Pakistan has gone crazy after the cartoon “event” and is supposedly censoring anything and everything. Two comments on a BBC news article, one very sane, the other not so much-
No. It is a wrong decision. Ban does not do anything. Are you going to ban eveything on the internet that inflames someone’s sensibilities? Stupid! If someone is inflamed and feels hurt, then do not go to that website.
and-
People should respect each other’s beliefs and exhibit tolerance. We, as muslims, hold nothing dearer than our Holy Prophet and such a disrespectful, blasphemous act would not be ignored or tolerated!
Dissonance, or is it reciprocity.


Comments
There you go man. Another fine example of the fundamental laws working in different ways for different groups. The “everybody draw mohammed day” page has been taken down. The threat of violence overrides the fundamental rights.
It was awesome while it lasted. People were putting 30 images every minute. The facebook censors team worked for 72 hours straight deleting any image that showcased mohammed in a bad light within it’s first 5 seconds of upload.
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/7730/28928393564868691764398.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3679/29844100970363283835100.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5509/32471100986013281984100.jpg
I think we ought to construct an art gallery at the “disputed site” in Ayodhya and invite these cartoonists and M. F. Husain to exhibit their works. What better way to showcase “peaceful co-existence” and “tolerance.”
On the cartoons themselves, I find them distinctly uninteresting. The Pakistan ban, on the other hand, is very interesting. I think Schmidt is on to something here.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/196984/facebook_blocks_access_in_india_to_controversial_page.html
It was actually banned on 20th may NOT saturday the 23rd as this idiot journalist claims.
From the PC World article-
There was this piece I read a few months back during the Google vs. China battle where the writer said the Chinese argument was that free speech is simply (not the exact words) a case of difference of opinion and ought to be subject to local laws. Guess the facebooks of the world are with the Chinese on this one. And so is the next US Supreme Court Justice-
“Societal costs.” Sounds like Sheila “law and order” Dixit, doesn’t she?
“Societal costs.” Sounds like Sheila “law and order” Dixit, doesn’t she?
Took me some time but i finally understood the disasters of pragmatism. Indian constitutions free speech policy is a victim of pragmatism too is guess.