31–40 of 268 posts
> on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents > Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents > platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared before the Authority. Anyone know what sacrilegious/blasphemous content they are referring to?
Are there artistic depictions of Muhammed on Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#Pakist...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Someone reported this to the FBI, it's not actionable on a criminal level, but it breaks your TOS, heads-up" versus "we have deleted the encyclopedia for religious reasons". Yep, definitely comparable scenarios. Blasphemy carries the death penalty in Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan
Yep, definitely comparable scenarios. I think it is. Pakastan can create whatever laws fit its culture. I would never dare to imagine imposing my values or beliefs on them. They should create their own Wiki alternative and make it popular within their nation. [Edit] Or if their people see fit change their laws, overthrow their government or whatever they deem appropriate for their culture. But that is entirely on the…
As I get older, I realize that while this may be idealized values - this works very poorly in the "real world". At some point, you realize that your arbitrary morals are simply better - better for everyone. Death penalty for blasphemy would be one of them - the world would simply be a better place if this did not exist.
edit I meant why didn't the Pakistani government just edit Wikipedia like any other person. I realized my post could be taken as saying "why didn't Wikipedia just do what they want" which was not what I meant.
Similar things are happening in the West given US and Euro govts leaning on Social Media companies to censor dissenting/blasphemous views. Just think - what are you not allowed to say? What will get you banned or blacklisted?
The West, in general, within its own territory, is better on just about every civil rights issue than places like Pakistan and China. That doesn't mean it's good: places like Pakistan and China set a pretty low bar.
I would love wag the finger but first I would have to clean up my own country, the United States of America. When the US government stops pressuring social media platforms to censor speech and they stop happily complying then perhaps I might have room to criticize other nations. [Edit] And how should this be addressed in the US? Simple. Only censor things that are explicitly and clearly illegal under federal law and…
... Why not edit out the "offensive" material? edit I meant why didn't the Pakistani government just edit Wikipedia like any other person. I realized my post could be taken as saying "why didn't Wikipedia just do what they want" which was not what I meant.
I would love wag the finger but first I would have to clean up my own country, the United States of America. When the US government stops pressuring social media platforms to censor speech and they stop happily complying then perhaps I might have room to criticize other nations. [Edit] And how should this be addressed in the US? Simple. Only censor things that are explicitly and clearly illegal under federal law and…
"Someone reported this to the FBI, it's not actionable on a criminal level, but it breaks your TOS, heads-up" versus "we have deleted the encyclopedia for religious reasons". Yep, definitely comparable scenarios. Blasphemy carries the death penalty in Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan
I can hardly imagine an idea more ridiculous than "blasphemy". The G-d is not a psychologically immature human being easy to offend. Nothing a human might possibly say can change the state of G-d from perfect harmony to anything else.
... Why not edit out the "offensive" material? edit I meant why didn't the Pakistani government just edit Wikipedia like any other person. I realized my post could be taken as saying "why didn't Wikipedia just do what they want" which was not what I meant.
> on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents > Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents > platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared before the Authority. Anyone know what sacrilegious/blasphemous content they are referring to?
Are there artistic depictions of Muhammed on Wikipedia?
Includes a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends (South Park episode) which contains an image of Muhammad.