backtop

Internet YouTube Banned in Turkey, Again
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - September 21, 2007 11:25 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 35 comment(s) - last by GlassHouse69.. on Sep 23 at 10:22 PM
YouTube again finds itself banned in Turkey

Once more, Turkey has put the ban on YouTube after a YouTube user reported that the Google-owned video sharing web site had several clips that were considered insulting to several prominent Turkish political figures.  The Turkish government then ordered the national telecommunications company to block access to YouTube for all Turkish residents until YouTube agrees to remove the clips. 

According to the nation's current penal code, insulting "Turkishness" is a crime that is punishable by law.  Turkish courts often press charges against journalists when they mention the Armenian genocide that took place in the early 1900s.

In March, YouTube was banned in Turkey for two days before several "offensive" videos were removed from the web site.  

In the most recent ban, a court located in the Turkish city of Sivas ordered the temporary ban because of a video that insults President Abdullah Gul, the nation's modern founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish army.

Yesterday's ban of YouTube has drawn outrage from the Reporters Without Borders organization, a renowned journalist watchdog group.

"Blocking an entire website because of a few videos is a disproportionate measure," the organization said in an official statement.

Thailand, Morocco and several other nations also imposed bans on YouTube for a number of different reasons.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Makes sense, right?
By Polynikes on 9/21/2007 2:01:46 PM , Rating: 5
Ban a whole website for a fraction of its content. Sounds about right to me.

/sarcasm




RE: Makes sense, right?
By Christopher1 on 9/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Makes sense, right?
By smitty3268 on 9/21/2007 4:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
Turkey is a democracy, although "guided" heavily by the military. In fact, didn't the ruling party there just switch after elections?

quote:
The Turkish government forgets that anyone has the right to say anything about the Turkish government, including their own people.

Except that obviously they don't, because it is against their law. The US had some similar laws a long time ago with the Alien and Sedition Act.


RE: Makes sense, right?
By headbox on 9/21/2007 7:24:18 PM , Rating: 1
Military? Try Islam. Muslims don't believe in freedom or democracy. The move into Europe and America not to join their society, but to take it over and demand they adopt Muslim law. When something offends them, they take it as an offense to Allah. It's a twisted oppressive mindset, and a major factor why they're not in the EU yet.


RE: Makes sense, right?
By BigReader on 9/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Makes sense, right?
By smitty3268 on 9/21/2007 8:21:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Muslims don't believe in freedom or democracy.

I don't think that's true at all - it's just that when they have democracy they tend to go by rule of the majority rather than respecting the rights of minorities. That's hardly a flaw specific to Muslims, the difference is that the general population is more religious than the typical European or American.

The Muslim world today is very similar to the Christian one a few hundred years ago, with some obvious differences brought around by globalization.


RE: Makes sense, right?
By wordsworm on 9/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Makes sense, right?
By afkrotch on 9/22/2007 12:38:06 AM , Rating: 3
Companies have the right to provide a set of guidelines and consequences for failing to meet those guidelines, as you are now a representative of that company. The same can be said for the military, schools, etc.

Michelle Manhart posed in Playboy with her military uniform on. A big no no. The odds are fairly high that if she did not do so, the military would not have cared. As long as she filled out the necessary forms for secondary employment. Nothing in the rules says that she cannot pose nude in Playboy. She just can't do such with her uniform.

The school teacher is different, as well, they are a school teacher. They have a strict image they must uphold. Course such a thing would have been in the news and I haven't seen anything about it.

BYU's rules. As the university is LDS, it's to be expected that you follow their religion's rules. In other words, no sex before marriage and no cheating. Seeing as the majority of Utah is Mormon, I don't see these religion issues being well...an issue.

Either way, all these things are within a company. You by no means need to work there, go to school there, or whatever. None of them can come to my house and tell me not to have sex, pose in Playboy, or pose naked on the web.


RE: Makes sense, right?
By smitty3268 on 9/22/2007 1:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seeing as the majority of Utah is Mormon, I don't see these religion issues being well...an issue.

