Iran Filters Khamenei's Filtering Fatwa!

[Aarash_Australia]

journalists from the semi-government Mehr news agency, asked Khamene'i his opinion on the government's filtering of news websites - saying that people in some professions, such as their own, are being retarded by being unable to access news, technology, academic websites, etc.

The SL replied: "In general, the use of antifiltering software is subject to the laws and regulations of the Islamic republic, and it is not permissible to violate the law."

The ruling was subsequently filtered because it contained the word "antifiltering," which automatically triggers the country's censorship system.

LOL!

http://www.shafaqna.com/persian/component/k2/item/12590-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86-%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D8%A2%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%84-%D9%86%D9%82%D8%B5-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86%DA%AF.html

http://www.rferl.org/content/iran_filters_khamenei_fatwa_on_antifiltering_internet/24575143.html

[shiasoldier786]

What I found funnier, was that on the RFERL website (which you posted above), they confused Mohsen Rezai to be the the chairman of the expediency council, till someone pointed it out to them and they had to change it. Read the first comment and the response. :lol: It shows the sort of ignorant idiots writing all this rubbish.

Edited May 11, 2012 by shiasoldier786

[Aarash_Australia]

What I found funnier, was that on the RFERL website (which you posted above), they confused Mohsen Rezai to be the the chairman of the expediency council, till someone pointed it out to them and they had to change it. Read the first comment and the response. :lol: It shows the sort of ignorant idiots writing all this rubbish.

That's funny?

You have a weird sense of humor.

[alimohamad40]

I think by being close like this they wil fail the islamic state

why dont they open youtube ?

[Aarash_Australia]

I think by being close like this they wil fail the islamic state

why dont they open youtube ?

That's an important point - these draconian measures are upsetting everybody, across the board.

People are losing faith.

[Waiting for HIM]

Down with all the munafiqoon and the enemies of Islamic system. Let them rot in the perpetual slavery of ibless, here and in hereafter.

I'm just plain sick of bunch of retards constantly attacking the only Islamic system existing in the globe.

Go dip yourself in the filth of ibleesi system and eat out from the secretions of ibleesi slaves.

If you don't like the leadership of the ulema, then tough luck, because this is here to stay till the last day of the planet earth inshAllah.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Waiting for HIM

[guest 34193]

One wonders if the die hard followers of Iran living outside its borders would voluntarily put themselves under the same restrictions they defend Iranians being put under. (perhaps they could somehow use a proxy to go through Iran's internet filter. so no youtube for all you guys, as one example)

[Wahdat]

YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter are political instruments of the Western system that push forth the interests of the very same system. Any country that could do without them would be better off in the long run. China, for example, has its own version of those sites and hence they are immune from their propagation.

[Aarash_Australia]

YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter are political instruments of the Western system that push forth the interests of the very same system. Any country that could do without them would be better off in the long run.China, for example, has its own version of those sites and hence they are immune from their propagation.

What about the internet? Isn't that a political instrument of the Western system too?

What about the language you're now writing in? Modern English? It's a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, French, and American neologisms. Isn't that an instrument of the West then?

[ShiaBen]

YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter are political instruments of the Western system that push forth the interests of the very same system. Any country that could do without them would be better off in the long run. China, for example, has its own version of those sites and hence they are immune from their propagation.

That is the best counter actually. Just use an equivalent in your own language or culture etc. this way the demand is filled and at the same time you avoid the propaganda from the West trying to hurt the respective country.

What about the internet? Isn't that a political instrument of the Western system too?

What about the language you're now writing in? Modern English? It's a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, French, and American neologisms. Isn't that an instrument of the West then?

Sigh...Stop taking things out of context....

[King]

YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter are political instruments of the Western system that push forth the interests of the very same system. Any country that could do without them would be better off in the long run. China, for example, has its own version of those sites and hence they are immune from their propagation.

[Wahdat]

What about the internet? Isn't that a political instrument of the Western system too?

What about the language you're now writing in? Modern English? It's a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, French, and American neologisms. Isn't that an instrument of the West then?

Yes, they all are instruments of Western system.

Wasnt it Twitter that created havoc in Iran? Wasnt it Facebook that started the so called Egyptian revolution...?

