Slashdot Log In
Vietnam Imposes New Blogging Restrictions
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Dec 26, 2008 04:12 PM
from the people-never-learn dept.
from the people-never-learn dept.
GMAW is one of many to mention that the Vietnam government has approved a new set of regulations aimed at bloggers. The new restrictions ban bloggers from discussing certain subjects that the government deems sensitive or inappropriate. Not only are the topics limited, but bloggers are being directed to only write about issues that directly impact their personal lives. "The rules, which were approved Dec. 18, attempt to rein in Vietnam's booming blogosphere. It has become an alternative source of news for many in the communist country, where the media is state-controlled. The new rules require Internet companies that provide blogging platforms to report to the government every six months and provide information about bloggers on request."
Related Stories
[+]
Idle: Vietnam To Ban Small-Chested Drivers 5 comments
Under a new proposal anyone with a chest under 28 inches will be banned from driving a motorbike in Vietnam. "The new proposals are very funny, but many Vietnamese people could become the victim of this joke," said Le Quang Minh, 31, a Hanoi stockbroker. "Many Vietnamese women have small chests. I have many friends who won't meet these criteria." Anyone who is too short, too thin or too sickly will also be banned from motorbikes. It won't be long before dealerships will offer customers padded bra or shoe lift packages.
This discussion has been archived.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.
Didn't they choose Communism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't they choose Communism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of them chose communism. A lot of them didn't. Having lived and worked over there (on a Linux related project even) I know good Vietnamese there who supported South Vietnam and the US. After the south fell they spent years in re-education camps. They had been to the US in the 60's and received training on computers and electronics. Now they don't own a single thing and are kept out of any good paying job by the communists who still seek to push the former South Vietnamese. They live in poverty even poor Americans cannot imagine. It is very sad what they are doing to their own country. But the poor brainwashed people of Vietnam still support communism.
I'm not sure we can really fault the poor and uneducated who chose communism. They were starving and were just looking for a better way. They did not have access to world news or history classes from their villages and only knew what they received in the form of propaganda.
But we can definitely fault the corrupt communist leadership for taking advantage of these poor people and making millions of them pay with their lives.
Parent
No, they didn't (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you haven't heard of it, Vietnam didn't become a communist state as a result of some democratic process. Military force [wikipedia.org] was involved, with the help of foreign [wikipedia.org] powers [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Communism is a loaded propaganda term that's basically meaningless, but I'm guessing you mean "strong state socialism", which is an economic system. Strong state socialism with free communication and democracy would be an interesting experiment - we can see weak state socialism, working great, in Northern Europe.
Saying that Communism means Totalitarian Socialism would be like saying Capitalism means Fascism. It's certainly the way it was presented as a propaganda term during the cold war, but it's not terr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although to be fair, it was technically the previous generation that made the bed.
It's pretty easy to choose Communism when Democracy is blowing your babies in half.
So I guess no... (Score:5, Funny)
Communist? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Communist? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is absolutely true. They have a stock market and everything. They are very capitalist in that even the communist leaders are playing the markets, making investments, and trying to acquire as much wealth as they can. The free market is definitely in effect. The big difference is that there is little transparency and no real regulations to ensure that it is a fair market. So corruption is everywhere destroying the efficiency of the market. You are right: Is is capitalism without democracy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really believe that the only form of capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism?
I could very well say that government doesn't work because it always leads to totalitarian regimes. You could respond that government isn't only totalitarian and can have checks and balances... but the same thing can be said of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is Korea, one of the largest-scale social experiments of all times. I'm not sure if the nort
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent I think a lot of the economic growth (especially wrt South Korea) just had to do with Western backing and not press/individual freedoms or the "seed of... political help" as you say. South Korea lived under a dictatorship for a good part of its post-war history, but we supported their dictator against the North's Soviet-backed dictator. Wiki reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee [wikipedia.org] - the bit about torture of political opponents makes a crackdown on blogging seem tame all of Vie
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Vietnam is communism in name only (not even that since it calls itself socialist).
