The introduction of the
internet has greatly increased the ease of communicating between
individuals. This brings many advantages
to internet users; however it also poses many potential problems such as the availability
of sensitive material. This article
describes an Egyptian, Saber, who was put in jail for three years because he
uploaded a Californian video portraying “Mohammed in an unfavorable light.” In addition to this, the
police failed to protect his family from an outraged mob. The article is of a letter from the host
organization to the president of Egypt, arguing that the harsh verdict was due
to discrimination, and that it should be reversed.
I think it was wrong that Saber
was arrested for uploading an unpopular video, as that was within his right to
free speech. As Egypt signed the “International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” which protects the
freedom of speech, he legally had that right. I understand that the government wouldn't want the majority of its population to be criticized, however, uploading an
unoriginal video doesn't make him guilty of “‘blasphemy and contempt of
religion.”’ He denied supporting the message of the video, which begs the
question: Does taking advantage of the technological ability to upload
someone else’s work mean that you support it? I think that it depends on where
it was uploaded and what context it was placed in. If he had commented: “See what terrible
things they say in America”, below the video, I might agree that he didn't support
the anti-Islamism ideas. However, as
there is not more information I can’t make any informed conclusions as to his true
position.
Secondly, the police should
have provided sufficient protection for his family when they requested
aid. It’s the police’s duty to maintain
order and uphold the law for everyone, not just some people. Thus, not everyone’s rights were respected
equally.
No comments:
Post a Comment