Slashdot Log In
IOC Admits Internet Censorship Deal With China
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:29 AM
from the shut-up-it's-patriotic dept.
from the shut-up-it's-patriotic dept.
Dave writes "BEIJING (Reuters) — Some International Olympic Committee officials cut a deal to let China block sensitive websites despite promises of unrestricted access, a senior IOC official admitted on Wednesday.
Persistent pollution fears and China's concerns about security in Tibet also remained problems for organizers nine days before the Games begin.
China had committed to providing media with the same freedom to report on the Games as they enjoyed at previous Olympics, but journalists have this week complained of finding access to sites deemed sensitive to its communist leadership blocked.
'I regret that it now appears BOCOG has announced that there will be limitations on website access during Games time,' IOC press chief Kevan Gosper said, referring to Beijing's Olympic organizers.
'I also now understand that some IOC officials negotiated with the Chinese that some sensitive sites would be blocked on the basis they were not considered Games related,' he said." But yet somehow the mainstream media will ignore this because the Olympics are patriotic or something.
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Olympic Media Village – Most Expensive Internet In the World? 389 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Working for the Olympics as an IT contractor, I recently moved to the Media Village (where all of the reporters live) and was surprised the there was no free internet. BOCOG (Beijing Organizing Committee of the 2008 Olympic Games) is charging a ridiculous amount of money for ADSL service: for 512/512 it costs 7712.5 RMB (1131.20 USD); for 1M/512 it costs 9156.25 (1342.95 USD); for 2M/512 it costs a whopping 11,700 RMB (1716.05 USD). That is for only one month! For extra features like a fixed IP? That costs an additional 450 RMB (66 USD). I just can't believe that not only do I have to deal with the Great Firewall of China, but also pay through the nose to use it!"
[+]
China Does U-Turn, Lifts Ban On Websites 133 comments
krou sends in a Guardian (UK) article reporting that overnight talks with the International Olympic Committee have resulted in the Chinese government lifting a ban on websites such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the BBC Chinese language service "in Beijing, Shanghai and possibly further afield." Websites with information on the Falun Gong, Chinese dissidents, the Tibetan government in exile, and the 1989 military crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protests are still inaccessible. (We've been discussing Chinese Olympic censorship right along.) Quoting: "A spokesman for Amnesty International said: 'It's good news that our site has been unblocked in Olympic venues and perhaps elsewhere in Beijing, but it is still a long way from the "complete media freedom" promised. It seems public outrage has succeeded where the IOC's "quiet diplomacy" had failed.' Chinese engineers quoted in an article in the Atlantic Monthly said they had been told to prepare to unblock access for a list of specific internet protocol addresses to used by foreign visitors. But Andrew Lih, a new media author in Beijing, said it seemed the authorities might have simply decided it was easier to lift blocks for everyone. 'It's possible [to block individual locations] but would be very complicated,' he said."
[+]
With Olympics Over, China Re-Censors Internet 242 comments
eldavojohn writes "We last left the story of Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China when the IOC had reached a deal with the Chinese government whereby some of the press restrictions were lifted. With the 2008 Olympics now but a memory, China has began censoring foreign news sources again. Maybe the West is making too big of a deal over this, as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not Patriotism... Money (Score:5, Insightful)
[sarcastic]Yeah, because Reuters is not at all associated with the mainstream media.[/sarcastic]
The only thing that would make a difference is if mainstream media, including NBC, threatened to boycott coverage of the Olympics, not just bitch and moan about Chinese censorship. The Chinese government would hop to right quick if their biggest PR stunt since the rise of Communism was going to get no coverage in the foreign media.
But it's not the "patriotic" element that will keep print and broadcast media chugging along. It's the money many press/media outlets have already invested in getting over there and positioning their people to get the best coverage. NBC Sports would continue Olympic coverage even if Chinese soldiers were making a public show of bludgeoning dissidents to death in the street. NBC News and Brian Williams would express shock and outrage, but you'd have someone from GE holding a gun to Bob Costas' head if necessary to keep him from walking off the air in disgust.
And if Costas did walk off, you'd have some wannabe ready and willing to fill in for him, thinking this was his/her big break.
The Olympics are a HUGE revenue source for a lot of people, and as we've seen quite often, economics will trump ethics 9 times in 10.
