Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship

IOC Admits Internet Censorship Deal With China 380

Posted by CmdrTaco
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IOC Admits Internet Censorship Deal With China

Comments Filter:
  • by gbulmash (688770) * <semi_famous@yaho ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:29AM (#24403717) Homepage Journal

    But yet somehow the mainstream media will ignore this because the Olympics are patriotic or something.

    [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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly, there's a HUGE amount of money in this. So what China wants, China gets.

      • by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @01:14PM (#24405765) Homepage

        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.

    • by Oh no, it's Dixie (1332795) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:40AM (#24403911)
      Parent deserves +5 Insightful. Just goes to show you that without real, defined penalties for default, these agreements can just be ignored. Kinda sad that the press is the only one able to enforce this, though it would be financial suicide to actually carry out their threats.
      • by Moryath (553296) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:04PM (#24404381)

        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.

        • by techiemikey (1126169) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:19PM (#24404613)
          If the Media isn't reporting on it, please tell where you found out about it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by brkello (642429)
            You are modded funny but I would mod you insightful. All this stuff that they say the media isn't reporting on, I heard through the media. Indeed, how did they hear these things...through word of mouth? If so, the person who told them saw/heard it from a media outlet.
        • by NETHED (258016)

          You have a new friend. Brilliantly said.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mrogers (85392)

          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.

          Here's a Reuters story about it. [reuters.com] Here's an ABC News story. [go.com] Here's an MSNBC story. [msn.com] All from the first page of a Google search. Are those mainstream enough for you?

      • by sm62704 (957197) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:13PM (#24404535) Journal

        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".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Kinda sad that the press is the only one able to enforce this, though it would be financial suicide to actually carry out their threats

        Wrong. I agree with your sentiments but "The Media" are exactly what their name is defined as - a medium.
        The ONLY one able to enforce this is the consumer. No consumer, no market, no money, no publicity.

        It is not that the media will tut-tut the censorship and move forward regardless - the problem is that WE, as consumers, will tut-tut the censorship and then DEMAND our sou

    • 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.

      I don't know if your use of caps was really warranted. If you look at the data for the 2004 games [yahoo.com] NBC brought home 30-80 million. Fast forward to today with estimates that GE has spent anywhere from 200-900 million on the games (depending on what data you read) and I dunno there are plenty more sponsors [hrw.org] but still HUGE seems pretty relative to me considering GE is due to be one of the front runners when it comes to cashing in on this event and from the data on the last summer games it doesn't look like an in

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by coren2000 (788204)

      NBC Sports would continue Olympic coverage even if Chinese soldiers were making a public show of bludgeoning dissidents to death in the street.

      Gives a whole new meaning to the 100m dash.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by popeye44 (929152)

        Yes, It could be the 100m BASH... since you mentioned bludgeoning I assumed I'd help out :-]

    • by SuperBanana (662181) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:54PM (#24405377)

      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.

      • by Shakrai (717556) * on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @01:10PM (#24405671) Journal

        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.

  • No problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Yer Mum (570034) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:32AM (#24403751)

    Browse through a VPN to company HQ.

    Or are VPNs banned too?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Wiarumas (919682)
      VPNs and proxies both work through China's firewall.
    • Re:No problem (Score:5, Informative)

      by Neodudeman (1259256) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:27PM (#24404765)

      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

  • Why... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Leuf (918654) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:33AM (#24403789)
    Do you need to access the Amnesty International website to cover the Olympics?
    • Re:Why... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Moryath (553296) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:55AM (#24404217)

      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.

      • Amnesty (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:01PM (#24404335) Journal
        I think they mean well, but they often make up their minds based on what the situation is, before getting any of the facts. And often they rely on few sources that present a very black and white biased view, when the real situation is shades of gray.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rduke15 (721841)

        horrible record on Israel/Palestine

        What is this about? Not trying to start an off-topic flamewar, but would appreciate if someone could post a couple of links to understand what you are referring to.

      • Re:Why... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by makomk (752139) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @01:11PM (#24405687) Journal
        What horrible record on Israel/Palestine? They actually dare to criticise the Israeli government and army? I know most of Zionists (and probably an alarmingly large proportion of the normal Jewish population too) consider any criticism the same as anti-Semitism, but Israel's record is far from spotless. (It'd probably be even worse if it wasn't for Israeli human rights groups trying to keep them in check.)
        • No..... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Moryath (553296) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @01:26PM (#24406019)

          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...

  • by randyest (589159) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:34AM (#24403797) Homepage

    But yet somehow the mainstream media will ignore this because the Olympics are patriotic or something.

    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?"

