Why just youtube / wiki, let's ban the internet, TV, radio, newspapers, schools, education, books, I mean what the heck, all of those things have 'potential' to be used against islam, the prophet.
Let's turn pakistan into another saudia with talibans as the pakistani religious police (mutawwahs is the arabic name of talibans).
But let's get out & save our lives before the anti pakistan forces take total control over pakistan through use of these paki mullahs & ninjas.
bang on ravage. completely agree with you. if you're going to ban facebook because it allows you to search for a group that is established to get a rise of out people, then ban google too because you can also search for similar stuff on there. ban the whole internet. better yet ban computers. why bother with any computer literacy.
and the thing that gets to me is that generally Pakistanis are the only and/or the first to get horny about stuff like this. who cares! do you see other countries make headlines for blocking websites? argh...
in this country, some retarded facebook group by some retard is a bigger issue than Hamid Mir giving information to terrorists. the former is a stupid prank... the latter is part of a mortal threat to the state of Pakistan. we need to get priorities straight ASAP... our country faces a threat from Taliban rats and their retarded supporters - not bloody facebook.
Censorship on internet is done in lot of countries, nothing wrong in Pakisatn doing it according to its law. And each case is different, violaters of a law is dealt with according nature, circumstances and effects of violation.
So you acknowledge that internet can be used for criminal activity- ban the internet.
haha.. that is desparate.
my issue is the consistent application of the law, not whether sites can in principle be blocked if they are deemed to be illegal. You have tried, and failed, to dispute that google and the internet in general provide access to user generated content that is offensive, just as facebook does, and therefore to ban facebook/google/youtube and not ban internet/google in general is nonsensical. You therefore argue a completely different point i.e. whether sites can in principle be banned. Just try and construct a parallel to google with sites that scam people for money, and you'll see there is no parallel to be made.
And evidence of this comes in the fact that a few hours ago Google WAS banned in Pakistan. Some ISPs have reopened it, but I dont know if all have. So I guess the powers you are defending agree with me, although I dont want them to.
my issue is the consistent application of the law, not whether sites can in principle be blocked if they are deemed to be illegal. You have tried, and failed, to dispute that google and the internet in general provide access to user generated content that is offensive, just as facebook does, and therefore to ban facebook/google/youtube and not ban internet/google in general is nonsensical. You therefore argue a completely different point i.e. whether sites can in principle be banned. Just try and construct a parallel to google with sites that scam people for money, and you'll see there is no parallel to be made.
And evidence of this comes in the fact that a few hours ago Google WAS banned in Pakistan. Some ISPs have reopened it, but I dont know if all have. So I guess the powers you are defending agree with me, although I dont want them to.
it was you who came up with this idea, that if FB is to be blocked then block the internet. By the same logic if sites who scam people have to be blocked then block the internet.
May be u need to read the thread title again.
BTW i was not expecting such a nonsense from you. Blocking the site by no means meant to block people from viewing those images Einstein. Its to signal that a hypocritic policy of FB, where they take down racist insults while leaving religious insults, is detested by people.
it was you who came up with this idea, that if FB is to be blocked then block the internet. By the same logic if sites who scam people have to be blocked then block the internet.
May be u need to read the thread title again.
Nope. You need to avoid the approach of reading the thread title, and making up the remaining story. I have at different points specifically pointed out my issues with the ban, and why the basis on which the sites were banned was applicable to google and the internet in general i.e. they provides access to user generated content that can be prevented but do not. The principle by which I am saying fraudulent sites should be banned does NOT apply to google and the internet in general. Fraudulent sites should be banned because the defraud users of money, google does not do so. I hope that is clear enough now.
Evidence of this is the fact that earlier in the discussion Hareem was saying they did this to prevent people from rioting and killing each other. You notice my response to that was that it should be clear that this is the basis then i.e. i consider that a more valid reason, although I also said that we're treating people like babies then (which they are). So clearly I am interested in the specifics of the matter, rather than the hand wavey argument you're making.
