Slashdot Mirror


Man Sentenced to Death For Blasphemous Facebook Comments In Pakistan (gizmodo.com)

In what is believed to be "the first time the death penalty had been awarded in a case related to social media," a 30-year-old man in Pakistan has been sentenced to death for blasphemy in comments made on Facebook. Gizmodo reports: The prosecutor told The Times of India that Taimoor Raza was arrested "after playing blasphemous and hate speech material on his phone on a bus stop in Bahawalpur, where a counter-terrorism officer arrested him and confiscated his phone." It was the material on Raza's phone that led to his arrest. The Guardian reports that the accused's brother said Raza "indulged in a sectarian debate on Facebook with a person, who we later come to know, was a [counter-terrorism department] official with the name of Muhammad Usman." Raza's defense attorney told The Guardian the initial charges were limited to "insulting remarks on sectarian grounds," which carries a maximum two-year jail sentence, but that "derogatory acts against prophet Muhammad," which carry a death sentence, were added later. According to The Times of India, Raza will be able to appeal the ruling to the Pakistani High Court and the Supreme Court. Facebook said in a statement: "We are deeply saddened and concerned by the death sentence served in Pakistan for a Facebook post. Facebook uses powerful systems to keep people's information secure and tools to keep their accounts safe, and we do not provide any government with direct access to people's data. We will continue to protect our community from unnecessary or overreaching government intervention."

22 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. PRISM by SumDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Facebook uses powerful systems to keep people's information secure and tools to keep their accounts safe, and we do not provide any government with direct access to people's data.

    So was Snowden lying when he said the NSA could look up phone, e-mail and other private communication? Or is Snowden a Limited hangout? Has America forgotten about the spy network?

    1. Re:PRISM by digitalchinky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You see the language "Facebook does not provide any government with direct access to people's data" This might even be the literal truth, it doesn't preclude 3rd parties having access to that data and making it available to government(s) though, even if those 3rd parties would not exist were it not for government funding.

    2. Re:PRISM by Entrope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not in the United States. US governments cannot compel most people to speak, or compel false speech. The only recognized limitation to date is that someone offering goods or services to the public may be compelled to disclose relevant information to prospective or actual customers.

      Now, some people may choose to lie, perhaps on advice of lawyers, rather than fight a First Amendment battle in court. That doesn't mean the government (or any court order) compels them to lie. But a lot of people choose not to; that is the principle under which a warrant canary works.

  2. When religion makes laws by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re: When religion makes laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is disingenuous. There's a state where the official religion is Christian, specifically Catholicism. It's called the Holy See, and operates from the Vatican City state. No such rules or laws like that exist within the Holy See. If religion is the problem, how come stuff like this doesn't also occur within the Holy See? Be honest and admit that fundamentalist Islam is the problem here. It's why there are stupid laws like death sentences for blasphemy and evils like ISIL. Before you point to things like the Crusades and the Inquisition, those are in the distant past and are considered regrettable by Christianity in the present day. Fundamentalist Islam is the problem, plain and simple.

    2. Re:When religion makes laws by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has less to do with Facebook and more with what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.

      Huh? Facebook is what happens when you let imaginary friends rule your life.

    3. Re: When religion makes laws by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about Uganda there Christianity is pretty much the state religion (no real separation of state and religion) and they hunt gay people? Oh, it's not Christian enough, right?

    4. Re:When religion makes laws by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The friends are real, not imaginary, although the friendship may be imaginary. There's a difference.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    5. Re: When religion makes laws by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They do it very much in the name of the god. Religion was cited as the motivation for the law prescribing death penalty for gay people. Again, are they not Christian enough or "this doesn't count"?

    6. Re: When religion makes laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're saying that murdering people for their believes is a traditional conservative viewpoint? How fitting.

      Are you deliberately dense?

      He's mocking you - by saying you only impose your ideals on Christians and give Muslims a complete pass.

      He's making fun of you for ignorantly saying a religion whose main tenets are "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" is worse than the religion whose main intellectual driver is LITERALLY "kill the unbeliever by smiting him in the neck". Did you even fucking know that Islam literally translates as "submission"? Why do I think not...

      Christianity is based on Jesus Christ sacrificing himself to save everyone else. Islam is based on killing everyone else.

      And you really fucking thing Christianity is worse and are willing to give Islam a pass?

      WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!

      Oh? And do you have the stones to say who's currently going around the US saying they're going to attack their political opponents? I think they call it "punching Nazis". Would it be those "progressive antifas" who've openly adopted actual Nazi and Fascist tactics of political violence?

