Slashdot Log In
Pakistan Blocks YouTube
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sun Feb 24, 2008 01:02 PM
from the out-of-sight-out-of-mind dept.
from the out-of-sight-out-of-mind dept.
Multiple readers have written to tell us of news that Pakistan has ordered its ISPs to block access to YouTube "for containing blasphemous web content/movies." This follows increasing unrest in Pakistan over a Danish newspaper's reprinting of cartoons which depict Islam in a less-than-favorable light. The cartoons also sparked controversy when they were first published a few years ago.
Related Stories
[+]
IT: Danish, Western Websites Under Attack 1467 comments
caese writes "The BBC is reporting that almost 900 Danish websites have been defaced by crackers angry about the recent controversy over cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. From the article: 'What is extraordinary for this Danish case is the speed in which the community united'. Another 1600 or so Western websites have been defaced by the same group. The defacements have ranged from condemnation of the cartoons to outright calls for violence."
Submission: Pakistan blocks YouTube by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Pakistan YouTube Block Breaks the World 343 comments
Allen54 noted a followup to yesterday's story about Pakistan's decision to block YouTube. He notes that "The telecom company that carries most of Pakistan's traffic, PCCW, has found it necessary to shut Pakistan off from the Internet while they filter out the malicious routes that a Pakistani ISP, PieNet, announced earlier today. Evidently PieNet took this step to enforce a decree from the Pakistani government that ISP's must block access to YouTube because it was a source of blasphemous content. YouTube has announced more granular routes so that at least in the US they supercede the routes announced by PieNet. The rest of the world is still struggling."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it will take time to achieve any results, but economic prosperity and theism are inversely related, and theism in places like Pakistan is really fucked up and needs to be eliminated or at least marginalized.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
People do not like to admit it about genocide, but if you do it thoroughly, then it actually works, i.e. solves all problems relating to the unpleasant minority, once and for all. You know what is really ironic? That USians modded the parent +funny, whereas it really should be +insightful. Once you get it into your head that it is your Progress-given mission to bring some sovereign people into the 21-st century, genocide is an obvious answer. Bush would wipe Iraq clean if he could, a long time ago (he obviously does not give a shit about 1M Iraqis, almost all of them civilians, dieing due to war, why would he care about 25M?), but US is not powerful enough to do that with conventional weapons, nor does it have enough clout to get away with it.
How about, instead of "bringing Arabs democracy" and "liberating them from an archaic religion", you liberate them from economic oppression and let them decide what to do with their own oil? Switch to alternative energy sources, perhaps? Develop a defensive military strategy, which should work just fine, as you are on your own frigging continent? Just my 2 cents.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
That number is not generally considered credible except by extreme leftists where the number benefits their agenda. Calculating deaths by polling is rather absurd.
Actually, we probably are powerful enough to level the main population centers indiscriminately with conventional weapons. I'm glad we haven't done so, though.
I would hope no-one has enough clout to get away with genocide.
Just because it might work doesn't mean the ends justify the means.
Because we had a defensive military strategy and we were still hit hard on 9/11, even though we're on our own friggin' continent.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people there, if they read at all, read religious texts only.
That's your problem. If they had a wider experience in the written word, they wouldn't be so easily led by Clerics with an agenda.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
First things first: let's help raise the literacy rate. You've really got to respect the work being done by the Central Asia Institute [ikat.org], as they are building non-fundamentalist schools in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan, with schools especially targeted to girls. In a perfect world, our government would cut the spending on armament and give the decrease to the CAI to build schools. That's the best long-term strategy to solving fundamentalism, IMO.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think we'd have a much better return on our investment if we took the money we're spending in Iraq and put it into building schools and providing learning materials in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. While we're at it, let's bring some of their young men and women over here to our colleges. Based on how many times I was asked about whether or not it's hard to go to school in the USA, I bet they'd jump at the chance.
The only time I saw a Qu'ran while I was over there was when I visited a Mosque. People there read pretty much the same sorts things we do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring the differences between the two... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm leaning towards "the parents who do that do their children are ignorant and unthinking, and don't realize it's a practice that's consider barbaric - and is illegal - in more enlightened European countries" and "the commercial nature of the US healthcare system has lead to hospitals routinely carry out entirely unnecessary cosmetic surgery - even when it's harmful to the patient - because it's profitable".
Religious zealots have certainly managed to brainwash the US populace on this one, to convince them it's a "morally acceptable" practice, even a humorous thing to discuss if you've had your genitals mutilated. In reality, it's an outdated, entirely unnecessary, damaging and irreparable act of barbarism - IMO anyone carrying out this practice on children should be locked up (and, if a medical practitioner, have their license permanently revoked).