    • by Otter (3800) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:44AM (#24403989) Journal
      The freaking link is from Reuters, which meets most people's standards of "mainstream media".
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ringmaster_j (760218)
      Yeah, the CBC just had a very long report on this, including having their 'tech expert' give ideas as to how the media could get around the great firewall. Oddly enough, this year the CBC has been evenly split down the middle, between covering the games' greatness, and covering their awfulness. In past years, there was nothing controversial to report on (unless you count Athens' down-to-the-wire construction schedule.)
  • by JSBiff (87824) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:34AM (#24403807) Journal

    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?

    • > What can they really do?

      Apparently they can agree to the blocking of "sensitive sites".

      some IOC officials negotiated with the Chinese that some sensitive sites would be blocked

      Even if they are powerless to stop it, they do have the power to object. Instead they agreed.

    • by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:53AM (#24404175)
      What other power do they have over China at this point? It's not like the IOC can impose sanctions on China, can it?

      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 ... though North Korea, of course, is fine, and countries like China which actively lie about their ICO-related policies in order to get the games in their country can just hum along and get what they want.

      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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Right. And as a Div 1 collegiate athlete, I think that people should have a respect for the Olympics because of the athletes, not for any "patriotic" reason.

      Never politicize the Olympics! It is very sad to think of the times when the Olympics have been canceled for political reasons. If I had made it to the Olympics, I wouldn't care how communist my competitors may or may not be. Since I didn't make it, I sure want to be able to watch on TV. Political battles are for another time, another place, and i

    • Actually, they can ban the Chineese teams from participating in the games. That would be pretty interesting! They could also formally recognize Tawain as a seperate team. They have a special name and status in the Olympics, because China throws a fit when someone says they aren't part of China.
    • If you have issues with the Chinese *government*, you can always choose to not support the olympics by not watching.

      http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=174 [rsf.org]

      China: The world's biggest prison for journalists and cyber-dissidents

      Around 30 journalists and 50 Internet users are currently detained in China. Some of them since the 1980s. The government blocks access to thousands for news websites. It jams the Chinese, Tibetan and Uyghur-language programmes of 10 international radio stations. After focusing

  • Communists like to control information. It will backfire on them...
  • by leereyno (32197) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:38AM (#24403875) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Gat0r30y (957941)
      Bringing the media (however inept and culpable they may be) in can only be positive IMHO. I think coverage outdoors is going to be particularly remarkable this Olympics. It is very difficult for the Chinese government to deny their little pollution problem when on a "low pollution" day you cannot see the sun because of smog. The shame this will Olympics will bring to China will not go away quickly.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sakdoctor (1087155)

      "...undermine and destroy the police state that rules China..."

      You seem to be implying that the Chinese people are oppressed by an authoritarian government, but liberated from the current dictatorship would suddenly be free. That isn't what would happen.
      After a series of power struggles they would rebuild the government in the same image, along with all the censorship. The Olympic games and a bit of media attention will not change the underlying mindset that binds the whole thing together.

    • I am more concerned about what comes next.

      See, having been awarded the Olympics was like having a tighter and tighter leash applied to some of the more militant Chinese authorities. With it done and gone the gloves will come off. What happens to Taiwan? Especially if we get a new President who they perceive as weak or simply not interested?

      It was a crime by the IOC to award China the Olympics in the first place but it was also criminal that the EU and USA stood by and didn't protest it either. Face it,

  • Not Suprising... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rayeth (1335201) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:38AM (#24403877)
    This shouldn't really surprise anyone. Beijing has been way too tight-fisted about internet control to suddenly decide that everything is now fair game. I'm actually amazed they allowed as much as they did. Oh well, if you need to see Amnesty International then maybe encrypt your traffic or use a VPN.
    • by kestasjk (933987)

      This shouldn't really surprise anyone. Beijing has been way too tight-fisted about internet control to suddenly decide that everything is now fair game. I'm actually amazed they allowed as much as they did.

      Me too, I think it's good that they're moving in the right direction

  • by phantomfive (622387) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:40AM (#24403921) Journal

    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.

  • by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:40AM (#24403923) Homepage

    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.

    • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:01PM (#24404343)
      I'm boycotting the olympics but not primarily because of China. The whole overcommercialized, performance enhancing drug fueled, censorship and copyright problem ridden thing disgusts me to the core. It is the polar opposite of what the olympic spirit was.

      I'm automatically excluding every brand on my purchase list as long as they feature ads in the Olympics theme or sponsor the Olympics.
    • by R2.0 (532027) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:18PM (#24404597)

      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.

  • Also... (Score:5, Funny)

    by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:41AM (#24403945) Homepage
    The IOC has agreed to China's restrictions on soup with buffet.
  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:43AM (#24403965)

    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.

  • The eternal divide remains: make money, or do what is perceived as "right"?

    The Olympics is going to be a gigantic spectacle, a media event and a profit center, whether it's under a "freedom"-loving liberal democracy, or totalitarian propaganda staged in stadiums built on heaps of dead dissidents.

