Social Networking Spurs Activism Against Repression 303
The New York Times Magazine is running a story about the rise in political activism in Egypt through sites like Facebook, which allow citizens to gather and share ideas in ways they otherwise aren't allowed. A state-of-emergency law has been active in Egypt since 1981, which, among other things, "allows the government to ban political organizations and makes it illegal for more than five people to gather without a license from the government." As affordable internet access has spread throughout the country, the government is having a much harder time keeping wraps on the ideas of dissidents. Blocking access to the sites isn't a good solution for the government, because many non-dissidents use it for mundane communications. As Harvard's Ethan Zuckerman puts it, "...doing so would alert a large group of people who they can't afford to radicalize."
Re:Not all repression is bad repression (Score:3, Insightful)
they should still be given the right to express thier views, stand to be elected, etc. sure monitor them invade thier privacy to prevent terrorist acts (if you must), but by forcing your opinions on them you are no better than they are.
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation:
The people living there, if given the freedom to decide their own fate might decide to do do something I don't approve of.
Hence only I deserve such rights.
Re:Not all repression is bad repression (Score:1, Insightful)
Hitler rose to power through legal means. Also, have you not heard of the "tyranny of the majority"? Today they may be fringe groups, but under the right circumstances, given enough time, and left unchecked, who knows what could happen.
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideas they espouse are disgusting, and yet they manage to obtain web hosting services in the United States.
Of course, it would be even more disgusting if they were not allowed to get a website BECAUSE of their ideas.
Unfortunately, activism isn't always good (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, the Egyptian government wants to bring peace to the Middle East, whereas the activists want more violence. The Egyptian government has long been instrumental in coordinating peace efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians. The majority of the activists coordinating through Facebook are doing so to express their hatred of Israel, and their desire for its destruction.
There was an interesting interview with a Hamas leader on Al Jazeera not long ago. Essentially, he said that the leaders know that violence won't lead anywhere. The reason the violence keeps going is because the common people on both sides keep calling for it, and leaders who don't acquiesce are thrown out. If the same thing starts happening in Egypt, then it will just lead to more war, and more death.
We, people from more peaceful parts of the world, generally assume that more democracy is always good. We fail to realize that at times, the majority is wrong. The majority wants to kill the other side, because they were harmed, and then the majority on the other side wants to kill the first. It's self-perpetuating, tit for tat. The only way to break out is with strong leaders on both sides who are willing to step up and refuse to fight. Giving the vengeful mob tools to undermine that is not a good thing.
There is no easy solution in the Middle East, but any solution would need to start with strong leaders in both Israel and Gaza who refuse to resort to violence, not with grassroots movements calling for each other's destruction. We need to recognize that, and stop applying our own values to their situation.
Re:Not all repression is bad repression (Score:3, Insightful)
If the world was made up of clones of you that would be great.
Why should you get to dictate what sort of leader I'm allowed want?
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:5, Insightful)
as a Vet of Iwo jima once told me. His words We fought for your right to make a choice even if I don't approve of it.
Re:Unfortunately, activism isn't always good (Score:3, Insightful)
I still say that allowing people to speak freely is the only way to ensure peace.
Shutting people up when they spout hate only makes their cause seem righteous. By censoring them, you make them look like the good guys.
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is that they would use force against minorities, against everyone including themselves.
By your reasoning Hitler was the "rightful ruler" of Germany, and could not be opposed on the basis of what he did to his people, after all, he got their permission once.
By your reasoning Iran, even with nuclear power, is carrying out the will of it's people during it's genocidal cleansings of various minorities inside it's borders. But they chose once to start this. Now they'd chose, in a heartbeat, to end it, but they can't.
Muslims think mohamed was a good guy, THE example of a leader. Read his biography once and you'll see the problem with that. Hitler and Stalin were but cute poodles, sweet and innocent, compared to him.
If the muslim brotherhood gets control over the state of Egypt, world war III starts. It's that simple. And if Iran isn't contained soon, the same will happen.
But of course, if a few people "choose" this fate (for me and you), surely such a decision would be democratic, right ?
Re:Unfortunately, activism isn't always good (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you give an example? We don't let the KKK spout their hate so freely any more, and it has worked wonders in diminishing their presence. It sure as hell hasn't made them look like the good guys.
Re:Not all repression is bad repression (Score:5, Insightful)
To paraphrase Churchill, free speech is the worst form of public discourse, except for all the others that have been tried.
Look, if we could censor only those people who advocate "religious rule, genocide, or similar," that would be great ... but who gets to decide what falls into those categories? You? Me? Glorious Leader? No, that's too personal. How about a committee of anonymous bureaucrats? Hey, I like that idea -- we could give it a catchy name, like, say, "The Committee for Public Safety," or maybe, "The Committee for State Security." Because that always works out so well.
