If publishing a certain material is prohibited by law in a country, doesn’t that country have a right to block website that are allowing such material, in this case Facebook?
Insulting of Prophet pbuh, is prohibited by law in Pakistan and hence i think Pakistani government is well within its rights to block Facebook or atleast the pages of Facebook or any other website that contains such material.
and while we are at it also discuss if this can be done "democratically". For example what if 60% of the Pakistanis want it banned? Is govt obliged to do it? After all democracy is govt of the people, for the people and by the people.
PS: For the sake of constructive argument, lets not get into how we verify the number of 60% assume that its verified number.
if there's a law in the book about banning such material then it becomes a moot point what 60/80% majority wants. Govt would be well within its rights to impose such a ban.
That such a law is "legal" or not is a different case and can be challenged in a court.
if there's a law in the book about banning such material then it becomes a moot point what 60/80% majority wants. Govt would be well within its rights to impose such a ban.
That such a law is "legal" or not is a different case and can be challenged in a court.
Why would you think that such law could not be "legal".
Why would you think that such law could not be "legal".
If the law violates the constitution of the country and it judged so byu the courts, the law will be declared unconstitutional and will be struck down.
If the law violates the constitution of the country and it judged so byu the courts, the law will be declared unconstitutional and will be struck down.
In this case i dont find anything in constitution to strike it down.
In this case i dont find anything in constitution to strike it down.
I'm not familiar with Pakistani constitutional law so I can't comment on the whether the ban is legal or not - I was just responding to your specific question of why a law could be illegal.
and while we are at it also discuss if this can be done "democratically". For example what if 60% of the Pakistanis want it banned? Is govt obliged to do it? After all democracy is govt of the people, for the people and by the people.
PS: For the sake of constructive argument, lets not get into how we verify the number of 60% assume that its verified number.
“…Indeed, the precedent is set. Holocaust denial, for example, is illegal in Austria, France and Germany. Therefore, Holocaust denial Facebook pages aren’t viewable in those countries. But if you’re in the United States, you can check out Facebook pages such as “Holohaux” at your leisure, despite the social network’s terms barring “hateful” and “threatening” content. (P.S. The Holocaust happened. You know that, right?)”
There is nt any poit in just blocking the offensive material. The reality is Facebook is allowing material to be published which is against the beliefs of 95% of the people of Pakistan and it would be illegal.
If just the offensive pages are blocked it does not mean anything. The PROBLEM is still out there and will ALWAYS be out there. When you ban the whole website, you punish them by making them less popular and therefore less likely to see advertising. IF other Muslim countries follow suite then Facebook would lose some of its popularity globally.
If publishing a certain material is prohibited by law in a country, doesn't that country have a right to block website that are allowing such material, in this case Facebook?
In a word, YES.
Facebook can comply with local laws by blocking illegal content for Pakistani consumers. Yes, there are ways around it, but that's a different matter. Rules are rules. The internet does not change that.
FB said they might make such content inaccessible to users in Pakistan. I am not sure, what is taking them so long to do or maybe they want to see how long the ban goes…