Comments on: FACEBOOK And GOOGLE Ordered To REMOVE ‘Anti-Religious’ CONTENT

By: ONE TIME

ONE TIME — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 07:21:45 +0000

what can say.hualal one time ba facebook tiye nayo.

By: kabiala unga

kabiala unga — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 06:58:04 +0000

Ndiyevi chan manje?

By: munalian

munalian — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 06:38:25 +0000

@mwalakwaita,
It is true that the Chinese govt employs about 50,000 people to monitor its virtual Chinese wall but that is having the exact opposite results of what it desires:
The wealthier the Chinese have become,the more they have travelled abroad and seen reports about their country from a non-State point of view!
Secondly,the richer citizens become,the more they want to be involved in the democratic process…unfortunately the Chinese communist party is still resting this move and as such is seeing more and more demonstrators who are fed up with its corruption!

By: Mwalaikatwa

Mwalaikatwa — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 06:25:55 +0000

China doesn’t allow websites that insult Mao or the ruling party.

By: munalian

munalian — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 06:25:02 +0000

Oops,clicked wrong icon…
Saudi Arabia had a simular problem with BlackBerry because it couldn’t access its encrypted servers to know what it’s citizens are talking about!!

2)another issue is of “privacy” some people might say that posting (for example) nude or drunken pictures is immoral but does the Govt have a right to instruct its citizens what they should or shouldn’t post online? There is intrinsically no difference between inviting friends over to my house to see a nude picture in an old fashioned photo album or poster and doing exactly the same on social media such as Facebook!!

3) the third issue is “freedom of speech”,some people say the President and churches/religions shouldn’t be criticised let alone be mocked!! The beauty of living in a DEMOCRACY is to speak one’s mind provided it’s measured and doesn’t incite violence! it is for this reason Western politicians are ridiculed everyday of the week but continue with their work and all sorts of religious leaders are best subjects for satire!

Nevertheless,one has to consider the Zambian society,satire on politicians should be welcome as long as it is done on policies rather than tribalism! Issues of “morality” are dictated by the Bible,I don’t have much time for it but I respect the overwhelming majority who swear by it!

In conclusion: banning aspects of social media is somehow futile because technology is quicker than laws! Whether or not those in power realise it,technology has enabled people across the seas to exchange ideas at the click of fingers;up to 5-10 years ago friends were small circles (neighours,class/workmates etc) today,if you’re a fan of super star X or football club Y,you can go online and interact with millions others who might in due time change your views on many issues…that is how Egyptians removed their dictator by using Twitter!! The Egyptian govt first tried to ban the internet but gave up after 3 days!

So this Indian judge may have passed his judgement but he can’t stop an American-indian living in the US from publishing “immoral” pics and publish them on his Indian Facebook page!! Equally,if Pres Sata shut down tumfweko because it’s critical of him,there would be tumfweko1 within hours,if shut down,tumfweko2 etc…

By: Barca 10

Barca 10 — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 05:58:38 +0000

I wish this camz 2 zed so that bloggerz lyk air mukwai,c 5 en co,thinks b4 dey talk,tho i must admit that u guyz ur crazy n funny tutombeko wouldn’t b tunyengeko without u,happy new year,kondwerani mwafikako mu 2012, ba kulu bena chiluba wanakangiwa kufikamo.

By: munalian

munalian — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 05:49:22 +0000

While the judgement may sound nice it is in reality almost impossible to police because of:
1) cyberspace (as the name implies) has no physical location, there is no office to close or staff to harrass! When the US Govt tried to shut down Wikileaks, supporters of Wikileaks moved its site from webserver to webserver,always in different countries! In that respect,an Indian and Zambian may have “immoral” pictures on Facebook which break “pornography laws” of their respective countries but if there is nothing the Zed or Indian govts can do since Facebook’s servers are in California (which has a $15 billion porn industry!!)
An country had a similar problem with BlackBerry because

By: Ziman

Ziman — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 05:02:09 +0000

Aha i recall when HE asked the AG Malila to look @ curbing the vulgar language used on web news like ZWD mosr bloggers especially from the bantustan party spewed scorn @ the HE. Insults in form of unpritables were hurled at the presdo. Some even boasted that the president was a Grade blah blah to comprehend how IT operates. So its possible for some offending sites to be restrained from publishing offensive comments insulting HE. We need such court orders also. Freedom of speech does not mean insulting pipo @ will. I thot that the comments we should post are contributions to the online debate PLIZ BLOGGERS LETS USE CIVILILITY when Bloging. I urge the AG to follow the Indian case so that pipo learn that you cannot continue insulting HE in the nane of IT that its not possible to locate the physical address of Webnews.

By: Jah is my driver

Jah is my driver — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:46:49 +0000

To hell with some religions and their gods. Glory to the almighty true God Jehovah.

By: Mwansa

Mwansa — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:45:55 +0000

Big ups 2 India! this social networks innitialy meant well but people have bcome so foolish that they think social networks are for immoral acts.Let this action taken by India be extended 2 Zambia,maybe then things wil get beta here.
Lord have mercy!