Pakistan blocks Facebook over 'Draw Mohammed' Day

[Jamesy]

What? What does our human rights record have to do with drawing Muhammad? Or freedom of expression for that matter?

As Ewan said, this country has different values than ours. It's their prerogative to deal with social networking however they deem necessary. And let's be honest, it's not like they're depriving their citizens of A) something vital to life (food/water/access to schools/hospitals/what have you); or B) a critical source of information. Unless, of course, you consider "I bet I can find 1,000,000 people who liek mudkipz" need-to-know info. I doubt you'll see too many people rioting in the streets over this.

It's not simply freedom of speech to draw the most important prophet of 1.5 billion people, in which is widely known and accepted that they will take offence to. Thats the important part, we've had people banging on about their right to offend 1.5 billion people, sorry mate, you do not. Not morally, not legally in most modern democratic countries, and furthermore, the purpose to offend (which by and large, is the purpose whether the facebook group says it is or not, hiding behind the guise of "freedom of speech") could be considered hate speech. Rights are not an excuse to say or do or draw whatever you want. This banging on about "rights" and "freedoms" automatically ties in your records as a nation and its disregard of those "rights" when it suits its agenda; to your disregard and lack of respect for the worlds second largest religion. Its sheer ignorance, not a right or a freedom to do anything, thats a farce. Islamophobia is just a long line of phobias and "enemies" drawn up by your country throughout the years. America spent the best part of the Cold War blocking the rights and freedoms of those who believed in ideologies that did not conform to their standards, so to hide behind rights to show sectarian and disrespectful "expressions" isnt a legitimate argument.

Pakistan has various reasons for blocking it, one of the major reasons will be to stop fundies being antagonised by a fools. America of all countries should know what happens then.

Cite your ridiculous claims or don't bother posting. Yeah, we have the Patriot Act, but it sure as heck beats living in Europe with their prudish gun control regulations and ridiculous cultural sensitivity laws, or third world Muslim countries who's claim to fame is that they have most of their women covered in Burkas. America isn't the "freest" country in the world, but it's pretty darn close.

lol, ridiculous claims, do you not know your own history? Patriot Act is buttons, ask the Japanese, Germans, Communists, Socialists, Blacks, Homosexuals, and now Muslims and the general Arab population who may not even be Muslim, and anyone who basically hasn't been a WASP about their rights in the 20th century. You can be arrested, locked up and sent away or suspicions from your Government, there doesn't need to be any proof, now you tell me where are those divine rights Americans seem to think they have? They don't. Rights are temporary privileges that can and have been taken away at any given moment.

And here, for a country that was founded by immigration from all over the globe I'm suprised at how little sensitivity there is over there. As for gun control, yes, I'd rather not have people walking around with guns who have a stick up their hole about their "rights" and then proceed to distort their "rights". America isn't a free country, and this idea that you are is what makes the rest of the world giggle.

 

[Jamesy]

Well ja, ridiculing religion is part of free speech; the whole reason you're allowed to do it and not suffer repercussions is because of free speech. People like Pat Condell wouldn't be allowed their religious comedy if it weren't for free speech. And people ridicule religion because it's a form of satirical criticism against the flaws that religion brings--nothing is too sacred to be scrutinized. And if you don't like it, just cover your ears. That's exactly what the Muslims are doing with their Internet censorship.

There is a huge difference in the comedy and satire of religion infront of a small audience that agrees with it or can find the humour, and actively attempting to offend a religion knowing how much problems it will cause, to display some sort of bastardised version of freedom of speech/expression/thought that wasn't invented for their agenda.

 

[der Astronom]

There is a huge difference in the comedy and satire of religion infront of a small audience that agrees with it or can find the humour, and actively attempting to offend a religion knowing how much problems it will cause, to display some sort of bastardised version of freedom of speech/expression/thought that wasn't invented for their agenda.

