Chinese, U.S. Condemn Censorship 238
More reactions both at home and abroad to the censorship issue. picaro writes "According to the BBC, 'party elders' in China released an open letter decrying the current state of censorship in China, and suggesting that 'history demonstrates that only a totalitarian system needs news censorship, out of the delusion that it can keep the public locked in ignorance.'" LWATCDR writes "The US government is upset over restrictions of freedom of speech on the Internet. The United States, has 'very serious concerns' about the protection of privacy and data throughout the Internet globally, and in particular, some of the recent cases raised in China."
A Few Questions... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm wondering what purpose this announcement serves. I'm glad to hear this, but is this just lipservice or a precursor to some real action?
I'm at a loss as to how such a major policy change can be brought about in China aside from a sudden onset of mass altruism. Part of it stems from a very poor understanding of the Chinese government structure. I'm sure I'm not the only one in the U.S that doesn't know.
Can someone fill in these information gaps?
Crock O' Shite (Score:4, Interesting)
When a woman who has spent the majority of her adult life in service to Rev. Moon there's very little credibility there.
Re:hm (Score:2, Interesting)
in most cases I suppose, it is pretty easy to determine how the data should be flagged.
what about the cases where the line is not so black and white?
one could make arguments for both sides regarding something like the formula for a new drug. or source code. heck, even your medical records would be valuable public data when aggregated with large amounts of other records.
my only point is that i don't think it's as clear cut as you describe, and i think its odd in an article titled 'Chinese, US Condemn Censorship' to have it say the US is worried about data privacy protections.
when it comes to falun gong, taiwanese independance, etc, china wants the data to be private, IE not in the hands of the public. to the US that is censorship. there may also be data that china allows and the US doesn't, though I certainly couldn't give an example off the top of my head...
It's Not Just Censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
For instance, they're [REDACTED] about the [REDACTED] insofar as [REDACTED] is concerned, and yet they continually [REDACTED] the [REDACTED] for as long as they can [REDACTED].
I wish they'd address those issues as well.
Re:Hypocrits (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, it's spelt 'hypocritEs'.
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I don't pretend to understand all the issues - or politics really.
But I don't understand why US lawmakers are giving US companies a hard time for complying with Chinese law in China. I mean, seriously - if you go to your local retailer and look at the goods for sale half say "Made in China", 49% more say "Made in Taiwan", and 1% say "Assembled in the USA". (Which reminds me, in Bush's recent state of the uninion didn't he say the foreground of the US economy was going to be our developing manufacturing industry?)
Anyway, point being - if the US lawmakers feel so strongly why are there not import/export sanctions on China rather then politcal badmouthing and epeen flexing?
Like I said, I just don't get it - but sure would like to understand more - I've googled but all I can find is fingerpointing and namecalling rather than any real pertinent information about why it's working this way. (Which I imagine someone is going to say it's political and all there is to be had on the subject is opinions, fingerpointing, and namecalling anyway.)
Ohh well, I suppose were it up to me I'd be doing my best to make sure importing goods evened out with manufacturing them here in the US. Guess that's why it's not up to me! (Kinda like I'd like to see outsourced IT end up costing US companies just as much (yes I know some would argue it already does) as having a US citizen as an employee)
Re:Let Me Get This Straight: (Score:3, Interesting)
>This is such a god damm strawman argument and I am so sick and tired of it. >People who say that freedom of speech and of the press are important values >(like the GP) aren't saying that speech should be free from consequences. >However consequences is defined in a very particular way.
It'd be nice if you gave a definition and not examples.
>When people, correctly, say that there are "consequences" to speech, they >aren't talking about bombings, riots, murder, and all that bullshit.
Actually, "people" might very well mean that.
>Stop equating some doofus at some university for getting himself kicked out >because he posts stuff on the internet (a legal consequence), with people who >riot in the streets, burn buildings, cause violence, kill each other, and >threaten to kill the people who said stuff they disagree with half a world >away.
Why not? Both are possible illegal (regardless of your claim to the contrary).
>Muslims, including many moderates, feel that a paper should not be allowed to >insult their religion. That is the very definition of a violation of free >speech.
If the Muslims are in power (ie, they run the government), yes.
>Threatening to kill Danish citizens is not a "consequence" of freedom of >speech.
Actually, that is a consequence. Threats are speech too.
>Pissing someone off doesn't give them the right to burn shit, and kill people. >That is not a valid "consequence" of speech.
You're right. But it's not a valid consequence precisely because burning shit, killing people, etc is already illegal. That doesn't mean people won't respond with violence to things they disagree with. What it does mean is that the government will not turn a blind eye to such violence because it dislikes the speech as well (look at the government protecting Klan members). It also means that the government will not preemptively make speech illegal and remove rights or privileges based on it (so, no withholding food stamps from political radicals or kicking out students from public funded universities for the things they say).
So, none of this protects you from the angry mobs directly (ie, you might still see riots and murder). It does mean that justice will be carried out, though, even when you're dead. So, to put it bluntly, consequences are all actions that are carried out as a side-effect of an act, illegal or legal. To turn a blind eye to this is to ignore that it takes courage to speak when there are those who would wish you dead. Now, if you wish to speak of justifiable consequences, that's really a whole other matter. But it's amazing how people who dislike certain things can justify almost anything.
Re:exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
Provoked perhaps deliberately. Here [brusselsjournal.com] are the 12 cartoons that were actually published. However it might be much of this furor is over three cartoons that were never published.
This is from the following article [alternet.org]...
"The dossier contained at least three cartoons that had never been published in Denmark. These were brutally offensive; indeed, they were incendiary. One shows Mohammed as a pedophiliac demon. Another shows Mohammed with a pig snout. The third shows a praying Muslim being raped by a dog."
And confirmed here [islam-online.net]...
"...three other pictures that had been sent to Muslim e-mails by anonymous people"
I think it's highly irresponsible and inflamitory to go on a tour protesting with 12 cartoons that were published in the popular press and sit them along side 3 that came via "anonymous email".
Re:exactly (Score:3, Interesting)