Pakistan bans Facebook and now Youtube
By DummyBlog
@DummyBlog (379)
Pakistan
May 20, 2010 11:30am CST
In retaliation to the contest of drawing cartoons of Prophet of Islam, Pakistan has decided to ban facebook. It came out as a result of the Court decree on a petition by some person that using freedom of speech to hurt the feeling of two billion people globally must not be encouraged and that everything done under the banner of "Freedom of speech" is not acceptable. Like in Uk, people enjoy "Freedom of speech" but they can't utter a word against their Queen. In US, people enjoy "Freedom of Speech" but they can't publish pictures of holocaust in their daily news paper. People of Pakistan also took it on their heart when US officially supported the contest and undermined the feelings of two billion human beings.
My question is, whether we should allow such "Freedom of speech"? What good is it going to bring? Isn't it irresponsible to misuse "Freedom of speech" or use it only to hurt the feelings of a huge community, globally? Is it good for the good of "Freedom of Speech"? Is there anything as responsibility, that comes with "Freedom of Speech"??
4 people like this
17 responses
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
20 May 10
There is a responsibility to use the freedom of speech for "good" but the problem with "good" is that it is a point of view so it could hurt peoples feelings.
I would say we have no real choice but to allow the freedom of speech to rein in because once you start limiting it you are going down a path that will lead to a situation like China where there are no freedoms to question the government or any authority so really we have to allow this we can't start to trend on this freedom that is a right not given not earn but it it just there and should not be trend on. I think that Facebook didn't intensionally say oh we are going to hurt a bunch of people by doing X. That would be being irresponsible with the freedom and could have some form of punishment involved because in some cases you can be legally liable for what you say. But in most cases it is what you do that matters at least in the United States.
1 person likes this
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
20 May 10
There is "Freedom of Speech" in UK but you can't talk against the Queen, plus, you didn't address the "holocaust pictures" issue. Why to hurt the feelings of two billion people, without any fair reason? What is the positive outcome. Please let me know, anything positive about it.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
20 May 10
Ok, I'll address the holocaust pictures in newspapers. Here's a link to an article that was published in the Washington Post newspaper in 2009. Please note the picture from the Mauthausen concentration camp that is included in the article. The Washington Post is a major newspaper located in Washington, D.C. :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303690.html
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
lol! I guess you copied the link from someone else!
So, this is the only one picture about holocaust ever published??
I know about Washington Post. :)
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
20 May 10
You need to learn a few things about my country.
"In US, people enjoy "Freedom of Speech" but they can't publish pictures of holocaust in their daily news paper."
That statement is patently false.
There is no guaranty in this country against having your feelings hurt. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way...we do NOT have the right to not be offended. I am subjected every day to things that I consider out right perversely offense.
There is a responsibility that comes with freedom of speech, but that responsibility does not include worrying about "hurting peoples feelings".
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 May 10
I think you may be right. In reading through a lot of this very long and in depth discussion, it is very much looking like a cultural difference. Most of us here in my country realize that if we want to guaranty that we are each free to say what we wish, we must also defend the same freedom for people we may very strongly disagree with as well. So we just let a lot of stuff roll off our backs, we try not to sweat the small stuff, there's always something bigger to worry about.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
Perhaps you are used to it and we may regard it as difference of cultures!
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
20 May 10
The right to speak and express yourself freely does come with consequences. This whole "Draw Muhammad Day" IS itself a consequence. It's a consequence of Muslim radicals screaming Allah Akbar while burning the flags of several nations, it's a consequence of threatening the lives of (or outright killing) those who don't follow the same rules as Muslims, it's a consequence of the hypocrisy of these radicals.
Freedom of speech does not spare feelings. It should not spare feelings, otherwise it isn't really the freedom of speech. The retaliation toward Draw Muhammad Day is the exact reason why people are doing it in the first place.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
20 May 10
The purpose of freedom of speech is obvious - to be free to express your grievances without fear of punishment from government authorities. In the same way people should have the right to draw Muhammad in the most insane depiction possible, Muslims should be free to raise their middle finger to these people and call them childish jerks. That's their right.
What is not their right is threatening others for partaking in Draw Muhammad Day, which several already are doing.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
20 May 10
Did I say that??