Seriously, I don't quite think you understand what free speech means. Free speech means you can offend other people. It can happen, even if you don't intend it (or do); the people who originally made the Dutch cartoons didn't intend it, but it happened anyways. If people are still doing it now, it's most likely because they object to the way the Muslims reacted to the first cartoons being published. They can't take their deity being drawn or depicted by others who aren't part of their religion, and aren't held to their rules.
The whole point of free speech is that it's there so that people who like it can enjoy it, and those that are uninformed about it can become informed. And those who don't like it can ignore it.
You can use the Internet as a medium, regardless of the size of your intended audience. As I said, if you like it, you'll keep reading/watching it, and if you don't, you'll just stop doing it, or your country will censor it for you (I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't stop reading something they don't like).

 

[Jamesy]

Seriously, I don't quite think you understand what free speech means. Free speech means you can offend other people. It can happen, even if you don't intend it (or do); the people who originally made the Dutch cartoons didn't intend it, but it happened anyways. If people are still doing it now, it's most likely because they object to the way the Muslims reacted to the first cartoons being published. They can't take their deity being drawn or depicted by others who aren't part of their religion, and aren't held to their rules.
The whole point of free speech is that it's there so that people who like it can enjoy it, and those that are uninformed about it can become informed. And those who don't like it can ignore it.
You can use the Internet as a medium, regardless of the size of your intended audience. As I said, if you like it, you'll keep reading/watching it, and if you don't, you'll just stop doing it, or your country will censor it for you (I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't stop reading something they don't like).

Wrong. Free speech came about partly to undermine political and religious persecution, not to offend people of all shades of political persuasion of any particular religion. It is not an excuse to hide behind to say anything you want or do. Unintentional offending happens and is accepted, this is not unintentional. To imply that free speech exists so some can use it to offend people and get away with it completely undermines the point (and importance) of true free speech. It is not there to specifically target, insult and humiliate people.

What business is it of yours if they don't want their prophet drawn, exactly? And what enjoyment do you get from doing it, if you do, or better yet, what enjoyment do others get from it? The enjoyment of pure ignorance and intolerance thats what. Furthermore, free speech is hardly a right these days in America, or in Britain. Say the wrong thing and you'll have the black helicopters hovering over your home.

 

[der Astronom]

Wrong. Free speech came about partly to undermine political and religious persecution, not to offend people of all shades of political persuasion of any particular religion.

Undermining religious persecution does offend people of certain religions though. Because even Muslims and certain Christians practice religious persecution (that is, their own religion preaches religious intolerance, by discouraging or killing people who don't follow the same religion or try to change their religion, or the practice of their religion interferes with other people who don't share their religion), and if we were to undermine it through free speech, they'd be offended. So really, I think the whole idea of not using free speech to not offend people is absurd.
And in principle, you can simply claim you're offended by something, no matter how small, claim it's part of your religion, and then shut up most people about it, but then that's just you being an inconsiderate dick.
If you get offended, just grow up and ignore it. Don't compromise free speech for being able to criticize something by saying you're offended and expect everyone to pamper you.

It is not an excuse to hide behind to say anything you want or do. Unintentional offending happens and is accepted, this is not unintentional. To imply that free speech exists so some can use it to offend people and get away with it completely undermines the point (and importance) of true free speech. It is not there to specifically target, insult and humiliate people.

Then what's the point of free speech? What's the point of expressing something which everyone agrees with and likes to hear? Why can't you use free speech to criticize something people might not necessarily like to make a point? If people don't like something, it's possible they'll be offended, but then free speech might as well just not exist if I'm only allowed to say things other people want to hear.

What business is it of yours if they don't want their prophet drawn, exactly? And what enjoyment do you get from doing it, if you do, or better yet, what enjoyment do others get from it? The enjoyment of pure ignorance and intolerance thats what. Furthermore, free speech is hardly a right these days in America, or in Britain. Say the wrong thing and you'll have the black helicopters hovering over your home.

I get the enjoyment of knowing that free speech still exists on the Internet. And that there are people utilizing their freedom of ignorance to not see it if they know it will offend them. It perfectly demonstrates what I mean about the correlation between freedom of speech and freedom of ignorance.
And in order for me to be intolerant about it, I'd actually have to force people to see something they don't want to see, but since people can censor Facebook, and I have no intention of shoving this stuff into other people's faces, I don't consider it intolerant. We're only talking about this here because someone else started a thread on it. I haven't actually told too many people about the whole draw Mohammed day thing. I just have mere opinions about it.

