Comments on: Appeal to Saudi king

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:23:02 +0000

I believe Reporters without borders did not read what was published, king has the right to do so.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:15:11 +0000

“This is a naive statement. A Judge is Saudi Arabia will o as the King says.”

Correction:

This is a naive statement. A Judge IN Saudi Arabia will DO as the King says.

Sorry
RV

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:36:37 +0000

‘They’ are using ‘porn’ as a RUSE to test Internet Filters. No rocket science needed to figure that out;)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:26:09 +0000

“It seems to use that such a decision, at least when a news website is involved, should be taken by a judge in an independent procedure, and that those responsible for the online publication should be given a chance to appeal against any filtering decision.”

This is a naive statement. A Judge is Saudi Arabia will o as the King says. The Saudi Judges, like most judges in the world have been corrupted by the powers that control them. Judges, I have concluded, in most parts of the world are tyrants and cannot be counted upon.

Look what another current article here on p2pnet says:

“Ren Zhiyuan, a secondary school teacher in Zoucheng, Shandong Province, was arrested after he posted The Road to Democracy (Minzhu zhi lu), “in which he expressed the opinion that the people have the right to overthrow tyranny by violent means,” says the story….”

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:00:51 +0000

“Alwifaq.net was reportedly filtered after it published articles criticising the Saudi governmentÃ¯Â¿Â½s filtering policies,”

Kinda ironic. Very scary.