Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia

Given that 'disappeared' is a euphemism for 'killed and disposed of', that depends on how much worse it is given in the end you still cease to exist on the most meaningful level.

Put another way, is it better if they feed you an exceptional mean before they kill you?

In the end, focusing on the how's instead of the why and the concrete fact they did is just a way for others to to manipulate people into feeling one way or another (or more of either) instead of just taking the hard line that it's unacceptable in any and every form.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not accusing you of manipulating people, just stating that it's just a common tactic in general.

Chainsaws will be your least problem in Saudi torture den (state prison). See Confessions of an Innocent Man: Torture and Survival in a Saudi Prison

Anarchy? Cool. But I really wonder how many people want to live with the consequences of that.

That's all fine and dandy from a philosophical standpoint, but the practical matter is that Netflix has two choices:

- remove the content - face legal repercussions (likely ending in not being able to do business in SA or being forced to do the first option)

SA can enforce its will through military force, and that's about the most practical claim to sovereignty you can get.

Also, is there a practical difference between the NAP and the ZAP?

I think we have all seen comedians shoehorn their version of values into their routine and come off unfunny and preachy. It turns out comedians write about what they think about. Even Carlin childed comedians who put their politics first. Its more a matter of You have to be funny First.

I guess it's not, but the way the shows are structured, such as Oliver's and Minhaj's they seem to be partly educational where they try to summarize a topic, but it's frequently missing relevant information so I don't get anything out of that aspect of the show either. Audience ideally shouldn't be expecting a news comedy show to be a complete source of information.

British democracy is brilliant, moronic, childish and wise: Many laws are indeed that old

They have laws going back over 700 years:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough

“The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, and c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267),[10] which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267),[11] which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of.”

1628, at least, and, with some help from Samuel Johnson,

> In 1738 the Commons fought back, declaring that it was a "high indignity and a notorious breach of privilege" to report what was said in the Chamber, even when it was in recess. [0]

[0] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp...

No I pulled that one out of my ass but surprisingly wasn’t that far off.

Thanks I was going to respond and say the same thing.

As someone who has lived under a dictatorship, there is a difference. Laws in "democratic" countries and dictatorships don't differ so much. The difference is how they are enforced and what recourse you as a citizen have. In a dictatorship, the government rules that a show/film/song violates the law. No one not willing to go to jail challenges it. In a democracy, you are free to post a rant or picket because you disagree with the ruling. You are probably allowed to appeal the ruling and you wont disappear if you do appeal the ruling. It may look like both the UK and Saudi are censoring the media but I can definitely tell you it is not the same thing.

That's all copyright claims. Are you sure you want to define it that way?

The speech isn't being restricted. The background footage is.

Even if it is a stupid law.

This claim didn’t reduce access to media, this isn’t censorship as they couldn’t care less about the actual message or tried to block it on political grounds.

This is HBO likely not being familiar with obscure British legislation as some others have pointed out they had to use dogs instead of actual SCTOUS footage as there is a US law that forbids footage of the Supreme Court from being used.

The fact that you even consider this censorship only proves you likely never experienced what true censorship means.

The us also has special rules such as the fact you can't show photos or videos of the supreme court sessions.

This stuff is just generally odd.

While I don’t disagree with the notion that this is stupid. I disagree with the equivalence to censorship it’s a stupid old law, not means to silence political opinion they could’ve called each MP a cunt for 30 min and aired it just fine.

HBO just didn’t realized it when making this programme, they have had to avoid other similar limitations by using dogs instead of supreme justices due to similar restrictions in the US.

It is, however: For better or worse, British political media is regulated. Around election time, for example, Purdah bans all political advertising apart from allocated x minute slots

No it’s not, this has nothing to do with the political message of the content, they could’ve shown anything they wanted heck they could’ve shown a 30min footage of someone calling TM a cunt and that would not have been censored.

their agenda seems to be to make more money.

All of which sum to significantly less than current demand when used for ground transportation and heating/cooling. Would not be surprised if this followed the 80/20 rule.

You start to diversify 30 or 40 years before the catastrophe. If they wait for oil to be valueless before investing in anything else, they will discover they don't have anything of value to invest anymore.

I'm pretty sure a lot more than that one show is censored in Saudi Arabia..

>Global opinion matters...

Not so sure about this?

Reality is, MBS can do whatever he wants, global opinion or no global opinion. That's been made pretty clear recently.

I mean really, who's gonna stop him?

Yes, it is censorship that respects local traditions.

This must be a facetious comment. You don't see how it being only banned in Saudi Arabia is not as bad as Saudi Arabia complaining and having it taken down worldwide?

Plus, Saudia Arabia is not known as a bastion of personal liberty. But that's besides the point; they are completely entitled to perform censorship within their own borders. It's simply your opinion (which I happen to agree with, but it is not a fact nonetheless) that it's bad for them to have censored it within their own country.

Bittorrent.

Free speech doesn't make sense if you aren't a democracy. Public speech the government officially disagrees with is incitement of rebellion. In a democracy, there isn't this existential threat to the country. Given that you are a dictatorship, regulating speech to avoid insurrection is morally right.

> And the consensus seems to be "No."

Consensus is completely irrelevant when answering a moral question, unless it instrumentally affects the moral calculus.

It’s not all or nothing. While a takedown is bad (and illustrative of some real problems in Saudi.) Netflix having a presence in Saudi let’s them spread their media and worldview into that country/culture. Unilaterally disengaging just gives Saudi people less access to a roughly liberal and western source of culture.

What we (speaking as a fan of western still liberalism and rule of law) in the west need is to be better able to provide a full throated explanation and defense of our principles and value prop. There seems to be a very real movement toward an alternative authoritarian world view based on the promise of prosperity and stability through social control, social control that takes full advantage of the enormous surveillance and monitoring capabilities of modern technology.

The consensus appears to be no among people with no power to effect those decisions. The consensus among legislators and members of the public who could change the minds of legislators is quite different.

America controls the limits of commercial free speech in countries around the world through its control of Visa and Mastercard. American standards (by which I mean limits) on free speech are exported and controlled by limiting what credit card companies are willing to permit to be sold.

Every country has rules about what you can show on television. Some countries are extremely liberal (Denmark, the Netherlands) others less so.

That is very interesting, thank you. I am not a lawyer so anything I say is amateur speculation, but it seems like that case rules mostly on Ford's ability to arbitrarily reduce profit to shareholders by reducing or removing dividends, not necessarily acting in the public interest. This goes back to what I said earlier about a corporation being free to act in the public interest as long as the shareholders don't mind, as then there is no injured party.

This is going to sound condescending but I really don't mean it to be, I just couldn't think of a better way to phrase this:

Did you read the bottom half of the entry's summary or the entry itself? Specifically:

> In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly

> The general legal position today is that the business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole.

and quotes from a number of law journals:

> Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law.

> the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is virtually impossible to enforce as a practical matter. The rule is aspirational, except in odd cases.

Not really. Such lawsuits aren't really a thing.