I am not, by any means, trying to say that we have some ultimate form of free speech here in America, but that we have a form of free speech that allows us to express our opinions about certain things, regardless of whether or not other people like it or become offended by it. There are probably certain things we might not be able to get away with saying, but it is much better than whatever exists in the Middle East.

But more often than not, it's usually because there are other laws that are in conflict. For example, you can't shout "fire!" in a theater because the resulting stampede harms other people, and that would be against the law (as it would be if you stabbed or shot someone with a knife or a gun). But there is nothing preventing you from creating a comic, animation, or a scene in a literary story where there is someone shouting "fire!" in a theater, and a stampede resulting from it. The same applies with the recent thread about animal cruelty; there are laws that prevent animal cruelty, but that doesn't mean you can't use free speech to express it; you can do it (eg, through cartoons, writing or other drawings) so long as you aren't really harming animals.

 

[SapphireStar]

This thread is making my head spin lol.

I think this is going to far now. You cant stop peoples opinions. Yeah lets block Facebook, block the whole damn internet then! This is where people can say what they want without fear and yet the Pakistan government wants to take that away. Good God (oops, am I going to get internet bombed for that???) you cant silence people by blocking 1 website. Seriously this is beyond ridiculous.

All of this just cause they got insulted by a show like South Park. Someone remove that iron rod they have so far up their arse please.

 

[CassinoChips]

It's not simply freedom of speech to draw the most important prophet of 1.5 billion people, in which is widely known and accepted that they will take offence to.

Actually, yes it is, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlessit violates the ... Miller test of obscenity, I believe it's called, all media of expression are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Drawing Mohammad is not obscene, therefore it is protected. Moreover, due to the principle of the separation of church and state, simply because it may offend a segment of the population due to their religious beliefs does not an offense make.

Thats the important part, we've had people banging on about their right to offend 1.5 billion people, sorry mate, you do not. Not morally, not legally in most modern democratic countries, and furthermore, the purpose to offend (which by and large, is the purpose whether the facebook group says it is or not, hiding behind the guise of "freedom of speech") could be considered hate speech.

Hate speech is also protected under the First Amendment.

You have a right to say just about anything you want. Whether or not someone takes offense is on them. Now, I agree that a person is accountable for what they say in the public sector. But that's what comes with the freedom of speech.

Rights are not an excuse to say or do or draw whatever you want. This banging on about "rights" and "freedoms" automatically ties in your records as a nation and its disregard of those "rights" when it suits its agenda; to your disregard and lack of respect for the worlds second largest religion.

No, it doesn't automatically tie in. They are two separate entities. One can be discussed without involving the other. I can talk about the concept of Freedom of Speech without ever mentioning our litany of human rights violations, of which I never denied there are many. I'm sure your country has its fair share of black marks throughout its history, yet that shouldn't and wouldn't stop you about speaking out over an issue. Just because my ancestors made mistakes in the past doesn't mean that those mistakes render me incapable of making value judgments about situations in the current day.

Also, since we have freedom of speech, quite a large number of us make fun of the #1 religion in the world on a regular basis as well.

Its sheer ignorance, not a right or a freedom to do anything, thats a farce. Islamophobia is just a long line of phobias and "enemies" drawn up by your country throughout the years.

You do realize that I respect Pakistan's decision right? Assuming that the citizens themselves are fine with the government blocking Facebook, it's their prerogative, like I said earlier.

I, personally, am not scared of Islam. I respect it as a religion that has its share of crazies, just like every other religion.

America spent the best part of the Cold War blocking the rights and freedoms of those who believed in ideologies that did not conform to their standards, so to hide behind rights to show sectarian and disrespectful "expressions" isnt a legitimate argument.