And i have stated that its not about making the caricatures naccessible to people, bcoz, those who want to see can do it through many means, but to send a signal to FB management that they should stop their double standards towards islam.
BTW i was not expecting such a nonsense from you. Blocking the site by no means meant to block people from viewing those images Einstein. Its to signal that a hypocritic policy of FB, where they take down racist insults while leaving religious insults, is detested by people.
even though you're factually incorrect, it doesnt make a difference to my argument, the same applies to Google. Google filters a lot of sites from its search results, but does not choose to filter "Draw Muhammad" or "Muhammad Pictures" or any other religious insult despite having the ability to do so.
however you're factually incorrect on attributing the ban to their 'hypocritic policy' or double standards. you're attributing your reasons to them. firstly there is no mention on any policy, hypocritic or not, contrasting religious insults with racist insults in the ruling. secondly they also banned youtube, wikipedia and google, so it clearly is about access to offensive content rather than the hypocritical policies of any single organization.
Have we seen the ruling and the reasons mentioned by the court for it? Again wikpedia is not banned except for few pages, as mentioned by firenze and youtube is also OPEN now.
In the end we all speak of our opinions here, i have stated that its okay to blcok FB for its hypocritical policies on free speech and double standards, though, i would have liked Pakistan not jumping into this row. Are you against the ban bcoz it has to be all or none? Or you support people putting up anuthing on the web they wish to, regardless of its nature.
^ thats irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. When I say internet I mean access to domain servers, which applies to both internet and facebook.
I believe in consistent application of law and I prefer consumers deciding for themselves what they'd like to boycott instead of having courts enforce bans (which set bad precedents and ultimately are self-serving).
what criteria should there be for blocking sites. well to my mind what springs is criminal activity. if you are at risk of being scammed or something like that. block it. stuff like that.
Sometimes laws have to be enforced for the greater good. You spend a lot of time moaning about this Facebook ban which is enforced but there are thousands of others laws which dont consult you yet you accept them?
No one wants to see street protests with people destroying their own property but sometimes you have to take some sort of action so that you no longer feel disrespected/degraded.
This ban will give people self esteem - at least their government for once did something.
If you live in a Western country are you given the option to have Christmas day or is it just enforced on you?
Note no references to objections to policy or references to their policy wrt racial insults.
wonderful. google was open too. thank God for small victories.
I am against the ban for a whole number of reasons.
I am against it because where it is possible for people to avoid offensive content by not visiting a given webpage/website the courts should not need to ban it.
I am against it because this measure above all else has ensured that the draw Muhammad day got massive publicity, and we’ve all but ensured that this is an annual feature instead of an unsuccessful, ignored attempt at provocation.
I am against it because of the pathetic reasons given for banning it, and the precedence those set. This precendence ensures that the courts can basically ban anything that can be called offensive.
I am against it because of the lack of specificity. It would have been reasonable, as the PTA argued, to block the specific group on facebook that was conducting the competition. Instead the court ordered the whole site banned, a measure of astounding stupidity.
Sometimes laws have to be enforced for the greater good. You spend a lot of time moaning about this Facebook ban which is enforced but there are thousands of others laws which dont consult you yet you accept them?
No doubt, we all moan about things that concern us (i assume thats what you meant?). Are there other laws that are reprehensible? Sure. I've complained about some of them before.
[quote]
No one wants to see street protests with people destroying their own property but sometimes you have to take some sort of action so that you no longer feel disrespected/degraded.
[/quote]
As I said, if the reason was that they didnt want people destroying their own property, the courts should have said that. Atleast sends a message that the courts are expecting that people will react like children.
[quote]
This ban will give people self esteem - at least their government for once did something.
[/quote]
i guess. my issue is why do people want self esteem this way, and why they dont feel self esteem by just stopping using the site themselves instead of wanting to deny access to everyone.
