back to article Indonesian comms ministry orders 'gay emoji' block

Indonesia has joined Russia with a crackdown on emoji that depict gay, lesbian, bisexual or transexual people. The nations's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology says it's asked local instant messaging service LINE to remove emoji that depict same-sex couples holding hands because members of the public have …

  1. cbars Bronze badge

    sorry?

    "Indonesia's dominant religion is Islam and the nation is quite conservative, hence the offence."

    No, I don't follow you. I still don't understand why this religion has so many 'followers' that can take offence from pictures.

    Grow up.

    1. King Jack
      Angel

      Re: sorry?

      Religious people do not think for themselves. They are told to be offended, so they are offended. (All faiths)

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Religious people do not think for themselves.

        Because all non-religious people are independent thinkers? Yeah, right.....

        1. P. Lee

          Re: Religious people do not think for themselves.

          Haha!

          Did no-one upvoting King Jack's post not contemplate the irony of jumping in to agree with everyone else on the evils of value-based group-think?

          Didn't the irony klaxon go off when Sabroni suggested group-think might affect those without an explicit supernatural affiliation and so many people jumped in to disagree?

          Looking at Jack's upvotes and Sabroni's downvotes I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch:

          "Yes, we're all individuals!"

          --

          That fun aside, we are left with the dilemma of what we do when democracy and conflicts with values we absurdly hold to be self-evident, when they are clearly not, otherwise we would have no need to talk about them. Do we stay with democracy and the will of the people, or do we turn elitist, ready to force the people to accept our values by force of law until they have been educated to accept our ways?

          Obviously, the Indonesian comms minister is barking mad for thinking his idea will have any impact on anything, but it wouldn't be the first time a government has enacted law not because it will be effective, but to "send a message" would it?

          > I still don't understand why this religion has so many 'followers' that can take offence from pictures.

          Before we cast the first stone at the Indonesians, perhaps we should think back to 2012 when the UK government ministers when to court to prosecute a nurse for wearing a crucifix. All in the name of health & safety (no danglingly necklaces) of course, but as she pointed out, in over 30 years of nursing, she had been scratched and bitten nut no-one had ever tried to grab her necklace. She offered to remove the necklace and pin the crucifix instead, but that apparently wasn't acceptable - the image had to be hidden from view. It's a good job we in the West are not like those who consider particular images offensive, isn't it?

          Then there is Wakefield District Housing which in 2011 tried to fire an electrician for having a palm cross in his van despite allowing Koranic texts and Communist hero's to be displayed elsewhere and even putting on Gay Pride and Diversity stalls. After the first failed attempt to get rid of him, they changed their corporate policy, to disallow all personal items, expressions of individuality, in vehicles. Forget the cake, the freedom is a lie.

          Both the UK and the Indonesian governments' actions are typical of a religion or government which cannot tolerate opposition. We take the values that we have and we legislate according to them. That's the best we can do, but it does tend to shine a spotlight on our values. If I think people will be saved by following the Five Pillars of Islam, then I'll legislate that; if I think people will be saved by coercing them into not performing homosexual acts, I'll legislate that; if I'm obsessed with sex, then I will put five year-old children through "gender identity" classes; if I think I can "save" society by enforcing behaviour by law, then I will; if I think it can't be "saved" by following prescribed behaviour under threat of coercion, I'll legislate (or refrain from legislating) accordingly.

          Show me your values, we'll watch where they lead. As often as not, I see a desire to just beat the religion out of the religious people. "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

          I'll follow the man who has demonstrated his character and is faultless.

        2. Kurt Meyer

          @Sabroni @King Jack Re: Religious/Non-religious people do not think for themselves.

          How about this alternative statement?

          "Many people do not think for themselves."

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Religious people do not think for themselves.

        Does that include Guardian reading social 'liberals' who Believe In Climate Change?

    2. Ole Juul

      Re: sorry?

      To be fair, I can understand that even people in government can have sexual problems, as is obviously the case here, but to force other people to go along with them is a bit too kinky for my taste. More worrying, it sets a bad example for kids.

    3. Jos V

      Re: sorry?

      Oh don't worry, people in Indonesia are plenty grown up, it's just some crackpots in government that need a good kicking. This local site here (English) pretty much sums it up:

      http://jakarta.coconuts.co/2016/02/11/after-line-indonesian-authorities-will-now-ask-whatsapp-remove-lgbt-emoticons

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: sorry?

        Oh don't worry, people in Indonesia are plenty grown up, it's just some crackpots in government that need a good kicking.

        Actually they need to relax, maybe retire to a dark room and crack one off. Ahh, hold on, there's a 32 month prison sentence in Indonesia for having a wank, so maybe that's why their government are so up tight.

    4. Graham Marsden
      Unhappy

      @cbars - Re: sorry?

      > I still don't understand why this religion has so many 'followers' that can take offence from pictures.

