Did Facebook Just Agree to Enforce Blasphemy Laws?

Doublespeak is language that deliberately distorts or even reverses the meaning of words. For example, when critics of radical Islam expose this extremism for what is it, Islamists and their “progressive” enablers call them “Islamophobes;” when those who call themselves “social justice warriors” campaigning for tolerance exhibit just the opposite (i.e., intolerance) by shutting down any conversation with which they don’t agree; when others force their religious beliefs (i.e., blasphemy laws) upon others in the name of freedom of religion (as in Canada’s new motion against criticism of Islam); or when perpetrators of crimes frame themselves as victims.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Why not? Companies have to do business. The problem is Islam and Pakistan not whether Facebook enables them.

    • Watchman

      Since ‘blasphemy’ is a capital crime in Pakistan, both enforced by the state and vigilante action, then this agreement worries me. Who knows what are the fine details that Facebook is agreeing to?

      If I was in Pakistan’s place as a devout muslim I would be asking for unrestricted access to Facebook’s contact details for any Facebook material deemed blasphemous anywhere around the world. All Pakistan would have to do is to declare the posters blasphemers and possibly even provide a public list of names, email addresses, contact details, current employer, etc.

      Nobody in Pakistan would be safe from death including from vigilante action.

      People outside Pakistan would not feel safe either – there might be a local devout muslim who feels the need to redeem themselves in the islamic religion and carry out ‘jihad of the sword’.

      Once a charge of blasphemy has been levelled, there is no real defence. You are having to prove innocence and that something never happened (instead of the presumption of innocence). The accusers can just claim that you have blasphemed and claim they cannot repeat your blasphemous words.

  • Observer