Indian Court Orders Google To Remove Content 477
itwbennett writes "A Court in Delhi, India has ordered Google to remove content that 'is said to mock gods worshipped in India,' according to an IDG News Service report. Mufti Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi, a private citizen, 'had filed a civil suit against Google and other Internet companies including Facebook, objecting to certain content on their websites.' While Google agreed to remove the content, citing a 'long-standing policy of responding to court orders,' other Internet companies named in the suit are likely to appeal."
The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people (Score:4, Insightful)
A big hardy "FUCK YOU!"
Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people (Score:5, Interesting)
More seriously:
1) Your god is too weak/inferior/doesn't exist thus cannot punish me... you're not serious suggesting you are more powerful/all knowing that your own god and therefore usurping his power and position to judge, are you? This is the change of venue strategy.
2) The holy texts of religion X basically mock religion Y therefore lets ban religion X before wasting time on the inter-tubes. This is the distraction strategy.
3) Share the links. Mass civil disobedience strategy. Sooo.... lets go for it. Lemme guess, its something really creative like a link to the new testament at PG...
Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, was it really over a decade ago [slashdot.org] that the cult of scientology was forcing comments off of slashdot?
Re:How about a law against false information (Score:4, Funny)
Showing bacteria and virii evolving to resist certain drugs is proof of evolution
Nope. God did that.
You lose.
Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. besides why do the believers feel the need to handle insults for their deities?
I'd think that all powerful beings would be amply capable of smiting anyone they themselves deem to have insulted them, and find it quite revealing that so far none have done so.
Re: (Score:3)
And just as importantly, why does God <longpause></longpause> need a spaceship?
This has been an allusion to the worst Star Trek movie ever. If this was an allusion to a better Star Trek movie, you wouldn't have that look on your face right now.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicarus 47 A.D.
Which just goes to show that if you credit an ancient Greek you can get modded insightful for any old rubbish.
Epicurus died in 270BC, some 300 years before you've credited this quote, and this contortion of his words it seems has its source in Charles Bufe's 1992 rather less academic "The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations" (I wonder whether he had an agenda in writing that one!) Epicurus's argument, worded rather differently, was not against God, but against the Aristotelean view of God. Which is why the a
When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is India, not the US. Although I'm not familiar with the Indian government, I they don't follow the United State's First Amendment to the same degree we pretend to follow it her and in much of the West.
Although Religion may be outdated, we can thank it for many cultural and technological advances, even in modern fields such as genetics.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
While we're at it, why don't we thank it for the Bush administration and it's stifling of scientific progress.
You mean, by becoming the first Administration to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
One of the things you will find is that a large portion of the "scientific community" exists within colleges and universities, which view anyone who believes that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions as ignorant heathens.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
And we can thank science for WMDs, eugenics, pollution of the environment, human experimentation, and a list of other things far too long to put here.
Or maybe we can just put the blame where it belongs, which is on the people who actually do these evils and use science or religion as cover
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
No one's hands are clean, but it's not like these people would have come up with this stuff without the motivation of pleasing their deities.
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
WW1 and WW2 were religious? Korea was Religious? Vietnam? Iraq 1 n 2? Afghanistan? Libya? Kosovo?
Oh, you mean wars from hundreds of years ago? like the Civil War? oh wait, not that war... you mean other wars like Napoleonic? wait, no not that one ... hmmm couldn't be Revolutionary wars and all the other wars of revolts ...
Wait? You're not one of those "I HATE RELIGION" trolls are you that turns a blind eye to every significant war of the last 200 years or so, just so you can bash religion for long past "wars".
I think Politics and Governments cause wars, so ... let us ban those!
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
Afghanistan?
Not sure which one you're referring to, but yes, both were religious.
The Soviet-Afghan war was actually a civil war between socialist secularists and moderate-to-radical Islamists, with the first faction backed by USSR, and the second backed by Pakistan and USA. The primary reason for the war was that Islamists were offended at such horrible Soviet innovations as mixed-gender schools and universities.
The second war was against Taliban - 'nuff said.
Kosovo?
Definitely religious. Serbs are Orthodox Christian, Albanians are mostly Muslim. Kosovo itself is called "Kosovo and Metohija" in Serbian, and "Metohija" literally means "monastery lands" - because that was the historical seat of the Church in Serbia, and it's where most of its monasteries were. Then it also has Kosovo Polje, the place of the historical battle where (Christian) Serbian forces were defeated by the invading (Muslim) Ottoman army, after which Serbia was annexed into Ottoman Empire.
