Random: That’s a very good point. But if the Sauds were going to block the SDMB, they have ample reason to do so already – GD and the Pit are rife with threads critical of the Saudi regime and full of information that is damaging to it. Ditto China, North Korea and Cuba. If you let fear of a foriegn censor dictate your content, you’re not going to have very much content at all.
I remember when TubaDiva posted that she had acted a bit swiftly and made an error in judgment. An SDMB official admitted to a simple mistake. I’m glad that happened so that I could know it is possible.
And meanwhile…
This thread is still gasping after 2 pages of practically unanimous pleading that it be closed.
As I mentioned a few posts above, the whole country is censored by the infamous Etisalat Proxy Server.
However in Dubai there is a special internet, tech and media free zone (Dubai Internet City and Dubai Media City) where you can surf hardcore to your heart’s - if not your boss’s - content.
That said, whether it’s legal to surf obviously illegal content in the freezone is a very grey area. The zone has special laws and “understandings” - eg with freedom of media and freedom of speech, but the limitation on that is various remarks in various speeches from Sheikh Mohammed that imply self-censorship and self-monitoring.
Ditto the internet. Yes - it’s uncensored, and yes, it’s in a freezone. But there is still an “understanding” that it’s not quite kosher (for want of a better word!) to access questionable material. It would certainly be an offence to distribute it.
The unofficial practice here with many such grey areas, or for example Islamic-forbidden things for non-Muslims, is to act with a lot of discretion. The authorities don’t officially allow certain things such as unmarried expats living together, but in practice these days they turn a blind eye.
[update]
Googling a bit more I found this, which I hadn’t read before:
To qualify the above, there are churches and temples here, and freedom of religion for everyday people. Just not preaching it outside your church/temple walls.
[/update]
Unless someone emailed a mod and asked him/her to close it, I wouldn’t necessarily expect anyone to do it. Asking in the thread really isn’t the most efficient way to get it closed.
Rest assured, I don’t expect anyone to do it. I imagine Dewey didn’t expect his thread to be closed either.
If people were so unanimous that it be closed they could simply just quit posting to it. They’re not being . . . coerced . . . are they?
What the hell are trying to imply, Lib? I don’t think I like it. If you’ve got something to say, spill it. Your obfuscation has succeeded; your meaning is lost on my limited intellect.
And which thread would that be?
Have a beer, UncleBeer. On me! 
Wouldn’t be this thread, would it?
Nope, I guess not. 
Off course he could answer “I implied what I implied, if you don’t get it or like it it’s just too damn bad”
Frank: Closing a thread when the OP requests it is a well established precedent. Numerous examples can be found. Like this one, for example, that was closed by UncleBeer just yesterday.
Ernest: Precedent? I thought Bush was precedent!
“Off course” :rolleyes:
:o Thanks.
…not quite kosher…
I suppose I asked for that. But anyone airing a gripe has an obligation to make clear what that gripe would be. At least they do, if they wish to be taken seriously.
Fine. I’ll close it. Now that I’m aware the thread originator has requested its closure. Although I’m sure it’ll piss off some of the people who’ve made the dozen posts in the past hour. As has been said, e-mail is a far more efficient method of communicating with the staff, especially when you wish action taken. Are y’all happy now? As if that’s possible.
There’s questionable material on the internet?!
On the issue:
I would feel bad if I was the Chicago Reader and I got some poor guy stoned, literally, albeit indirectly. Random is right about the whole block thing.
I think DeweyCH has a point. I should also admit, international - Islamic - internet - poster law is not my specialty.
**
Come now, Uncle Beer, on reflection, you know you don’t really believe this. Lots of laws are either stupid or pernicious and neither the admins or the Reader would have the slightest qualm about someone violating them by means of the SDMB. Do you really mean to forbid any posters from a stauchly Muslim nation from discussing Islam? If we should be so fortunate as to get a group of Iranian dissidents who want to have an open and active discussion of the proper sphere of religion in a democracy, I hope you’ll sticky the thing to the top of GD, not lock it.
A bit closer to home, several U.S. states still have anti-sodomy laws (IIRC, GA – infamous home of Bowers v. Harwick – struck down theirs just a couple of years ago.) Cite
Now that you know, will the SDMB be censoring the Ask the Gay Guy threads, not to mention all of the oral sex threads that regularly appear? Of course not. Rather, you’ll decide on a case-by-case basis whether the violation has a enough “redeeming social importance” to justify whatever risk it may pose to the SDMB. There are no hard-and-fast rules, it’s a judgement call. To quote a recently departed friend of ours, “It’s all context, motherfucking context.”
I suppose I should post here, since I had an active role in the other thread…
Dewey, thanks for starting this thread. I was actually contemplating starting one (in the same “discussion, not a rant” vein), but procrastinated, and now you took the words right out of my keyboard.
Now, obviously, this board isn’t meant to be a bastion of free speech in all regards: it has (somewhat) rigidly enforced rules that members are supposed to follow. And its ultimate purpose is fighting ignorance. That’s why comparisons between Chinese or North Koreans trying to find uncensored news sources and a guy in Saudi Arabia trying to find some pictures of boobies aren’t quite accurate (then again, I guess we were fighting his ignorance on the subject of finding pictures of boobies :D).
Seeing as how I’m a stupid college student as opposed to a legal scholar, I don’t know jackshit about the possible legal ramifications of telling people how to break laws within their jurisdictions. More knowledgeable Dopers can debate that ad nauseam. But, as others have mentioned, the board would be PATHETICALLY BLAND if we were required to follow every law everywhere. So it would help if the mods or admins got together and formulated some clearly defined guidelines in this area. When I posted in the Playmates thread, I was under the impression that “you will not use the SDMB to post any material that is… violative of any law” and “you agree not to post any material that in our opinion fosters or promotes illegal activity” only referred to the laws of Chicago, the state of Illinois, or the United States, and Dopers are individually responsible for compliance with the laws of their own jurisdiction. If I was wrong (UncleBeer thinks so, and I very well could have been), I would like to know what the correct interpretation of that part of the registration agreement is. Obviously, every set of guidelines will have some gray areas. And, like Truth Seeker said, everything is a judgment call. But judgments are based on certain rules; otherwise, they would be arbitrary. This is why setting forth a few simple rules (nobody wants to see a 10-page manifesto) would clarify things. Something short and sweet like, “Dopers don’t have to attempt compliance with every law in every country that has access to the SDMB, but don’t post or answer specific questions like, ‘Tell me how to circumvent the laws of my jurisdiction!’” or whatever the mods/admins decide on. I’m sure most Dopers would like the board to be as much of a bastion of freedom/city on a virtual hill as possible, but ultimately, it’s the Chicago Reader’s call on how liable they are legally, and how many risks they want to take.