- Greg
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, there's a HUGE amount of money in this. So what China wants, China gets.
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, there's a HUGE amount of money in this. So what China wants, China gets.
The sad thing isn't that it's in China's interest, or in the news corporations' interest, or in anyone you can call "them" interest. The sad thing is that it's actually in "our" interest, because ultimately it's "us" who benefit from what happens there. This comic charge I found the other day explains it better than I could (yes, it's safe for work):
http://www.interfax-religion.com/img/527.jpg [interfax-religion.com]
To fight something like this is almost impossible. It'd require millions of people all over most Western countries to chose suffering for the higher good. And we know it'd never happen, unfortunately.
Parent
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Kinda sad that the press is the only one able to enforce this,
On the flipside, it's always unfortunate when the media are complicit with the government anywhere.
Kind of like in America. Is anyone reporting on Obama's shady dealings during his state and senate careers? No? I wonder why.
How is it that the press is all over a Republican who might-be-gay, but is amazingly silent on a Louisiana congresscritter who was caught on tape taking a bribe, then with marked bills in his freezer, during an FBI bribery sting?
Is anyone reporting on the fact that the US Congress has only a 14% job approval rating while Bush is at least above 25%? No? I wonder why - maybe it doesn't fit the biased story the MSM wants to portray.
How come the press isn't reporting on two latino political prisoners in US jail, who've been railroaded by the corrupt Bush administration and his cronies, for arresting a known Mexican drug smuggler? How come the financial and connective records of all the administration officials, the DA, the judge who illegally suppressed exculpatory evidence and prevented the jury from hearing that this smuggler had been caught more than a dozen times (including twice during his immunity agreement!), haven't been put through the microscope by the press?
Where is the "responsible" press anyways? I agree the press plays a vital role in exposing corruption... but let's face it, the MSM is itself corrupt beyond measure today.
Parent
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obama's shady dealings? (Score:5, Informative)
For starters, his corrupt close relationship with a slumlord who's now in prison for bribery of Illinois officials [suntimes.com], who just "happened" to then give Obama a $300,000 "deal" on a house and later another $600,000 "deal" on a plot of land next door to expand Obama's yard space.
And then there's the borderline illegal tactics Obama used to get into political office in the first place [cnn.com] by preventing his opponents' names from being on the ballot, while Rezko was bankrolling his first campaign...
I've lived an hour from Obama's house. Trust me when I say I know him from the days before he went on this big campaign: the man is dirtier than a Lousiana mayor.
Parent
Re:Obama's shady dealings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Borderline illegal is the way of saying "it is legal, but I don't like it"
Actual quote from the article: Watch Burns describe how Obama used the rules to his advantage
Real fair and unbiased. Really...
So he went out there and checked to make sure that their signitures on the ballots were taken in a legal method? This is somehow "dirty" or "underhanded"? Granted, one guy didn't get to run because he was 67 signitures away from having his required number, but then it was his fault for not double checking to make sure he was following the law. I have no problem with a potential president who wants rule by law.
How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?
Parent
Re:Obama's shady dealings? (Score:5, Insightful)
"How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?"
Why aren't you upset that he's dirty in the first place, regardless of whether he's "dirtier" than anyone else?
Parent
Well Said! (Score:5, Informative)
And to answer the PP:
So, he knew a guy who had a company that had one big financial issue, and did 5 hours of work for him in the 6 years he was in office. And this suddenly makes him a huge criminal?
No, he:
-actually refuses to release the records showing how much work he actually did.
-is on record as naming the guy as one of his "best friends."
-Got nearly a million dollars' "discount" from the guy on his house in two deals, in addition to extremely sizable donations to every one of his campaigns.
So he went out there and checked to make sure that their signitures on the ballots were taken in a legal method?
No, he tied up the petitions to get on the ballot in legal maneuvering till the due-date expired. Plus, keeping people off the ballot is what they do in socialist/communist countries like China and Cuba and Venezuela, not civilized countries.
I have no problem with a potential president who wants rule by law.
I'd love to have one. Too bad neither the Democrats nor Republicans are running one.
How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?
It makes him just as dirty. And you should, as the above responder mentions, instead be asking the question: why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
Parent
Re:Well Said! (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes him just as dirty. And you should, as the above responder mentions, instead be asking the question: why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
I don't know - maybe because it reminds them of FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and Clinton, to name a few from the last hundred years? I'm not saying the Republicans are angels by any stretch when it comes to campaign shenanigans - but then they aren't the ones trying to claim the moral high ground, generally.