Wait...... so suppressing those who do not conform to the mainstream ideology is not ok, but censoring those who may be disrespectful to a mainstream religion is? That is a giant double standard. Either you have the right to have a dissenting opinion (whether correct or incorrect), or you don't. You can't take one away, and leave the other.

Pakistan has various reasons for blocking it, one of the major reasons will be to stop fundies being antagonised by a fools. America of all countries should know what happens then.

Again, I agree in principle. Although, by blocking Facebook in response to this guy, they've given him credence and power. They've essentially allowed this guy to get under their collective skin. A better response would have been to just ignore him and all the other "fools" that participated in this.

lol, ridiculous claims, do you not know your own history? Patriot Act is buttons, ask the Japanese, Germans, Communists, Socialists, Blacks, Homosexuals, and now Muslims and the general Arab population who may not even be Muslim, and anyone who basically hasn't been a WASP about their rights in the 20th century.

You realize that there's a significant difference between the actions of the government, and the beliefs of its citizens, correct? If I held you accountable for everything your government has done since its inception, you'd havea laundry list of crimes under your belt as well.

Also, again, none of those things have any bearing on this issue. If you are going to discredit judgments made by anyone who lives in a country who has committed human rights violations, you're going to have to discredit everyone on the face of the planet. I, personally, have never committed a human rights violation on behalf of myself or my nation. So is it ok by you if I give my opinion on this matter?

America isn't a free country, and this idea that you are is what makes the rest of the world giggle.

Then giggle away. For 99.9% of the country, 99.9% of the time, this is a free country. I can do virtually what I want, when I want, within the scope of the law, and I very rarely brush up against the boundaries of that scope at any given time. The government does not impinge upon my freedoms on a daily basis.

 

[Gaige]

Pakistan is a largely Muslim nation, and Islam is a religion that's very realistic, and offers little room for deviation of any kind. Of course we have the right to free speech. But others have the right to express offence. Personally, I do believe Pakistan took things quite far in terms of this, but Mohammed is a key figure and the first prophet in Islam. A strict Muslim would be offended by any slander of him.Not to mention they place stress on Mohammed not having any particular physical form in the Koran.

 

[Jamesy]

Undermining religious persecution does offend people of certain religions though. Because even Muslims and certain Christians practice religious persecution (that is, their own religion preaches religious intolerance, by discouraging or killing people who don't follow the same religion or try to change their religion, or the practice of their religion interferes with other people who don't share their religion), and if we were to undermine it through free speech, they'd be offended. So really, I think the whole idea of not using free speech to not offend people is absurd.
And in principle, you can simply claim you're offended by something, no matter how small, claim it's part of your religion, and then shut up most people about it, but then that's just you being an inconsiderate dick.
If you get offended, just grow up and ignore it. Don't compromise free speech for being able to criticize something by saying you're offended and expect everyone to pamper you.



Then what's the point of free speech? What's the point of expressing something which everyone agrees with and likes to hear? Why can't you use free speech to criticize something people might not necessarily like to make a point? If people don't like something, it's possible they'll be offended, but then free speech might as well just not exist if I'm only allowed to say things other people want to hear.



I get the enjoyment of knowing that free speech still exists on the Internet. And that there are people utilizing their freedom of ignorance to not see it if they know it will offend them. It perfectly demonstrates what I mean about the correlation between freedom of speech and freedom of ignorance.
And in order for me to be intolerant about it, I'd actually have to force people to see something they don't want to see, but since people can censor Facebook, and I have no intention of shoving this stuff into other people's faces, I don't consider it intolerant. We're only talking about this here because someone else started a thread on it. I haven't actually told too many people about the whole draw Mohammed day thing. I just have mere opinions about it.

I am not, by any means, trying to say that we have some ultimate form of free speech here in America, but that we have a form of free speech that allows us to express our opinions about certain things, regardless of whether or not other people like it or become offended by it. There are probably certain things we might not be able to get away with saying, but it is much better than whatever exists in the Middle East.