And yes, it also comes up in the fighting - Albanians burn down churches [bbc.co.uk], and Serbs burned mosques.
Libya?
What, did you miss the jihad flag [dailymail.co.uk] flying over Bengazi in the wake of rebel victory? Or that the country is transitioning to Sharia [csmonitor.com] as its primary source of legislation?
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
WW1 and WW2 were religious?
You may have missed the bit in WW2 where Jews and Gypsies were being rounded up and burned in big ovens and the fact that the Nazi leader followed a mix of Christianity and pan-german mysticism and came to power partly because a group of well connected secret society/cultist types thought he was their prophesized leader. Oh, you might have missed the symbol that Nazi Germany used for its flag.
You may have also missed the bit from WW1 where Archduke Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian Orthodox Christian and that one of their chief complaints against the Austro-Hungarian empire. Then there's the whole bit with the Ottoman Empire.
Religion was not the only factor in these wars, clearly, but neither did it play no role. As for Korea and Vietnam? Did you miss the bit where the US was getting so worked up about the "godless commies" that they changed their national motto to "in god we trust". Iraq 1 was heavily based in fallout from the religious war between Iraq and Iran. In Iraq 2, the born-again Christian of the United States, who claimed to have mystical powers and to receive direct instruction from his god, referred to the war as a crusade. It was also frequently justified on the basis of the Sept 11th terrorist attacks, which had a firm basis in religion, and, when people pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with those, the alternative reason given was that Saddam Hussein had brutally gassed Kurds to death in a religiously motivated civil war.
Re: (Score:3)
Actual eugenics, as opposed to "pseudo-science in its name with ideological agendas", is not a bad idea at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true. A lot of early science and math came out of the Islamic world. Think of it the next time you do algebra (al jabr).
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:4, Informative)
Islamic and Arabic in that timeframe were used interchangeably. Mullahs and muftis might not have but hakims did. Under early Islam studying science was akin to studying Allah.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that from the "not collecting stamps is a hobby" school of illogic? Or the "not drinking alcohol is an addiction" one?
Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
It just makes me ask, as an atheist, can I file a suit that says all references to God mocks my opinion and have Google remove those links from every search?
(Disclaimer: Devils's Advocate [no pun intended] only. I have no problem what you do with your personal life... just keep it personal.)
The guy filing the suit is a muslim (Score:4, Interesting)
But elections being this close, and due to the victory being uncertain because of corruption scandals, the ruling congress party in India is out to appease the muslims who vote en-masse.
And muslims have long since been against freedom of speech and expression of non-muslims. If Google complies, it gives them a tool to get those mohammed cartoons removed from internet permanently. "Gods worshiped in India" indeed. Save for some lunatic fringe groups, hindus in general, tend to usually ignore such stuff. Or at least, barring some peaceful protest, they are at least not out to kill the heretics.
Re: (Score:3)
Much of that might be true, except removing cartoons from the Internet permanently. Contrary to popular belief, Google is neither the Internet nor do they control a significant portion of the Internet. It may become more difficult to find, but content on the Internet is damned near immortal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Christians have an equally long tradition of opposing freedom of speech when it's not in their taste. And of cause in much of Europe it is still illegal to publicly criticize the Jewish faith.
Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit. It is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. It is perfectly legal to criticize the jewish faith. Two very different things.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, what harm would it be if someone opposed the Holocaust? Speech is no problem if it causes no real harm.
Did you know that the US had (and continues to have) a number of laws specifically to combat the KKK? The President even suspended habeas corpus to help break the power of the KKK.
Every culture makes limits to free speech as needed when it's creating a significant enough problem.
Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (Score:5, Informative)
I am an Indian (live in the US now) and am a Hindu (by birth - I really don't care much for any religion personally) and I find your description to be biased and false. Just as Hindus in general, are laid back about most things, so too are the Muslims. I had the good fortune of studying in a Jesuit run school in a relatively poor, muslim neighborhood in Mumbai, and I had several close friends across many religions. Hindus are just as "against freedom of speech and expression" as are the Muslims. You are just deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
You need no more proof than to look at cases such as the artist M.F.Husain, who was pretty much exiled from the country by Hindu fundamentalists who were outraged that he depicted some Hindu deities in the nude.
