Yahoo loses Nazi memorabilia case | Financial Times
Both the First Amendment, which protects free speech, and the Fourth .. The ruling against Google and Yahoo was overturned on appeal in August, but there are at An app called TigerText allows text-message senders to set a time limit from one Facebook, if it wanted to, could implement expiration dates on its own . [date of access]. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Suppressing Free Speech Online. Abstract. In lieu of an helping to limit free speech around the globe. Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law plying French law, the court gave short shrift to Yahoo! The final order, issued after the consultation of the expert team, is dated November 20,. . be safely within the constitutional limits on choice of law established by the U.S.
The Quran brings it out because those who do not have enough information or data about a particular issue cannot form an educated opinion. One might make an opinion even with a shortage of information, but that would not be helpful in reaching the right decision about a certain matter. Islam is assertive in its teachings on decision-making because faults and mistakes are very costly in the life of individuals and for the community.
That is why research and precision are essential in providing the necessary data required by rational and intelligent decision makers [ 3 ]. Democracy and Islam Whether Islam is compatible with democracy is a misleading question; Islam and democracy are two different entities, although the two things cannot be divorced when dealing with politics in the Muslim world. Though Islam does not teach either democracy or dictatorship clearly, it is ready to impose ideological tenets upon Muslims [ 4 ].
Evidence has shown that dictatorship is inherent in both Islamic history and text. Early Caliphs and later Caliphs in numerous Islamic dynasties ruled their people without democratic principles. They simply justified their absolute political power with religious dogma, ignoring the voice of the people. It is true that the Muslim world has provided more dictators than any other modern society [ 4 ]. However, as illustrated above, Islam is compatible with human rights.
Islam, like many other religions, is an old system of belief; democracy is a new advancement of the modern political system. The Cairo Declaration protects each individual from arbitrary arrest, torture, maltreatment, or indignity. It clearly does not condone abuse of power and authority. And yet, though they both promote human rights, the spirit of the Cairo Declaration is fundamentally different from that of the Universal Declaration, since the former shares the Islamic understanding of human rights in terms of the Quran and of the Sharia.
Examined more closely, the Cairo Declaration is not an absolute statement of individual rights but is in some ways a list of conditions or obligations that individuals have to conform to under Sharia law. Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.
Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia. Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of prophets, [or] corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith [ 5 ].
According to these principles, one may only speak positively about Islam. This means that it is not only prohibited to criticize or blaspheme Islam or its prophet Muhammed PBUHbut it is also prohibited to say anything that could undermine the confidence of Muslims in Islam, let alone publicly expressing statements of apostasy or missionizing for another religion. Louis Brandeis, an American lawyer and later associate justice of the Supreme Court, said this about the need to be able to express oneself freely: He further noted that: Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—argument of force in its worst form.
Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed [ 6 ]. Human rights and Islam Are true human rights an essentially Western construct?
There is little doubt that the idea of human rights can be found in biblical sources. But there is more to it than that. The natural law tradition goes back to the ancient Greeks, through the idea that human beings are endowed with inalienable rights which derive from an unwritten law or a higher principle.
Then there is the Protestant Reformation, which asserted individual conscience as the foundation for an authentic faith [ 7 ]. English common law and its concern with inheritable rights is another noted source for the ideal of human rights. Constitution and Bill of Rights have all been utilized as sources for modern human rights.
So in a sense human rights are indeed a product of human decency and human tradition.Yahoo Answers Video Question on freedom of speech
Human rights and their universal application are rightly seen as a defining challenge to the principles of Islamic life and civilization.
Although the authors of the Cairo Declaration may not have realized it at the time, the formulation used in the document was very much derived from modern preconceptions, garbed in the language of Sharia.
Rights in Islam had previously been formulated in terms of duties and obligations of people to each other: As is indicated in the Cairo Declaration, whatever rights human beings have are the outcome of individuals and societies fulfilling their duties and responsibilities to each other.
There are few rights which are explicitly recognized as such in the Quran—it establishes parental rights over children, for example, but most rights are in the nature of obligations. The rights of God over humanity are met through acts of worship and devotion [ 5 ].
The right to work exists because human beings have a duty to work and strive to improve their lot; the right to free expression exists because humanity has a duty to seek the truth and its fulfillment. Even in matters which are not on the surface contentious, such as the right to justice, the right arises in consequence of the fact that others—such as the state, the judiciary, or those in power—have not fulfilled their duty to provide or dispense justice.
What are the real challenges and significance of the Cairo Declaration? The declaration decries genocide, but several of the OIC member countries have massacred and terrorized their populations.
Article 3 of the Cairo Declaration, which sets the principles of warfare, has been flagrantly ignored in most of the wars involving OIC member countries, for example in the Somali, Syrian, and Afghan civil wars and in the South of the Sudan.
Articles dealing with torture and the inviolability of the individual are routinely ignored when Muslim states feel under threat. The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians by the state security apparatus in the Gambia in Aprilresulting in the massacre of students, is another case in point, as are the measures deployed by the Egyptian government to combat militant Islamism. Article 20 bans torture and arrest without due cause and process, but torture and abuse of prisoners are common practice in the authoritarian states of the OIC, which includes nearly all the Arab countries and sub-Saharan Muslim countries.
Article 6 guarantees the dignity of womankind, only to see its stipulations flouted by innumerable cases where women have been treated in a degrading and cruel manner on account of local tribal or social customs.
Article 7 guarantees the rights of children, yet abused, abandoned, and mistreated children—let alone the widespread use of child labor—are a common feature of Muslim countries.
Article 8 guarantees the right to justice.
