Pakistan Bans Facebook Over "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"

[ohellynot]

It is very odd that they decided on two different courses for the same problem IMO, or am I missing some significant differences.

I would imagine that the reason they took such different paths was that the guy who runs relations with the censorship board in India is a different guy than the one who runs it in Pakistan, and that this solution was probably not reached entirely by Facebook, but was instead dictated to them by the governments in question.

Pakistan: take down this page or your not allowed in this country
FB: How about we just block access to that sight for your country, that way you still get access to nearly the entire sights use.
Pakistan: take it down or we won't let you in the country.
FB: WE can't do that, so I guess you'll have to take us down in Pakistan.

India: This page is causing so friction with a very violent fringe group of Muslims in our country, can you block this page from access over here.
FB: Yeah sure, let me just put up the right firewall... and, done. Any other problems?
India: No that is all. Thank you.

This might have actually happened and would explain the "hpocritcal" response. After all when talking to businesses like this, if you are demanding and act as the person in charge you are more likely to be shot down by the company.
Evan more likely given that these are realistic rectios fr the devout pakistani's(speeling?) and the slightly more relaxed Indians.

 

[AceDiamond]

I would just like to remind everybody that "Freedom of Speech" is only about Government Censorship, specifically your own government, and that the Bill of Rights (or your own country's analogue) does not exist on the Internet. In fact this is why it's so tricky to claim freedom of speech in regards to Internet Property because there's no one law about it. Something you do in one country could be illegal in another. It's the "World Wide Web" for a reason.

Also anybody who participated in Draw Mohammed Day understands fuck-all about the Muslim religion and seemed to think that only extremists say you can't recreate Mohammed's image. I'll just refer to a post all the way back from page 2.

As for the draw Muhammad thing being a protest against Islamic extremism, I think they are missing the point. That drawing Muhammad is illegal is a part of their holy law. It's like burning a bible or peeing on the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Of course there are some out of the 1.2 billion muslims that finds that offensive enough to threaten to kill someone. I bet if someone burned a bible on television, there'd be some Christian "extremists" doing the same thing. Although that didn't happen when a commedian did that in Norway... Well, I guess it is a small country. And besides, Christians in Norway are used to just taking it when comedians take a dump on them. I almost admire muslims for standing up against it. Almost...

So basically, Draw Mohammed Day was more of a slap in the face of all Muslims whether it bothers them or not. Nice job breaking it heroes. I hope you enjoy your wonderful attention for being so "edgy". All this day showed is that people are ignorant about other cultures and just think that anything that sounds silly is only the work of extremists. It may be silly, but it's their rule. Just like how people of the Jewish faith aren't technically allowed to spell out God's name. Is it silly? A bit. But it's the rule.

 

[jaing1138]

I say bring it on to those dini'la extremists, they wanna jurkadir with the free world and impose their Dar'manda religion on us then they can just bikadinir themselves. We all have the right to believe what we want even if others don't neccesarily agree with it, anyone who tries to deny people there beliefs is a hut'uun. I have no problem with muslims in general but it is the extremists that I do have or those that say that there view should be the only one. Tayli'bac extremists?

 

[GooBeyond]

People are so quick to jump on the "freedom of speech" gimmick while completely neglecting the perspectives of anyone who might take offense from it.

So out of all of the different limitations and violations of your freedoms of speech, the only one you want to protest is this specific example? People aren't "protesting free speech", they're just doing it for the sake of doing it, childishly poking to get a reaction.

I won't go into details though, since I'll be opposed by everyone here, seeing as gaming communities are the most aggressive anti-religious zealots out there.

couldn't agree more.
its just a shot at getting attention.
freedom of speech =/= freedom to insult.

 

[Uncompetative]

...just curious to see if this gets suppressed by The Escapist.

 

[NeutralDrow]

In advancing free speech, however, doing something considered so inherently offensive that a government suppresses it? And with the foreknowledge that any idea attached to it is certain to get massive amounts of negative press even on lower levels? Way to set the cause back by years.

Oh come now, it isn't that bad. Where there's free speech, there's trolls, and you can just learn to ignore them. It didn't help, but it would be stupid to let such a thing actually hurt "the cause".

It was stupid, but there wasn't much I could do about it. My hacking skills are nonexistent.