There is no one person, and no group of people, good and wise enough to be entrusted with that kind of power. Good people, with the best of intentions, given the authority to decide what kind of political speech is and is not acceptable, will inevitably turn that power to evil. One day they're locking up the obvious loons, the next day they're locking up the maybe-loons, and by the third day it's anyone who disagrees with censors in the slightest. Because how can you disagree with us? We're Good! Good people don't do Bad things! If you disagree, you must be Bad!
Free speech is messy. It's often unpleasant. Sometimes it's actively dangerous. But the alternative is worse.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, activism isn't always good (Score:1, Insightful)
There are undoubtedly a small number of Palestinians in favor of "extermination" of all Israelis (and there are undoubtedly a small number of Israelis in favor of "extermination" of all Palestinians).
The much more view among the Palestinians is essentially the mirror image of the common view among the Israelis: the disagreement is whether the country located in that part of the world should be called "Israel" or "Palestine" and whether it should declare itself to be the homeland of the Jews or the Palestinians.
The obvious solution, of course, is neither. There should be one country with an ethnically neutral name that welcomes all individuals without regard to race or religion or ethnicity or culture. The problem, though, is that most people still want to live in a world of segregation and discrimination - as they say in the ancient Chinese curse: "May you get everything you want."
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:3, Insightful)
plus they hate us for our freedom!!!
Perhaps if we required everyone to wear shock collars which stunned them whenever they had a violent impulse... it would reduce their freedom but people who would otherwise be murdered would survive!
Life before freedom!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not all repression is bad repression (Score:3, Insightful)
No - disagreement within certain bounds is fine (healthy in most cases).
Who sets those bounds?
There are things that are pretty much outside the realm of democratic deliberation
What things are outside that realm, and how do you decide?
Democracy is a nuanced, often-useful tool. It's not the "one true tool", nor is it our faith.
In fact, it is the worst system of government that has ever been tried, except for all the others. (Apologies to Churchill.)
Read your own sig. Censorship is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. Free speech, even speech you don't like, even "dangerous", disruptive speech, is difficult, messy, and right.
Liberty, life and property (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all. Get your priorities in line, man. It is MORE important that people survive than that they're free.
"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom".
Or in the South Park version:
"Gobble, gobble gobble gobble, gobble gobble gobble gobble, gobble, gobble gobble, GOBBLE!!!"
And I seem to recall a gang of rebels, oh-when-was-that-around-1776-I-think, who'd rather die at the hand of their oppressors than pay taxes if they didn't have seats in the government.
And I'm sure you can find other historic examples of people willing to die for freedom.
Just something to consider...
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all. Get your priorities in line, man. It is MORE important that people survive than that they're free.
New Hampshire State Motto:
Live Free or Die.
Not everyone would agree with you.
Re:Not all repression is bad repression (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorship is not simple, neat, or wrong. It is a dangerous tool, to be used very sparingly because it easily corrupts a government that uses it broadly, because it makes people unhappy, and because it cements a society into a path. In some circumstances it is appropriate, but the social harm it combats must be great and it should be distrusted as a measure.
I believe the position of free speech as an absolute, like other autonomy/liberty-absolutism, is in fact what is simple, neat, and wrong.
Re:Not all repression is bad repression (Score:3, Insightful)
In contrast to political rhetoric, in real life it's quite possible to build a good home on what looks like, from the point of theory, to be a "slippery slope".
If you build your house on thin soil on a mountainside, it may last for decades, but you shouldn't be surprised if one day it ends up in pieces at the bottom of a canyon. Banning candidates from political office is kind of the political equivalent of this practice: it's not quite tyrannical in itself, but it is a powerful tool for tyrants and tempts those given such power into tyranny even if that's not what they start out intending to do.
In light of this discussion, your .sig is quite ironic. "Simple, neat, and wrong" indeed.
Re:Not all repression is bad repression (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be saying that any attempt to restrict free speech leads to dictatorship. But in practice, there has never been a country with 100% unrestricted free speech. So where does that leave us?
Where we've always been -- in the middle of the struggle between those who wish to exercise their right of free speech, and those who wish to take it away. However distasteful the words of the first group may be, and however well-intentioned the actions of the second.
I do not claim that restrictions on speech inevitably lead to tyranny. I do claim that: first, such restrictions are a powerful tool for tyrants; second, those who use such tools tend to become tyrants whether they mean to or not; and third, the best way to keep this from happening is to keep pushing against such restrictions wherever they appear.
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:3, Insightful)
Best state motto ever. Of course, some people did sue to keep that off their license plates, which is really stupid when you think about it. "I don't want to even give the impression that I'd defend my rights to the death, and I will defend my right not to do so via lawyers."
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:3, Insightful)
The UN is mainly a joke because it's never been given control of a UN army. The original idea was to give the UN it's own military so that when it decided to intervene it had the ability to allocate the troops and send appropriate orders.
