EFF Taskes A Look At Blasphemy As A Form Of Censorship  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2012, 10:29:45 pm
content: makes for some grim readingAs part of their 2012 in review series, the EFF takes a look at how blasphemy laws have chilled online speech this year. A "dishonourable mention" goes to YouTube this year:"A dishonorable mention goes to YouTube, which blocked access to the controversial 'Innocence of Muslims' video in Egypt and Libya without government prompting. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, a group based in Egypt, condemned YouTube's decision."https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/2012-review-year-digital-freedomthere seems to be this respect religion or else movement even if violates someone else rights to be sceptical of it.Problem with most laws over here, they are based on the fear and not some sense.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2012, 10:40:39 pm
content: Yes, it worries me.Rowan Atkinson says it well:I am worried that if we lose the freedom to criticise religion, things like criticism of the government or individuals may be next. The anti-cyber-bullying campaigns worry me too. Whilst the intention appears to be good, it can leave too much control in too few hands.As a staunch atheist but one who respects others' beliefs, I reserve the right to criticise your beliefs if you attempt to impress them upon myself.I am quite happy to leave individuals to believe in their own fantasies and fairy tales, if they wish to do so, if it makes them happy, let it be.If it leads to more separation and war between people, subjugation and/or ill-treatment of certain genders or social groups, then I will criticise those parts of the belief system.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2012, 10:41:10 pm
content: Well, there is a convenient list of countries to avoid!Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2012, 10:45:28 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on December 26, 2012, 10:40:39 pmYes. I would not live in a country that does not allow such criticism.QuoteI for one donotrespect other people's religious beliefs (because they are childish BS), but I do respect (and will fight for) yourrightto believe it.Dave.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2012, 11:07:08 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 26, 2012, 10:45:28 pmWe call it Democracy.My favorite definition: "Democracy is three wolves and one sheep voting for dinner".Alexander.

author: ahnuts72
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2012, 11:22:46 pm
content: And liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.I have no problem with someones religious beliefs as long as they don't try to force them on me.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 27, 2012, 12:08:45 am
content: The problem in the UK is that we are told to accept people who hate us and want to commit acts of treason and get away with it. Muslims against crusades was allowed to carry on for years whilst the British public had to endure paying their benefits and being insulted by them needless to say their website carried enough publicly available evidence to condemn them of intent to murder and insulting behaviour. Yet if a white person was to criticise them he/she would probably be in deep trouble. This country is a shit hole !

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2013, 03:00:26 pm
content: As a rule of thumb, one can say anything anytime, in a democracy so long as no realized harm results in it: physical injury, theft of property, economic injury etc.,. The video issue in youtube was alleged to have initiated riots.If you rile against someone or a company, and it affects their professional reputation and results in reduced sales of some product, or their services, they can sue you for libel, even if what you opine is just parody or true; until your your position is verified your post could be removed.If you post some VIPs home address leading to threats on his life or harassment, your post can be taken down.If you post the musings and thoughts of embassy staff while they strategize how to deal with governments as Wiki leaks did, your post can be taken down or your position subject to local laws.None of this is black and white, so censorship by providers and worse, ISPs themselves are all subject to internal policy more than law, but the above rubric works for most posts that will likely be censored. Of course, the complainer has to prove your post is the source of the discontent, and its up to the provider to adjudicate that the complainers issue is legitimate to overstep the right of the poster.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 03, 2013, 03:29:59 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on January 03, 2013, 03:00:26 pmWould you say that Martin Luther King crossed the line and should have been censored, since his words caused riots?

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2013, 04:38:42 pm
content: MLK always pursued his goals peacefully, i.e., the Gandhi way, and always allowed to speak. Never silenced thus, those offended eventually killed him. When he wrote and spoke, the venues that published his words, newspapers, TV etc., were often harassed, threatened with violence or economic boycotts, but nothing big enough to suppress that his words also sold newspapers and made good ratings; it was also the time of the revolutionary 1960s so the zeitgeist was ripe too to for civil rights.Censorship isn't a law, but a policy of the hoster, like the newspapers were in MLK's time. Not all newspapers carried MLK, particularly the local southern papers.But as a rule of thumb, if you run a site were folks posts, if words are translated into some form of physical injury other than emotional or intellectual discontent, there's a good chance your post will be pulled. A poster can appeal the post be returned, but if anyone reads their TOS, site owners can do anything then want, even if no proof of harm is caused, even for more benign issues than radical Muslim groups.http://www.christianpost.com/news/facebook-google-apple-censoring-religious-speech-55736/Quote from: alm on January 03, 2013, 03:29:59 pm

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2013, 05:10:45 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on January 03, 2013, 03:00:26 pmThe problem is that it can always be manipulated to show "harm". Look what happened with the recent Miss USA pageant. One of the contestants is expected to pay Trump millions of dollars for defaming it. What this means is that nobody can ever criticize it. It's a form of feudal control.

author: FJV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2013, 05:48:23 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 27, 2012, 12:08:45 amFor a moment there, I thought you meant politicians. Which we vote in power time after time.As for Muslims, shrugh, most of the ones I meet are OK. So what am I to believe, what I see dayly my own eyes or what some hysterical newspaper says?The whole antisocial, behaving like a bastard, thing in the Netherlands is decades old. Has to do with the refusal of the politicians to do "old fashioned" law enforcement in my opinion.(No need for draconian measures or brutality, just enforce the law in a normal respectible manner, that's what is needed.)It also doesn't help that mass media praises/encourages antisocial behavior nowadays.