PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan Bans The Wooden Boat Forum?



seanz
05-21-2010, 05:07 AM
Just checking.........

It seems that bans have been placed on Facebook, Utube and Wikipedia in Pakistan.

We have never had such a free flow of information, is this the high-point we're at now?

BrianW
05-21-2010, 06:55 AM
Works in Afghanistan.

paladin
05-21-2010, 07:07 AM
well, darn...do they have post offices in Afghanistan?...I remember post offices in Saudi Arabia also, but if you put anything in the mail it never got to where it was going, they sold stamps for high dollar and I think they burned the mail to prevent paying the fees to deliver it.

switters
05-21-2010, 08:49 AM
Works in Afghanistan.

yesterday was draw a picture of someone who will not be named day on facebook, and though I thought of bringing it up. I was afraid a word search might get the site banned "over there" or get me banned.

BrianW
05-21-2010, 09:19 AM
well, darn...do they have post offices in Afghanistan?...

Yep. Mailed some scarves, trinkets, and excess winter stuff home the other day. USPS Priority Mail through the Army Post Office.

John of Phoenix
05-21-2010, 09:32 AM
In the midst of the Iranian revolution everything associated with the government was a target including the Post Offices. Not having any explosives (thank God) they'd break out the glass store fronts with stones, sticks, bricks, drive a car through the door, whatever was handy and ransack the offices. We had to admire one particular postmaster in Isfahan. After having been attacked, he had the front bricked up - TOTALLY - except for a single brick and that was the mail drop. Neither rain, nor sleet, nor revolution ...

Syed
05-21-2010, 09:45 AM
Sean,
WBF is not so ordinary ;) only Facebook and YouTube stand restricted.

BrianW
05-21-2010, 10:00 AM
Glad to see you're still with us Syed.

SMARTINSEN
05-21-2010, 11:09 AM
That thing about drawing cartoons about the Prophet was pretty stupid. Juvenile.

redeye1962
05-21-2010, 08:32 PM
so are there lakes in Pakistan? maybe they do not need boats. :)

PeterSibley
05-21-2010, 08:36 PM
Sean,
WBF is not so ordinary ;) only Facebook and YouTube stand restricted.

Now there's a relief !:)

Mad Scientist
05-21-2010, 09:37 PM
so are there lakes in Pakistan? maybe they do not need boats. :)

An Indian Ocean coastline, and a burgeoning shipbreaking industry!
P&O's 'Canberra' was dismantled there the other year...

Tom

Mrleft8
05-21-2010, 09:50 PM
so are there lakes in Pakistan? maybe they do not need boats. :)

Got a map Einstein?:rolleyes:

seanz
05-21-2010, 10:03 PM
Sean,
WBF is not so ordinary ;) only Facebook and YouTube stand restricted.

Good to hear they haven't restricted essential services.
:)


That thing about drawing cartoons about the Prophet was pretty stupid. Juvenile.

Stupid on so many levels.....there was no need to insult people to prove you have freedom of speech and then on to Muslims dying in riots to protest cartoons that they would never have known about unless somebody went out of their way to publicize them long after they first appeared in print.

People.....some times I just don't know.

Peerie Maa
05-22-2010, 07:18 AM
Actually, there is specifically a need to offend someone. The right to freedom of speech is there specifically to protect that which someone considers to be vile, insulting, inflammatory, illegal, etc. Saying, "Good morning sunshine" is not a robust exercise of your rights.

Cowchips. With every right comes a responsibility, or society will redefine it as "not a right" should you be irresponsible enough to abuse that right. Never heard such a naive irresponsible statement before, although I do respect your right to take part in the debate, or how else are you going to learn?
We are back to shouting "Fire" in a crowded hall.

seanz
05-22-2010, 07:33 AM
Actually, there is specifically a need to offend someone. The right to freedom of speech is there specifically to protect that which someone considers to be vile, insulting, inflammatory, illegal, etc. Saying, "Good morning sunshine" is not a robust exercise of your rights.



You are holding the stick by the wrong end, why don't you put it down before you hurt yourself?
:p;)

Notice the use of the word 'was', not 'is'.....I believe there was no need in that case. Still don't. Freedom of speech does mean that you will offend some people sometimes, surely it doesn't mean that you should set out to be offensive to a particular group on purpose for no good reason. You don't need to specifically offend anybody.....you might, but it's not compulsary.

'Course that idea you have might explain a lot of the behaviour we see here..........:rolleyes::D

donald branscom
05-22-2010, 12:25 PM
I live in the USA and I would never put anything on Facebook either.

Not considering all the ways the information has been misused and the
non- sensible constraints placed on the accounts by Facebook rules.

Ian McColgin
05-22-2010, 12:46 PM
Issues of free speech abound in the world. Remember how Britain's insane libel laws allow American actors to sue American individuals for "libels" if anyone in Britain could even possibly have read it. And unlike here, truth is not a defense.

So what that certain particularly reactionary Moslems have less than no sense of humor? As one who defended the "Pissed Christ" and a few other sacrileges, I say, "Tough."

Interrogation techniques that utilize insult and degradation have many of the same drawbacks as torture. Does tearing out pages of a Koran and blowing your nose on them actually get information? Or is that just a part of the continuum of dominance and sadism that ends in the interrogator sadistically and sexually perverted?

I mention the question because some of the "interrogation techniques" we use are to my mind wrong, but the same sacrilegious abuse of another's religious symbols in a different context is at least defensible free speech, maybe even very funny.

I'm pretty sure that the radical right Islamists like our own radical white right here will not see the distinction.

pefjr
05-22-2010, 01:26 PM
Free speech is defended even if offensive, otherwise it would not be free. That statement alone will offend many. When free speech is restricted, thought will soon be restricted. Often free speech is intended to be offensive to make a point and and also to create humor. But what is humorous to one is blasphemous to another.