Parent
Re:Well Said! (Score:5, Insightful)
> why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
A better question is how you got the idea that a major political party of a large country is going to be able to find and select an experienced, electable candidate who isn't dirty?
Personally, I find it safest to assume that anyone willingly participating in national level politics is probably a scumbag.
c.
Parent
Re:Well Said! (Score:4, Interesting)
If there is any dirt to be broadcast on Obama I'm sure Fox and Rush are broadcasting it so its not like there is any sweeping conspiracy that will keep it all secret. Its still common for Fox anchors to intentionally confuse Obama's name with Osama Bin Laden and imply he is secretly a Muslim terrorist infiltrating the government as some Al Qaeda plot. Media bias cuts both ways now, get over it.
Maybe part of the problem is this country desperately needs a new President that doesn't suck as bad as the current one, and then we run in to the problem that all politicians suck, especially these days. Unfortunately power corrupts, politicians are practitioners of power, so they all tend to be somewhere between a little or very corrupt. We are just extremely aware of it these days thanks to the internet and saturation media coverage of campaigns and candidates.
If the media destroys them all we will basically be left with no one qualified running the country, kind of like the situation we've had for the last 8 years.
I should point out George W. got his fortune from a sweetheart deal with his dads rich friends, who gave him a giant cut of the Texas Rangers, which he later cashed out at a huge profit with almost no risk on his part. There is also the fact he was busted for cocaine possession in Texas though his connections kept him out of a felony conviction that would have killed his political career. And of course its a near certainty he for all practical purposes deserted the National Guard which his family connections got him in to ahead of others to keep him out of Vietnam. He may have bailed on the Guard because the Guard started testing for Cocaine, which he was using, and didn't want to get caught. He didn't even fulfill the very modest requirements of his guard service and got a free pass and again his connections managed to destroy all the incriminating records. None of this stopped him from becoming President so where was the liberal media bias from 1999 through 2004. Rather was the only one he tried to make an issue out of it and he was destroyed. Why did the "liberal" media behead one of their own if there was a grand liberal conspiracy.
McCain isn't exactly better. You may forget but he was one of the "Keating Five" and was knee deep in the corruption of the Savings and Loan scandals in the 1980's and was doing favors for Keating who was one of the most famous and corrupt execs in the S&L scandal.
We could switch to Hillary though she has shady dealings on Whitewater, the Rose law firm, missing records and host of other scandals from the Clinton presidency none of which quite stuck but didn't go away either.
So I suspect the "media bias" you see these days is the "liberal" media is biting the bullet and embracing Obama because there just isn't anyone better. At least he is very smart, charismatic, a good speaker and is a complete change from the disaster of the last eight years. I think at this point a lot of the liberal media, and a whole lot of the rest of America just wants the Republican gone, and Obama is the man for better or worse. The Republican have no one but themselves to blame, since they had it all, until their hubrus, arrogance, corruption and incompetence completely burned their bridges with the American people.
If we keep playing the gotcha politics you are going to end up with someone with a squeaky clean record but who is totally incompetent, or like the last eight years someone who is incompetent and still corrupt like Bush.
Parent
Re:Well Said! (Score:5, Informative)
My God, media bias isn't something you can quantify in a study, its in the eyes of the beholder. You also have to decide where the middle is. The middle in the U.S. has moved dramatically to the right in recent years, since Reagan and especially since 9/11. The middle in most of Europe would be considered very liberal in the U.S. I think most of the world thinks the middle in the U.S. is now hovering dangerously close to right wing nut job.
The accuracy of the study was shredded when they said Fox wasn't biased. I'm sure when Fox is reporting generic wire news they don't have much bias, no one does, but everyone of their stars and commentators drips right wing bias, every time they cover politics they drip bias. Bill Kristol and Karl Rove are two of their star contributors, say no more. Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes politics are well known and they created Fox News to carry news from their political perspective. They are constantly cheerleading the Bush administration and the Republicans. The night of the 2006 elections their entire election team was crushed because the Republicans got clocked and their run was over.