Then there's the bit where America or the EU will take pot shots at the other using the UN as a means, but the sames the case with the WTO as well. I mean it's not as if those organizations have better things to be doing.
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:3, Insightful)
The UN has it's own army. There's just one problem. The whole institution is based on preventing war. They're not very big on ending a war with superior violence.
After all, that's what Bush would do. It's also the only thing that works.
The UN puts armies on the ground and instructs them to never attack anyone. Either the soldiers are bad (UN mission to katanga, the rape cases of the UN armies in Western Sahara (yes that regiment was a muslim regiment, and it's not an accident at all), ...) or they don't do shit (UN mission to southern Lebanon, ...)
Violence ends in one of two ways :
-> either the agressor gets what he wants
-> or he gets killed by superior firepower (or at the very least some serious wounds and destruction of property is involved)
The basic premise of the UN is that "sitting down and talking" is another option. The problem is simple : in many cases, that's not true. Many problems are indeed "zero-sum" problems. Therefore only ignoring the needs of one side can increase supply. And it's the way the entire middle east thinks.
NO war has ever been "proportional violence". No war will ever be : after all, if that's the case you're just going to hurt yourself by going to war. And the whole point is to hurt the other guy.
No amount of talking is going to erase the jew-hatred from the quran, and hamas will therefore never stop. Neither will "al qaeda". Actual violence *might* erase that hatred from the "mein quran" "holy" book.
The only reason that gaza even exists is an attempt by muslims to wipe Israel of the map. So what is the UN to do ? March in and deport those muslims for attempting to conquer another state, then leave the area empty like turkey did with Cyprus ?
Re:And so ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Trade restrictions" (meaning the country has to trade through China or Russia) versus bullets (atomic bombs).
Good luck with that ...
And about that history reading : do you in some way deny that muslim's "prophet" committed 5 religious genocides ? Do you deny that muslims proclaim daily that they want to follow his example ? Do you claim that, when asked, they say that their prophet was a monster for committing those genocides and therefore that part of islam is evil ?
It is VERY clear who needs to read up on history. But you know very well that with an actual knowledge of history the point that muslims will give others human rights voluntarily is so ridiculous that noone would even attempt to do so, so you just claim you know better, then leave out any actual fact.
Re:Liberty, life and property (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, no...
'No taxation without representation!' is already an unwieldy battle cry, but it turns out it was never used by the Americans in their war of independence. Furthermore, it would have been idiotic for the early Americans to feel unfairly treated by the taxation on them; the vast majority of the British taxpayers at the time were not eligible to vote, and furthermore they payed many times more tax than their American counterparts. Finally, there were no huge shipments of cash back to the King; almost all the tax money was used within the borders of America.
Re:Liberty, life and property (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And so ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
By your reasoning Hitler was the "rightful ruler" of Germany, and could not be opposed on the basis of what he did to his people, after all, he got their permission once.
Huh? Why not? Why couldn't we put trade embargoes on them?
You might want to note that we didn't invade Germany during WWII because of what he was doing to his own people. We did it because he invaded other countries.
I think his point was that Hitler started out in a democracy and ended up in a dictatorship. Do you consider the dictatorship valid as a representation of the people, simply because it started as a democracy? I'm not talking about whether it's right to go to war with Hitler, just what you think about a party that is democratically elected, but then has a little revolution that ends in dictatorship.
If the muslim brotherhood gets control over the state of Egypt, world war III starts. It's that simple.
But you never ask the question WHY the majority of voters in Egypt would WANT to elect them.
It doesn't matter if you outlaw one political party. If the majority of the people have the same beliefs as that political party, then they will, eventually, become the government.
For democracy to work you need an educated populace. You need laws protecting the voting process, and a government capable of enforcing those laws. Then you have to look at how representative the democracy is. If only white male property owners were allowed to vote in the US, would it really BE a democracy? In Egypt, if women have significantly lower access to education, a much lower literacy rate, a harder time seeking protection under the law, and so on, is any vote going to be valid?
And look at Turkey. Even though the majority of the population wants an Islamic government, the army doesn't let them have it. Your theory is that eventually they will have an Islamic government. However, it's *possible* that as they see the benefits of having a secular government, though prosperity and greater freedom, they will actually change their minds.
Re:That gets a lot done (Score:1, Insightful)
By your reasoning Hitler was the "rightful ruler" of Germany, and could not be opposed on the basis of what he did to his people, after all, he got their permission once.
While he was the "rightful ruler of Germany" and germans aproved him, I see no problem at all. Actually, inspite of everything, I think he made a quite respectable work taking Germany from the shit left by WW I and turning it in a powerful country again.
The problem came when he started to think he was also the "rightful ruler of the World" - without World's aproval, of course - and started all those nasty thing he's known for. :(