I wrote a couple of articles about Turkey in 2007. I never expected Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to deteriorate so much, of course I'm not referring to this specific law, but to his reactions and his unwillingness to step down after pretty much the most successful decade a politician could reach for (2000-2010).
Regarding the law, with all these new technologies floating around, I think censorship will become more and more difficult for the government to enforce it on geeks but I firmly believe that people of Turkey should rely mostly on overturning the part where the ISP blocks whatever website without court order and not on tech to circumvent it. That might turn nasty and jails in Turkey are not fancy.
Given recent events, I think the law is going to be used in order to fight anti-establishment (as in anti-current-government) websites mostly and not pedophilia (surprised no one mentioned pedophilia yet...), copyright, etc.
What exactly did you expect an islamist to do, other than declaring himself caliph and start to act like an islamist ? This has barely begun. This is only really about removing content. The last actual caliph in Turkey would get people summarily executed for criticism.
Plus they're kind of right. It's plainly true that islam means criticism of the government = criticism of the religion = punishable by death. The prophet executed people for that, and if you believe in islam, clearly that's the right thing to do.
Your statement: "islam means criticism of the government = criticism of the religion = punishable by death" is patently untrue (and is really better saved for clan meetings than HN).
Do you have citations for: "The prophet executed people for that"?
(Its kinda interesting that with all the recent documentation of states using the Internet to infringe on peoples rights, the moment Turkey does it, the response is: "see.. islam!")
Oh great an ad hominem. Now google "Asma Bint Marwan" (hardly the only one[1]), and if you have any integrity whatsoever, apologize.
[1] Others executed for criticism ("poetry" about muhammad as it's generally called in the hadith) include "Abu Afak", "Al Nadr ibn al-Harith", "Uqba bin Abu Muayt", "Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf", "Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq", "Fartana" and I doubt this is anywhere near the full list.
Note that this was most definitely NOT common practice during those times. You should read some of the texts that survive from Roman fora in the same area. Let me tell you Romans are not afraid -at all- of calling the head of the army a coward, and comparing them to dog entrails (I assume that's not a compliment). Same sort of things are regularly said about the governors and so on. And in at least one instance that did not even lead
I'm assuming that when you point towards the story of Asma Bint Marwan you acknowledge that classical scholars have rejected this story?
It also pretty amazing that you would complain about an ad hominem when your comment led with "what did you expect an islamist to do?"
(I also note your silence on the fact that draconian Internet silliness seems ok when done by non-"islamists")
Again: There is certainly a lot in the OP's post relevant to HN, but i would submit that sweeping statements on religions are not
I wasn't aware of any such rejection. Nor you, nor a google search, nor my local library can find any reference to such a rejection. Furthermore it's easy to find fatwas agreeing with this. Care to point out at least one paper (that isn't on an obviously political site) ? To be honest I've read the sources on the story and several of the others and I'd find it hard to believe.
And what about all the other ones ? It's not like executing people for criticism is something islam's prophet did once. Well, compared to the thousands of people he ordered executed (e.g. the massacres he ordered around Mecca) it may not be that much.
This is not a sweeping statement about a religion. It is a simple statement of fact. Just because a statement is currently policitally inconvenient or "sweeping" doesn't affect my opinion of it at all. As you very well know, there are far more damning sweeping statements one can make about islam that are equally true.
Frankly, islam was created through a protracted and bloody war. Everyone, including muslims, agree on this. Do you find it all that surprising that atrocities happened on both sides ? The problem I have, of course, is that one side claims to be the definition of good, and went on to commit massacres elsewhere in the world on a scale never seen before.
Why do you feel the need to reject historical fact ?
Regarding the law, with all these new technologies floating around, I think censorship will become more and more difficult for the government to enforce it on geeks but I firmly believe that people of Turkey should rely mostly on overturning the part where the ISP blocks whatever website without court order and not on tech to circumvent it. That might turn nasty and jails in Turkey are not fancy.
Given recent events, I think the law is going to be used in order to fight anti-establishment (as in anti-current-government) websites mostly and not pedophilia (surprised no one mentioned pedophilia yet...), copyright, etc.