That is the best counter actually. Just use an equivalent in your own language or culture etc. this way the demand is filled and at the same time you avoid the propaganda from the West trying to hurt the respective country.

exactly. wherever and whenever its necessary for any governing system to have the ability to control the flow of information. Otherwise, it would be exposed to hostile elements.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Wahdat

[Abu Muslim]

LOL! The interwebs is created to spy on Iranians

[alimohamad40]

you cant win an argument by supressing the counter arguments

people will think you have some thing to hide

if the IR claims to be a popular government why should it be scared of what others say and close the whole thing ?? that would not effect the popular majority and hence the state will stay stable

but if they are dictating and are a minority then its not the islamic way because when imam Ali got a majority against him he just let it go

islam is a favour for the people it shouldnt be forced onto them but they should want it and if they dont want it then they will deny thier selves that mercy just like what they did with imam Ali

just imagine imam Ali grabbing a group of army and trying to supress them and claim that he is so popular lol

he said " truth left me with no friend:" pure truth , if he is unpopular he admits it

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Even if khamenei has an army of men standing in one row covering the distance of east to west he cannot establish an Islamic state as it is supposed to be established. Period

There is nothing like next best thing.

Edited May 12, 2012 by siraatoaliyinhaqqun

[83838]

It's good to prevent the invasion of some highly viral & toxic stupid uncivilized western culture.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

i thought iran was land of the free? isnt that what his retard rent-a-crowd followers say? "oh leader of the free"

seems you only have freedom by not having freedom. makes sense.

[Philip]

freedom in context of Islam

freedom in context of attacks by oppressive satanic forces

freedom within cotext of:

And let there be from you a nation inviting to good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful. 3:104

[And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of matters. 22:41

.. Freedom is limited by laws and jihad of Islam

[titumir]

Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Freedom doesn't mean freedom to slander. People's reputations are an asset. It must be protected in the same way any other asset is protected. The West aims to create disunity and rebellion with their propaganda. Its called "Information warfare" nowadays. Their aim is not to show a balanced picture to the Iranian people, so that they are aware of their country and the world. Their aim is not to help the Iranian people. Their aim is to destroy Iran, and one of their weapons is information warfare. Iran has the right to censor the Web in exactly the same way it has the right to shoot down an enemy plane inside its airspace.

[Philip]

One wonders if the die hard followers of Iran living outside its borders would voluntarily put themselves under the same restrictions they defend Iranians being put under. (perhaps they could somehow use a proxy to go through Iran's internet filter. so no youtube for all you guys, as one example)

the true supporters of the Islamic revolution would love to give their lives in martyrdom for the cause .. so i believe that some internet issues carry no weight in this regard ..

[Maula Dha Mallang]

philip what part of iran do you live in? how long u lived there man?

[Philip]

one does not have to live in iran to be part of islamic community

[kadhim]

Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Freedom doesn't mean freedom to slander. People's reputations are an asset. It must be protected in the same way any other asset is protected. The West aims to create disunity and rebellion with their propaganda. Its called "Information warfare" nowadays. Their aim is not to show a balanced picture to the Iranian people, so that they are aware of their country and the world. Their aim is not to help the Iranian people. Their aim is to destroy Iran, and one of their weapons is information warfare. Iran has the right to censor the Web in exactly the same way it has the right to shoot down an enemy plane inside its airspace.

Fine, but pure efficacy wise, you don't fight bad information through hiding it.

You fight it through exposing it.

The cost of all this network equipment and IT, you hire some web savvy true believers work full time to scour this stuff and post up responses and counters on official web sites of their own. You have to defeat ignorance with intelligence.

You can't build wisdom by blocking information, and you can't promote 'Alid ends through Umayyid means.

[83838]

Fine, but pure efficacy wise, you don't fight bad information through hiding it.

You fight it through exposing it.

The cost of all this network equipment and IT, you hire some web savvy true believers work full time to scour this stuff and post up responses and counters on official web sites of their own. You have to defeat ignorance with intelligence.

You can't build wisdom by blocking information, and you can't promote 'Alid ends through Umayyid means.

It's not just informations, but bad content as well such as hedonism, music, pron, and other bad viral western cultures.

I think it won't be efficient, at least for now. Iran don't have enough resources quantitatively & qualitatively to expose the whole zionist propaganda machines. You may know how those propaganda machines work. They are way far more advanced than Iranian old-style media.

Edited May 12, 2012 by аli

[baradar_jackson]

I havent read this thread. Just making a general comment here.

If Iran had just 1 percent of the amount of influence over the minds of people in North America and Europe countries, that North America and Europe has over Iran's people, then you better believe there would be a totalitarian government ruling most Western countries.

Free speech has a time, a place, and a form. Free speech at the mass level, when there is influence from hostile elements who seek to use this free speech as a platform... well that's not free speech at all. lol.