But more often than not, it's usually because there are other laws that are in conflict. For example, you can't shout "fire!" in a theater because the resulting stampede harms other people, and that would be against the law (as it would be if you stabbed or shot someone with a knife or a gun). But there is nothing preventing you from creating a comic, animation, or a scene in a literary story where there is someone shouting "fire!" in a theater, and a stampede resulting from it. The same applies with the recent thread about animal cruelty; there are laws that prevent animal cruelty, but that doesn't mean you can't use free speech to express it; you can do it (eg, through cartoons, writing or other drawings) so long as you aren't really harming animals.

They do indeed J, and as I am not of either faith I am ultimately against their persecution. However it is important to realise that as far as Islam is concerned, the vast majority by and large do not follow this intolerance. As you should know it is very easy to take things out of context, and as far as religious texts go, theres a whole lot of "information" that could be taken out of context and distorted to suit an agenda. Its pretty evident in Islam as different versions of the religions preach different ideas, likewise with Christianity. Infact, especially with Christianity as there are so many versions and interpretations of the religion. Now, onto the point of free speech and these religions, there is a major difference in arguing against these religions and their views, and outright attempts to insult and slander it knowingly, which this pish about drawing Mohammed is about. Its very clear, and its very simple, its never been about exercising free speech, its about insulting a billion and a half people "because they can". That is not what free speech is about, it never was, and it never will be.

I already told you what the point in free speech is, and it is not to knowingly insult for the sake of insulting. How about the "right" to be offended? We could go on all day about this right and that right, in the end rights don't actually exist, they are an idea, a theory, a concept that is rarely put into practise unless it suits the agendas of those in power, to be quite honest.

If you truely believe that uninhibited free speech exists on the internet then you should read a bit about how Governments from all over the world actively monitor them, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the British, the Americans... if something isn't liked, its taken down pretty quickly if it is within their jurisdiction. The Labour Party (Britain) has tried for years to enforce laws which restrict what they deem to be out of line on the internet that is within their jurisdiction and law. The Labour Party aren't in power now, but the same bills are still laying around Westminster somewhere.

America has a form of free speech that is ultimately dictated and directed by the various media giants and public services, can you honestly say the vast majority of Americans have came to their opinions and conclusions through their own indepedent thought? Thats another funny thing about free speech; its useless when independent thought and isnt intefered with by outside sources.

If you can say they do, good for you, but I can't bring myself to believe it for a second. Likewise in Britain and the rest of Europe.

 

[Jamesy]

Actually, yes it is, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlessit violates the ... Miller test of obscenity, I believe it's called, all media of expression are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Drawing Mohammad is not obscene, therefore it is protected. Moreover, due to the principle of the separation of church and state, simply because it may offend a segment of the population due to their religious beliefs does not an offense make.



Hate speech is also protected under the First Amendment.

You have a right to say just about anything you want. Whether or not someone takes offense is on them. Now, I agree that a person is accountable for what they say in the public sector. But that's what comes with the freedom of speech.



No, it doesn't automatically tie in. They are two separate entities. One can be discussed without involving the other. I can talk about the concept of Freedom of Speech without ever mentioning our litany of human rights violations, of which I never denied there are many. I'm sure your country has its fair share of black marks throughout its history, yet that shouldn't and wouldn't stop you about speaking out over an issue. Just because my ancestors made mistakes in the past doesn't mean that those mistakes render me incapable of making value judgments about situations in the current day.

Also, since we have freedom of speech, quite a large number of us make fun of the #1 religion in the world on a regular basis as well.



You do realize that I respect Pakistan's decision right? Assuming that the citizens themselves are fine with the government blocking Facebook, it's their prerogative, like I said earlier.

I, personally, am not scared of Islam. I respect it as a religion that has its share of crazies, just like every other religion.



Wait...... so suppressing those who do not conform to the mainstream ideology is not ok, but censoring those who may be disrespectful to a mainstream religion is? That is a giant double standard. Either you have the right to have a dissenting opinion (whether correct or incorrect), or you don't. You can't take one away, and leave the other.



Again, I agree in principle. Although, by blocking Facebook in response to this guy, they've given him credence and power. They've essentially allowed this guy to get under their collective skin. A better response would have been to just ignore him and all the other "fools" that participated in this.