If grown adults want to have this procedure carried out on themselves then, apart from undergoing some counciling, they may as well be allowed to have it carried out by someone qualified. If indeed grown adults were left to make the decision for themselves, I think the percentage of people who would volunteer for this practice would be tiny and the industry around it would almost completely die out in the US (apart from within certain specific religious groups).
Fat chance of much change on that front happening in the US though.
Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat: When it can be proven before a judge that a the child is likely to suffer as a result and both parents agree they want it carried out (e.g. if the child is Jewish or Muslim and likely to be teased, harassed or singled out by their cultural peers and so in some way negatively impacted as a result of the operation not being carried out) then it may be carried out (but Doctors or Surgeons are not obligated to carry it out, and may refuse to do it, that it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath being a common citation as grounds for refusal).
While I can appreciate on the surface this is an attempt to reach some pragmatic accommodation, I think this is the wrong approach and the law needs to be changed here too. I don't see medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children's genitals as acceptable, full stop. It's systematic of the UK justice system though - in the eyes of the populace the government rarely deals with the perpetrators of crimes directly or appropriately - it's easier just to tell the rest of us to change our behaviors to fit in with however they have redefined the problem.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Informative)
Which Eurpoean country is 'more enlightened'? Not only does Wikipedia contradict your statement about the UK, but your 'mysterious enlightened country' is no where to be found [wikipedia.org].
I'm strongly opposed to circumcision . . . and talking out your ass.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK, if I were to have a child of mine circumcised, not only would I find it hard most likely impossible to get the hospital to carry it out, but if I did find someone who was willing to carry it out privately as the child would neither be from a Jewish nor Muslim background it is quite clear I would be open for prosecution for assault, even if I didn't carry out the work myself. Which, while from my perspective is much less than ideal (as I still do not think the legislation is robust enough, as I have said), directly contrasts with the situation in the US where it is routinely carried out without any clinical or cultural justification (or even consideration).
If you'd been following the press reports and court rulings more carefully you might be better informed. You seem to be entirely, relying on Wikipedia to tell you everything you need to know on it and it's not covering the whole story. You don't even seem to be reading the Wikipedia article, which directly contradicts you (not me):
The only reference on Wikipedia article to a legal opinion - in the form of one published in the Journal of Medical Ethic by Fox and Thomson at Keele University's School of Law - states unequivocally that "there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful." in the opening paragraph of the paper.
To provide a counter point, a representative from the General Medical Council stated that, in the opinion of the GMC, that it was an ethical issue not a legal one and that they do not believe that male circumcision on the UK is illegal. The GMC, however, are not a legal body and the statement was only the opinion of a representative from the standards committee (not a lawyer).
One might assume that having having the apparent backing of the GMC (who have published guidelines on the topic) would at least grant some level of legal protection for a licensed practitioner carrying out the procedure, but even I was (if only somewhat) surprised to hear that in the opinions of the legal professionals who were panelists on a BBC debate on the topic last year, that that was not the case and that relying on the GMC's published opinion would not be a valid case for defense. Of course they still have the power to have to have a doctor stuck off for breaking any guidelines which they do choose to set out, all of which is a little incongruous.
Many European states are in a similar situation, not least because many have similar legislation in place (e.g. state specific legislation - such as the UK's Human Rights Act - and incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights). In the UK the HRA in particular has been a hot topic for a while and has already had a huge impact on health care here and is frequently noted as being relevant when the topic of male circumcision is discussed by medical practitioners and human rights lawyers.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think circumcision makes any sense, but I think it trivializes female genital mutilation to suggest that they're anywhere in the same league of badness.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: For those of you who suffer from sensitivity to "Too Much Information", now would be a good time to skip this post and continue on. All others, feel free to read on...
Personal anecdote: I'm uncircumcised. Still got my foreskin, and nobody's taking it from me. Does it serve a purpose? You betcha. I ended up snapping my frenulum several years ago. I simply bandaged it up for a few days, and it healed nicely. However, this required me to pull the foreskin back and keep it there for the duration.
Woooeeee... lemme tell you, sensitive doesn't even begin to describe it. Y'all circumcised guys might have grown used to it, since you "don't know any better" (assuming they cut on you at birth), but my glans was constantly rubbing, and it drove me crazy. I couldn't wait for it to heal, so I could cover it back up again.