The list goes on. Nearly every aspect of the Cairo Declaration is discounted in practice, and there is no effective mechanism, either governmental or one generated by civil society networks, to monitor and ensure compliance with its terms. But the concept of hisbah, which embodies this injunction, has been perverted over time.
In an erudite and comprehensive work, Freedom of Expression in Islam, the Afghan scholar Muhammad Hashim Kamali sets out specific principles from which an entire doctrine of free speech can be derived [ 9 ]. These principles are derived from the fact that many actions which are deemed praiseworthy in Islam can only be undertaken if one has the ability to express oneself freely.
These include the proffering of sincere advice Nasihahthe need to consult shurapersonal reasoning, the freedom to criticize, the freedom to express an opinion, the freedom of association, and the freedom of religion.
These rights are not absolute. They are constrained both morally and legally. The moral constraints on freedom of expression are found in all the great religions. They are built-in safeguards that prevent injustice, abuse, and strife. And yet Islamic literature is full of irreverent and satirical poets, who caricatured rulers and the high and mighty [ 9 ]. Speech or action which encourages fitna sedition and conspiracy against legally constituted authority is a punishable offence.
It would be no different from sanctioning those who conspire to overturn or undermine the legal order in any democratic state. And yet even where these are not the intent, the modern Muslim state has generally ignored the wide latitude given in Islam to exercise freedom of expression.
But this has more to do with the structures of authoritarian states and governments than with Islam as such. Most Muslim governments attained power in a way that the Sharia would condemn: Most of the world sees Muslims and Muslim rulers who flagrantly violate universal standards of human rights and freedoms, but does not pause to consider whether these violations are in any way allowed, tolerated, or condoned by Islam.
The terms of service are a binding LEGAL contract that outlines your use of the website, should you not agree with the terms of service you are requested to leave the website. Should you continue to use the website or chat and go against the terms of the site, the website owner has the absolute right to ban you from their chat room, or ban you completely from using their website entirely.
This is the same right you have to vanquish trouble making people you do not want from your own home or property. What may Happen to a Persistent Obnoxious Chatter The best defense is to ignore the offending chatter.
Freedom of Expression from the Islamic Perspective
Usually this will prompt them to continue ranting on how much of a weenie you are for not fighting back. But believe me it is an effective way of dealing with insulting people. Failure to adhere to any such rules, guidelines, or agreements shall be a violation of this AUP acceptable use policy. YOU alone are responsible for what you do, say, or post online - including abusive emails.
As people have discovered in the courts around the world recently, you alone are responsible for chat room posts, forum posts, blog comments, or anywhere your words are seen online. Remember your ISP is required by law to keep a record of ALL your surfing habits, including email correspondence, for a period of several months. In addition nearly every chat room records a log of conversations including the post, ip address, and time stamp the post was made.
Facebook, Yahoo and ISPs plead for UK free speech | ZDNet
These chat logs are sometimes requested by authorities investigating cyber crimes such as crimes against children and death threats. Death threats are neither funny, acceptable, or legal. Threats against people, and in particular death threats, which are just as serious a crime online as offline, can and should, be reported to the police and if they originate from America the cyber crimes division of the FBI.
Remember prank calls to the police or FBI are a serious crime. For instance most ISP's will have a clause similar to - "Will not use our service to gain unauthorized access to, or otherwise violate the security of our or another party's server, website, network, personal computer, network access or control devices, software or data, or other system, or to attempt to do any of the foregoing.
Nor attempt to attack, breach, circumvent or test the vulnerability of the user authentication or security of any host, network, server, personal computer, network access and control devices, software or data without express authorization of the owner of the system or network.
Is it really worth it just because you are peeved at being banned? You may be tempted to think an ISP will not disconnect a paying customer. An ISP "Acceptable Use Policy" is designed to protect an ISP's assets, the assets of its customers, and the Internet community, from irresponsible or illegal activities of their customers and users. To protect their name and to prevent claims of civil or criminal liability or other legal sanctions against an ISP they WILL disconnect your Internet service and in some cases seek damages.
This is the trickster or scammer, usually they will attempt to get friendly with you and most will likely ask for your MSN or Yahoo messenger id fairly soon in the conversation, they realize that if a chat monitor is on the ball they will discover their ip doesn't match where they say they are from and be banned, hence their urgency in trying to gain your phone number or Yahoo id etc.
See article on scammers. Monitors and chat moderators will do their best to ban and block these scammers as soon as possible, however there are always some who avoid early detection and may gain your confidence. This is a person, and lately quite often a bot, that spams messages in chat rooms advertising websites and soliciting sexually explicit material. Ignore them and let your chat owner or moderator handle it. Don't click on their messages, unless you want a computer virus or perhaps end up on some very offensive websites.
Freedom of Speech in Chat rooms and Forums: Freedom of expression has never meant that a person could use language however she or he saw fit. Freedom of expression was defended on the grounds that rational discourse paid off immensely with respect to education, politics, and personal growth.
However language as a tool can serve more than just this purpose. Language can be used in many ways, including as a tool to hurt others. There is no such concept as absolute freedom of speech. Life would be quite unlivable if everyone were to be encouraged or for that matter permitted to speak their mind without second thought for the consequences. Absolute freedom of speech would constitute an infringement on freedom to live. There appears to be a fairly common mis-perception that freedom equals license; that being free to do something means you possess an irrevocable license to do it.
- Facebook, Yahoo and ISPs plead for UK free speech
What seems to be lacking is an understanding that our "rights" also confer an irrevocable responsibility to exercise our freedoms intelligently and responsibly. There is absolutely NOTHING in there which places a limitation on a person or company to regulate speech in their chat room or forum they provide.