Egyptian Court Orders Ban on YouTube for a Month

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,412
As a reprisal for YouTube refusal to completely remove a trailer for a banned movie, the Egyptian Court has ordered a 30 day blockage of all YouTube access in Egypt. The movie in question was Innocence of Muslims, a film that caused riots in several countries last September.

YouTube's parent company, Google, declined to remove the video from the website last year, but restricted access to it in certain countries, including Egypt, Libya and Indonesia, because it says the video broke laws in those countries.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,722
Remember that these "riots" that the movie was blamed for, were pre-planned events/attacks on the anniversary of 9/11.

Unless of course you are a liberal, who wants to blame guns for murders and video games for murders, etc.
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
Unless of course you are a liberal, who wants to blame guns for murders and video games for murders, etc.

I dont think liberals want to blame guns for murder. Just weapons of mass destruction, whenever mass destruction occurs.
 

jojo69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
10,928
quick

get out the really funny videos while the Egyptians can't see
 

Az Syndicate

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
393
Yeah we are shutting down youtube for a movie, nothing to do with our civil unrest. We wouldn't want publicity for all the military beet-downs on its citizens be viewed as the real reason we are blocking youtube......
 

Serpent

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
2,106
That's how it is, man. They'll blame anything on anything so they can scapegoat responsibility.
 

Darrell262

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
118
Not sure why we would or should care if Egypt bans youtube for a month. For something like that.Maybe youtube should ban Egypt from using their site for 6 months for fun?

Its so dumb that people freak out about stuff like that because of religion.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
Not sure why we would or should care if Egypt bans youtube for a month. For something like that.Maybe youtube should ban Egypt from using their site for 6 months for fun?

Its so dumb that people freak out about stuff like that because of religion.

Wont work someone will just copy youtube and make baidu, oops did I say that. From there on out youtube will see tons of problems as internal protectionism and corruption are used to prop up an internal competitor.
 

Relayer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
1,527
quick

get out the really funny videos while the Egyptians can't see

LOL +1

Yeah we are shutting down youtube for a movie, nothing to do with our civil unrest. We wouldn't want publicity for all the military beet-downs on its citizens be viewed as the real reason we are blocking youtube......

This is the best explanation. I can't believe that banning youtube from Egypt for a month will really put enough fiscal strain on Youtube to get them to compromise their reputation.

Youtube and social networks like Facebook have at times been these countries only outlet to the outside world. Interesting how fast the current government starts attacking them now. It wasn't that long ago that the lack of censorship showed the world what the Mubarak regime was doing to them.

Not sure why we would or should care if Egypt bans youtube for a month. For something like that.Maybe youtube should ban Egypt from using their site for 6 months for fun?

Its so dumb that people freak out about stuff like that because of religion.

We should care for freedom's sake.

You don't think it's really religion, do you?

They seem to take it pretty seriously over there. Although I'd imagine that the West continuously pisses off the Muslim world with our "sinful" ways. When it comes to a head there's typically politics involved.
 

Geef

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
338
OK, so here is a theoretical outcome to this taking into account of several other posts:

Egypt says: We are banning Youtube for a month.
Youtube says: We have decided to ban Egypt because their leader isn't very intelligent and we will not allow it access until their leader comes before us on his knees and begs for us for access, or a new Egyptian leader comes to power and begs, but we won't require him to be on his knees because we are nice people. :p

6 months goes by, then people in Egypt are freaking out over not having access to Youtube that they riot in the streets and all that so the leader basically got what he was supposedly trying to prevent in the first place...

Remember this is all theoretical. :p
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,722
I dont think liberals want to blame guns for murder. Just weapons of mass destruction, whenever mass destruction occurs.

Tell that to all the libs in Washington and on the media outlets who are trying to push for all kinds of bans on weapons and ammo clips.
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
Tell that to all the libs in Washington and on the media outlets who are trying to push for all kinds of bans on weapons and ammo clips.

Well they're just trying to push for bans on weapons meant to be used in military combat. Obviously there is a limit, since we also arm our soldiers with pistols and knives.

Everyone believes in some degree of firearm control. Afterall we dont allow our citizens to arm themselves with stinger missiles and tanks. Maybe we should include high capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles too. Just depends where you want to draw the line. Personally I feel that any weapon that is considered "primary/first choice" for military personnel should be excluded to just that, military personnel. Sidearms are more or less backup's, and tolerable for citizens IMO.
 

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,082
Well they're just trying to push for bans on weapons meant to be used in military combat. Obviously there is a limit, since we also arm our soldiers with pistols and knives.