[quote]
If you live in a Western country are you given the option to have Christmas day or is it just enforced on you?
[/QUOTE]
not sure how thats relevant? in my case I have the option to 'have' Christmas day i.e. I can choose to work on that day and utilize the holiday later.
in this country, some retarded facebook group by some retard is a bigger issue than Hamid Mir giving information to terrorists. the former is a stupid prank... the latter is part of a mortal threat to the state of Pakistan. we need to get priorities straight ASAP... our country faces a threat from Taliban rats and their retarded supporters - not bloody facebook.
you're very right... the priorities of the court are certainly off in this case.
@ravage, you are making disgusting nonsense here
Google is a search engine and Facebook is a social utility site.
Sirf is bina pay muqabala mat karo dono k beech k dono Websites hain.
You should behave like a man!
Don't bring your hatred for Islamic prospective of our nation.
Facebook has been banned on wishes of 99% population of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan.
You are one of those who don't care for TAHFAZ-E-NAMOOSERISALAT.
But we can die for the sanctity of our beloved Prophet Muhammad SAW.
The people who can't resist chatting anonymous girls and joining so called communities on FB for the ''namoos'' of our beloved Prophet Muhammad SAW should be ashamed of themselves.
You are against the ban because you have a Western secular mind-set no other reason. You justify it with reasons which are not reasons but mumbo jumbo.
**You dont get it but what good would blocking the group do? The reality is thousands of Muslims on Facebook have protested against it peacefully. They have reported the communities but no action has been taken because Facebook believes in freedom of speech which nowadays ONLY translates as the freedom to insult Muslims. The reality is that Facebook has to give freedom to all hate groups equally or be more aware of cultures other than secular. Hit them where it hurts! **
Why are so many facebook communities opening with Islamaphobic aims? There are aspects of many religions which others will find disturbing yet why dont people who want freedom pick on them?
**The competition did ot get publicity because of the ban but it was already a well known thing. For once the government of Pakistan did something PRINCIPLED…why cant we salute them? **
*You dont get it but what good would blocking the group do?
*
It would be a more specific way of responding to the stated reason why facebook was banned i.e. it gave access to blasphemous material.
[quote]
The reality is thousands of Muslims on Facebook have protested against it peacefully. They have reported the communities but no action has been taken because Facebook believes in freedom of speech which nowadays ONLY translates as the freedom to insult Muslims. The reality is that Facebook has to give freedom to all hate groups equally or be more aware of cultures other than secular. Hit them where it hurts!
[/quote]
like I said, there is no basis to say that their policy towards other hate groups was even considered in the debate, or mentioned in the ruling. furthermore other websites that allow 'freedom to all hate groups', such as google, were blocked atleast for a certain period, therefore sending message about the disparity in policy was NOT the reason.
[quote]
Why are so many facebook communities opening with Islamaphobic aims? There are aspects of many religions which others will find disturbing yet why dont people who want freedom pick on them?
[/quote]
I agree, there is an alarming increase in islamophobia, and there is no question that the group itself was doing something pretty stupid.
[quote]
*The competition did ot get publicity because of the ban but it was already a well known thing.
*
[/quote]
Not really. I for instance am reasonably plugged in and had no idea about this. Furthermore the thousands of headlines Pakistan's ban made are certainly an increase in its publicity.
[quote]
For once the government of Pakistan did something PRINCIPLED....why cant we salute them?
[/QUOTE]
perhaps they did something principled. im just holding them to apply the principle where it would be inconvenient to do so.
Had the Government not banned Facebook, we people would have been cursing Pakistan Govt. for showing cowardness. When contemptous and blasphemous cartoons were published in news in Denmark, we were demanding Denish embassy in Islamabad to be sealed and bilateral ties to be broken. We, Pakistanis, are one of those never-happy people. We always find solace in making controversies even on those issues which ought to be of national unity. We have people like ravage in our rows, alas!