    7. Re: When religion makes laws by Bongo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a question of numbers, and development, and themes.

      Buddhism, maybe 30% is fundamentalist, and amongst those, what they believe in unquestioningly is usually tame.
      Christianity, maybe 70% is fundamentalist, and amongst those, what they believe in is usually less tame, with some outright human rights problems.
      Islam, maybe 80% is fundamentalist, and of those, maybe 2% believe in violent conquest, and 5% believe in political conquest, and 50% have human rights issues, and the rest are just quaint victorian style proper living.

      So "Islam" does get a lot of attention.

      As for "all religions are the same", that is a fine and rational view, except that, there are maybe only 10% in all the religions, who subscribe to that view point -- so they are certainly not fundamentalist -- they believe and actually value a global peaceful community, accepting others, accepting that there are many paths to "god". So there, people from all religions see that all the prophets and saints and sages of all the religions are all pointing to a similar truth.

      But because only 10% across the board see it that way, they don't have much influence, and meanwhile, the rest see this "all paths" idea as either misguided or wrong or blasphemous or whatever, depending on their degree of fundamentalism.

      Buddhism is an interesting one because their original precepts didn't block a process of continual change across the ages. Christianity just sort of did itself in with trying to maintain empire and ended up in religious wars across Europe. Islam is supposed to be, believed to be, version 3 (Christianity was v2 and Judaism was v1) and is still largely in the "let's keep it exactly as it is" mentality.

      Frankly, the West went down the monotheistic route, and if your worldview Is based on there being only one true god, then that excludes everyone else and always puts others into the sinners and heathens bucket, and who wants to be ruled by heathens?

      The East kept with polytheistic and non-theistic and so their religions are more easy to change. Who cares what god you believe in if "god" is merely just another perceptual dream ornament within your vast field of being and presence? Along with the cat?

      So the differences in the content of the religions does matter, as well as, what percentage of people are prone to literalist readings, and what proportion are rationally developed and know they are always "interpreting" whatever they read.

    8. Re: When religion makes laws by dehachel12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      -30% 70% 80% 10% ..
      that's a lot of ass pulling there.

    9. Re: When religion makes laws by alexo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the teachings of Jesus are simple enough that there's no question that killing gay people is absolutely wrong.

      Please quote the passage which suggests that Jesus revoked Leviticus 20:13.

      "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

      Incidentally, Timothy 1:9-10 puts homosexuality in the same bin as murdering one's parents:

      "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."

    10. Re: When religion makes laws by unixisc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Congratulations! You found the one place that is essentially a sub city - an area of 0.17 sq miles (Rome, by contrast, is almost 500 sq miles). Being there is like being in a church - if the entire place ain't one already. Also, if one committed blasphemy there - like stated support for abortion or birth control, would they be expelled from there, much less jailed or even much lesser executed?

      Point is that there are countries that have official religions e.g. in England, it's the Church of England, in Scotland, it's the Church of Scotland. Even though England is not a secular state, complete freedom of religion does exist - some 25% are no religion i.e. either atheist or agnostic. That's pretty much there the world over, and one can't hold up Uganda as the model of what it is to be Christian. One can, however, hold up places like Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Egypt as models of what it is to be Islamic, since a lot of Islam's ideology developed there, as well as in Baghdad. And most people know that anyone committing blasphemy in any Muslim country (except maybe the ex Soviet stans) would either be imprisoned or executed, or targeted for vigilante murder for insulting Islam. So let's not draw a moral equivalence here.

      In the case of Pakistan, like I said above, the only reason that country exists as an independent political entity is Islam: otherwise, it was no different from India. The reason they have a 100% fanatical population is that they know that their country wouldn't exist w/o Islam. This doesn't mean that if they suddenly became secular, India would annex them (most Indians I know would be against such a re-unification b'cos it would drag down their economy, and blow up the % of Muslims in the country); however, they do what they can to emphasize their differences from India, including creating commonalities w/ Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey and the Arab countries.

  3. More from the religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At what point do we drop the political correctness and accept that Islam in the present day is more violent than other religions? I don't care about the past of Christianity, Judaism, and other religions. Violence committed in the name of the Gods of those religions is generally considered blasphemy. Christians might tell you that you're going to hell and say offensive things to you, but they're thankfully not killing people like the Muslims are.

