The man, looking grave, said that government was bracing itself for the reaction that was guaranteed to break out on the streets.

informed the judge that Part Two of РІР‚СљInnocence of MuslimsРІР‚Сњ was about to be released. called Bytes for All, which accused the government of violating Pakistani citizensРІР‚в„ў constitutional right to freedom of expression and right to information.Р”Р„t one point, a stout, middle-aged official from the P.T.A. (The company declined to comment further.) This left the judge with two choices: either to accept the governmentРІР‚в„ўs argument, woven in calm bureaucratic sentences by officials from the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority and the Ministry of Information Technology-that they had neither the expertise nor the manpower to isolate blasphemous videos on the Web, necessitating a total ban of YouTube-or to side with Hamdani and his client, an N.G.O.

In a letter sent to the Pakistani government and presented in court, Google pointed out that it was not subject to the High CourtРІР‚в„ўs jurisdiction. But Google, the parent company of YouTube, had declined to send its representatives to the hearing. In a previous hearing, aided by an amicus curiae, he had identified a solution: a localized version of YouTube, similar to versions of the site in many other countries, but in which videos flagged as being offensive to religiousР’В /Р’В culturalР’В / national sensitivities could be removed or restricted by Google. The judge inspiring his confidence was Mansoor Ali Shah, a rumored liberal who was an advocate of public-interest litigation.Р”В«ut when, a few hours later, the clean-shaven and bespectacled Justice Shah finally turned his attention to the ban on YouTube, he seemed to lose something of his brisk, authoritative air. РІР‚СљOur efforts would have been wasted if our case had landed before some other judge,РІР‚Сњ he told me. Hamdani was looking forward to the hearing.

Mozilla youtube blocker ban