"Or at least, barring some peaceful protest, they are at least not out to kill the heretics" - Yeah, sure, tell that to all the victims of the Gujarat riots at the hands of crazed Hindu fundamentalists (with complicity from the pro-Hindu state government).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that a reflection on your countrymen, rather than on Communism?
Re: (Score:3)
But is he wrong? In europe we have people being tried for blasphemy against islam. In malaysia we have people being murdered for blasphemy against islam. In the middle east well, that's pretty common, so we'll let that slide or should we? In parts of africa where islam is coming to the front the same thing is happening. So, is he really wrong?
Or is he pointing out that burying your heads in the sand and being politically correct is signing your own death sentence in terms of free speech. Well actually
If only all superstitionists had but one throat... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and my hands were on it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is subject to ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google is subject to ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are not all members of your religion. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I am not a member of your religion then I don't want your stupid religious crap affecting me. In any way.
This can be applied to any religious group complaining about content offensive to their religion(I think we know the usual culprit here).
Re:We are not all members of your religion. (Score:4, Funny)
I say we start a new religion, and have as our holy symbol a rectangle with three horizontal stripes; orange, white, and green. And we find any other use of similar symbols, especially with other iconography added in, to be deeply insulting to our beliefs. Then move to India... umm... step 4... Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
I say we start a new religion, and have as our holy symbol a rectangle with three horizontal stripes; orange, white, and green.
I'm thinking more like a green square with a white diagonal slash from lower left to upper right and a white dot at the lower right corner.
Often seen flying in close formation with the skull and crossbones flag. Holy prophets are RMS, Linus and maybe the goatse guy.
Extremely heavily overstaffed with male vestal virgins. Holy sites beyond the obvious are the googleplex, apple hq, 4chan, kuro5hin, and mom's basement.
Every religion has weird restrictions and sins, our will be microsoft, all other religions,
Re: (Score:2)
he said horizontal stripes and ones you are thinking of are vertical
Re: (Score:3)
Quite right too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I realize that the desire for censorship crops up in pretty much all religions, but let's lay the blame where it's warranted in this case.
Streisand Effect (Score:2)
If the crusade against depictions of Muhammad is any indication, expect a round of comics around the Hindu gods to come out at any moment.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi won a promotion from random zealot in India to random zealot in India who gets a paycheck for saying things like this. Not much change there but I do stand corrected on which religion he's representing.
Why don't the gods remove it themselves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So Gods need protection from Google. This is priceless!
This isn't a protection of God, it's a protection of those men who claim to speak for God. Beware of anyone who claims to speak for God who believes you need to be killed for heresy, blasphemy or simply being in their way of obtaining power. All these crappy extremists, of all strips, are driven by leaders who want power - only when it is too late do the people who served them find they are the first to be oppressed.
Gandhi never claimed to speak for God (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a protection of God, it's a protection of those men who claim to speak for God.
Gandhi never claimed to speak for God. He didn't elevate himself to Mahatma ether. Those where things that others attributed to him just as you are attributing that he and others like him would commit murder for this offense.
If I were to draw a picture of Drew Barrymore prostituting herself out on the Vegas Strip I could easily find myself slapped with a lawsuit as well. Free speech doesn't mean freedom to commit libel and slander.
"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess... (Score:2)
Now that it's been firmly established that Google will remove content that courts in whatever $COUNTRY deem blasphemous, I suppose it's only a matter of time before places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Texas start to get in on the action and start censoring content they find offensive, like journal articles on evolutionary biology or pictures of women driving. Way to put (outdated) ideas over people's fundamental rights, Google.
Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess... (Score:5, Informative)
Google has to comply with the laws of the countries in which it operates. Texas is prevented by the bill of rights from passing laws that limit freedom of religion and religious commentary, so Texas could not legally issue a court order demanding that Google remove such content.
Saudi Arabia and India apparently can, though. Google's choice is to either comply with the laws of those nations or simply cease operations in those nations. Considering that no nation on earth has truly unlimited freedom of speech, let alone the US, it makes sense to make occasional court-ordered concessions by removing data accessible in those countries.
Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess... (Score:4, Informative)
Also note that when Google complies with these court orders they do so only within the jurisdiction of the court order, so in this case anyone within India will not receive these search results, but will instead see a message that some results have been removed due to court order.
Important Distinction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Important Distinction (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative argument (Score:2)
If the court believes it must remove comments which 'mock gods worshiped in India,' then wouldn't they also have to remove comments which 'mock gods NOT worshiped in India'?