I'm a very strong supporter of freedom of speech but I want your opinion on its purpose. All im saying is that its the misuse of freedom of speech and like our civil freedom, it must be defined. Lines must be drawn and people must be stopped from misusing it. Anything in good faith can be justified in a good way. ?
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
20 May 10
There is responsibility that comes with freedom of speech. You can't yell "fire!" or "bomb" in a crowded building with the intention of causing a panic. You can't threaten to physically harm someone and most especially the president. You can't claim to have a bomb while on a plane.
You can, however, speak out against anything you would like to speak out against and, in this case, people are speaking out against the threats of extremists who believe that they have the right to kill anyone who they feel insults them. They try to intimidate individuals...now they have to deal with tens of thousands of individuals who are fed up with it and are expressing their feelings about it. What good will this bring? Perhaps they'll stop now that they realize the world will respond.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
21 May 10
I am not insulting anyone because I did not join that group on facebook and I believe that it's in poor taste and hurtful to innocent people. Are you now suggesting that 2 billion peaceful members of Islam will now support the ideology of the militants, will become savage murderers because they have been offended?
You are actually doing the same thing that the people you are angry at are doing...you are taking your anger out on every American, insulting every American. Our culture is as respectful and considerate as any other culture. You claim that Americans jumped out of our country to insult others but Facebook is an American company, open to the entire world just like mylot is. In reality, the rest of the world comes to our country to participate on facebook's website. You're also overlooking the fact that the threats that started this whole thing came to our country from militants in another country. Obviously many Americans were outraged that our countrymen were threatened and, whether you like it or not, our freedom of speech does work that way. I don't think this situation is a joke nor do I think it's funny. I also don't believe it's ethical to threaten someone's life regardless of how angry you are.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
That nice of you! :)
I not saying that 2 billion people will now support the ideology of militants but I am saying that 0.000..1% are going to strongly sway to the ideology of extremism and some percent of that are going to support/join militancy. I'm not insulting every American. I don't believe in stereotyping. I'm questioning the laws.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
The point that you don't understand is that you are insulting a population of two billion people. You are making them your enemies for nothing.
It will bring good, only to the militant groups and their ideology is going to strengthen. Tens and thousands is a drop in the ocean, if you compare them to 2 billion. No they won't realize that world will respond but more people will resist all those who they would be thinking are their enemies and are insulting them for nothing. Countries and companies are respectful to others people and not insulting. That may not be your culture but its the culture of majority of the countries of the world. You can't jump out of your country and say "I'm insulting you, your faith, your belief without any reason but Freedom of Speech. We do it in our own country too, We can insult anyone we want and they can insult us back. Yeah, we feel offended but its ok. It may not be ok for you but we would still do it." Things don't work like that. There would be many people who would be in absolute shock, even at this very moment. Its no joke and it isn't funny. Your concept of Freedom of Speech needs to be polished. Its no form of ethical freedom. Every freedom has bounds and limits, just as civil freedom is.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
20 May 10
I strongly support Freedom of Speech. It is a dangerous thing to censor what people can say and do. Yes it has it challenges....sometimes people get offended. But you have the right of freedom of speech to speak out against someone who offends you. It opens discussions (like this one) where people can talk about issues that upset each other and hopefully foster a better understanding of each other.
People say things all the time that upset or offend me. If the whole world was not allowed to say things that did not offend someone....we would not be allowed to talk at all. LOL.
I can understand not wanting a religious figure demeaned or insulted. I truely can understand why Muslims would be upset over it. But just because you don't like what someone says or does...does not mean you can ban them from doing it. Tolerance is hard..but that is what is needed.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
20 May 10
I define free speech as people being able to express themselves freely. Whatever they think or feel. Wether others agree with them or not. Each person (at least in this country) can say, write or draw whatever they want to express themselves. That is freedom of speech.
As to your comment of "tolerance on the other side is much easier". Well just because it is easier does not make it right. You dont' have the right to tell someone what they can say...and they don't have a right to tell you waht you can say. You don't have to like what they say....they don't have to like waht you say...but both of you have the right to say it.
As who is to decide what is a "good idea" and what is a "bad idea"? that is all a matter of perspective and opinion. What one person will think is a good idea someone else will think is a bad idea. So who decides? Who dictates to the other? Why should anyone get to dictate to anyone what to think or say? Why should anyone have that kind of power over another person?
