A commenter sent me this link which led me to this from the International Freedom of Expression eXchange

Reporters Without Borders is concerned about the decision of the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to block access to twelve websites that posted the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, which appeared in the Danish daily "Jyllands-Posten".

The PTA, on 28 February 2006, ordered Internet Service Providers to block the website http://www.blogspot.com (or http://www.blogger.com), taking down thousands of weblogs hosted by this tool. "We believe that the decision to ban a website should only ever be taken by a judge, at the end of a fair trial. It is moreover unacceptable that the order to block a site should go through the PTA, which while apparently aiming to shut down one blog, hosted by blogger.com, led to the filtering of all websites sharing the same domain name," said the organisation.

So I must admit my earlier assumption was wrong.  Google/Blogger are apparently not cutting off their users in Pakistan--it is actually the Pakistan ISP.Go to Help-Pakistan.com for more information and a way to show your support.


Technorati Tags: Blogger, Pakistan, censorship

Marilou Johanek of the Toledo Blade speaks of the Westboro Baptist Church:

Members of the congregation have begun making appearances at the funerals of Iraqi war casualties. They claim American soldiers are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals and death is their comeuppance for belonging to such a sinful society.

The protesters wave signs dripping with hostility that say "Thank God for dead soldiers," or "Thank God for body bags." How crazy is that? Consider the source.

The Kansas crusaders are grotesque jerks whose behavior in the name of God is an abomination. But even grotesque, foul-mouthed jerks are entitled to protected free speech in this country.[...] What's really puzzling about all this is the lack of free speech awareness on the part of at least 14 states, including Ohio. In reaction to the Topeka gnat's campaign, politicians have put legislation on the fast track to limit when and where people may protest at funerals.

Blocking access to people engaged in public expression on public sidewalks - no matter how twisted the people or their message - is unconstitutional. If offensive speech can be prohibited within 300 feet of a funeral 30 minutes before and after the event, as an Ohio bill sponsored by Rep. John Boccieri stipulates, what's to stop anti-war protesters from being silenced if they camp too close for comfort to government leaders?

What's to stop the further muzzling of protesters outside abortion clinics? Where exactly do you draw the next freedom of speech line in the sand-aside from shouting fire in a crowded theater?

And finally...

But when Mr. Boccieri ventures that "free-speech rights end where the family's right to privacy begins," he is on shaky constitutional ground.

Like it or not, the freedom to scream "The Emperor has no clothes" outside the Bush compound in Texas or sneer "Thank God for dead soldiers" at military funerals are one and the same under the First Amendment.

Legislating limits on any aspect of protected speech limits us all.

This is one journalist who has a grasp of the fundamental rights that are protected by the constitution.

Or not.

They don't much like the fact that Ohio is the only concealed-carry state with restrictions on how permit holders must carry their guns in cars. The provisions that require concealed-carry permit holders to keep their guns out in the open or locked away in their vehicles were put there at the insistence of the State Highway Patrol. No trooper making a routine traffic stop, especially at night, wants to be surprised by what somebody might be hiding under a seat or in an unlocked glove box.

Makes perfect sense to anyone not driven to distraction by free and unfettered gun ownership. Yet those who campaigned so effectively to legalize concealed-carry in Ohio want the unrestrained freedom to conceal carry in the worst way.

That includes letting qualified gunslingers keep their guns hidden in their cars or not locked up. That includes letting permit holders drive through school zones with concealed weapons. That includes prohibiting cities and villages from enacting more stringent weapons bans than state or federal law.

The latter revision that concealed-carry enthusiasts want is a direct affront to home rule in Ohio where local communities have long enjoyed the right to regulate themselves.

Clyde became suddenly controversial and challenged in court when it made concealed-carry illegal in its public parks. No resident objected, but Ohioans for Concealed Carry did.

Firearms have been prohibited in Toledo parks since 1996 and the city's home-rule authority to enforce its park prohibitions has been upheld-so far. But what's the point of packing hidden heat if you can't do it freely in bucolic public settings with possibly threatening recreation seekers or in potentially perilous school zones? The gunslingers demand uniform criteria covering state law that trumps local rules without exception.

Sometimes I think it must be wonderful to be so mindlessly oblivious to one's own hypocrisy.

Take note:  She is sure to point out that there is a First Amendment that protects one's right to free speech in the first quoted article.  There is no mention of the Second Amendment in the second quoted article.  The Second Amendment does still apply in Ohio, if I'm not mistaken.

Courtesy of Triggerfinger, from CBS 4 in South Florida:

In the I-team’s undercover investigation, there was one incident in which our tester went in to file a complaint. After several times asking for a form, being told "you're not leaving without a form," he was asked to leave and actually walked off the property, to the point where the officer reached for his gun, put his hand on his gun and said, "Take a step closer, and see what happens.".

Every Blogspot blog in my bloglines subscriptions is showing the error symbol for "no feed found."

On the other hand, just a reminder that all eponym blogs will be offline for an estimated 10 hours beginning at 0400 UTC (10:00 PM Central Time) Saturday night for upgrades to the system.  Hey, at least we got a month's notice!

From BBC NEWS:

Instructions were issued to internet service providers across Pakistan on 27 February to block about a dozen websites of various origins.

The ban comes amid protests in several Muslim countries against the cartoons, first published in Denmark last year.

Islamic tradition prohibits depictions of the Prophet.

Bloggers in Pakistan first became aware of the ban on 28 February when they were unable to access a popular blog hosting site, Blogspot.

One of the blocked sites is hosted on Blogspot, which led to the blocking of all web journals hosted on the site.

The Pakistan bloggers found their blogs blocked, even though their blogs are not connected with the cartoons.

And apparently, according to one's internet provider, this has also spilled over into India.  So Google cuts them off from Blogspot, even when they haven't broken the rules.