You realize that there's a significant difference between the actions of the government, and the beliefs of its citizens, correct? If I held you accountable for everything your government has done since its inception, you'd havea laundry list of crimes under your belt as well.

Also, again, none of those things have any bearing on this issue. If you are going to discredit judgments made by anyone who lives in a country who has committed human rights violations, you're going to have to discredit everyone on the face of the planet. I, personally, have never committed a human rights violation on behalf of myself or my nation. So is it ok by you if I give my opinion on this matter?



Then giggle away. For 99.9% of the country, 99.9% of the time, this is a free country. I can do virtually what I want, when I want, within the scope of the law, and I very rarely brush up against the boundaries of that scope at any given time. The government does not impinge upon my freedoms on a daily basis.

Ah, yes, the U.S Supreme Court, the top dog of the law after the Constitution. They've not been short of criticism and controversial decisions over the years have they? Wouldn't trust courts as far as I could throw them. If you're implying that the seperation of church and state in America makes the US a secular state of some sort then I don't see the point in continuing the argument; are you? You know, the same country whos president claimed that God spoke to him to invade other countries. lol.

Ah, hate speech is protected too; go down to New York City tomorrow and shout obscenities about a particular race or America itself, see how long you last before you're shipped off somewhere. After all, its protected under the First Amendment, you should be safe from prosecution and protected by that Supreme Court of yours.

Separate entities me bum mate, as I did not mention the freedom of speech in regards to human rights violations in that quote (rather, rights in general), I would hope so though. Human rights violations are a product of the concepts of rights and freedoms, they are not distinct and seperate entities. My country has many black marks throughout its history, the difference is I don't bang on about rights to this, and freedom to do that everytime something controversial comes up; common sense is more likely to win. Rights and freedoms are not something to rely on, which to me, Americans seem to believe they can be relied on, and then use those rights they take for granted to offend a billion and a half people because they have the "right" to. They don't.

I live with a guy from Pakistan and was talking to him about it earlier, he's not overjoyed about facebook being blocked but he understands the reasoning behind it, as do i; the government do not want further violence and more young people being indoctrinated to hate the west because some knobs on facebook want to insult them. It is not people in the west getting the vast majority of the violence, its the cities and countries in the middle east and indian subcontinent percieved to favour the west that gets the repercussions.

Absolutely there is a difference in beliefs and actions of Governments and their Citizens, however, a Government often reflects its electorate. Slightly different system of election in the US, but its still the same concept of democratic elections. The Government is the country, it sets the laws, boundaries, borders, dictates most of the culture and the standards of living, unless your name is Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.

 

[CassinoChips]

Ah, yes, the U.S Supreme Court, the top dog of the law after the Constitution. They've not been short of criticism and controversial decisions over the years have they? Wouldn't trust courts as far as I could throw them.

That sounds like a personal problem.

To remove the sarcasm, whether you agree with and/or trust the courts is irrelevant. Their role is to interpret the law. Their interpretations determine how the law works in our nation. Also, of course it makes controversial decisions. That's its job.

If you're implying that the seperation of church and state in America makes the US a secular state of some sort then I don't see the point in continuing the argument; are you? You know, the same country whos president claimed that God spoke to him to invade other countries. lol.

You do realize that President's approval ratings hovered in the 20s for much of his Presidency, and is pretty much a national laughingstock, right? But, realistically, just because our leader is a religious person doesn't make us a religious state. We are secular, whether you (or right-wing conservative Bible thumpers) like it or not.

Ah, hate speech is protected too; go down to New York City tomorrow and shout obscenities about a particular race or America itself, see how long you last before you're shipped off somewhere. After all, its protected under the First Amendment, you should be safe from prosecution and protected by that Supreme Court of yours.

Yates v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. An individual can only be considered in criminal violation if the threat of violence is imminent.

Separate entities me bum mate, as I did not mention the freedom of speech in regards to human rights violations in that quote (rather, rights in general), I would hope so though.

You brought up our human rights records when this is clearly a free speech issue.

