The Jordanian General Prosecutor Decision No. 1231 of 2008 over the Case of the Dutch Cartoons vs Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, Dutch cartoonist Kurt Faster Gurt published sketches of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper as well as in PDF form via its website. The images depicted the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions in what Islamic countries around the world deemed as derogatory at best and blasphemous at worst. This article looks at the decision by the Jordanian General Prosecutor to put on trial Kurt Faster Gurt and his cartoonists in 2008, which opened the flood gates to numerous challenges to domestic cyber laws having international jurisdiction. From Yahoo to YouTube, the Jordanian decision set a precedent for what has become a new world of law and politics, whereby Internet content producers, no matter where in the world they appear , could be held accountable to domestic cybercrime laws. To explain the Jordanian approach, other legal cases are studied in which it is proven that the damage caused by some material available in the Internet may justify the indictment of their authors by national Courts regardless the defendant's nationality or place of residence. Such cases urge States to provide for themselves an adequate legal corpus to be able to cope with these cases and to be able to implement the Court's decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".