If it is offensive to you, for me to say that your gods are silly myths; why shan't it be offensive to me, for you to say that they are real? I mean, let's be honest, at least I'm right.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure that there are many gods not worshiped in India. Besides having a large Hindu population, there is also still many Muslims, Buddhists (started in India and Buddha is considered even by Hindus as an incarnation of Vishnu), Christians (Christ also is considered an incarnation of Vishnu by some), and Sikhs.
Outrageous (Score:2)
One shouldn't mock the religious or retarded but.. (Score:2)
It is legal to do so. Otherwise, both the entertainment and news industry as we know them would be gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying Spaghetti Monster images blasphemous (Score:2)
His noodly appendages are clearly drawn incorrectly as a way to mock his starchiness. I demand that /. remove them immediately.
Thank You India (Score:2)
I just posted a rant on my FB page about how juvenile American culture is that so many people are upset over a musician doing a "naughty gesture" during the Superbowl half time show and how the news media is STILL talking about a woman's nipple being seen during the same show 8 years prior.
This article about India makes me feel better about the US. Ours isn't the only culture that needs to grow up.
Hate to ask, but what was the content? (Score:3)
Singh and Gandhi in compromising positions (Score:4, Insightful)
Singh and Gandhi in compromising positions and pigs running through Mecca, Islam’s holiest city
The first part make the lawsuit make a little sense and make it so that the Slashdot Title is incorrect. In the US it could be considered parody, but parody usually comes close to libel and slander. Gandhi and Singh are also not Gods but religious figures. I'm a bit surprised they took a stance on the Pigs running though Mecca, but it's probably politically motivated to appease some Islamic views so that maybe possibly they might find some common ground (wishful thinking but that's what it sounds like).
Heretical! (Score:2)
I am sure I am not the only person who wishes that we had a search engine for all of the things banned by other search engines. I am glad to see that heretical.com is still up, in spite of all of the attempts to have it shut.
Removed from where? (Score:2, Insightful)
Has the content only been removed from all of Google's websites, or just Google India?
It's scary to think of what the Interenet would look like if each and every website had to follow the laws of each and every country. I know the fact that Google has facilities in India puts significant pressure on them to comply, but the thought of being bound by the numerous idiotic laws around the world is extremely worrisome.
Google is apparently adopting a strategy of censoring content on a per-country basis. That's th
"OH NOES!!!" (Score:3)
Don't fucking access it then.
Objections was from a Muslim. Google is appealing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google has agreed before a court in Delhi to remove religious and other content considered objectionable, though some other Internet firms are likely to appeal the court's decision, plaintiff Mufti Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi said on Monday.
The appeal:
The government allowed the court to prosecute the Internet companies under various Indian laws in the criminal case, but Google has meanwhile appealed the decision before the Delhi High Court.
Basic background: India is the country with the second largest Muslim population in the world, number of Indian Muslims dwarfs Pakistan, Arabia, Egypt, Bangladesh. Just recently Indonesia overtook it. Muslims form a sizeable vote bank, some 15% of the electorate and almost all the politicians kow-tow the lines drawn by them. There is widespread belief that the Muslims are punching way above their weight politically. But even when there is provocation like Muslim painters paint Hindu goddesses in the nude or something, the Hindu reaction is usually divided. The secularists are mostly in control of the hard liners on the Hindu side. Once in a while you hear Hindu hardliners banning Valentines Day or protesting some movie or a book.
Having said that, for country with that large a Muslim population, very few of the Indian Muslims are involved in terrorism, or support terrorism. Despite periodical outrageous attacks by Pakistani Muslims terrorist outfits inside India, there is no widespread retaliation against the local Muslims. Indian Muslims join the police and military in large numbers.
Religion (Score:3)
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:5, Insightful)
"No person, no idea, and no religion deserves to be illegal to insult." --RMS
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:5, Insightful)
This. I am a deeply religious person, and sometimes offended by the insults of unbelievers, but I will defend to the death their right to insult.
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:5, Funny)
Is that you Voltaire?
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:4, Informative)
Is that you Voltaire?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire [wikiquote.org]
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.
The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:5, Insightful)
A party should have a right to discuss such a law; it's that discussion that's being defended, not the law itself.
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:4, Informative)
I am aware of that, I just think that there are limits to what is tolerable to discuss in order to have a worthwhile discussion or discourse, based on historical experience and the western "unalienable rights".
Historical experience tells us that any attempt to shut down discussion will be abused. If we allow the government to set limits, they will set the limits in a way that benefits the government, and not the people. Therefore, there must be no limits.
