Egypt is not considered to be the first country that take administrstively decision to stop broadcasting YouTube site on the internet because of a religious issue, and over the past ten years politics and religious arguments played a role of hidden hands to block internet sites coated allegations may be moral, and sometimes because of allegations of dominant on the judgment being displays historical errors.
Moreover, through the last few years the web site has been banned in Iran after the Islamic Revolution control the pretext of being a immoral site is to suggest Saudi Arabia need to withhold most of the material displayed on the Site for being inappropriate, with younger categories.
The ruling political trends played an important role to a number of countries oriented to the existing social networking site to post videos .
in 2007 the site was blocked in Tunisia after the publication of satirical passages about former President Ben Ali before the revolution of Tunisia 2010.
The ruling parties in Thailand and Turkey have exploited some scattered sections on the site to block it as the pretext of spreading false historically information about Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and published some of the sections that insult King Bhumibol Aodleydeg, Thai king at that time.
At The end of series blocking Egypt came on February 9 before the anniversary of deposed Mubarak two days by a decision of the Administrative Court to close the site and all sites that published an offensive video to the Messenger Mohammad ‘bless upon him’ for a month.
Despite the fact that the site said more than once that it will stop showing the offending sections and the uprising number of lawyers to raise a lawsuit in order to close YouTube, but it still shows the film till now.
Since several months after film showed Google, owner of YouTube exploited the new control of power centers to impose conditions on the Muslim world and a billion and a half Muslims on the one hand and on the political relations between the United States and Middle East countries by insisting on showing of the offensive film of Prophet “peace be upon him” despite the threat of relations between the United States and a number of Muslim countries and exposed to public outcry, saying “freedom of expression and creativity,” the only factor to continue to broadcast the film, despite the objections.
Although the consensus of a large number of Information Technology IT experts on the difficulty of the resolution’s implementation especially in the case applied to more than one site and difficult to collect them all, the Court insisted on making a decision exonerate it in front of the angry public for showing the film ,loading the internet website and its various sites responsible for dissemination of offensive material.