      I suggest you look at the history of censorship of paintings by the Christian Church where art showing Adam and Eve before the Fall had tree branches with convenient foliage added to conceal the "naughty bits" or male statues having their genitalia removed and stone fig-leaves added.

      I don't like this any more than anyone else, but, regrettably, the more we start *telling* these people "you're doing it wrong", the more resistant they are going to be to change. Western interference in such affairs has never ended well.

  2. jake Silver badge

    Sheeple trying to herd Humans ...

    ... will not work in the long term.

    EOF

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Difference between obscenity and politics

    There is nothing wrong with blocking obscenity; only about blocking political disagreement. To this extent the Indonesians are doing rightly, and your headline abuses Niemoller's original quotation. Complaining that it is Orwellian to censor obscentity is a bit hypocritical, when in the west there is today political censorship of twitter etc.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Difference between obscenity and politics

      Actually, sexuality and its repression is addressed in the novel 1984 by Orwell. Prostitution was considered by the Party to be positive because it dissociated the act of sex from the act of love. When Winston and Julia get together they view their love-making as a protest. It describes sex as "Their embrace had been a battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act.”

      Historically in every case that I can think of, totalitarianism has included sexual oppression. Why is a broader question, but it seems to me that a totalitarian state has no natural limit to its desire to control. Its existence depends wholly on its ability to intimidate and control the citizenry and discourage any form of deviation from the norm. Totalitarianism is traditionally inseparable from conformity. Sexual choices are one of the most basic of freedoms - maybe the most. Totalitarian regimes and those with aspirations as such, always seek to interfere.

      In short, censoring "obscenity" is very much in the tradition of Orwellian. As is deciding that someone's sexuality is "obscenity" in the first place.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Re: Difference between obscenity and politics

      "There is nothing wrong with blocking obscenity"

      Define "obscenity", Kemosabe.

      "when in the west there is today political censorship of twitter etc."

      Who with a brain gives a shit about "twitter etc."?

      I note that you did not even attempt to explain your subject line ...

      1. Marcelo Rodrigues
        Devil

        Re: Difference between obscenity and politics

        "Define "obscenity", Kemosabe."

        Obscenity: Anything that gives the judge a hard on.

  4. Holleritho

    So children might be scarred by seeing LGBT emojis and...child trafficking

    I can see that little Indonesian children could be upset, distressed, and even frightened by pornography, especially if it is child pornography, and to learn that there is just a thing as child trafficking (is the danger that they will succumb to traffickers?) and gaming addiction (is the fear that they will get hooked?) But I don't see their little brains being fried by a tiny emoji of two guys and a heart.

  5. Stern Fenster

    I'm a member of the public

    and lots of things offend me. Can I have them all banned?

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: I'm a member of the public

      No, you're not offended, you're just intolerant.

      1. nijam Silver badge

        Re: I'm a member of the public

        > No, you're not offended, you're just intolerant.

        Same thing. Obviously.

        1. Elmer Phud

          Re: I'm a member of the public

          Hmm, so are some people lactose offended?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re:Hmm, so are some people lactose offended?

            Indeed. I'd recommend you dont go in there for at least ten minutes

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm a member of the public

      Of course. Join the Labour party. Support Corbyn Emissions, and get EVERYTHING nasty banned.

  6. Syntax Error

    Emoji

    Emoji are pretty gay anyway. I never understand what any of them mean so who cares.

    1. Graham Marsden
      FAIL

      @Syntax Error - Re: Emoji

      The word "gay" is, unsurprisingly, *not* a synonym for "stupid" or "worthless" or "unworthy" or any other such derogatory term.

      Whenever I hear someone use it in that way, I ask what their name is: "Syntax Error"? Fine, let's substitute that instead...

      "Emoji are pretty Syntax Error"

      "Look at that, it's totally Syntax Error"

      "That post above is so Syntax Error!"

      1. nijam Silver badge

        Re: @Syntax Error - Emoji

        > The word "gay" is, unsurprisingly, *not* a synonym for "stupid" or "worthless" or "unworthy" or any other such derogatory term.

        Nor for homosexual, while we're on the subject.

      2. Richard Jones 1
        WTF?

        Re: @Syntax Error - Emoji

        Sadly language is highly flexible and subject to the laws of evolution. Gay used mean happy, pretty colourful until it usage was changed to mean something very different. I am not sure how the mechanism for that one that one worked either, but let us be clear for a word to be expected to remain with a static usage is just not going to work.

        The main issue is that words can and do collect odium almost by some twisted for of osmosis, so queer which probably meant nothing more than different collected far more baggage and was discarded in favour of a different word.

        So it is with the word ghetto which has changed in some geographical locations to mean something far removed from its initial meaning. Which was far closer to a concentration area and is still used in that way in other locations - causing massed confusion and resentment in the process.

        The notion that all living populations can be neatly cleaved into one for or the other with a single set of ways for each side has low been discredited across all species, some species can even switch sides in physical as well as 'emotional' forms. (Emotional was simple the best word I could find to mean inclinations, basic drives and feelings.) Some animal groups are well known for their highly fluid arrangements as I am sure many already know. Gosh surprise - surprise we are like other living things, naturally possessed of differences.