I won't defend somebody who says "kill $foo" and there will be a better world.
So all those who called for the death of Osama Bin Laden should have gone to jail for that?
So to avoid to "build world" again like after WWII, we shut down the threat to freedom.
If we ever have another world war, it will be because of too much censorship, not too little.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Historical experience tells us that any attempt to shut down discussion will be abused. If we allow the government to set limits, they will set the limits in a way that benefits the government, and not the people. Therefore, there must be no limits.
I sympathise with your statement, but a government or a state has the duty to ensure the safety and freedom of all citizens and non-citizens who live in their area of control. Incitement to hatred or crime is such a danger and thus the government has to act and limit those actions of speech. There must be a debate over this limits.
So all those who called for the death of Osama Bin Laden should have gone to jail for that?
He should have stand trial, if possible. That was not the case. If somebody with executive power in the government issued a shoot-to-kill order, this person as well should have t
Re: (Score:3)
I sympathise with your statement, but a government or a state has the duty to ensure the safety and freedom of all citizens and non-citizens who live in their area of control. Incitement to hatred or crime is such a danger and thus the government has to act and limit those actions of speech.
If you give the government the ability to define what sort of incitement to hatred is acceptable, they will accept hatred of the opposing political parties. This sort of interference in the democratic process is a much
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed regarding semi-totalitarian states like China or Iran.
There, but for Voltaire, go we. Freedom is not an end state. You can't just go "ok, we're free now, we dont' need freedom of speech anymore". If you can't exercise your free speech rights during good times, how can you expect to keep them when times are bad?
Nowadays the opposition in western and western-oriented countries usually doesn't get crushed about issues of free speech
Did you miss the Occupy protests this fall? They were crushed by the police. Did you miss the Gasland director being arrested for recording an open, public, session of Congress? Did you miss the US dropping 27 positions on the Free Press Index?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence. We forgot this lesson in the US, and are in the process of losing our freedom. It will take another bloody revolution to get it back. Whatever country you're from, please stay vigilant.
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:4, Interesting)
That sounds great. And this is what happens in practice with ... shall we say ... "a certain faith", and a few various ideologies ...
an example of what india had to deal with in the past [wikipedia.org]
The crux of the matter is simple : an enlightened civilization makes the statement referred to before, attributed to Voltaire (who also didn't mean it)
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The rest of the story has been repeated countless times :
group X: "oh really ? Let's see what happens if we kill a few (dozen) people over this"
"enlightened" civilization: "please please PLEASE stop. We'll kill those people we'd "defend to the death"
Group X has historically been muslims, dictators and communists in regions where they have enough control to actually commit large-scale violence. The conclusion is of course, as simple as they come : against "modern free-thinking atheists" any amount of violence, if it's over the threshold of killing people, will make "free-thinkers" acquiesce to any demands. This has been used both by "protestors" (e.g. see the effect of the sept 11 attacks on the american press), and governments (e.g. the Iranian government control over newspapers is much more based on regular attacks against the worst offender than it is on constant inspection).
Needless to say, there is one way to stop this : if any ideology starts using violence, should result in slowly building attacks against any member of that ideology. That is the only recourse, except pie-in-the-sky 100% police effectiveness and worldwide freedom of speech laws.
Re: (Score:3)
As an unbeliever I an deeply insulted by religion, and the irrational behaviour it seems to be leading to.
If we were to ban everything which is insulting to anyone, we'd have nothing left to look at.
Again, the quote is a good one, that while I may not agree with someone, I 'll defend their right to say it.
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're not offended, you're not living in a free society.
Re: (Score:3)
But you people don't kill enough. Don't riot enough. The way to your kind of laws is to influence the state. The way to influence the state, well ... If you want concessions, from America, 9/11 should be your guide. Notice how the concessions after 9/11 increased, not decreased, violence against America. You want concessions from India ? Google "pakistan secession" (also notice what Indian concessions got for India. More violence, in fact, much much more violence).
So there's a second lesson : don't stop the
Re:Fuck RMS. (Score:4, Funny)
So if he's an asshole that has every idea and thought you do would you also be an asshole?
Isn't removal for copyright violation different? (Score:3)
Protecting intellectual property vs censoring free expression of religion ideas, seems to a different sort of thing to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Cute ... and what about the religions who kill in response to insults ?