    When do we decide that the Islamic religion of the present day is too violent and insist that it reform or be banned? If religion were generally the problem, we would see Christians committing violent acts the way Muslims are. The fact is, they're not. There is a Christian state, specifically a Catholic one. It's called the Holy See. They don't have a military outside of the Swiss guards, and the Holy See is pretty pacifist in its nature. Contrast that with fundamentalist Islam and you'll see a huge difference. The "religion of peace" isn't peaceful at all. In fact, it's incredibly violent compared to other contemporary religions.

    1. Re:More from the religion of peace by jandersen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When do we decide that the Islamic religion of the present day is too violent and insist that it reform or be banned?

      You mean, let's be "tough on terror" by overreacting and committing unspeakable acts of gross indecency against millions of innocent people, because they happen to have grown up in a culture that you don't understand and don't want to understand? I don't think so. There are variants of Islam that subscribe to a darkened worldview, but there are Christians, even in this day and age, who are no less deluded and aggressive; what you suggest is to fall into the same, demented thinking as them, and initiate a religious war, in essence - so we may have people killed in the millions by war instead of tens to hundreds by rather feeble act of cowardice by terrorists.

      What we should do instead, is what intelligent governments are already working on: reaching out to the huge majority of decent, moderate Muslims, and work with them to solve this issue, since it hurts them as badly as it hurts us (or worse, in fact).

  4. Re:When in Rome by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do as the Romans.

    If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

    End of discussion.

    I would be happy to let the muzzes go around killing eachother in their own hell-holes, but only if they applied the "when in Rome" when they come to the West. Instead they demand special privilege, abuse children and murder people.

  5. good example... by SuperDre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a good example of why religion should be abolished throughout the world, ANY religion.. Religion has always been about control of the people, nothing more, nothing less. No law should EVER be based on religious stuff, and certainly religion should never be a reason why should be able to discriminate without problems, but if you say the same thing outside religion your bound to get in trouble.. Most wars are in the name of some religion, but all are about power and control..

    1. Re:good example... by radja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      about the only thing worse than religions is outlawing religions.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  6. Bring on the law of unintended consequences by vittal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *THIS* should be raised whenever some politician goes "Government must have access to Facebook/WhatsApp/etc. for security"!

    In the UK, the current government has been hysterically running around shouting that Facebook is allowing all sorts of nasty illegal content to be disseminated. While that's certainly true, it bears remembering that one country's "illegal" is another country's "cherished freedom".

    If the UK government has the right to access it's citizen's Facebook pages for "illegal" content, then you can guarantee Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Russia and all sorts of other ghastly states will demand the same right. And then, through the law of unintended consequences, a lot of people (who the liberal west would consider friends), will either wind up behind bars or six feet under.

    If we are willing to give our governments access to our data to "keep us safe", we have to accept that governments we may not like will use the same powers to do harm to their own citizens. This is the moral choice that's not raised by the screaming "think of the children" brigade.

  7. Re:Umm, WHICH religion would that be? by Vermonter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure if you've read the New Testament, but it kinda outright says you should be loving everyone even if they hate on you. Perhaps you are confusing it with sections of the Old Testament, which had specific instances of God instructing the Isrealites to go to war and take out other nations (and not permission for them to make that call themselves), or the Law of the Old Testament which had legal punishments that were for the Isrealites to govern themselves, not to use on foreigners. People who claim that Christianity supports killing non-believers (or blasphemers, or whatever) are people who have never actually read the Bible (or grossly misunderstood it on a basic level)

  8. ALL RELIGION is CANCEROUS by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Killing someone because he said something about {insert name of 'diety' here} that other people didn't like

    Seriously, people: What the actual FUCK does it say about Humans that in 2017 something like this can actually happen!?

    This is not the act of a truly intelligent, sentient, civilized race of beings, it is the act of a race of uppity animals -- and make no mistake, I am including the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE in this, not just Pakistan!

    Mad? FUCK YES I'm MAD when I read this. Bullshit like this is why I HATE ALL RELIGION, think it's a CANCER on humanity in general, and I wish SO MUCH that we'd somehow evolve past the point of needing 'gods' and 'religion' and all the stupid bullshit that goes with all that.

    Seriously, people: A MAN IS GOING TO ***LOSE HIS LIFE*** FOR SOMETHING HE ***SAID*** -- NOT ***DID***, BUT JUST FOR ***WORDS***. What does that say about us, AS A SPECIES!?

    I am ASHAMED to admit being part of the species Homo Sapiens when I see shit like this. ASHAMED!