        So perhaps the real issue is having words that set out to label folk, when the real applicable term is 'normal' and applies to all.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Syntax Error - Emoji

          @Richard Jones 1 - tl;dr started off ok but quickly went professor nutbutter even in the first paragraph.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Syntax Error - Emoji

          Indeed. Take care when you use the word 'rape' in its true context - taken by force, as in the Rape of the Sabine Women etc etc.

          "Gordon brown raped my pension" is a perfectly valid thing to say, but not around FemiNazis.

      3. Jedit Silver badge
        Boffin

        ""gay" is, unsurprisingly, *not* a synonym for "stupid""

        I've often wondered why people who use "gay" to mean "bad" never logically extend it and use "straight" to mean "good". And do they think bisexuality is mediocre?

        1. itzman

          Re: ""gay" is, unsurprisingly, *not* a synonym for "stupid""

          I've often wondered why people who use "gay" to mean "bad" never logically extend it and use "straight" to mean "good". And do they think bisexuality is mediocre?

          Well first of all, they dont use 'gay' to mean 'bad' or 'stupid' they tend to use it to mean decorative but dysfunctional, in a rather amusing way. Like tailfins on a car.

          Secondly, no one uses 'straight' as the opposite of 'gay'. I am afraid they tend to use the word 'normal' or if they are old enough 'melancholy'..

    2. GrumpenKraut
      Facepalm

      Re: Emoji

      > I never understand what any of them mean so who cares.

      Brilliant logic you have there.

  7. smartypants

    Caring Ministry

    ...warns of “the negative impact of the Internet on children".

    They need to be congratulated*

    After all, these emojis might turn* some of them gay, and that would be bad, because that society is very horrible indeed to gay people.

    I'm so glad they're thinking of the childddeeerrrun*

    (*not)

  8. chivo243 Silver badge
    Megaphone

    How about El Reg

    Gets on the candidate emoji list bandwagon and offers up a few more icons... really, the offering is a bit stale. I mean c'mon, you added Paris Hilton of all possibilities? No tinfoil hat?

    Hey Commentards, help me out here. I know I've seen many good suggestions, just don't remember them...

  9. myhandler

    Ironic.. Indonesia was a place you could see teenagers of the same sex holding hands just because they were friends.. nothing more. That would be before Western culture shamed them into thinking it was wrong.

  10. Stevie

    Bah!

    "Gay" emojis? I always thought they were all gay.

    1. Crazy Operations Guy

      Re: Bah!

      First, that joke was already made. Second, are you 13-year-old boy posting from 1992? That would be the only justification I can think of for posting something so juvenile.

  11. Crazy Operations Guy

    Its the 21st century, why are we still arguing over sexuality?

    Why is it that society still gives a shit about what other people do with each other? The only thing that should matter to anyone else when it comes to sex is that all convoluted have given, and are capable of giving, consent to engage in sex.

    1. Captain DaFt

      Re: Its the 21st century, why are we still arguing over sexuality?

      well I consider myself a bit Victorian about about sexual mores.

      As in, "As long as they don't do it in the streets, frightening the horses", it's nobody else's business.

      1. BongoJoe

        Re: Its the 21st century, why are we still arguing over sexuality?

        ...and not with my cat too!

    2. Kurt Meyer

      Re: Its the 21st century, why are we still arguing over sexuality?

      @ Crazy Operations Guy @ Captain DaFt

      Thank you! Both of you!

      If consenting folks want to enjoy themselves with each other, who are we to gainsay them?

  12. Dazed and Confused

    holding hands

    I don't think I've ever seen any of my male gay friends holding hands, on the other hand it is very common to see men holding hands in the Middle East, and I'm presuming that they aren't all gay.

  13. Youngone Silver badge

    Indonesia

    This probably won't get much traction being so far down the comments for this story, but I think many commentards are not seeing the wood for the trees.

    The fact is Indonesia isn't a country at all, it's an Empire, propped up by US military aid.

    In the 1940's, in return for promising to suppress any communists, the Dutch East Indies was turned into Indonesia.

    For the Balinese, Papuans, and Timorese the only change was that the people murdering them were now Javanese, not Dutch.

    Like all empires this one will collapse eventually and it will be messy. These sorts of stupid stories are just the dominant culture trying to force its values on the minority.

  14. LaeMing
    Facepalm

    Why?

    I am wondering why these couples-emoj are even needed. Can't they be constructed from 3 adjacent existing emoj - (wo)man heart (wo)man - mixed and matched as appropriate? That even allows for relationsips that extend beyond the traditional* two-party ones as well!

    *For certain (rather narrow) values of 'tradition' only.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm deeply offended by religion

    Do I call for it to be banned?

    Is it my business?

    Does it really matter?

    No

    No

    No

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like