For any gals that might be reading, my wife mentioned it must be like taking a dry cloth and rubbing against your clitoris all day long. Heaven forbid a dry finger come into contact with her clit... cotton or denim? Ha! There's reasons the foreskin and labia exist... and separating the sensitive bits from the irritants sounds like a good reason to me.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
It is technically true that cases of penile cancer are virtually unheard of in males with circumcision, but then again, penile cancer is SO RARE to begin with that it even begs the question of whether or not the sample size is large enough to be conclusive.
And of course, like the other poster pointed out, the children have no say in whether or not a perfectly healthy part of their body is permanently removed.
Parent
Re:Lets bring these people up to speed (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Morocco tried to block YouTube once... (Score:5, Interesting)
The block didn't last long because so many people were (figuratively) up in arms about it. Given the amount of "non-offensive" material (i.e. in this case, material not criticizing the king), the government realized their own stupidity and realized it would be better to have a placated populous than risk unrest over such a small thing.
Are there parallels here? Possibly not, because I guess the blocks are for different reasons. However, it's not like a large amount of YouTube is about the comic or other representations of Mohammed, so... It will be interesting to see if the people cry out and how the government responds...
The offending content (Score:5, Informative)
Cover Story (Score:5, Insightful)
Otoh there were elections a few days ago and there were multiple clips about rigging that happened in the election.
Forward to 1:20 [youtube.com] or just search for pakistan rigging
What's the more probable cause for the ban?
Re:Cover Story (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Pakistani who has spent considerable amount of time in and out of the country, this blocking has absolutely nothing to do with "blasphemous content".
The reality is that right now in Pakistan there are serious allegations of vote rigging going around, the Military Junta in its usual dictatorial form has to find a cover story to block news about any vote rigging as they already do the same with the regular news media. They blocked the biggest Pakistani News TV being broadcast from Dubai, GEO TV, a few months ago over the news station airing reports critical of the current government.
I really doubt 90% of Pakistanis even care about the cartoons, this is really an excuse to hide under their real motivations, ie vote rigging.
There are tons of websites that can be stated as "blasphemous" however none of them are blocked, so why block youtube, especially at this point in time.
Reeks of a CYA cover story to me.
Parent
mTube (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)
Religion and its leaders (Score:4, Insightful)
No later than 9/11 we (in the democratic world) were made aware how narrow the scope of some Muslim leaders is when quite a few of them spoke out with understanding or even admiration for the criminals that crashed these planes killing thousands of innocent.
Of course this type of behaviour is not limited to Moslims, just look at the retards that, especially in the USofA, are trying to ban education on Evolution or bomb medical clinics.
Here in The Netherlands we had a nice one last night, around 01:00 in the night one of the public broadcasters decided to air the old Deep Throat movie, in (eager?) anticipation quite a few religious leaders protested as if they did not have an off button on their TV
In the case of YouTube there might be a link to my country as an extreme nationalistic member of the Dutch Parliament (Geert Wilders) is readying a movie/ documentary called Fitna (Arabic for Evil) about what he perceives as the dangers of Islam and the Quran.
More and more politicians of wholly undemocratic Muslim nations are protesting with the Dutch government and demanding a stop to this movie as it would be an insult to Islam.
Mr. Wilders has so far not found a regular broadcaster to air his work and has said he'll distribute it via the net, starting with YouTube.
The problem will not go away until religious people, starting with their leaders, learn to accept there is more in this world than their own (narrow) view and that a cartoon or critical movie is generally not meant as an insult or attack but to further discussion and even educate on the subjects covered.
Re:Religion and its leaders (Score:5, Insightful)
They knew perfectly well they had an off button on their TV. They were angry because they didn't have an off button connected to your TV.
rj
Parent
This is about politics, not religion. (Score:5, Insightful)
It serves all the sitting politicians' interests to paint this as a religious thing (including the Bush government); it's up to us to try to see through the propaganda.
Not "a" Danish newspaper (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what kind of reasoning will lead anyone to attempt to murder somebody for insinuating that their prophet inspire violent behavior. By doing so, they just prove the cartoonist right.
IP hijacking, not DNS hijacking (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually IP hijacking (from what I'm reading on the NANOG list anyway). An ISP in Pakistan is advertising a "more specific route" to Youtube's ip space. So, routers are taking the traffic there instead.
It could easily be accidental, like someone not having the right filter in place to block that advertisement going out to everyone.
I hope they are enjoying all of the extra packets.
Disgusted by Pakistan AND Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!! (Score:5, Funny)
They just dont know it
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way (Score:4, Insightful)
The current situation dictates that a lot of oil is in the hands of people who could get a tad bit upset if you don't let them have what they want, at least in terms of free speech. Free speech isn't listed at the NY stock exchange, so it's worth less than losing business with such countries.