I know probably everyone here -- whether they are the liberal douches, the Edward Tatbeerihandses, the simple simps, the hezbollahis, or even the Salafi trolls -- would agree that, if you put Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet and the man he overthrew -- Salvador Allende -- side by side, you have to say that Allende was on the side of justice, and Pinochet on the side of injustice and falsehood. But guess what? One big reason for the success of the coup against Allende's government, was that they were not fully in control of the information. So you had a bunch of newspapers within Chile, publishing a load of c.rap against Allende. Sure, there were supportive newspapers as well, but there was enough lies in circulation to considerably weaken Allende's political authority. Aside from making it harder to implement his program, it laid the groundwork for a foreign-backed coup against him.

It almost happened to Hugo Chavez; all the private television stations in Venezuela were owned by people who hated his guts; people whose interests were being jeapardized by his power. He just had one outlet: the state TV. It still wasn't enough to prevent a color revolution which damn well near succeeded.

But who needs to go as far as Chile or Venezuela? Iran itself has experienced this; it was this same "free speech" that allowed Dr. Mosaddegh to be slandered and beaten down. Spreading a bunch of wild rumors amongst the ulama, amongst the masses, amongst his own ministers and aides. "He's an atheist." "He's a homosexual." "He's a communist." etc... These were actual rumors spread against him! In retrospect it seems ridiculous. But don't we see the same thing happening today to certain political personalities? 50 years from now we will look on many of these rumors and think how ridiculous they were!

Any movement which seeks to implement an order -- and this order is different in some way to the one which preceded it -- needs to have control over information. "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" <-- that's a truth which the Western governments understand very well; only simpletons and Moozlems don't seem to get it through their heads.

Israel has ADMITTED to using twitter and other "social media" as a tool. CIA has admitted to this as well. That one dude -- I forgot his name -- was really adamant about his desire to block channels such as Press TV, Russia Today, CCTV, and TeleSUR. Press TV has actually been blocked in Britain; its signal has been jammed. And who is influenced by Press TV, in Britain?!?!? Only Shia Muslims, and only those Shia Muslims who support WF and the Islamic system in Iran. It has a negligible effect on British society and yet it has been deemed dangerous enough to British ideas that its signal has to be jammed. Compare that to Iran, where VOA or BBC just needs to say a single unsubstantiated rumor about this or that, for it to be spread amongst millions of people, as news.

But some of yall are "kaseye daghtar az ash" (the bowl that's hotter than the soup). You are more defensive of them than they are of themselves. LoL!

Anyway, that's all I have to add. I'm out...

[Waiting for HIM]

Bradar Jackson - thanks for taking the time to put it together so well. Hope it helps clearing some minds up.

I personally do not see even a need to "educate" these poeple. Those whose hearts have been locked out of listening to the truth and comprehending it, I just have no time to waste my breath on them. I'm just waiting for the day when His Majesty (atf) will order a house cleaning and would call "you are either with us or against us".

Edited May 12, 2012 by Waiting for HIM

[repenter-gone4awhile]

One wonders if the die hard followers of Iran living outside its borders would voluntarily put themselves under the same restrictions they defend Iranians being put under. (perhaps they could somehow use a proxy to go through Iran's internet filter. so no youtube for all you guys, as one example)

One can also wonder if you after all this years comprehend the fact that just because you defend the islamic movement of Iran does not mean that you defend every single action of the Islamic Government of Iran.

Pretty hard for certain members of this site it seems.

[Marbles]

I havent read this thread. Just making a general comment here.

If Iran had just 1 percent of the amount of influence over the minds of people in North America and Europe countries, that North America and Europe has over Iran's people, then you better believe there would be a totalitarian government ruling most Western countries.

Free speech has a time, a place, and a form. Free speech at the mass level, when there is influence from hostile elements who seek to use this free speech as a platform... well that's not free speech at all. lol.

I know probably everyone here -- whether they are the liberal douches, the Edward Tatbeerihandses, the simple simps, the hezbollahis, or even the Salafi trolls -- would agree that, if you put Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet and the man he overthrew -- Salvador Allende -- side by side, you have to say that Allende was on the side of justice, and Pinochet on the side of injustice and falsehood. But guess what? One big reason for the success of the coup against Allende's government, was that they were not fully in control of the information. So you had a bunch of newspapers within Chile, publishing a load of c.rap against Allende. Sure, there were supportive newspapers as well, but there was enough lies in circulation to considerably weaken Allende's political authority. Aside from making it harder to implement his program, it laid the groundwork for a foreign-backed coup against him.