That in itself doesn't mean much. I thought most communist countries call themselves socialist, I think it still fits within the term, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Some of those countries and the communist countries that don't call themselves socialist call themselves democratic.
And this is why we have.... (Score:2)
....anonymous re-mailers and such...hosted at universities of law.
No more "Surf Vietnam"? (Score:2)
What the Pho? (Score:4, Informative)
The new restrictions ban bloggers from discussing certain subjects that the government deems sensitive or inappropriate. Not only are the topics limited, but bloggers are being directed to only write about issues that directly impact their personal lives.
If I was a Vietnamese blogger, the new restrictions would directly impact my personal life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The closest thing perhaps to communism would be the isolated communities of indigenous peoples. While the closest thing to capitalism would be Hong Kong.
Re:Necessity (Score:5, Insightful)
Communism like capitalism is an economic model and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, religion or human rights.
Communism as espoused by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto required the use of public education as an instrument of social control, the destruction of the traditional family and the destruction of traditional religion.
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis"
"The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention"
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."
There is of course some context to these quotes, which you can check out for yourself - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt [gutenberg.org]
I don't think it is unreasonable to use the Communist Manifesto to answer the question "What is communism?". The answer most definitely has everything to do with freedom of speech, religion and human rights.
Parent
Keep your newspeak to yourself. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nothing like that at all. Communism is a political philosophy not a science. Evolutionary theory has changed in response to new evidence, as you w
Re: (Score:2)
Disclamer: IANA Expert on Communism... but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night (err... I mean, I have read the Communist Manifesto)
In the Communist Manifesto Marx calls freedom of the press a "bourgeois freedom". Although I don't think he called outright for censorship as necessary for Communism, he certainly didn't think press freedom was an important concern.
I also don't buy the idea that Communism is just an economic model. Again, I've only read the Manifesto and a couple other excerpts fro
Re: (Score:3)
While you are correct, the Communism being referred to is the history-free Communism-lite popular on college campuses which really amounts to nothing more than a kindergarten-level notion that 'sharing is good'.
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't mean that they don't really believe it. Its not hard to understand that a benevolent dictator would rather have distractions and sensitive subjects removed from public discourse.
The fable of "The Emporor's Clothes" is popular for a reason. Not only does it represent an issue that exists throughout the ages, but it is also a criticism of that kind of mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think like you actually.
About 10 years ago I got into a discussion with an American on the topic of what you can say and cannot say. It happened to be around Ernst Zundel in Canada. I said it was quite alright for the state to censor speech, etc, etc.
My American friend said, "oh really..."
He then put up the argument and said, "With him muzzled will he stop thinking what he is thinking? Will it stop his cronies to stop thinking what he is? Will it even stop the hate?"
I argued many things and basica
Re:Necessity (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he's saying is that governments who drive subversive speech underground aren't really doing themselves, or their citizens, any favors. Ideas don't need sunlight to grow.
Look at the US's case. We don't criminalize any speech, really, except kiddie porn and direct incitements to violence. (The McCain-Feingold campaign funding law is an arguable subject but there it's funding and timing, not content as such, that is involved.) So any nutcase with a chip on his shoulder can propagate the most outlandish, hateful tripe you could imagine. Things that would get him prosecuted in much of the EU, or executed in China.
What happens as a result? Not a damn thing. The resulting cacophony of dissidence just raises the "noise floor" of popular discourse. No radical point of view gains any more traction than it would have if it were aggressively suppressed by the government; if anything, we've become a more conservative nation since the Internet gave the nutcases their soapbox.
Suppressing speech is always pointless at best, and more likely counterproductive.
Parent
Re:Necessity (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is that in Vietnam, it's possible to die in a Blogging accident?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders.
No, there aren't. There isn't even one legitimate reason for a state to censor what its citizens have to say, about anything or to anyone, as long as what they're saying is either truthful or obviously fictitious (eg, I could see not wanting someone to publish that election polling places have closed when they're still open, or the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theater).