2) To spread thin the number of people extremists can focus their wrath onto. Muslim extremists murdered Theo Van Gogh because he was a relatively high-profile figure who did something "blasphemous". Trey Parker and Matt Stone were threatened also because of their fame brought on by South Park. However, if everybody started depicting Muhammad, then the crazies would have to think twice about attempting to kill so many blasphemers.

Why would they have a problem? You're already increasing the legitimacy of their propaganda material. Since you're doing their job for them, they could just rely on more recruits.

Well, if you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it. While there is always a chance for backlash like you've described (there are risks for most decisions you make in life), I'm hoping that the majority of Muslims (I mean non-extremists) are going to know better than buying into the propaganda. It's only those extremists who grew up with such harsh and violent indoctrination who would actually find this "legitimacy" a justifiable reason to commit murder.

A better idea would have been to not do this event. Instead, by taking the complaint specifically to the media networks about censorship and the role of free speech, possibly even to the point of protests, it would have been far easier to engage Muslims themselves in the debate. Regardless of the extent, any sort of international attention of such a cause could adequately express the value we hold in freedom of speech, as well as not draw conflict and rabid emotion to the forefront that could get in the way of reasoned discourse.

Conflict and rabid emotion that could result from, say, the equivalent of demonstrating free speech via a massive group of people essentially shouting "your mother's a whore" at the top of their lungs. Aside from fueling the fundamentalist ideology that western peoples and their values are inherently opposed to Islam (and doing absolutely fuck all to their plans), even those Muslims who might otherwise be willing to listen (keep in mind, even during the Danish cartoon controversy, most of the protests never turned violent, and the single biggest protest action was several nations organizing a boycott) are going to get their backs up. You can get a man's attention by turkey-slapping him, but basic psychology points out that he's not going to be favorably inclined towards you or your opinions.

 

[AWAR]

Yeah right.. Draw Muhammud day.. More like Islam Hate Day..

This mindset that western civilisation is the best and everyone else is evil must change someday..
Freedom of speech? Your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Actually "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" sounds extremely offensive because there are non-extremist groups who will be offended. Honestly, The government is within its rights to ban what it likes. Just because we believe in the freedom to act like asses and offended religion in the name of goating terrorist of speech does not mean that everybody universally has this right. We can say its bad by our standards but by their standards this is offensive and does need to be banned.

 

[Billion Backs]

People are so quick to jump on the "freedom of speech" gimmick while completely neglecting the perspectives of anyone who might take offense from it.

So out of all of the different limitations and violations of your freedoms of speech, the only one you want to protest is this specific example? People aren't "protesting free speech", they're just doing it for the sake of doing it, childishly poking to get a reaction.

I won't go into details though, since I'll be opposed by everyone here, seeing as gaming communities are the most aggressive anti-religious zealots out there.

couldn't agree more.
its just a shot at getting attention.
freedom of speech =/= freedom to insult.

I guess it wouldn't piss you off if said Muslims walked in and tried to outlaw eating pork for everyone.

Because that's exactly what they did when it comes to free speech.

I'm absolutely cool with everyone's delusion of a friend upstairs, but don't expect me to follow it. You don't eat pork? I'm cool with that. You don't want to see some pretty much fictional dude pictured? Ooookay, it's not exactly reasonable, but I could live with it - after all, it's your own life and as long as nobody forces you to see these things (although some things SHOULD be forced onto people, like basic laws and basic education because fuck having another Dark Ages. Yes, praying will NOT cure your cancer. And no, using condoms will NOT give you AIDs. That type of information, y'know?).

But if you try to make me share your beliefs, any form of acceptance stops here. I do not approve of Muslim or any faith for that matter, especially the organized monotheistic kind. I can be civil about it, and trust me, I'm being it right now.

I am not a part of Muslim religion, nor would I ever want to be. And I will not follow any laws their religion is trying to push on others, and nobody should. Religion doesn't deserve a tiny bit of respect, just calling it a religion doesn't put it on some kind of invincible golden pedestal and really shouldn't. There are plenty of ugly things any religion has that should be fought and avoided. Sure, religion also inspired a good number of good things. Although a good portion of these things came exactly out of opposition of religion, whether it's art, music, or ideology.

By attacking someone practicing their right of expression, they violated one of the most important concepts in the western society. Hell, one of the best concepts ever, even.

