
Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia - catchmeifyoucan
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/netflix-patriot-act-with-hasan-minhaj-saudi-arabia_us_5c2b8947e4b0407e9085ad5d?m=false&ec_carp=2448675307665736902
======
closeparen
This is the only natural conclusion in a world where sovereign countries
legislate the internet according to their values and tech companies follow
local laws. Regulatory backlash isn't always going to be GDPR. Sometimes it's
going to be this.

~~~
Tsubasachan
Well yeah Netflix does business in Saudi Arabia so they have to follow the
local laws. I honestly don't get why this is so shocking?

What is the alternative- the internet is ruled by US laws? No way in hell
would I sign up for that.

~~~
winter_blue
The ideal situation is to have _freedom of expression_. That includes _free
press_. It’s not a concept owned by any country or culture. It’s universlly
desirable. You don’t want the government committing acts of violence against
you for _your speech_. The lack of this freedom is morally abhorrent and
condemnation-worthy.

> _What is the alternative- the internet is ruled by US laws_

Your notions of national sovereignty and individual freedom are so terrible, I
don’t know if I should even respond.

Individual sovereignty supersedes governmental authority in a civil-
libertarian moral-political framework. No government has any sort of moral
right to be violent against a person for speech.

And the concept of national sovereignty is a farce. Countries like China and
SA are not even democracies, so by respecting their “sovereignty” you’re
respecting the minorities in power over those countries.

But even democracies have absolutely no right to claim sovereignty — having
60% of a country’s vote will never legitimize erasing fundamental human
freedoms. (Or else everything the NSDAP did would be morally A-OK.)

A general moral operating principle to apply when analyzing political issues
is the “ _zero aggression principle_ ”:
[https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org](https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org)

~~~
beatgammit
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?

------
charlieflowers
First time I've heard of the show. I watched about 20 minutes ... pretty good.
The style reminds me of Samantha B ... political commentary sprinkled with
humor.

~~~
hydrox24
> political commentary sprinkled with humor.

I think you're right about their shows, but both Hasan Minhaj and Samantha Bee
are comedians, so why are we entrusting political commentary to comedians?

~~~
rco8786
The same reason we trust it to anyone else. I’ve never understood the “he/she
is a comedian therefore unfit to comment on serious matters.

~~~
justtopost
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.

~~~
rco8786
> Its more a matter of You have to be funny First.

Exactly, but then being funny renders you unable to talk about anything but
funny stuff.

------
gondo
simillary UK censor HBO's Last Week Tonight show when it reports about uk
parliament

[https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-
fiendish-p...](https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-
plan-around-britains-censorship-satirical-use-parliament-footage)

~~~
dogma1138
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed
to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting.

This was more of a copyright claim than censorship.

They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of
the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they
had done just that.

“We wanted to show you footage from the House of Commons but due to a 1743 law
we can’t so here it is reenacted with sock puppets...”

This would’ve been even better in my book.

~~~
intopieces
>This was more of a copyright claim than censorship.

Copyright claims that result in reduced access to media are censorship.

~~~
mmsimanga
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.

~~~
intopieces
Sure, there are definitely different degrees of censorship. Sometimes it
happens for good reason -- slander, libel, inciting violence, exposing
children to pornography. Sometimes it happens for bad reasons -- to suppress
different opinions, to intimidate individuals, or simply to exert undue power
over another one for monetary gain.

But censorship is censorship, and when we refuse to call it by its name, we
allow ourselves to forget that there is a powerful force controlling what we
can see and consume. That kind of power must be checked, and checked always,
and we must constantly re-affirm our consent to that power just as often.

~~~
mmsimanga
Look I don't know why the UK does not allow parlianmentary footage to be used
in anything other news/documentary programs. I have to admit I don't see this
as totally unreasonable. Like all laws they are pros and cons to the law.
Since footage is available to public just not in movie there is nothing
stopping you viewing the footage. That surely cannot be sensorship but some
sort of ill defined copyright application. I am not sure I want to public
funds to create footage for movie makers to use to push their own agendas.

------
opportune
This is why Saudi Arabia is trying to buy up tech and especially social media
(Snap, Twitter)

~~~
Waterluvian
I think the simplest explanation is likely the right one: the writing is on
the wall for oil in this century. Tech is a sensible investment.

~~~
throwaway98121
I don’t think oil is going anywhere any time soon. Even if vehicles were
suddenly completely electric in 20 years and all power generation no longer
required fossil fuels, we still have things like jet fuel, asphalt, and
plastics that require petroleum.

Not saying the saudis aren’t forward thinking about what to do when demand
decreases, but so many folks do believe that oil = cars and going electric
means we don’t need oil.

~~~
marcosdumay
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.

------
notmyaccount
I hadn't watched it but thanks to this I am gonna watch it now.

~~~
nvo
They don't care if you watch it, they care if people in Saudi Arabia watch it.

~~~
throwaway98121
I’m sure they care more than that. Global opinion matters, especially if it
can influence policy makers, particularly citizens in the western developed
countries.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _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?

~~~
mr_toad
Popular uprisings aren’t exactly uncommon in the Middle East.

------
mandeepj
Now, Minaj should not visit any consulate in Middle East even if he have to

------
MasterYoda
This usually just gives a streisand effect

For those who want to see the episode

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUhbZdvtzcw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUhbZdvtzcw)

------
AzzieElbab
This is very predictable. What I find strange is how the episode "aired" in
Saudi Arabia in the first place. From what I've heard they censor all the
media.

------
pscsbs
Not that it makes it any better, but they only took down the episode in Saudi
Arabia, not globally. The headline makes it sound like they took down the
episode altogether.

~~~
RivieraKid
> Not that it makes it any better

That makes it substantially better.

~~~
inherentFloyd
How? It's still censorship.

~~~
oarabbus_
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.

~~~
throwaway98121
I think it’s problematic. The fact it’s only censored inside Saudi Arabia
means it doesn’t impact me directly. That being said, as the saudis continue
investing in the west, in social media, in other Silicon Valley start ups, I
don’t want there to be any chance these traditions (which I consider
oppression) could seep up into my or my children’s way of life.

------
glibgil
I’m canceling my Netflix account

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Are you also going to renounce your citizen ship and leave the planet?

------
iandanforth
Question: C-Corp vs Public-Benefit companies in similar situations.

As I understand it Netflix really doesn't have the option of taking a
principled stand here (let me know if I'm wrong) due its financial
responsibilities toward shareholders.

If they had incorporated as a public-benefit corporation would they have
additional freedom to say "We won't participate in this market on ethical
grounds?"

~~~
DKnoll
There is no law (in any jurisdiction, as far as I know) that states a
corporation must relentlessly pursue profits. An owner is free to stay out of
markets for moral or other reasons without any strategic or financial
justification. The only thing stopping them would be other shareholders who
disagree. Private, public, public-benefit, etc... doesn't matter.

~~~
iandanforth
How does this square with the principle of shareholder primacy and Dodge v
Ford?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co).

~~~
wgerard
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.

------
baybal2
This is so reprehensible! They must champion political freedom fighters! They
should've let their business in Saudi Arabia to go down to make a big
statement.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, and especially not flamebait.