Parent
Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way (Score:4, Insightful)
That the Muslim communities in the Netherlands, France, Sweden etc. have been so easily radicalized suggests that the barbarians are already inside the gates. Stemming the tide of Islamic imperialism means not only reducing the power of Middle Eastern theocracies (mainly Saudi Arabia), but ensuring that immigrant communities in the EU assimilate as well.
Parent
Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way (Score:5, Insightful)
You might not have meant to, but you did. Both here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org], you referred to entire religious communities, or a monolithic "they". Do you not see the danger of this habit? As a member of the Christian community, do you wish to be included in the "they" of Timothy McVey, George Habash, August Kreis, the Army of God, the Lord's Resistance Army, etc.?
Parent
Re:Screw Mohammed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Screw Mohammed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe but there sure isnt enough of them to say "Hey, lets do away with theocracy." The fact that theocratic governments are allowed makes me think that they arent as 'tolerant' as people like you claim.
Cue the moral relativist crowd and the people who are going to reply to this by blaming western powers in 3.. 2.. 1..
Parent
Islam requires theocracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Now there can be liberal interpretations of Islam - where each individual needs to wage "jihad" against their own evil. But this is not the traditional stance, or even an obvious one just from reading Quran. It is an assimilation of the Christian idea that "the line between good and evil runs not between us and them, but through each of our hearts".
My problem with Islam is that when a person is externally forced to behave well, that might make the streets safer if done effectively, but that person is still not a good person. The evil within them is just biding its time, waiting for an opportunity. And no external enforcement by human beings is perfect. There will always be loopholes and opportunities to do evil.
Parent
Re:Islam requires theocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, it will fail just as every previous attempt to legislate morality has failed. Like every victimless-crime law in the USA, it would require a complete and total surveillance state/police state to enforce, and you can be assured that the kind of people who want to create such a police state and rule over it are not good people who care about your best interests. There is something seriously wrong with any individual or group who wants to have that kind of power and their acquisition of it is far more dangerous than whatever it was they were supposedly going to protect us from -- with no exceptions. This kind of fanatical approach to "removing evil" or "protecting you from yourself" is evil in and of itself.
What such attempts can and have done is to take "evil" behavior (be it drugs, prostitution, gambling, whatever) and drive it underground. A completely unregulated, illegal market for such things has always made them more dangerous. Additionally, I wonder if the proponents of Prohibition were willing to have the deaths of everyone who was killed by the likes of Al Capone on their conscience? That pesky Law of Unintended Consequences is something from which people repeatedly refuse to learn.
I wish we could evolve past this silly notion that good and evil are nothing more than sufficiently-comprehensive lists of "do's" and "dont's", as I think this is where the idea that "forced to behave a certain way = good person" comes from. The whole thing really is a denial of the spiritual nature of human beings and the moral struggles that occur within each person that the outside world never sees. I find it quite ironic that such denials typically come from major religions.
Parent
Re:Screw Mohammed. (Score:5, Insightful)
In plain sight. By virtue of not being fanatical jihad-monkeys they tend to blend in pretty well with their surroundings just like peaceful Jews, Christians, Wiccans, etc..
Or did you not know that Muslims can look just like anyone else, speak reasonably, and contribute positively to their communities in unassuming and humble manners?
Hell, if nothing else it is nice having Muslims in your community because their bodegas are open on Christian holidays. Try getting out in the real world once in a while.
Parent
Moderates strangely quiet (Score:4, Insightful)
But they don't seem in any affective way to be reigning in the actions of their fanatic counterparts. It's as if they don't care that a small percentage of fanatics are ruining the reputation, economy, and safety of their own country. There are no counter-protests, for example. No red-state-blue-state kind of active political debates.
Something is out-of-whack. It strongly appears as if they secretly condone such behavior and only complain against it to naive foreign journalists.
Parent
Re:Screw Mohammed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Immigrant populations send money home and will continue to do so until exchange rates don't make it profitable to come live in western nations while supporting families elsewhere. Most of that money is going to families who are trying to make do in their ancestral homeland, not terrorist organizations.
As for hate literature, I have yet to see this happen in my community. On the contrary there are minimum two major interfaith events a year co-sponsored by the largest local mosque and the largest local synagogue not to mention the year end Unitarian celebration that includes Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and anyone else who wants to attentd.