CNN was blatantly liberal biased when Ted Turned ran it, it was no secret. Since Turner was replaced by Time Warner and CNN was getting clocked by Fox their liberal bias completely evaporated, at least at CNN US. CNN International is still pretty liberal but its based in Europe, and Europe is extremely liberal compared to the U.S. I can barely tell CNN America from Fox any more, and the quality of their reporting has completely cratered. The New York Time is indisputably liberal, its one of the last liberal bastions, lucky for the right, newspapers are dieing. CBS and Katie I can't detect political bias because she is so fixated on human interest stories most of the time. Gibson and Williams again I can't see the bias, but maybe I'm biased, and there is so little editorial left on the network news anyway since Rather was beheaded.
"He ran with a bad story, and rather than admit that he'd been snookered, he kept screaming about how obvious forgeries were "genuine" till CBS had no choice but to axe him."
It wasn't a bad story, it was an accurate story which is how Rather tripped himself up. He knew it was true, he was desperate to influence the election and stop another four years of madness and stuck his neck out too far. The problem was all the original documents were destroyed by the Bushistas. They certainly were by the time Bush was governor of Texas since he controlled all his records as Governor of Texas. The forgery was described by the secretary for the Guard commander as being about right, it just wasn't the original unfortunately. The original was probably burned long ago.
"Bob Barr would make a decent candidate"
Excepting even the Republican party wouldn't nominate him because he is a Libertarian and a real conservative and the Republican party doesn't remember what real conservatism is any more, they've fallen so far. No telling what skeletons he has in his closet if he gets put under the microscope.
"You mean like Jimmy Carter? Obama is dangerously close to him both in policies and experience level. And you remember the damage Carter did to us in just four years."
Well, then like now the Republicans elected him by being so corrupt and morally bankrupt the voters were going to throw them out no matter who was running against them.
I don't remember Carter well enough to remember exactly how good or bad he was, and the post mortem on him is completely biased against him now. I remember the whole of the establishment, Wall Street, the military, Republicans hated him and worked to make him fail. They did the same thing to Kennedy, Clinton and Truman. Johnson destroyed himself with Vietnam. Unfortunately most of the people with the real power and money in the U.S. are conservatives and Republican's and they routinely do everything in their power to destroy liberal Presidents and they generally succeed because they h
Parent
Re:Obama's shady dealings? (Score:5, Informative)
Mmm. Well, first, the bit about "borderline illegal" tactics by Obama is just kinda bullshit. From the linked article:
So, by "borderline illegal," you mean, "a completely legal application of the electoral rules of Chicago that sounds fairly well in keeping with the political climate in the city?"
As for the Rezko thing, here's a better article (same author, more recent):
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article [suntimes.com]
So, there's the $300k under asking price sale from a doctor in Kenwood, not Rezko. The next door purchase of the vacant lot seems odd, but then of course, Obama did buy a bit of land for $104,500.
So your assertion that they gave Obama a deal on the house is merely untrue. That the gave him another deal on the plot of land next door is inaccurate - they bought it for ~600k, but he only bought a chunk of it. The most you could say is that the Rezkos somehow bought the land at full price to buy off the doctor to get him to sell Obama the house more cheaply, but that's at best a circumstantial argument.
Further, one thing I didn't see is any allegation of quid pro quo for the supposed payoff.
I fail to see why I or anyone else should take you at your word about Obama's supposed dirtiness. I see one bullshitty allegation, and one allegation that may be shady or may just be a stupid move that's relatively innocent.
Parent
Re:The AC had it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course. I should have uncritically accepted the allegations without proof. And my initial failure was compounded by critically examining the evidence presented and finding it wanting.
Ha. Well, then I guess there's no point in talking about it. You're so invested in thinking Obama a shady slimebag, you'll grasp at the thinnest of evidence as ironclad proof.
Parent
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:4, Funny)
If the Wichita Weekly Sentinel ain't reporting it, it ain't news!
Parent
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:5, Insightful)
it would be financial suicide to actually carry out their threats.
That's the problem with having everything revolving around money. Human rights? Who cares. Government censorship? Not our problem. Lose some money? We can't let THAT happen!
"Financial suicide" would be having your newspaper go out of business. I can't see a paper going out of business because of lack of olympic coverage.
The press seems to have completely forgotten its primary purpose, and that purpose is NOT "making a profit".
