The writer is editorial consultant at The Express Tribune, news junkie, bibliophile, cat lover and occasional cyclist
We watched Swan Lake on YouTube, an internet source currently blocked by the government. We watched via a proxy –– that I will not name here –– that masked the IP address of my computer and created a spoof address, thus fooling its way around the government ban and giving me and Miss N the chance to enjoy the thrill of seeing the Sorcerer vanquished once again. She is also quite partial to dinosaurs doing extremely unpleasant things to other dinosaurs, flatulent babies and cats up to all manner of tricks.
For my own part, I have used YouTube as a research tool in my daily work, accessing news clips globally, checked out some paint schemes on a model airplane I am building and caught up with the latest clips from the Berlin Philharmonic. Hardly the cutting edge of subversion, is it? Nor is it illegal.
So far as I can determine, I am not breaking any law by finding a workaround for the YouTube ban, and the only law I just might have broken was a presidential ordinance that expired in 2007. The government does not appear to have invoked any piece of legislation beyond some vague references to the blasphemy laws, and the ban is based upon the entirely subjective whim of the government of the day.
It was ordered in the wake of the rumpus about the YouTube posting of a blasphemous video clip. Whilst undoubtedly blasphemous and abhorrent, but no less abhorrent than the beheadings filmed by assorted militant groups and then posted to YouTube.
It must be noted that the beheadings videos predated the posting of the blasphemous clip, yet the government of the day saw no reason to block YouTube on the grounds that it was promoting hatred.
The internet is awash with blasphemy and hate speech, and after some extensive checking in the last few days, it seems that YouTube is one of many offenders in this respect.
The offensive clip has been removed from YouTube as the result of a case brought by an actress who appeared in it –– who maintained that her performance had been misused and dialogues –– that she did not say –– dubbed into her mouth. Google, the parent company of YouTube, says it will fight the ban on the grounds that it is an impediment to freedom of speech and there are going to be lawyers rubbing their hands together at the possibility of a long-running and complex case.
So where have we got to in Pakistan? The government is slowly picking off the proxy sites that enable the workaround, despite which many millions of people simply find a proxy that is working and carry on YouTube-ing as before. So far as I am aware, there has been no attempt to prosecute anybody doing this, and it would be on very shaky legal grounds if such an attempt were to be made. Government agencies are said to harass some of those who circumvent the ban (no… not me… not yet) and there are persistent rumours that sites such as Skype are to be interdicted. Skype connections are all encrypted and thus difficult for the government to monitor traffic or listen in on.
The YouTube ban has achieved nothing more than the appeasement of some particularly excitable extremists. That it persists now makes it sinister rather than pointless. Right… back to Swan Lake. Tootle-pip.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 7th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Obviously what is happening is censorship, and I do not agree with it, although Pakistan is not alone. Many Western countries are the home of censorship, in several ways. One example is that you can go to prison for questioning Holocaust details. Further, if someone is charged with a crime you cannot write about it to explain your position, because it is suggested that you are making a profit out of crime. It also seems very obvious that although the media in several important countries is supposedly free it does conform to fairly strict guidelines. Governments will always try to keep the lid on what people say. All we can do is resist, and hope that journalists such as Mr. Cork will keep highlighting that censorship is occurring..
Chris, I don't know how you can say that the ban has achieved nothing. Under the guise of protecting our values (values, Pakistan , hah!) the government has come up with an effective precedent for censoring access and usage of the Internet, all backed by technology which is now easy to deploy and scale. Their objective has been achieved and the poor public is none the wiser ( literally and figuratively).
The People of Pakistan are suffering due to this ban. Just like they suffered under the previous regime of Zardari .. There is Nowhere to run to Nowhere to hide ...To suffer in quite desperation is the Pakistani way .
If you don't like the material, delete it or don't watch it at all. This is the essence of democracy. If you try to block it, there are million ways to overtake it. Rab rakha
In today's electronic age putting a ban on something on the net will not not only ' not work ' but in fact proves counterproductive. The sensible solution is never to sensationalise an incident ( giving it more importance than it deserves ) and thus allow it to die its own death.
This clip is still on youtube and ban has been revoked. Freedom of speech and expression won at last .
The easiest way to explain the issue of YouTube ban to Mr.Nawaz Sharif is to equate it to a ban on 'Siri Paye or Nihari'. I bet the ban will be lifted the next minute.
With pain, I am writing it. I completely disagree with your argument, which is based on recent court ruling. The premise of argument is flawed because if you think that US court ruled against Blasphemous video then it gives a moral footing to government ban. I don't care what US court or Google are fighting for. All I know is that our government is abusing the power. I agree that there are many web pages and Facebook pages which are filled with hate speeches and blasphemy material. Having said that, I don't want the government to be the custodian of my or any citizen's faith. I don't use you tube for educational reasons and I don't think that I should be apologetic. It is no ones business to ask me whether I am watching educational stuff, random cat clips or Nargis Mujras.