Loading ...
With sheer anger, I report that this blog is blocked for access in Pakistan since 3 PM, Saturday, May 31st, 2008. A few minutes later, I noticed FASTRising blog blocked as well while other blogs seemed to work. It was late in the night that I was informed about the blockage of the complete blogspot domain.
The outgoing SMS on my public number are blocked for a few months. An hour before the blog was blocked on Saturday , I received a blank call from ‘Unknown’ on my other cell phone which I disconnected. Later, I received a strange SMS, opening which restarted my phone. Later, I found that the SMS have been blocked on this phone as well, when I tried to inform a few friends about this.
I feel that the ban may have been provoked by a recent eye-opener post regarding FASTRising’s fact finding mission to Baluchistan that led to a lively, even heated, debate. One reason for this suspicion is that this entry was even cited by a prominent Baloch nationalist/separatist site, http://thebaluch.com.
The error message received when accessing ALE-Xpressed.blogspot.com or FASTRising.blogspot.com follows:
Trace available here
which is a bit different from the one received for other blogs, that follows:
The story has been reported in The News and Dawn of today.
Users can still use the free anonymous surfing services online like megaproxy.com, safehazard.com, anonymouse.org etc to access blocked blogs.
Speak up ! for your lips are yet free !
E-mail this article to a friend
Tags: ale-xpressed, blocked, blogger, blogspot, fastrising, internet cencorship
1 response so far ↓
1 anum // Jun 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I think it’s interesting that the court is claiming that the first amendment was not violated because the school is, as the article quotes, “responsible for ‘teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.’” An interpretation like this could give the school worrisome authority beyond the school grounds if it is carried to its logical extreme, and even though I would agree that the school wasn’t necessarily violating any constitutional amendment, the judge’s opinion is flat out illogical and a little bit patronizing.
Leave a Comment