Parent
Wrong about Chinese reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chinese government would hop to right quick if their biggest PR stunt since the rise of Communism was going to get no coverage in the foreign media.
Not in the way you'd think. The massive attention they've been getting has apparently resulted in a surge of patriotism and xenophobia. We're seen as goodie-twoshoe, meddling complainers by many Chinese...and they're especially sensitive to criticism.
The Chinese government (and IOC) response would be to accuse said agencies of "politicizing The Games". Media would never do it anyway- the purpose of TV is to provide programming to attract eyeballs for advertisers. Advertisers have already signed contracts and paid money for ad space- and networks have already signed contracts and paid money for broadcast rights. A boycott would might not bankrupt them, but it would be an enormous financial blow.
Parent
Re:Wrong about Chinese reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
We're seen as goodie-twoshoe, meddling complainers by many Chinese...and they're especially sensitive to criticism.
So we shouldn't call out abuses of human rights because the people we are calling out are "especially sensitive to criticism"?
If only the Russians had known this.... they could have started to whine very loudly when Reagan called them the "Evil Empire" and might have still won the Cold War.
Parent
No problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Browse through a VPN to company HQ.
Or are VPNs banned too?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, VPNs aren't banned. VPN's are really important for companies situated in China to reach out to the rest of the world. The government knows this, and willingly lets any packets tagged VPN through. If they didn't, many vendors would complain, and quite possibly leave China; and the Chinese government doesn't want that
Parent
Why... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why... (Score:5, Informative)
If you're making a complete report (instead of the biased nonsense the chinese want), you want to check what the current status is with the various reputable groups who are doublechecking on them.
And despite their horrible record on Israel/Palestine, Amnesty International are pretty reputable on almost all other issues.
Likewise, you'll want to check up on other sources - outside dissident groups (which Falun Gong is, not an "evil fake religion" as the chinese propaganda dept labeled them), Taiwanese gov't, etc.
That is, if you're doing fair and honest reporting. And not just being a chinese shill.
Parent
Amnesty (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
No..... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think their criticisms of the Israeli government/army are overblown, but they're certainly not the rabid "apartheid states" lunatics you get elsewhere.
Where I find fault with AI is their failure to likewise criticize the Palestinian groups - for the ill treatment of their own gay population, for deplorable treatment of prisoners and criminals in their jails, for deliberately using civilians as shields (in violation of the Geneva Conventions), for indoctrinating children and dressing them up as military, for the use of tactics to deliberately hide arms and disguise soldiers as civilians (again in violation of the Geneva Conventions), for attacking humanitarian convoys and stealing the food and supplies meant for civilians and using them for the military instead, for assassinating foreign diplomats, for routinely forcing hostages to make propaganda statements and then murdering them, and so on...
Parent
Mainstream media is covering it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? I find more than a thousand stories about this [google.com] and I saw it mentioned on CNN last night. What's your definition of "mainstream?"
Re:Mainstream media is covering it. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
What can they really do? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only *power* the Olympic Committee has, at this point, at least I think, would be to *cancel* the Olympics. What other power do they have over China at this point? It's not like the IOC can impose sanctions on China, can it?
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course they have power. They can rule that China's athletes cannot compete in the games. They made exactly such a politics-based ruling against the 7-person team from Iraq just last week. They've since changed their minds, and now TWO athletes from Iraq will be allowed to compete. The IOC's membership is aggressively anti-American (which is funny, considering that the largest share of the money from games-sponsoring and IOC-funding companies comes from the US), and play all sorts of games like this at the committee level. Police states like China get no grief from the IOC, but the US has no voting seat on the IOC's executive committee. In the same meeting during which the IOC decided to kill off baseball and softball from the games two years ago, the US was voted off of the executive committee. The IOC's president, in Belgium, appears not to have minded Iraq's previous Olympic committee chair (Uday Hussein, who had athletes beaten - and worse - for not winning games), but considers the fragile new Iraqi government too shaky, and too supported by the US, to put forth a team to his liking
Since China is being caught having lied about a central issue around which their obtaining of the games was focused, it seems appropriate for the IOC to threaten ruling out their own national team's participation. I can't think of a single better use of the IOC's capricious authority, but it would at least hit China where it hurts, and show the world that messing with reporters' use of the internet is typical policy there - and in direct contradiction to China's contingent-upon-getting-the-games promise of exactly the opposite.