It almost happened to Hugo Chavez; all the private television stations in Venezuela were owned by people who hated his guts; people whose interests were being jeapardized by his power. He just had one outlet: the state TV. It still wasn't enough to prevent a color revolution which damn well near succeeded.

But who needs to go as far as Chile or Venezuela? Iran itself has experienced this; it was this same "free speech" that allowed Dr. Mosaddegh to be slandered and beaten down. Spreading a bunch of wild rumors amongst the ulama, amongst the masses, amongst his own ministers and aides. "He's an atheist." "He's a homosexual." "He's a communist." etc... These were actual rumors spread against him! In retrospect it seems ridiculous. But don't we see the same thing happening today to certain political personalities? 50 years from now we will look on many of these rumors and think how ridiculous they were!

Any movement which seeks to implement an order -- and this order is different in some way to the one which preceded it -- needs to have control over information. "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" <-- that's a truth which the Western governments understand very well; only simpletons and Moozlems don't seem to get it through their heads.

Israel has ADMITTED to using twitter and other "social media" as a tool. CIA has admitted to this as well. That one dude -- I forgot his name -- was really adamant about his desire to block channels such as Press TV, Russia Today, CCTV, and TeleSUR. Press TV has actually been blocked in Britain; its signal has been jammed. And who is influenced by Press TV, in Britain?!?!? Only Shia Muslims, and only those Shia Muslims who support WF and the Islamic system in Iran. It has a negligible effect on British society and yet it has been deemed dangerous enough to British ideas that its signal has to be jammed. Compare that to Iran, where VOA or BBC just needs to say a single unsubstantiated rumor about this or that, for it to be spread amongst millions of people, as news.

But some of yall are "kaseye daghtar az ash" (the bowl that's hotter than the soup). You are more defensive of them than they are of themselves. LoL!

Anyway, that's all I have to add. I'm out...

Reading responses like this one things comes off as certain.

The history of Western intrusion in the affairs of Iran and other nieghbouring countries act as a veritable tool in the hands of the governing elites to legitimise any measures which are supposedly seen as protecting the interest of their countries and people. So in essence, asking for human rights and relative freedom for laypeople is viewed as Western agenda, devoid of any merits of its own, so long as it maintains the political system opposed to the West at home.

Ummm...not very intelligent methinks.

[Waiting for HIM]

Bradar Jackson - thanks for taking the time to put it together so well. Hope it helps clearing some minds up.

I personally do not see even a need to "educate" these poeple. Those whose hearts have been locked out of listening to the truth and comprehending it, I just have no time to waste my breath on them. I'm just waiting for the day when His Majesty (atf) will order a house cleaning and would call "you are either with us or against us".

Forgot to add, I would love to have a field day that day inshAllah. What is better than squishing some anti-Allah cockroaches under my boots.

[kadhim]

The problem with those who would defend systematic censorship is that when you align yourself as "revolutionary," there will ALWAYS be some sort of external meddling. So this situation never goes away.

Do you seriously propose to treat a sophisticated nation of 80 million people like children forever?

I thought this revolution was about making a nation of adult human beings?

I submit that if you need this level of infantilization just to keep people with the program , the program way already have failed?

What is the point of the whole project if there is such little faith in the people? Is the government there for them,or they for it?

[Marbles]

What is the point of the whole project if there is such little faith in the people? Is the government there for them,or they for it?

Which reminds me of:

‘Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?’ - Bertolt Brecht

[Philip]

O you who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do you wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? 4:144

[Aarash_Australia]

O you who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do you wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? 4:144

and how is that relevant to the topic at hand?

[Philip]

and how is that relevant to the topic at hand?

Because many people who claim to be Muslims chose non Islamic sides over the Islamic side .. Like when they continuously attack the IRI instead of praising it ..

Like when they have a problem with IRI not being perfect while they are not perfect themselves ..

Like when they spend time criticizing the Islamic Republic and don't criticize the Zionists and "democratic" governments for instance

[Aarash_Australia]

Because many people who claim to be Muslims chose non Islamic sides over the Islamic side .. Like when they continuously attack the IRI instead of praising it ..

Like when they have a problem with IRI not being perfect while they are not perfect themselves ..

Like when they spend time criticizing the Islamic Republic and don't criticize the Zionists and "democratic" governments for instance

Most Muslims - most Shia Muslims in fact - do not support the IRI.

Why would I spend my time on "ShiaChat" criticizing Israel? I live in Iran, Iran and Shi'ism are my concern, not Israel or Sri Lanka or Lithuania.

Get a grip.