    A consumer boycott might unite 1% of the citizens of the United States, most of whom are east coast liberals who weren't going to watch it anyway (sports are for blue collar people), and cost the organizers enough t

  • Quick... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:46AM (#24404033)

    Every site deemed sensitive to China's communist leadership should add something about the Olympics on their website to become "Games related".

  • ...for to improve Stamina and Sporting Achievement!
  • by Neil Watson (60859) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:48AM (#24404079) Homepage

    One is ruled by ruthless despots. And so is China.

  • If the reporters QUIT reporting on china, then china will stop this insane approach. Bad press is better than NO press.
  • by strelitsa (724743) * on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @11:49AM (#24404099) Journal

    "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.

  • The nations retail goods are so tied up in China right now that if we pissed them off, all they would have to do is squeeze the tube a little to bring the whole world to its knees.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721)

      Which they won't do, because it would destroy them to. Let's face it, we've replaced a military cold war with an economic one; where the competing powers now hold the capacity to destroy each other's economies, but only at the cost of their own. It's the MAD doctrine of the 21st century.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Shakrai (717556) *

        Let's face it, we've replaced a military cold war with an economic one; where the competing powers now hold the capacity to destroy each other's economies

        I don't buy this. How could they "destroy" our economy? What critical resource do we get from China that we can't obtain elsewhere? Cheap manufactured goods that can't be economically produced in the United States? There's lots of developing countries that would LOVE the chance to sell those types of goods to the American market. Latin and South America both come to mind. Heck you don't even need a trade dispute/war to make this happen -- I've heard quite a few different economists say that energy pri

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sm62704 (957197)

      The nations retail goods are so tied up in China right now that if we pissed them off, all they would have to do is squeeze the tube a little to bring the whole world to its knees.

      If the slave kills the master, the slave starves to death.

  • BEIJING (Reuters) -- Some International Olympic Committee officials cut a deal to let China block sensitive websites

    I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that.

  • Really, this only appears to be an issue if you are a reporter (and perhaps athelete and/or random attendee). So, you show up at your hotel or Dorm, or whatever, and you get the same censored internet that every Chinese national gets. Do you expect all the rules to be lifted because you are special? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to give you unfettered access to the internet while the citizens do not? It would be an administrative headache and to what end? If you don't like it, fly home and use your own d

    • Well, the Chinese gov't declared dog off the menus in Beijing because of this. Shouldn't you be able to get the same food that every Chinese national gets?

  • by johnos (109351) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @12:13PM (#24404527)
    The IOC spokesperson said one of the blocked sites belonged to Faulun Gong. "I would remind you that Falun Gong is an evil, fake religion which has been banned by the Chinese government."

    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.
  • So, China blocks portions of the Internet - and always has - and suddenly its front page news.

    But, in the USA, ISPs are blocking more and more sites every day [slashdot.org] - but it barely gets noticed by the same mainstream press.

    If human rights violations and internet blocking are reasons to not hold an Olympics - then I guess the USA will never host another one.
  • The IOC without doubt would cooperate with western censorship in order to, lets say, prevent the athletes to share so called "intellectual property" freely, which is considered holy in the west. I dont see much difference with them now simply respecting Chinas weird laws protecting their fucked up "communist intellectual values" in order not to be prosecuted by the chinese.

  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @01:09PM (#24405669)
    For a few weeks every four years, we get to pretend that all the problems of the world are nothing more than a few games between athletes, interspersed with advertisements for male enhancement and foot cream.
  • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @01:38PM (#24406257)

    But yet somehow the mainstream media will ignore this because the Olympics are patriotic or something.

    Huh? Someone sprained an ideology tendon or something.

    Anyway.

    China: We want to censor web sites.
    IOC: OK.
    China: Now, don't argue with- wait... what?
    IOC: We said OK.
    China: ... Oh.
    IOC: (blank smile)
    China: Can we censor phone calls and email?
    IOC: You got it!
    China: Our guards would like to strip search the athletes.
    IOC: OK!
    China: Hourly.
    IOC: No problem! Deep cavity searches?
    China: Um, yes?
    IOC: Agreed.
    China: Make them wear ball gags, tie their hands behind their backs, jump around and shout "squawk squawk squawk" after singing the My Little Teapot song.
    IOC: Yessir!
    China: Of course our athletes are exempt from this.
    IOC: Okey Dokey!
    China: (pause) Can we put nipple clamps on you and kick you all in the crotch?
    IOC: That would be just tickey-boo! With pants or without?
    China: Sweet!

  • by sudog (101964) on Wednesday July 30, 2008 @07:31PM (#24410795) Homepage

    ..for unrestricted *reporting* abilities, not unrestricted porn access. Has anyone mentioned anything about China restricting *outgoing* communications? Else, where's the *actual* promise documented? It seems to me this story is getting blown way out of proportion, ironically, by a sort of blogger Chinese whisper.

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.

Working...