Government Declares ban
AND THEN (this is the best part) One of the Isps (or maybe the only one I dont know) under The governments order to ban it
Indirectly Pwns youtube globally Somehow getting every other ISP to cause problems for youtube viewers on accident.
Finally somebody blocks pakistan from the internets and fixes the problem
Youtube was down for an hour (or two)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7262071.stm
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9877614-7.html
ID:182711
 Feb 24 2008, 5:02 pm
|
|
|
Feb 24 2008, 5:28 pm
|
|
Xzar
 |
You forgot the real "best part", that it was all over a cartoon of that Mohammad fellow.
|
What seems ridiculous to other people in the world, is not ridiculous to everyone. Free Speech is not a world wide right yet and it is going to be a long, long time before it is. You need to respect other cultures regardless of what your own dictates.
| |
I'm sorry, but I don't respect cultures that don't respect the right of free speech. I also don't respect sexist cultures. Both of which Pakistan has problems with.
YouTube is a place for creative expression. Granted, most of it is tasteless expression, it's still wrong for a government to block any of it. The technology exists for people to block it from their own computers, if they feel it isn't right to be in there house. And hell, they could make laws saying ISPs had to offer a blocking feature that would automatically block any sites deemed religiously offensive. Censoring people's media and expression is wrong, no matter what the culture is. | |
Baladin wrote:
You need to respect other cultures regardless of what your own dictates. I don't respect a culture that celebrates the violation of human rights. I wish the Pakistani people the best of luck in their efforts to censor themselves, maintaining the shame and hatred of freedom that is their sustaining power. | |
Actually, I think it is wrong for other countries to push their own moral obligations onto other countries. A country may not allow freedom of speech, but another country trying to force that freedom on another, is nothing less then terrorism.
Mohammad happens to be a very important part of their culture, and I don't blame them getting upset and banning a website from their country. When you look at the big picture, the concept of human rights is still a fairly new idea. I believe it will eventually spread globally in it's own time. But doing such things as invading other countries to enforce it, is not the right way to go about doing it. | |
There's a difference between going into those countries and enforcing freedom of speech (as the USA is doing in Iraq) and simply pointing out their human rights violations and putting pressure on them to change.
Would you characterize Amnesty International as terrorists, because they harass and pester foreign powers who violate human rights? I rather think that their work is the opposite of terror: the aim of their harassment is to keep the people whose rights are being violated from being forgotten, and to give those people hope. | |
You are right, poking and prodding a country to allow freedom of speech and human rights isn't terrorism. And you knew exactly what I was talking about when I called it terrorism, I was talking about Iraq.
| |
Baladin wrote:
Actually, I think it is wrong for other countries to push their own moral obligations onto other countries. A country may not allow freedom of speech, but another country trying to force that freedom on another, is nothing less then terrorism. I disagree. If a friend of yours (in your home country, where I assume freedom of speech is a given) gets shot for practicing his or her right to free speech, surely you'd be upset and have at least a few choice words in description. What's the difference between said friend and someone living in, say, Pakistan or China (which also heavily censors the Internet)? Nothing but where they live, which is most likely simply the land-boundary in which each person was born (I'd say the majority of people tend to live where they were born). That said, what dictates who has more rights than others? Likely, it's their birthplace. Do you agree that because you were born in country A, you should enjoy more freedoms than someone born in country B? You're perfectly fine with oppression that people in other countries face from birth till death? I'm not into politics myself, but I certainly do not agree with the idea of being "more free" simply because I was born into a generally free society. Perhaps that's just me, though. Hiead | |
Wow, I didn't even hear of it. It's ridiculous, but I'm not really surprised. There are ridiculous people in the world after all... I agree with what everyone except Baladin said.
But in addition, they're quite some idiots, because banning YouTube wouldn't do them any good, it's futile anyway. And I don't only mean that their people would still be able to easily access it. The only thing they possibly could do is completely ban and shut down all internet companies in their country, because YouTube is only one of billions of sites and they simply can't reliably and foolproof-ly filter/ban them all, never. I don't actually know/remember from experience, but I've no doubt there are probably thousands of extreme racist, anti-religion etc sites. That was only (AFAIK) just some satire video. And of course banning the whole site itself just because 1 user of the site uploaded a video he might've not even made is already pretty dumb. | |
I'm still waiting to be able to access music videos from South Korea. Unfortunately, most channels block access to South Korea. >_<
| |
"It is reported that a trailer for a forthcoming film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, which portrays Islam in a negative light, was behind the restrictions."
because islam IS a negative light. Im NOT racist im just saying the truth that islam denies. Well there is no proper freedom of speech so imma redirect you to faithfreedom.org for more info -.- peace. | |