Points of view

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.


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.

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  • yet_another_hindu_infidel  On May 22, 2010 at 11:39 am

    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.

    • Aristotle The Geek  On May 24, 2010 at 12:14 am

      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.

  • yet_another_hindu_infidel  On May 24, 2010 at 8:45 pm


    It was actually banned on 20th may NOT saturday the 23rd as this idiot journalist claims.

    • Aristotle The Geek  On May 25, 2010 at 3:25 am

      From the PC World article-

      When dealing with user-generated content on global Web sites, there are occasions where content that is illegal in one country is not, or may even be protected, in another, Facebook said on Thursday. Most companies, including Facebook, approach this issue by preventing certain content from being shown to users in the countries where it is illegal, it added.

      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-

      [Kagan’s paper] asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of “motives and … actions infested with them” and she goes so far as to claim that “First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting.”

      Kagan’s name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

      “Societal costs.” Sounds like Sheila “law and order” Dixit, doesn’t she?

  • yet_another_hindu_infidel  On May 25, 2010 at 11:24 am

    “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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s