I guess what I'm saying is "just because you're offended and have a group of raging cutthroats doesn't somehow justify you forcing everyone else who isn't offended into changing their beliefs and censoring their materials". Because for all that matters, there's a much bigger and better equipped group of cutthroats ready to tell you to fuck off.

Seriously, how hard can it be to understand this? They, the extremists, are trying to force their backwards ways onto us. Being offended doesn't give anyone the right to censor others who aren't, especially when the material isn't exactly harmful. I can understand the excuses when it comes to extreme violence or controversial things like child pornography. But this comes to an issue where labeling a stick figure "Mohammed" can get you silenced and killed by some savage. And yes, for all the multiculturalism in the world, their culture is nothing more then savage. It's not "different". It's not "different but equal". It's just savage.

What if big and threatening enough group of people would claim to be insulted by, say, Simpsons picturing Americans as slobs? Or featuring gay characters in positive light? Because you'd find plenty of people who might not like that (and frankly I wouldn't respect any of them). But at least they're smart enough to not try to censor it, because they would be laughed at the same way some nut who claims that listening to Rock'n'roll is the same as "selling your soul to the devil" or some equally stupid belief.

What's funny about all this is that (oooh boy, another bad analogy) if we ignore much of history and focus on this hypothetical debate that probably never occured... The people supporting Mohammed day would be like the people who think that slaves be free due to some kind of inherent human rights and equality (And yes, I did imply this was a fictional scenario, and it is) because everyone should have the same freedoms and ability to practice them. The people who oppose it and end up supporting the Extremist Muslim cause, on the other hand, are using this kind of argument. "But slavekeepers have freedoms too! Shouldn't they have the freedom to own slaves!?"

Mohammed isn't holy to me, nor should he be. I'm not a Muslim, and I think I've made my position pretty damn clear. Believe whatever the fuck you want, but if you try to teach "Creationism" as a viable alternative to science and history, random new age/ really old age (lol?) shit as a viable alternative to medicine, or claim that I can't draw a stick figure and name him Mohammed under the threat of death, you better fucking be sure that I'll be at your throat.

But then again, death is the only cure for the unbeliever. Or so the Koran says.

 

[sin keon]

You know what amazes me? Nobody actually knows what mohamed looks like. So nobody can draw an accurate pic of him. Will I get a deathtread if I draw a stickman and say it's mohamed? Probably not.

 

[Billion Backs]

Yeah right.. Draw Muhammud day.. More like Islam Hate Day..

This mindset that western civilisation is the best and everyone else is evil must change someday..
Freedom of speech? Your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

Which is why we should be fighting the Extremist Muslims.

They attacked our collective freedoms of expression. They are the people who don't allow women on the streets without a face mask and a male escort (in most extremist places, at least). They are the ones who follow a religion that still sticks to the book unlike Christianity that kinda gave up and died down a bit. By which I mean aggressively opposing most things the book tells you to oppose. Jews? Yes. Other religions/heathens in general? Yes. Gays? Yes. And so on.

Are you REALLY going to claim that their civilization is somehow better then the West? Seriously? They're a bunch of savages stuck in Dark Ages.

Of COURSE the western civilization is infinitely better, at least they are trying to provide equal rights for people and let them live their lives without being murdered by some asshole with a bigger cult.

I don't even know why the so called "moderate" Muslims bother with it. Don't bother with organized religion, you know you're only using it as an excuse for "being with the group". If you want to believe in a god, just do - if it exists and is not as malevolent as most religions claim, you can at least assume it will be reasonable enough to take you in. Especially considering how most moderate muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace (it isn't), surely enough their god wouldn't want you to associate with all the assholes supposedly misinterpreting it. Although then again, considering the shit just about every monotheistic god did, I'm not sure I can agree with the judgment of any person who would want to follow them and spend an eternity with them.

But then again, it's just easier to form a religious cult that considers pants absolutely immoral and offensive, and then use threats of terrorism to ban pants, because CLEARLY being delusional enough to be offended by a pair of pants is a good enough reason to take away said pants from everyone else who doesn't, in fact, care and enjoys their pants as they are.

What you've got is a bad case of western guilt and ignorance of all the awesome alternatives to what we more or less have here.

 

[Billion Backs]

You know what amazes me? Nobody actually knows what mohamed looks like. So nobody can draw an accurate pic of him. Will I get a deathtread if I draw a stickman and say it's mohamed? Probably not.

You might.

