Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaerast | Hacker News Reader

Yes, and that's the reason given for this domain name being reclaimed. Drinking alcohol and women showing bare arms are both illegal under Sharia law, and the front page showed Violet Blue drinking beer and showing bare arms. It's difficult for many foreigners to know exactly what is and isn't legal under Sharia law, so it's difficult to know if a domain would be ok or not.

However nic.ly are now also warning they don't allow ownership of short .ly domains by foreigners, only Libyan nationals. This sounds to me like they want more money or an excuse to take down domains they simply don't like, but is a real problem if they ever decided they want in on the bit.ly action.

The vb.ly site owners keep claiming that the content may be adult but that the domain name isn't. This is a weak argument in my mind, and I believe there's a precedent of domain names registered exclusively for the act of malware propagation being taken down.

View on HN

Sharia law doesn't necessarily enter into it.

You can't sell dildos and vibrators in Texas, and it's not because of Sharia law.

Hindu activists in India made death threats and stormed theaters because of a film about a lesbian relationship.

Sharia law is not the only reason for repressive attitudes toward sex.

I mean, really. They're, what, 30-40 years behind the cultural norms of the US, in this case? You don't really need to pin that on Sharia, when it's far more likely that it's just cultural.

It wasn't that long ago in the US that nothing was open on Sundays.

> You don't really need to pin that on Sharia, when it's far more likely that it's just cultural. (emph. added)

Because cultural reasons are completely separate from religion? Religion is the only reason people like to tell others what they can and can’t do in private, especially in a democracy like Texas, where it shouldn’t be considered Constitutional to outlaw "dildos and vibrators."

A agree, but there's a tendency among some these days to tout the boogeyman of sharia law. And there's an implication that there's something alien about Libya, that being restrictive of sexual matter is somehow unique to sharia law, that without sharia law Libya would be just like the US, and that Christians wouldn't do anything similar.

Which is just nonsense. Conservatives are conservative. Libya did this thing, and John Ashcroft covered up a statue's tit.

Bringing sharia into it is just buying into the latest thing pants-wetting wingnuts are using to scare themselves.

Maybe I’m foolish, but I think that denying the involvement of sharia law buys us nothing, but recognizing similarities with other conservative censorship tendencies (e.g. in Christendom) — as you have — can be a enlightening.

> They're, what, 30-40 years behind the cultural norms of the US, in this case?

And the us is another 10 to 20 years behind some other parts of the world in this respect.

More relevantly than Sharia, here's the actual text of Libya's anti-pornography/prostitution law (in Arabic), Law No. 56 of 1970 "On the Protection of Public Morals": http://www.aladel.gov.ly/main/modules/sections/item.php?item...

Nothing in there about the Intertubes, of course, and it's quite vague about exactly what constitutes pornography, but basically, you need a license from the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Local Government, and if you violate it they can throw you in jail for three to six years and fine you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com