Do I get to tell someone they can't say something because it offends me? How about you? Well everyone in the world is offended by different things....so in the end to keep "EVERYONE" from getting offended...no one will be able to say anything.
I know I look at this differently because I am an American and I was brought up in a country were I can say and do as I please. So the thought of NOT being able to say and think what I want does not sound good to me at all.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
20 May 10
hmm :)
So you think nothing is right or wrong but its the perspective. What if, somebody thinks that rape is perfectly okay and nobody should have the power to tell anyone, what to do and what not, so, Why the courts and the law enforcement?? In fact, we don't need any law then. Its the craze for "Freedom of Speech" that is driving you.
Do you believe in something called "Ethics"? :)
Most of the times, words can do more damage than the idea on which its elaborating. Thats why use of words is very important in communication. Words can do more damage than arms. If you are offending someone, you must have a solid reason for it. A reason that is productive. Your idea of "Freedom of speech" is like those who get freedom and know nothing about it and they start running wild in the street, destroying public property and hurting people and thinking "I am free! Wowa" lol!
I want to know the purpose behind "Freedom of speech" just like any other type of "Freedom".
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
20 May 10
Sorry but I disagree. Tolerance on the other part is much easy. Cartoonists can feed their desire of art at many different things. It has no other intention then offending a vast community. Every ideology touches its peak at some time. Now its the time of craze for "Freedom of Speech". The spirit of freedom of speech is to allow better Ideas to be dominant over the dominant bad Ideas, which don't allow other Ideas to takeover. How do you define "Freedom of speech" and after you define it, answer this question, "Why?"
@Cutie18f (9546)
• Philippines
21 May 10
People have the right to know the truth. If you have a corrupt and abusive leader, will it help to just keep quiet? The right to know the truth is important as this could spell the difference between a life full of miseries and lies and a life of freedom and happiness. It is true that the freedom of speech is also an important right for as long as we stick to the truth that will set people free.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
22 May 10
And who decides what is offensive? Who decides what is ethical and respectful? Something that may offend you may not offend me. Should I have the right to silence you because I find your opinions offensive? Take the Zionists for instance. If I felt that your opinions about them were offensive should I have the right to prohibit you from expressing yourself? Putting the limits you suggest on Freedom of Speech will cause it to cease to exist and you are, in fact, enjoying that freedom in this discussion right now.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
23 May 10
I have already addressed this point on the page. Please look for it! :)
Every time you can't resort to excuse of "Contemporary Interpretation of Ideas"!
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
I agree with that part of "Freedom of speech" but I want limitations to it. Limitations in the sense that "Freedom of Speech" must not be allowed to be used for offending people, only, without any good reason. Ethics and Respect must be introduced to it.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
They are far better than India where Sikhs are fighting for "Khalistan". There is rebellion in north-east India(Assam, Nagaland,.. and also they have 700,000 troops in Kashmir with an average of one soldier per five civilians. :)
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
22 May 10
Actually, I talked to certain Sikhs and they had an entirely different story to tell from what you are stating. :)
1 person likes this
@peavey (16936)
• United States
21 May 10
As a citizen of the US, I am used to free speech. My first reaction to all the fuss made about the drawing of Mohammed was, "Oh, good grief, who cares?" I realize that you wouldn't like it, but we don't like everything we hear and read, either. As a Christian, I see all kinds of slanders against Jesus.
"In US, people enjoy "Freedom of Speech" but they can't publish pictures of holocaust in their daily news paper." ?? This is a ridiculous statement. I don't know who you listen to, but you have your facts wrong. We even have a national holocaust museum.
Should we allow freedom of speech? You bet we should. No one has the right (or should have the right) to tell others what to say, what to think or what to believe.
If you think you can get through life without ever having your feelings hurt, you're in for a bad time of it. If you think you have the right to never have your feelings hurt, I feel sorry for you because you're not living in the real world.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
:)
I have been writing this over and over again. Perhaps, I should have included it in the main discussion while starting it.
You have "Civil Freedom" but it has boundaries and it is not absolute. Free speech must also have such boundaries.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
Freedom of speech is a part of Civil Freedom. If you have better ways to express your views and feeling than the one which makes people think that you are crossing on their line of freedom than its No Freedom, its an offense. Absolute Freedom doesn't exist in nature. What I am saying is that, we should ensure ethical use of "Free speech" and look for its purpose. The purpose that is for mutual good and a guarantee of better Ideas to prevail, for good! ?