What's the first thing you do when telling an un-PC joke in mixed company? Look over both shoulders.

Google is the culprit here. Is Pakistan going to follow in the footsteps of China or the Free World?

Peerie Maa
05-22-2010, 03:20 PM
Does the USA have on its stature a crime of "Action likely to cause a breach of the peace"?

The UK does, this means that publishing inflammatory speech, knowing that it may cause a riot would be classed as "action liable to cause a breach of the peace", just as shouting "Fire" in a crowded hall resulting in injuries due to a stampede will result in criminal proceedings.
The actions being defended here come into the category of "Actions liable to cause a breach of the peace" and are therefore criminal. As I said in post #18 with freedom comes responsibility, freedom of speech carries with it the duty to be responsible in exercising your freedom.

Peerie Maa
05-22-2010, 04:54 PM
Peerie, if you anger me, the dog gets it. You have been told. It will be your fault, not mine. You will be a criminal.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_sd4aOA0Ur-I/SuDogkrA2vI/AAAAAAAAITc/nmD9WY5pOpg/dog_gets_it_thumb%5B2%5D.png?imgmax=800

Cowchips.

Peerie Maa
05-22-2010, 05:35 PM
It gets worse

http://doubledeckerbuses.org/blog/media/blogs/new/God-kills-kitten.jpg

That about says it all, on sooo many levels.

pefjr
05-22-2010, 06:08 PM
Does the USA have on its stature a crime of "Action likely to cause a breach of the peace"?

Words. That's all, just words. I don't think that would go over well here, probably hard to consider words an action. Doesn't the offended party have some responsibility? If the offended party murders someone over a cartoon or words is it not murder still? Canada and Ann Coulter may differ.

seanz
05-22-2010, 06:28 PM
Words. That's all, just words. I don't think that would go over well here, probably hard to consider words an action. Doesn't the offended party have some responsibility? If the offended party murders someone over a cartoon or words is it not murder still? Canada and Ann Coulter may differ.

Yes, Canada is a country.

Inciting a riot? Those are just words.....

pefjr
05-22-2010, 06:58 PM
Inciting a riot? Those are just words.....too weak, too vague

seanz
05-22-2010, 07:35 PM
Inciting a riot? Those are just words.....

Better?

pefjr
05-22-2010, 07:57 PM
Better?Bolder

seanz
05-22-2010, 08:08 PM
It's not offense I'm concerned ahout, it's harm. During the Danish cartoon controversy, people were killed in riots.......so I remember, I've had a quick look for news links but can't find any......today I'm letting my computer beat me at chess....it makes it run happier for the whole week.

Just remember, all you freedom lovers, rights come with responsibilities......

pefjr
05-22-2010, 08:43 PM
It's not offense I'm concerned ahout, it's harm. During the Danish cartoon controversy, people were killed in riots.......so I remember, I've had a quick look for news links but can't find any......today I'm letting my computer beat me at chess....it makes it run happier for the whole week.

Just remember, all you freedom lovers, rights come with responsibilities......I agree, I also love that flavor of humor. It was not the cartoonist or the newspaper that hunted down and murdered innocents. I will not be ruled by thugs that try to influence by threats and intimidation! Tolerance is an ingredient in the recipe also. Fanaticism is short on tolerance

seanz
05-22-2010, 11:27 PM
Actually they don't. For better or worse.

Is this a 'cultural thing'?


I agree, I also love that flavor of humor. It was not the cartoonist or the newspaper that hunted down and murdered innocents. I will not be ruled by thugs that try to influence by threats and intimidation! Tolerance is an ingredient in the recipe also. Fanaticism is short on tolerance

Not the cartoonist's fault? True enough.....most of what happened was the fault of one self-aggrandizing iman.

Now, are you absolutely sure you're not ruled by thugs that use threats and intimidation?
:rolleyes:;)

seanz
05-23-2010, 01:55 AM
Nope. It's a 'read the Constitution' thing. .

Again? I've heard that people take that document very seriously sometimes.

pefjr
05-23-2010, 08:47 AM
Now, are you absolutely sure you're not ruled by thugs that use threats and intimidation?
:rolleyes:;) South Park was. Maybe you should quiet your tone, to avoid offending me. :D

PeterSibley
05-23-2010, 06:26 PM
Is this a 'cultural thing'?


True enough.....most of what happened was the fault of one self-aggrandizing iman.

Now, are you absolutely sure you're not ruled by thugs that use threats and intimidation?
:rolleyes:;)

This could easily morph into a discussion of US Foreign Policy .:rolleyes:

seanz
05-23-2010, 07:19 PM
It was supposed to be a thread about Pakistan and internet censorship.....were the Pakistani government's actions justified? Will we see more and more of this sort (public safety) of censorship? There is a shift towards internet censorship here in NZ, it was supposed to be about really nasty pornography....suprise, suprise, some political sites were 'filtered' as well. By mistake, of course. There isn't a whole lot we can do here to prevent this from happening, 'Big Bro' just shuts the tap and whatever they want blocked is blocked.
It seems that there are ways around .....Wikileaks goes under different names to get past the Great Firewall of China, that sort of thing.....but it relies on the goodwill of people from outside the firewall.

Too boring? Let's talk about Southpark......

pefjr
05-23-2010, 09:45 PM
A particular ironitude is that the only place you can now download the controversial Mohammed episodes of South Park is from...wait for it...servers hosted in China.

The web-based servers are nice and pretty and easy to use, but they allow rampant censoring, while as the rec.* news servers were appropriately chaotic and ungoverned, which is needed for democracy and liberty to thrive.I wondered just how good(or bad) those filters were. :D