This is exactly how the Western "democratic" propaganda of double standards works: give a half-fact and provide a false conclusion. Accessing foreign sites from Belarus has nothing to do with the demand for the Internet resources _resided_ in Belarus to be registered in State Supervisory Department for Telecommunications of the Republic of Belarus. And this demand concerns only resources used to offer paid services, sell goods, etc. on the Belarusan territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Belarus

Belarus is listed by Reporters Without Borders as an Internet Enemy.
The EU and the USA also complained repeatedly against the lack of Internet Freedom in Belarus.

You may file a complaint with them...

I wonder if RSF would put France on their Internet Enemy list for Loppsi 2.

French political opponents are not beaten and imprisoned, though...
But that's not the subject of this sentence...

Tagged it 'Lie'.

"Lie" tags have been banished by decision of corpus maintainers months ago.

See wall on the subject.

@admin
Merci de retirer cette étiquette abusive.

>> See wall on the subject.
Would you be so kind to provide the link?

http://tatoeba.org/fre/wall/sho...#message_11256

I can't see any consensus there. Also, Lie tag is still being in use, with more than 180 sentences tagged; if there were a consensus it's not needed, these cases would have been deleted.

Well, defend Lukashenko's despicable dictature as you may. I pity you...

>> I pity you...
I guess this feeling is mutual. :)

you shouldn't: I enjoy one of the largest possible freedom in the world and make the most of it, without risking my life. I know it's completely foreign to you...

I couldn't see a consensus there either, but it seems to me that many were in favor of renaming the tag to "false" or "untrue". A lie always implies that falsehood was told on purpose, while "false" would only state that the content isn't true.
The "lie" tag is probably still in use because not everyone has read the wall post and so far no one took upon themselves the time to replace or remove the "lie" tags. I don't think it's a reason to add more "lie" tags if one can agree that "false" is a better tag.

As I'm not into politics (except for language policies), I don't want to judge this issue. What do both of you think of using "false" instead of "lie"?

Replaced 'lie' with 'false'. Actually, I don't mind actual wording, it's just that I want a way to filter out such sentences if someone doesn't need them.

the assertion is true, according to Reporters Without Borders...

>it's just that I want a way to filter out such sentences if someone doesn't need them

you're working for censorship ?

>> the assertion is true, according to Reporters
>> Without Borders...
Would you care to give link where Reporters Withour Borders say this? Not some general things like "Internet enemy", but the very fact about registration?

>> you're working for censorship ?
Even if I said the truth, you wouldn’t have believed it anyway. :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16407235

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eri...-iron-curtain/

> I enjoy one of the largest possible freedom in the world and make the most of it, without risking my life.

And look what that freedom has done to you...

>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16407235


This article is known to be a false sensation.

Anyway, if you follow the link «New Belarus internet law (in Russian)» below this article, you'll see the actual law. It's quite clearly-written: there are no restrictions for *users*, only for businesses. If you don't trust me, you can ask any Russian speaker.

>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/eri...-iron-curtain/

As you can see, it's not a main Forbes section, but a personal column of an author who writes ‘[o]n video games and the video game industry with a dash of RPG’. A very trustworthy source...

yes, there are restrictions for any "service" which can be defined the way the government wishes.
That's the typical strategy of dictatorships : remain as vague as possible in order to be able to restrict anything at will.

BBC is regarded as the most independant and reliable international News service in the world.

you do a very good job at trying to whitewash Lukashenko's despicable regime, Demetrius. I hope you're well paid to do it...

As you don't seem to be able to come to a conclusion here (and I doubt you will), I'll replace the tags by "controversial". One party thinks it's true, one party thinks it's false. So it's clear that this polarizing issue is controversial.

Then everyone who is interested in this issue can read your comments and your linked articles and make their own decision based on the evidence you provided. I ask you both not to remove it unless you both happen to surprisingly have come to the same conclusion.

>> yes, there are restrictions for any
>> "service" which can be defined the way
>> the government wishes.
Just like in any country. :(

>> That's the typical strategy of dictatorships :
>> remain as vague as possible in order to be able
>> to restrict anything at will.
This is false, the law is quite precise.

>> BBC is regarded as the most independant
>> and reliable international News service
>> in the world.
It doesn't mean it's always true.

You can read about how this hoax appeared at Euroradio.fm (please note the BBC article you've cited says Euroradio.fm is "an independent Belarusian news and music website", so you can't just dissmiss this as 'propaganda' again):
http://euroradio.fm/en/report/w...-belarus-89221

>> One party thinks it's true, one party thinks it's false.
The problem is, the other party clearly ignores all the evidence presentend and clearly doesn't know anything about Belarusian politics.

@Vortarulo: It should take more than one person to create a controversy. Otherwise everything would become controversial by the will of a single stubborn individual.

Yeah, FeuDRenais, I know it is stubborn to want to denounce whitewashers of dictators' propaganda...