But for some reason, it is an issue in the Middle East even though those countries are primarily Muslim and don't see those religion issues being well... an issue.

quote:
None of them can come to my house and tell me not to have sex

Unless you're gay and live in one of the states which have outlawed it...

quote:
Michelle Manhart posed in Playboy with her military uniform on. A big no no. The odds are fairly high that if she did not do so, the military would not have cared. As long as she filled out the necessary forms for secondary employment. Nothing in the rules says that she cannot pose nude in Playboy. She just can't do such with her uniform.

I'm pretty sure the rule she broke didn't care about whether she was wearing a uniform or not, it was something like a morality rule or saying she lost her men's respect or something like that. Something they could basically take and adapt to any situation they wanted to - although I'm sure wearing the uniform probably pissed off her superiors, and they might not have even known otherwise.

Anyway, I agree with you mostly, there is a difference between a private party (especially the military, given it's special nature) imposing some limitation and the whole country doing it. However, I'm not seeing the big difference between Muslim countries and Western. Europe makes it against the law to deny the holocaust. Plenty of people in the US think we should ban flag burning and other things people find offensive. How is that different than Muslims who want to make it against the law to do un-Islamic things? The difference between our countries and theirs are that the rule of law is taken for granted here. That is something that takes a lot of time to build up and it's why Iraq was destined to become as chaotic as it has after we didn't stabilize the country after removing Saddam.


RE: Makes sense, right?
By rdeegvainl on 9/22/2007 5:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yes the rule was mostly the issue with her using her uniform, that is why they punished her. and i haven't heard of any gays being banned from having sex. please state one.


RE: Makes sense, right?
By smitty3268 on 9/22/2007 12:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_200...

"On September 17, 1998, sheriff’s deputies in Houston, Texas arrested Lawrence and Garner in the former’s apartment and charged them with violating the state’s sodomy statute. The police had entered Lawrence’s home because a homophobic neighbor, trying to get the two openly gay men in trouble, had called the police claiming that a man with a gun was in the apartment. (The neighbor was later arrested and prosecuted for filing a false police report.) Once in the apartment, the police discovered the two—now very startled—men engaged in either oral or anal sex (no one will say which) and they did what any good Texas police officers would do: they arrested them. Both men were jailed overnight and eventually convicted of a Class C misdemeanor and fined $200 each (the court could have fined them up to $500)."

"The Texas law, while odious, isn’t all that unique. Originally written in 1860 to prohibit “sodomy”— defined as oral or anal sex—by any couple, it was rewritten in 1974 (at the height of the sexual revolution) to apply only to homosexual couples. At that time, 33 states had similar laws, some of which restricted the private, consensual sexual conduct of homosexuals only."


Chris Crocker?
By grath on 9/21/2007 2:08:08 PM , Rating: 5
If he is now the poster boy of the month for YouTube then they have bigger problems than Turkey...




RE: Chris Crocker?
By onereddog on 9/23/2007 8:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's people like him that make youtube great.


Be careful guys
By Shark Tek on 9/21/2007 3:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
We don't want DailyTech banned too....




RE: Be careful guys
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/21/2007 3:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
DailyTech is blocked in some parts of China. I've been able to view it from Shanghai and Hong Kong, but on my most recent trip to Shenzhen the site was unreachable.


RE: Be careful guys
By TomZ on 9/21/2007 3:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think the server was just down again that day.

kidding... :o)


By ForumMaster on 9/21/2007 5:40:50 PM , Rating: 1
perfect pic DT. god that vid of that bitch (still don't know if it's a guy or a girl) was sobbing about britney spears was pathetic.

link to vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

nice pic!




By TomZ on 9/21/2007 6:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
That guy's a moron.

I didn't catch the reference at first - that's pretty funny.


By siberus on 9/21/2007 9:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
typo
By 1337n00blar on 9/21/2007 2:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
ptu = put




RE: typo
By GoodBytes on 9/21/2007 2:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
One more = Once more