Parent
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Interesting)
South Africa was banned from the Olympics for over twenty years because of Apartheid. Mind you, back then, it's unlikely that the IOC would have picked Johannesburg as a host city.
Everyone knew this was going to happen. They knew the Butchers of Beijing weren't going to truly open things up.
Parent
The conservative blogosphere isn't ignoring it (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving China the Olympic games will go down as either an unconscionable endorsement of their prison state, or as an indictment of the same.
Anything and everything that can be done to undermine and destroy the police state that rules China should be done.
Re:The conservative blogosphere isn't ignoring it (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Not Suprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
or they could ignore it (Score:5, Interesting)
But yet somehow the mainstream media will ignore this because the Olympics are patriotic or something.
Or it could be they will ignore it because everyone already knows China censors. The exact details of the matter are probably not interesting, and most likely don't matter. I mean, really, what did you expect? Did you expect China to give unfettered access to the internet? If everyone knows what's going to happen, it's really not news. News is for......new stuff, not protesting your favorite injustice.
Only one thing left to do.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycott the 2008 Olympics.
Everything i hear about the Olympics in China make me want nothing to do with it.
I'm boycotting it and wont watch any of the events.
Re:Only one thing left to do.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm automatically excluding every brand on my purchase list as long as they feature ads in the Olympics theme or sponsor the Olympics.
Parent
Re:Only one thing left to do.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I started my Olympic boycott with the LA games, but that was because they had turned into a craptastic media-fueled 24 hr sob story/inspirational tale.
There are enough sporting events going on to fill all 24 hours with "these are the competitors, and they're OFF!" instead of 5 minutes of some prepubescent mutant's gymnastics routine followed by 55 minutes of her stirring tale of anguish and triumph, afetr a word from these sponsors.
Parent
Also... (Score:5, Funny)
The IOC lied? My God, I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
When it comes to pure, mealy-mouthed, underhanded douchebaggery, it's difficult to beat your basic European upper class snob. The IOC, of course, is completely infested with the creatures.
Quick... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every site deemed sensitive to China's communist leadership should add something about the Olympics on their website to become "Games related".
IOC and China are a perfect match (Score:5, Funny)
One is ruled by ruthless despots. And so is China.
My Mother Tried This Approach With Me In 1964 (Score:4, Funny)
"Son, there are certain books in the library in this house that you are not allowed to read. We are the parents and know more than you do, so we get to make these kind of decisions and you have no recourse other than to shut up and agree.
Now then, I am locking the books you are not allowed to read in this cabinet. Your father and I have the only keys to it. So that is that."
To this day, I'm glad that How To Pick Locks and other tomes of that kind weren't locked in that cabinet. And I hope that the suits at NBC and other media outlets had a mother like mine.
I gotta remember that trick (Score:4, Funny)
When I want my kids to start reading I'll do that to them too. "Don't read these Evil Books!"
Parent
IOC: Its OK To Block Bad Religions (Score:5, Insightful)
So its OK, then. I'm just surprised that the IOC has an official position on Faulun Gong. What other religions does it characterize officially? What does the IOC think about Scientology? Islam? Would they agree that Luther was holier than St. Augustine? Who would do better at the 100m freestyle, Jesus or Mohammad? Could the Hindu pantheon stand a chance against the Greek pantheon at water polo?
Since the IOC brought it up, they should at least provide reporters with the IOC's own official list of religions its OK to block. This should be no problem as the IOC is really thorough when it comes to official lists.
Re:IOC: Its OK To Block Bad Religions (Score:5, Funny)
Who would do better at the 100m freestyle, Jesus or Mohammad?
Jesus, he would sprint to the finishline.
Parent
DELETE PARENT: Copyright violation (Score:5, Informative)
I hate crap-tastic 'news' websites as much as the next guy, but PLEASE do not EVER copy the entire text of a copyrighted article into the Slasdhot comments. You are inviting a lawsuit by the copyright holder against Slashdot. Slashdot can probably pass on the buck to you, maybe, but since you posted as anonymous coward, that probably leaves /. holding the buck. Setup your own damn website to violate copyright.
Parent
Re:DELETE PARENT: Copyright violation (Score:5, Insightful)
As you said, this happens here all the time and has for more than a decade. Have you ever heard of
Parent