@chiumee (850)
• Philippines
23 May 10
i am a Christian and i live with Muslims. i give much respect to these people who in return, they respect Christians in general. i haven't browsed this matter on fb but so far, i don't bother spending time for some abusive expressions. these things, i don't call it freedom of speech sometimes. it's like, "no discipline" or "disrespect."
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
25 May 10
DummyBlog,
You seem to be getting the United States Constitution confused with United States Acts. So I decided to link to the United States Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
You will see that the law of the United States which is the United States Constitution covers no such topic as censorship of the media or of anyone. The United States has one of the bigger Adult Entertainment industries and also we are fairly Liberal with our media in general and that is only growing as the Internet becomes bigger and bigger. The ideas of the United States are inside the Internet.
Censorship isn't a United States Concept that would be able to last long under the United States Constitution doesn't grant the government the rights needed to do it.
The Bill of Rights gives the people and the States the most power in our country with the People having the most power. The freedom of Speech is given with no restrictions so that Ideas or any other form of expression could be put out into the open for all to see. This is what allows so much diversity in our country that others seem to be lacking. Also peoples feelings are able to recover while peoples lives aren't when people cause physicall damage. I would rather have my feelings hurt than lose the right to say HEY You hurt my feelings here. Also once you start limiting freedoms like this you will lose them forever. In fact right now you are supporting the very Idea that you want to have tied down and striped of all power. You are using your right to free speech and keeping it from being taken away.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
26 May 10
Well I really don't see how a drawing even of this sort is creating hatred for Muslims. Also while I haven't looked at the pages that had the drawing contest on them I don't thing they where the ones threating violence neither was South Park when they did there little episode on Muslims that was done so that Islam weren't left out of the making fun of. Which is what South Park is all about making fun of things in life. The Homosexual community is often attacked by bigots and so in your perfect world people wouldn't say things because some one is going to be offended by it. That is a thing that comes with the freedom of speech it is the percieved con to the whole thing. I can say whatever I want and yeah it may cause people pain or to hate me. Or I may be the one spreading the hate I have that right to do that. It helps in the free flow of information. You can see where a person is by what they say if all they talk about is fear or hate that is the little world they are living in all the time. And well I can use my freedom of speech how I choose without limitations in most cases.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
26 May 10
You are free to choose for yourself or speak whatever that involves you but when you communicate with others, its with respect. Its logical reasoning. Hateful content widens space between people/groups/countries/continents/humanity and such things must be avoided, specially, if it doesn't have any good aspect. Nothing is absolute. You(group/community/culture/county/..) may be using your absolute freedom and violating the free space of somebody else. This is the reason why culture/contrary ethics are taught in business communication. Purposeless things may be encouraged when it affects none in a negative way but in some cases there are lines that are drawn and its for mutual good.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
25 May 10
:)
I have addressed this point of yours in detail. The negative of any thing must be prevented. US constitution is not "Word of God". Its like any other document. US constitution wasn't written by all-knowing, all wise, infallible people. Every law is for good. You civil rights has been limited, so did it take away, all of your civil rights?? Nao! :) Yes, Ideas, knowledge, information... must be open for all to see. I agree. Where I don't agree is, that you can't use it to create unnecessary hatred/conflicts leading to violence, specially, when it involves communities.
@redhotpogo (4401)
• United States
21 May 10
I can understand people wanting to stop hate speech. Islam is very popular there, so of course anything that they considered offensive to their religion would be stopped. Their governments are run by their religious leaders. No problem with that. But they are hypocrites. If someone were doing something to offend Christians, Jews, or any other religion do you think they would go to such extremes? No. They never did.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
If someone do something with the sole intention of offending any ethnic or religious group then they are punishable by Law of Sharia. You must have a solid reason for good. If Christians feel that something is offending them, they should take it up and speak for their rights, so can the jews or any other group or religion. They don't take things that seriously. I have many Christian friends and we try not offend them with anything. Reasoning and logic is a different thing and its completely encouraged but with wisdom/respect and goodwill.