It's the thought that counts, apparently.

 

[Callate]

I'm of mixed minds. There are plenty of moderate Muslims who don't deserve to be immersed in a hostile atmosphere, just by nature of what they privately believe (and who in their private beliefs do and seek to do harm to no one.) And just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you are right to exercise that right. But on the other hand, the extremists have absolutely no right to impose the tennets of their faith on others by violence or the threat thereof, and it's gratifying to see an organized show of defiance, even if some of those who participate in that show are drawn for dubious reasons.

When all is said and done, I may wish that a more reasonable organized response had been championed, but I have to stand on the side of free speech. I have to wonder how much of Pakistan's response is to prohibit sacrelige and how much is to avoid stirring up extremist elements. There's something quite ridiculous about the idea that "sacrelige" goes away if you turn your back on it.

There is no solemn right to be shielded from anything and everything you find offensive. At some point, you have to deal with the world.

 

[Om Nom Nom]

I respect the beliefs and views of others. I don't mind making small accommodations around things that would be offensive, like not drawing a particular religious figure (I doubt anyone outside of the religion would even have a valid reason to anyway), or not bringing up topics that the person I'm talking to might take offence from.

But, unless I'm in a country where their religion is law, or it's not too much trouble to make an accommodation, I'm not going to change what I say or do.

Freedom of speech isn't an excuse to be blatantly disrespectful. On the flip side, using religion as an excuse to threaten/cause death isn't acceptable either; isn't it enough to smile, knowing that the person offending you is going to hell?


+0.02p


PS: I don't have a religion myself. Though I'm not truly an Atheist; I just know that, in the grand scale of things, I'm relatively small.

 

[Om Nom Nom]

Really? Almost 300 comments over Facebook? Do you care so much about this site?
Facebook could disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't even notice...

The comments are mostly about people arguing over discussing free speech or religion. I think you're the first person to specifically mention it in a few pages, in fact.

 

[Calatar]

freedom of speech == freedom to insult.

Fixed your typo for you. It actually is, so long as it is not expression for the purpose of provoking a fight.

There is no solemn right to be shielded from anything and everything you find offensive. At some point, you have to deal with the world.

This point is important, and will always bear repeating in these conversations. You have no right to not be offended. You however have the right to be offended, AND to be offensive, at least in the West.

Clearly this facebook page isn't designed to improve east-west relations, but it IS a stand against threats of violence from extremists. When you side with the extremists who choose to threaten and kill cartoonists because you think the cartoons were in bad taste/offensive, you're being accommodating to terrorism. Granted, we should try to improve east-west relations through improved understanding of each-others' culture. But we DON'T give up our freedom of expression because some parts are offensive. We don't compromise our principles for more peaceful relations.

Those who created and signed the facebook page had an intent, and it was NOT designed with the purpose of alienating all Muslims in the world. Their stated purpose was to relieve threats of violence from our own citizens. Whether you agree or not, if you think their viewpoint should be silenced and removed, you're no friend of western democracy.

 

[AWAR]

snip

We are no better: holy inquisition, crusades, creationism e.t.c I am of the opinion that Christianity is proven to be by far a more dangerous religion. Islam is a relatively new religion which suffers from "infantile" diseases such as these displays of extremism. And by drawing muhamad you attack Islam not the extremists. It's just a mindless provocation which will only feed and justify fanaticism. Also stereotyping (West's most popular hobby) is really really bad. My family traveled to Egypt and Afghanistan and met a lot of muslims on the way. They are kind and hospitable folks not terrorists as the conservative media portray them.
I never said that the western civilisation is worse, but as a civilised person I chose not to partake in horrible and foolish provocations such as "Draw Muhamad Day". I believe dialogue is the best way to settle our differences and as we are "more civilised" (in your own words) that's what we should be doing.

 

[PiCroft]

So if the muslim world considers a depiction of Mohammad "tasteless by most social standards" is it justifably censored??? That's the thing. YOUR standards are differen't than THEIR standards. You think your standards are the CORRECT ones. They're not. They're just YOUR standards. So quit basing what they SHOULD THINK on your own values.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your thoughts, but are you saying that because a religion outlaws behaviour X and some adherents of this religion promote violence towards non-believers who perform this behaviour, that the correct behaviour is to meekly accept this and basically become beholden to a religious law for fear of upsetting said religious adherents?