explanations needed

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Dec 22, 2011 at 19:45

Mr Amin Riaz writes:

"Social Media - is NOT cornerstone to a free society. "

Do you agree it is a powerful method of rapidly informing and potentially mobilising large groups of people? And that therefore is a threat to repressive governments - who now have systems in place to turn off mobile phone coverage where they deem it necessary. Having pervasive and unfettered access to social media is a hallmark of a free society but does not define it.

"...Worst crime of repressive govt is killing you for saying what you want to say..."

OK - that's a fair statement. What would you say about one particular form of theocratic government which can do just that for daring to completely drop or change belief systems? Or for criticising the founder of that belief system? Is that also a crime of a repressive government - despite that punishment being recommended in the belief system's little green manual?

" Social Media is a luxury..... compared to a basic get together ... ability to choose your leaders ... free expression and etc."

It's all quite relative isn't it - a black and white TV would have been a luxury in the 1940's . A car was a luxury in 1910. .Humanity no longer lives in caves - we take for granted the technological innovations built up by the generations who have gone before us and accept them as normal often without realising the sweat and imagination and insight it took to make those leaps. . People use new technologies to improve the quality of their lives and societies adapt them for their own uses. In regard to communications technologies in free(r) societies they are used more for communication than control.

'Basic get-togethers' , the ability to choose leaders and free expression are possible in societies where these principles are encoded in law and understood in the minds of ethical people. It was possible to have these in Ancient Greece. It is theoretically possible to have them anywhere - but certain conditions need to be met. One big one being having a system that enshrines the freedom of an individual to do , say, believe and act as he/she likes into law.

So getting back more on topic - for the most part Islamic countries are repressive because they do not allow the individual complete freedom of belief (or lack of belief). They are repressive because they are Islamic. Islam is used to control.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".