Everyone believes in some degree of firearm control. Afterall we dont allow our citizens to arm themselves with stinger missiles and tanks. Maybe we should include high capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles too. Just depends where you want to draw the line. Personally I feel that any weapon that is considered "primary/first choice" for military personnel should be excluded to just that, military personnel. Sidearms are more or less backup's, and tolerable for citizens IMO.

Finally an intelligent post regarding gun control. Banning certain guns is only one part of the equation in stemming violent crime. We had 91 gun-related deaths over this past weekend. The other part of the equation are mental health issues. And, the last part of the issue is education-- not every gamer is going to shoot people, and neither are action movie fans. Education must be done on what's basically good and bad, how to properly secure your weapons, and preventative measures to ensure that those mentally unfit to carry gun shouldn't be carrying a gun at all, even those who have family members with mental health issues. And, lastly, better enforcement and tougher prosecution and punishment for gun trafficking, illegal procurement, and black market trades.

High capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles should be banned for normal citizens. I agree with that. If the military can use a high powered assault rifle, the public shouldn't. Handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns should be fine. But, ensure that those guns don't go into the wrong hands. Therefore, require background checks, maybe yearly mental health checkups, annual gun use and storage education, and require a gun license for different levels of ownership-- instructor, hunter and recreational, and last self-defense. Different guns for different levels of ownership, and different kinds of education and training on how to use and properly secure and store them.

But, it's not just about guns. People will still kill someone else with a knife, a bat, a car, and whatnot. Mental health education, and mental and social issues need to be addressed. If one person can be affected by game or movie violence while another cannot, then find out why. Is it society? Is it bad parenting? Is it a person's upbringing? Increase funding into finding out the why and the how, and finding ways to prevent another Columbine or Sandy Hook or prevent another nut case tossing someone onto the NYC subway tracks.

This is not about destroying the Second Amendment, and that's what these wackos are crying foul on. You'll still be carry guns and own them, but just not letting normal citizens carry certain types of weapons. This is about trying to reduce violent gun-related mass murders.
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
I say just regulate and license the shit out of it, to the point that only someone truly deserving can buy one. I remember doing some flight training and discovering our very basic trainer aircraft cost about $200,000. Any new single engine 4 seater aircraft costs upwards of $400,000. I asked "how the hell is anybody supposed to afford these things" and my instructor said "thats the point, nobody is. Only the very diehard, the true pilots with the educational background and financial backing are meant to own these things. Afterall you wouldnt want the every day idiot who can afford a $30,000 car flying around would you?" Make a glock 9mm cost $10,000. Each bullet costs $100. License to shoot costs $5000 and 40 hours of training. You wouldnt get a bunch of yahoo's owning guns anymore. Instead it would be a weapon of choice relegated to those who have demonstrated the capacity the follow through and have earned the right to own one. The average idiot should not have the capability to point a finger in your general direction and take your life instantly.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
Well they're just trying to push for bans on weapons meant to be used in military combat. Obviously there is a limit, since we also arm our soldiers with pistols and knives.

Everyone believes in some degree of firearm control. Afterall we dont allow our citizens to arm themselves with stinger missiles and tanks. Maybe we should include high capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles too. Just depends where you want to draw the line. Personally I feel that any weapon that is considered "primary/first choice" for military personnel should be excluded to just that, military personnel. Sidearms are more or less backup's, and tolerable for citizens IMO.

I think hunting rifles and shotguns are definitely the weapons that should be protected first of all. They are designed for hunting as a sport or for food, and that's the top use for guns in the hands of a civilian, in my opinion.

The statistics bear out that handguns/pistols are the most likely to be used in a homicide or mass shooting event, due to their small size making them easy to conceal and carry. That's where I would really like to see some legislation being made to require licensure for owning a handgun, and especially keeping track of how often and with whom they are exchanging hands.

Of course, severe limitations on anything fully automatic should be the norm.

But honestly, if a solution is proposed that sounds good and is implemented, but doesn't work, it should be revised or thrown out. I hate how attached people are getting to legislation, where they feel if someone criticizes the law, they themselves are being criticized . Get over it and do the right damn thing. Whatever it ends up being.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
Yeah we are shutting down youtube for a movie, nothing to do with our civil unrest. We wouldn't want publicity for all the military beet-downs on its citizens be viewed as the real reason we are blocking youtube......