Another flaw is limiting this to religions. Communists have killed in response to insults. Hell, they've killed in response to facts. Then again, muslims killed dozens in response to the claim they're intolerant ... you can hardly imagine more complete proof of the evident truth about islam ...
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:5, Insightful)
It all depends on the extend of the mockery here.
Let's call it "The Rise Of The State"
21st cenury marked by people rising up, overthrowing unjust tyranical regimes, meanwhile democracies pare away the rights of the people. Anyone see irony here?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see.
So now we've had:
-India
-China
-Saudi Arabia
-Turkey
-France
-USA
Of course, that's just the "official state reactions" trying to force some sort of speech off the internet. Then there's MafiAA goon tactics, and of course the Mohammed Cartoons stuff which was "officially stateless" (though Iran, and a few of the other terrorist groups, had a bounty on the head of cartoonists for a while if I remember right).
The one I find most disheartening is the USA. Remember when they actually believed in their whole
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see. USA has had:
- Government attacks on journalists.
- Government attacks on citizens who take video recordings of police in public, often because those citizens posted to sites like Youtube the evidence of police committing abuse and brutality.
- Government shutdowns of entire websites based not on convictions under the law, but of "indictments" based on one-sided presentation of carefully chosen and misrepresented lists of evidence, complete with fabricated and delusional accusations of "mass conspiracy" spun out of whole cloth with inserted accusations of "terrorism" and other things designed not to have any factual basis but merely to constitute an emotional appeal (read: "oh but think of the children", which always comes behind some censorship law or other).
Hell, you don't even have to be that recent. The "USA PATRIOT ACT" (what an Orwellian name!) has plenty to be worried about [bordc.org] already. And then we have the DMCA and all the other chilling effects laws [chillingeffects.org] the USA has enacted...
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:4, Insightful)
And most of the other countries have suppressed evidence of genocide (Saudi Arabia, China, especially Turkey, India), suppress entire political ideologies (France, India) ... in addition to all of what you say happened in the USA.
And I do agree with the other criticism against you : most of what you complain about boils down to suppressing warez sites. Which just doesn't compare to the atrocities those other countries (excepting perhaps France) commit. Warez doesn't deserve defense.
Re:its not 'state' stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Google obeys court orders in all countries where it has a presence, it does not selectively choose. There is no Google North Korea, and their site is banned there, along with, you know, the Internet, so Google has no reason or obligation to answer to the North Korean government. Abu Dhabi is a city, not a country, but assuming you were attempting to refer to the United Arab Emirates, yes, there is a Google UAE, and Google would respond to any court order from the UAE. Note that the UAE is a fairly progressive country, and not the backwater Islamic police state that only exists in your mind. And finally, there is no Google presence in Yemen, so Google would likely ignore any court orders from there. Now that I've properly answered your questions, feel free to return to spouting "Google is teh evilz" type nonsense.
Re:its not 'state' stupid. (Score:4, Informative)
Abu Dhabi is a city, not a country, but assuming you were attempting to refer to the United Arab Emirates, yes, there is a Google UAE, and Google would respond to any court order from the UAE.
But it is a state. The United Arab Emirates, as its name suggests, is a federation of seven states.
Note that the UAE is a fairly progressive country, and not the backwater Islamic police state that only exists in your mind.
Only relatively speaking. Only 10% to 15% of the population of UAE are citizens; all the others have diminished legal rights. Labourers are brought to the UAE on slave contracts, often defrauded and treated as indentured servants. Racial discrimination is legal and open. The conservative government tries to combat prostitution, but it's still very widespread and organised, importing "labourers" from Ethiopia and Eastern Europe by the thousands.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:its not 'state' stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
They would, probably [google.com].
I mean, they complied to requests from Cook Islands, Solomon Islands and Sri Lanka, what makes you think other nations would be different?
Stop trying to ascribe personal qualities to corporations, FFS. There's no compassion, pride, ideals and so on, there's just profits and public relations.
"Lack of spine", "principles" and "do no evil" don't even come into this, you want to do business in a country, you abide the law of that country.
FB and Google already complied to the court order, others named will probably follow right after getting some press where they'll tell how they really don't want to do that (because they didn't pay their developers to implement region-based content filtering yet)
Re: (Score:3)
As a pastafarian I am deeply offended that you mock The One And Only True Good by insinuating that there are other gods.
Re:Reasonable decision (Score:4, Funny)
I'm offended that you're offended.
Re: (Score:3)
Please do not offer my god a peanut.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't Google be the webmaster?