500 years ego in Europe you would have probably said that people like the iron rule of the Church and burning of witches and if you had a poll they would have probably voted that way too, and yet that was changed. And no I do not support invading country after country, but I do support rejection of the prevailing chickenshit cultural relativism in the Western countries and for standing up for better and more human ways of organizing a society. Islamic countries are a black hole in the modern world when it comes to basic human rights and we are not doing them any favors by saying that that's ok.

Here's a clever tip;

[okmijnuhb]

Don't like blasphemy? Don't search for it.

You're welcome!

Re:Boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Free will is generally used to explain why God doesn't protect children from rapists, not why He keeps His presence a secret. That is what faith is for. Faith is believing when there is no (or at least not sufficient) evidence. Of course, there is nothing inherently virtuous about faith...if someone chooses to believe (on faith) every con artist out to get his money, we don't consider that person virtuous. So why does God value faith so highly? That is where the "mysterious ways" justification comes in.

The bottom line is simple: a priest cannot give you compelling reasons to believe, nor can a priest explain why a divine and powerful being would abide such evil. So the priest must rely on these concepts to explain away the lack of compelling warrant for belief. But, any hypothesis that justifies its own lack of evidence remains a hypotheses with no evidence, and any model that explains why it makes no sense remains a model that makes no sense.

Re:Ban the Transistor!

[v1]

You just left out the part where it's your DUTY to kill blasphemers.

MOST religions had that as a pillar at some point in the past. Christians are a great example.

The difference isn't so much how the religion started, or what's written, but what really matters is how the followers behave. More specifically, how the "religious authority" handle and guide their flock. Compare a catholic bishop to a muslim (jihadish) cleric and that's your difference. The people are easy to control, it's how the authority figures wield their power and control their faithful. You can't really blame the people, it's human nature. The problem is there are too many power-hungry / nutjob clerics warmongering the members of their religion. Look at what catholic popes did in the past, think Crusades. Catholics, and most other major religions, have outgrown that and are actually more interested in the well-being of their followers than using them as a tool to an agenda now.

It's just islam's turn to grow up and evolve. The problem I think is the basic conditions of the people. Uncivilized control can't easily exist inside a civilized and modern society. The easiest way to "fix" them is to bring them into the 19th if not the 20th century. Then the problem of the nutjob clerics will go away on its own and islam will become a much more positive religion, on the average. Sanctions and isolation are not the solution, instead they prolong the problem.