Human rights violations are a product of the concepts of rights and freedoms, they are not distinct and seperate entities. My country has many black marks throughout its history, the difference is I don't bang on about rights to this, and freedom to do that everytime something controversial comes up; common sense is more likely to win.

But your implication is that, since our ancestors have done some bad things, that we are no longer allowed to point out the flaws in other nations' policies. Which is completely illogical and fallacious. I've never committed a human rights violation. Can I voice my opinion?

Rights and freedoms are not something to rely on, which to me, Americans seem to believe they can be relied on, and then use those rights they take for granted to offend a billion and a half people because they have the "right" to. They don't.

Actually, we do. Again, whether you like it or not, we have the ability to say virtually anything we want. We are responsible for what we say in public sector, but our government can not prosecute us for what we say, except in certain, specific circumstances.

I live with a guy from Pakistan and was talking to him about it earlier, he's not overjoyed about facebook being blocked but he understands the reasoning behind it, as do i; the government do not want further violence and more young people being indoctrinated to hate the west because some knobs on facebook want to insult them. It is not people in the west getting the vast majority of the violence, its the cities and countries in the middle east and indian subcontinent percieved to favour the west that gets the repercussions.

Your Pakistani roommate and I are of the same mind.

Absolutely there is a difference in beliefs and actions of Governments and their Citizens, however, a Government often reflects its electorate. Slightly different system of election in the US, but its still the same concept of democratic elections. The Government is the country, it sets the laws, boundaries, borders, dictates most of the culture and the standards of living, unless your name is Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.

The President is a figurehead with very little real power. The Congress is actually what has the real power. And there is a balance between Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. The three work together to get anything done. So looking solely at the President is short-sighted at best.

 

[VinnieJones]

In addition to Facebook, Pakistan has now blocked Youtube as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm

Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube because of its "growing sacrilegious content".

Access to the social network Facebook has also been barred as part of a crackdown on websites seen to be hosting un-Islamic content.

On Wednesday a Pakistani court ordered Facebook to be blocked because of a page inviting people to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad.

Some Wikipedia pages are also now being restricted, latest reports say.

Correspondents say it remains to be seen how successful the new bans will be in Pakistan and whether citizens find a way round them.

YouTube says it is "looking into the matter and working to ensure that the service is restored as soon as possible". The site was briefly blocked in Pakistan in 2008 - ostensibly for carrying material deemed offensive to Muslims.

Facebook said on Wednesday that the content did not violate its terms.

There have been protests in several Pakistani cities against the Facebook competition.

I presumed that making a new thread would result in a merge.

The comments made by people of Pakistan at the bottom of the article are interesting, ranging from 'I can live without Facebook but I definitely cannot live in humiliation' to 'I feel disconnected from the world'.

 

[der Astronom]

They do indeed J, and as I am not of either faith I am ultimately against their persecution. However it is important to realise that as far as Islam is concerned, the vast majority by and large do not follow this intolerance.

I highly doubt that. If they came to a western country seeking asylum from the craziness that goes on in their homelands, they probably don't have a reason to complain about our freedoms. If they came here to cause trouble, they're not welcome, and don't deserve any respect, regardless of what flack they have over our free speech, which might allow us to offend them (intentionally or not)

So are you saying you're against the persecution of people who are offended when someone who changes their religion isn't killed because their religion's doctrines aren't being honored?

As you should know it is very easy to take things out of context, and as far as religious texts go, theres a whole lot of "information" that could be taken out of context and distorted to suit an agenda. Its pretty evident in Islam as different versions of the religions preach different ideas, likewise with Christianity.

Ja, and Islamic governments take that to the extreme. They're probably not any different from the way Medieval governments operated, which was based off of Christianity. But we don't see that anymore in the Western world, and I think most of us are glad it isn't that way. In fact, the recent appearance of secularism has helped that, and we have advanced, in spite of religion, and not because we obtained a "better interpretation" of it.

If the rest of the Muslims who feel this way about it disagree, then they shouldn't be supporting their terrorist brethren. They shouldn't be offended by something as stupidly trivial as a depiction of their god, just as Christians usually aren't (or they won't blow stuff up) when someone makes depictions of Jesus.