And while they may have the best interests of their constituents at heart, there's another proverb that relates to that: the road t
Re:Necessity (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno if that's true. Though the only time that comes to mind is in times of (actual) war. The citizens should not allowed to publish the locations and troop strengths of army regiments, for example; it may directly endanger those soldiers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though the only time that comes to mind is in times of (actual) war.
Governments all over the world frequently ask newspapers not to report stories.
Sometimes the Government claims 'National Security' and other times they just ask nicely.
Every now and then, a newspaper says no and a government scandal is born.
All you're really saying is that Western Nations aren't as blatant about their censorship...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments all over the world frequently ask newspapers not to report stories.
Sometimes the Government claims 'National Security' and other times they just ask nicely.
Every now and then, a newspaper says no and a government scandal is born.
All you're really saying is that Western Nations aren't as blatant about their censorship...
I think the larger point is that the US and other nations with inherent freedom of the press have to ask news outlets to hold a story. In Vietnam, I'm quite certain they simply tell the press what they can and cannot say. One of those pesky little "checks and balances" Communism doesn't have to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking primarily of the boneheaded "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" horseshit. (Obviously, specifics of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would fall under this, but that sure as hell isn't part of the same thing.)
No need for censorship. (Score:2)
People who are so credulous they will not check if the polling places are actually closed shouldn't vote. They will believe any promises the politicians make. As for shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, if I can't smell smoke or see flames, I would calmly stand up and walk (not run) to the nearest exit.
I think the only limits to freedom of speech
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of speech restriction, but denying the fire in a theatre one while embracing the HIV one just makes no sense. Both are situations where, by issuing a contrafactual statement, somebody can induce (some) others to act in a manner likely to be seriously harmful to themselves and others.
Re:Necessity (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, it's fascist bull just as we suspected. I lived in Vietnam for a year, married a Vietnamese woman, and spend at least two weeks there every year since. They have no legitimate need to censor the net other than to keep the current corrupt officials in power.
Parent
Re:Necessity (Score:4, Funny)
No, it wasn't a troll. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a "-50,000 Gormless Cretin" moderation category, the "troll" rating often gets used as a substitute.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
that he agrees with you completely?
Well played, sir (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points. mod up parent!
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there may be more than one side to a story doesn't mean they're all equally correct, in either a factual or moral view. A view *might* be popular because it happens to be *right*.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like your "troll" mod was well-deserved.
Re:Necessity (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it does not fall into the standard /. creed.
If you don't support the /. groupthink(which they say they hate but deeply love)(which is ironically doublethink) you will be downmodded as troll/flamebait/overrated. It seems that the overrated tag is made especially for this situation. Some people may disagree with a message that is not troll or flamebait so there needs to be a solution. That solution develops in the form of overrated. Overrated is nothing more than a cheap populous vote on the popularity of the opinion. Don't agree with a post? Mod it overrated/underrated to "correct" the score.
Slashdotters claim to believe in absolute freedom of speech but if your opinion is unpopular it is hidden from sight. Well, that isnt a problem because everybody can still see it via the view levels, right? True, but it obscures the message and that is all /. needs, to make it harder to see views that do not conform to groupthink. It's like the great firewall of China, people with will can surpass it but it stops most people from seeing unwanted information and that's enough for them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Credit crisis included, capitalism still works better than anything else we've tried.
Re: (Score:2)
The fundamental flaw with communism is that it fails to meet the test of reality. If people were wired to be altruistic and benevelent, communism might work. But people are wired to be selfish and not all that altristic.
Capitalism is built on the idea that if you are looking out for yourself, everyone around you benefits. Maybe not directly and maybe not without some work, but it generally works out that way. Communism tries (and fails) to achive a state where everyone is looking out for each other more
Re: (Score:2)
And the credit for that deserves to be given to Congress, for giving up and letting the NVA do whatever it wanted after it had been repeatedly defeated in the field.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical.
Another country does something that is wrong so you have to find some way to bring US wrongs into this.
So is the story was about US war, would you mention censorship in Vietnam?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Communism killed more than 100 million people in the last century
Capitalism has killed more than a million people in the past 4 years. What's your point, other than to create a straw man? [antiwar.com]