It's also strange that they are shutting down Youtube 4 to 5 months after the "movie" came out. If that was the reason, wouldn't it be shut down sooner?
 

flyingears

Weaksauce
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
104
Finally an intelligent post regarding gun control. Banning certain guns is only one part of the equation in stemming violent crime. We had 91 gun-related deaths over this past weekend. The other part of the equation are mental health issues. And, the last part of the issue is education-- not every gamer is going to shoot people, and neither are action movie fans. Education must be done on what's basically good and bad, how to properly secure your weapons, and preventative measures to ensure that those mentally unfit to carry gun shouldn't be carrying a gun at all, even those who have family members with mental health issues. And, lastly, better enforcement and tougher prosecution and punishment for gun trafficking, illegal procurement, and black market trades.

High capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles should be banned for normal citizens. I agree with that. If the military can use a high powered assault rifle, the public shouldn't. Handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns should be fine. But, ensure that those guns don't go into the wrong hands. Therefore, require background checks, maybe yearly mental health checkups, annual gun use and storage education, and require a gun license for different levels of ownership-- instructor, hunter and recreational, and last self-defense. Different guns for different levels of ownership, and different kinds of education and training on how to use and properly secure and store them.

But, it's not just about guns. People will still kill someone else with a knife, a bat, a car, and whatnot. Mental health education, and mental and social issues need to be addressed. If one person can be affected by game or movie violence while another cannot, then find out why. Is it society? Is it bad parenting? Is it a person's upbringing? Increase funding into finding out the why and the how, and finding ways to prevent another Columbine or Sandy Hook or prevent another nut case tossing someone onto the NYC subway tracks.

This is not about destroying the Second Amendment, and that's what these wackos are crying foul on. You'll still be carry guns and own them, but just not letting normal citizens carry certain types of weapons. This is about trying to reduce violent gun-related mass murders.

Do you even understand what semi-automatic means? Hunting rifles are mainly semi-auto. Almost all modern pistols are semi-auto. Congratulations on being indoctrinated by the media into believing that semi-automatic rifles are the issue. Do you always regurgitate all the bullshit that you swallow? You have this entirely ignorant idea that a fully automatic military assault rifle, and a semi-auto rifle are the same thing.

The whole point of the second amendment is to prevent the general populace from being unable to defend themselves in the event that the government decides to start removing freedoms. If guns were easier to own and more of society took the responsibility of defense upon themselves, crime would go down as people committing crimes started getting shot.

We like to pretend that all people are valuable and productive members of society and that their lives aren't insignificant. Well when one of those valuable worthwhile people break into your house with their unregistered illegally acquired gun, you go ahead and call the cops, they will get there as fast as they can because you matter. When you become just another statistic, remember it wasn't his fault. That person who killed you... nope, it was because society didn't have stricter gun control laws.
 

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,082
The whole point of the second amendment is to prevent the general populace from being unable to defend themselves in the event that the government decides to start removing freedoms. If guns were easier to own and more of society took the responsibility of defense upon themselves, crime would go down as people committing crimes started getting shot.

We like to pretend that all people are valuable and productive members of society and that their lives aren't insignificant. Well when one of those valuable worthwhile people break into your house with their unregistered illegally acquired gun, you go ahead and call the cops, they will get there as fast as they can because you matter. When you become just another statistic, remember it wasn't his fault. That person who killed you... nope, it was because society didn't have stricter gun control laws.

So, if I understood that sentence correctly, you want something close to the Wild West where anyone can own a gun and defend themselves?

If guns were easier to own and we allowed more people to own them, do you think we can trust the average citizen to be responsible in owning a gun, securing it properly especially from people in their family that may have mental/social issues, and that they can effectively defend themselves and others when the situation calls for it?

When I look at the world today, even this country, there is very little out there that I want to trust to tell you the truth. You may not know if your loved one will leave you for another person. You may not know if your co-worker will get you fired. You may not know if the government is actually looking out for you. You may not know if that family with a mentally troubled child will kill your child in school.

If you think you can trust your friend, family member, neighbor or co-worker with a gun when gun laws are more relaxed and guns are made more accessible, then tell me truthfully if that will EFFECTIVELY reduce the amount of mass murders, gun-related crimes, and violent murders.
"We spend so much money on stopping evil, but do nothing to prevent how evil starts." -Unknown
And, if you have a better idea on how to reduce the number of mass murders, violent crimes (gun and non-gun related), and violent murders that doesn't involve limiting the Second Amendment and doesn't involve handing a gun to every single American citizen, I'd honestly like to hear it.
 
Top