All I have to cite for you is my personal experience gathered while living across the USA in places like L.A., N.Y.C., and now New England. Each of these places has visible Muslim populations, and the examples of interfaith cooperation are everywhere for anyone who cares to look.
The only really dangerous experience I have had with a religious group was with the 'Black Israelites' in NYC. And anyone who has dealt with them will tell you that there homegrown religious threats as virulent as any imported Muslim variety.
Parent
US vs Europe, Muslims vs. Muslims (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure why this is not the case in the US, maybe it is the lower density, or that the "homelands" are farther away. Or maybe you are simply better at integrating immigrants.
Parent
Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, religion is evil. Just look at those religious wackos like Stalin and Brezhnev who killed millions and sent more to death camps or psychiatric hospitals just for reading the wrong books Oh wait, they were atheists. Well, I guess religion hasn't been the single greatest force for murder and oppression in the last century after all.
The statistics speak for themselves. Between the Soviet Union and China, many more died for Communism than because of religious violence.
By the way, have you considered that to wipe out religion, you'd have to engage in the same techniques of suppression of knowledge that you condemn? But it's all for the good of society, so it's OK, right? :rolleyes:
Parent
Re:Lucky they're not offended by the Bible (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube (Score:4, Informative)
YOUTUBE.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM resolves to a (lol) "hacking" and warez site of some sort. It's just someone having fun with DNS and whois.
Why are you doing a whois when you can't reach youtube? For all intents and purposes, whois is completely useless these days.
As for youtube being down... Meh, probably some routing problem, or some ship accidentally dragging their anchors over googles datacenters.
Parent
Not provocation, solidarity (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not provocation, solidarity (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand supporting free speech, but let's face facts here: drawing a picture of Mohammad wearing a bomb for a turban is pretty much exactly the definition of "provocation".
Its not the right to be provocative or to express solidarity with others in your field that we are talking about. Its the right to free expression.
However, provocation is often used as an excuse to censor. As someone who is used to that excuse, perhaps its more apparent to me.
I'm gay. I am married to another man. We live together and love each other in our nice little house in suburban California. The computer on which I am typing this response, and my partner's XO across the table from me in the coffee shop where I am getting caffeinated both have small rainbow flags on them. When he took off while I was writing this, he leaned over the table and gave me a peck on the cheek.
There are places in the US where what I just typed would make us vulnerable to getting the shit kicked out of us. Having been in places like that, I can tell you the risk is serious. And that risk is used to intimidate people back into the closet. The 14 year old Jr High Student who was murdered this month in Oxnard California is dead undoubtedly because of violent reactions to his behavior, that many people to this day would label 'provocative': He was out as gay, wore effeminate clothing, jewelry and make-up to school. In fact, that is such a common justification for homophobic violence that we even have to have laws that prevent people from using the 'gay panic' defense (that is, a queer person because his behavior was so provocative, incited the defendant to violence.)
The problem is that any behavior viewed from another standpoint can be provocative. Just as the cartoons of Mohammad are provocative to many Muslims, I find these images from Iran to be provocative (especially given the position of militant extremists within Islam who would like to impose Sharia on the entire world): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgsZYA1mPY [youtube.com]
I defy you to watch that in its entirety and then tell me how its reasonable that people who torture and then put children to death for consensual gay sex shouldn't have to have their delicate sensibilities shattered by such provocation as having their religion (the same one that justifies those murders) be mocked? (Because its the same militant fundamentalist factions that are offended by the cartoons - not all of Islam. In fact many Muslims are far more shocked at the death threats than the existence of the cartoons.)
If you want to defend the right to be provocative, more power to you. But don't try to piss in my face and tell me it's raining: provocation was EXACTLY the goal of the cartoonist and the publishers in this case.
No the goal is to speak truth to violence and hatred. Its hard not to give in and meet that violence and hatred with its reflection. Its hard for me to see that video (and I think hard for most human beings not in that culture of violence) and not want to hate Islam. But I don't. I have worked really hard at not hating Islam. I was the chief resident on call in the ER in Brooklyn's largest trauma center that day, had family in Manhattan on 9/11/01, and had close friends who lost family that day. I can still remember the smell afterwards - and knowing that the noxious air that set my asthmatic lungs into spasm was infused with the bodies of three thousand people. It would have been so easy.... painfully easy to demonize and hate an entire religion and culture. To see them as nothing more than animals who should be locked away safely so they cannot harm human beings.
So I read the Qur'an. Its a beautiful book; simple and very powerful - especially if read from the perspective of someone who is not a believer (and perhaps who is suffering a little PTSD due to the violence of true believers.) I also talked a lot with my co-chief at th
Parent