@redhotpogo (4401)
• United States
22 May 10
We all know other religions have no rights in that area. If they were to stand up, they would be killed.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
22 May 10
That is the biggest misconception. The only right that they don't have is that they can't preach their religion, openly. However, they can arrange debates between scholars of their religion and Islam, in open. There are many Churches here, where they go for prayers, every Sunday and none attacks them. They can practice their religion freely and they have reserved seats in the parliament. Minorities have rights here. Its the media that tries to make you believe that minorities are oppressed in that area. :)
@jb78000 (15139)
•
28 May 10
i have mixed feelings on this one. this facebook group was set up solely to be blasphemous to islam. although those doing it say it is about freedom of speech i don't think they'd like it much if a group decided to have a contest to draw pictures blasphemous to christians. however although they are being offensive and provocative they do have this right.
i think pakistan overreacted by banning facebook completely - they could have just blocked these pages - especially as so many in pakistan use facebook and/or complained to the owners of facebook. this has turned out not to be so much about freedom of speech as a chance for people to get angry about each other. but it is a matter of personal responsiblity - those who started it weren't thinking - not of governmental censorship.
the thing is once you start banning certain things not illegal in themselves where do you stop? this might be extremely offensive to many muslims but what about mildly offensive things? or satire? or criticism of governments? is pakistan planning to censor everything its citizens might see?
@jb78000 (15139)
•
28 May 10
i know the public opinion in pakistan was mostly against facebook following this incident but i still think great care should be taken when you pressurise for things to be banned because you find them offensive. very religious people in the states did, and in certain cases still do, get books banned (not by the government any more, i am talking about libraries) because they didn't like what they said or thought them blasphemous. after a certain point you are trying to control what people think. i think the facebook case is more like this than say the government censorship in countries like china. i know every situation is different but i think rather than getting the government to start blocking websites the public in pakistan, and elsewhere, who found this offensive, should have organised a mass boycott of facebook. i also think this would have been more effective in getting facebook to make its members behave better.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
28 May 10
There is another factor in the play. People here think that the govt don't represent them. I agree to it. Pakistani partnership in Afghan war is not our war. We have been living in peace and things were much better here, before Afghan War. We know that Afhan war is aimless and their are no chances of success and yet the govt is a partner in it. Now, our economy is crashing, our army is at the western border with Afghanistan, many tribal people have turned against Pakistan because of Afghan war and drone attacks...
Its banned by the court and govt supported it.
Yes! There are always better ways of doing things! :)
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
28 May 10
Criticism of governments is an entirely different issue. Its a good thing to criticize governments. It has positive affects. However, the specific case has nothing positive but negative. There should be legislation about it. ?
Mildly offensive things can have something positive about it. It may be an opinion to improve something or highlighting something negative. The reason behind banning facebook was to assure its people that govt is not an alien. It understands how people feel and it reduced violent protests to a great extent and now, people feel that, govt did what it could.
The moment people feel that govt is censoring something because of its own political reasons, protests would break out, petitions would be submitted in the court and if not addressed, protests would turn violent and govt would be forced to think about their actions.
@dilitha (36)
• Sri Lanka
21 May 10
That is a really bad trend nowadays some countries are following. Like all of you, I also strongly support freedom of speech. People should know how to use that within their social limitations. Bannig those sites is not the correct answer to the problem. They should have some kind of control only.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
23 May 10
How can you have freedom of speech if there are limitations on it? The citizens of the United States will not agree to give anyone the power to put "limitations" on our freedoms. Our forefathers made sure that the freedoms we enjoy could not be subject to the control of anyone. We have been following this "trend" for over 200 years.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
21 May 10
Just to clear up a couple of items.
It is not illegal in the US to publish, print, show or view pictures of the Holocaust. If it were everyone in Hollywood would be jail and their would be no Public Broadcast System.
Second, the US government did not support the contest they simply said it was not in their pervue to become involved in the discussion either way.
@jamed28 (1903)
• Philippines
21 May 10
It is really the downside of technology. I do agree with the pakistani people, but it is quite hard to hinder social networking sites. Facebook and youtube were banned maybe because they are famous, but still there are sites out there offering the same thing. Let's just hope that people using the internet, who are said to be expressing their freedom, be more responsible. It is too sad that this freedom is being abuse.
@DummyBlog (379)
• Pakistan
21 May 10
Yup! I agree and the worst part is that many don't realize and are unwilling to question it!
@wishformod (56)
• Pakistan
20 May 10
I am a pakistani and here in pakistan pple are being so angry people are sending sms tht dont go on facebook and i ddnt go on facebook to so they shuld nt make fun of our prophet..