Infact, especially with Christianity as there are so many versions and interpretations of the religion. Now, onto the point of free speech and these religions, there is a major difference in arguing against these religions and their views, and outright attempts to insult and slander it knowingly, which this pish about drawing Mohammed is about. Its very clear, and its very simple, its never been about exercising free speech, its about insulting a billion and a half people "because they can". That is not what free speech is about, it never was, and it never will be.

Well, I object to the notion of not being able to depict someone's god, for which I hold nothing sacred enough that it can't be drawn. I object to having to follow rules for a religion that I'm not a part of. It would be like being told I can't work on Sunday because it's the Sabbath day, which only Christians obey, but since I'm not, I shouldn't be upheld to those rules. And if some people feel jealous because I can work whenever I want because I'm not bound by arbitrary religious rules and they are, they're welcome to change their religion.

So are you saying I can't criticize that aspect of Islam, by just drawing depictions of a god from a religion whose rules I don't care to follow (and to be fair, most people from the Western world wouldn't want to follow those rules either)?

And as Cassino Chips already said, insulting someone can very well be a part of free speech. It doesn't quite matter if you intended it to be insulting or not. Insults are just things people don't like to hear; that's not got anything to do with being able to say anything you want. It's not exclusive to insults anyways.

I already told you what the point in free speech is, and it is not to knowingly insult for the sake of insulting. How about the "right" to be offended? We could go on all day about this right and that right, in the end rights don't actually exist, they are an idea, a theory, a concept that is rarely put into practise unless it suits the agendas of those in power, to be quite honest.

Well sure, you can claim rights to being offended; nobody said you don't have the right to express your feelings. But that doesn't mean a thing. I already told you why.

If you truely believe that uninhibited free speech exists on the internet then you should read a bit about how Governments from all over the world actively monitor them, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the British, the Americans... if something isn't liked, its taken down pretty quickly if it is within their jurisdiction. The Labour Party (Britain) has tried for years to enforce laws which restrict what they deem to be out of line on the internet that is within their jurisdiction and law. The Labour Party aren't in power now, but the same bills are still laying around Westminster somewhere.

Again, this has to do with what is within the law, and not a hindrance to free speech. Refer back to the earlier example of animal cruelty. If you had a website that depicted genuine animal cruelty, it would be taken down, not because your free speech isn't protected, but because it violates animal cruelty laws. The flash cartoon, Happy Tree Friends is still happily up and running, regardless of how many animal lovers it might insult or offend. In the same vein, child pornography is illegal because it exploits people who aren't sexually mature. If a website depicted child porn, it would get shut down, and not because we didn't have enough free speech. Meanwhile, plenty of other porn sites with consenting adults being depicted in them and Hentai galleries are not being shut down, despite the fact that they might be offensive to children or insulting to some people. It's against the law to plagiarize--so if you plagiarized Maddox's website, which has plenty of articles a few people might find offensive, your website would obviously get shut down. Meanwhile, Maddox's website is still up and running--he's still being allowed to offend as many people as he pleases on the Internet. Censoring plagiarism has nothing to do with preventing your rights to express yourself; the problem is that you're not expressing yourself, you're stealing someone else's work.

Free speech doesn't mean you can't be offended; there is no law that says whatever causes you to become offended is illegal.

America has a form of free speech that is ultimately dictated and directed by the various media giants and public services, can you honestly say the vast majority of Americans have came to their opinions and conclusions through their own indepedent thought? Thats another funny thing about free speech; its useless when independent thought and isnt intefered with by outside sources.

Just because most people don't have original ideas doesn't mean we should just let free speech be discarded. There are more than enough people with original ideas, and with the advent of the Internet, it's much easier to find them. If there was no free speech, even the press wouldn't be at liberty to pass on their ideas to the common sheeple.

If you can say they do, good for you, but I can't bring myself to believe it for a second. Likewise in Britain and the rest of Europe.

You just don't like it when people are allowed to offend other people. Well, what if people get offended simply for being criticized?