Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

With Olympics Over, China Re-Censors Internet 242

Posted by timothy
from the escape-from-zì-yóu dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.

With Olympics Over, China Re-Censors Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @04:51PM (#26150627)

    Somehow, I find that suspect.

  • by MSTCrow5429 (642744) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @04:52PM (#26150643)
    Happiness in slavery.
    • by nedburns (1238162) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:00PM (#26150765)
      I think it can compare to when you first wake up or come out of a dark area. At first all of the light hurts your eyes and your initial reaction is to shield yourself or go back to the darkness.

      It has to be a slow transition to open information flow or it will be overwhelming.
      • by genner (694963) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @06:15PM (#26151829)

        I think it can compare to when you first wake up or come out of a dark area. At first all of the light hurts your eyes and your initial reaction is to shield yourself or go back to the darkness.

        So it like that bright shiney thing in the sky. I saw it once. I hate that thing.

    • by d3ac0n (715594) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:12PM (#26150911)

      More like:

      Toe the "Party Line" or find yourself "Dissapeared" in short order.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Kleen13 (1006327)
        Ya, be careful what bus you get on..http://http//www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/06/16/death-on-wheels/ [http]
      • If you read the report that says that 85% of those surveyed think the government should control the internet, it says, "This survey was funded by the New York-based Markle Foundation and directed by an internationally respected research team at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. As required of all public-opinion polling in China, either the survey or the surveyors must be approved by the government, and some topics that Westerners might have liked to see addressed directly, such as censorship, were not." How is any public survey useful if the respondents to the survey had to be filtered by the government?!?
        • by evanbd (210358)
          Your quote says the people conducting the survey or the survey questions are filtered, not the respondents. That's certainly bad enough, but it's not *quite* hand-picking the survey responses they feel like getting.
          • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @11:28PM (#26154945)

            Here's a thought experiment. Suppose you're a Chinese entrepreneur given cash by a bunch of gullible Americans. You're an approved organisation which means you give results that won't annoy the Chinese government and cause them to pull your approval. Polling people is expensive. Do you 1) Poll lots more randomly selected people than the survey requires and cherry pick to the the politically correct results or 2) Make shit up, or poll a bunch of people who are politically reliable.

            The survey is worthless.

            • by evanbd (210358)
              Oh, I agree completely that the survey is worthless. But this is /., so I was being a bit pedantic. The quote the GP used didn't say that the respondents were picked by the government -- but it still gives plenty of reason to conclude the survey is likely to be seriously flawed at best.
      • by That_Dan_Guy (589967) on Thursday December 18, 2008 @10:26AM (#26159439)

        I lived in Taiwan and Asia for 5 years. I know and interact with a fair number of Mainland Chinese now that I'm back. Many (most) have Masters degrees or higher and have lived in the US for 10+ years.

        The thing I've discovered is they are extremely Nationalist. Because I spent most of my time in Asia in Taiwan and married there I get plenty of earful of how Taiwan (and Tibet) are part of China and how ANYONE who disagrees needs to be beaten up (literally, financially or otherwise) because China is a bigger more powerful entity than anyone else. (might makes right is the prevailing Political theory among the educated)

        Nationalism in China is running at levels not seen since August 1914.

        So it is not "Slavery = Happiness," But "Nationalism = Happiness."

        The communists are really riding a tiger here. They are constantly stoking the flames of Nationalism and desperately dependent on Economic growth to give them legitimacy and allow them continued rule. So long as they can continue to step on the throats of smaller people (Tibet) and have money in their pockets it makes the people feel happy.

        Anyways, there are whole volumes of books out there for those that are interested (Look up Tyranny of History (0140146776) to get started). Also ask the next Mainland Chinese person you meet outside of China what he thought of the French President meeting with the Dali Lama recently. You will get some very interesting answers.

    • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:35PM (#26151203) Journal

      It's not just Chinese. US citizens seem to enjoy having their rights violated as well. They reelected Bush, most of those responsible for the PATRIOT act are still in office, etc. etc. As long as the government provides bread and circuses, nobody really cares about rights. That's the same for the East and West.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jellomizer (103300)

        Whine Whine Whine...
        If you were in other countries you could get imprisoned or killed from saying that. While I do appreciate people keeping an eye on our rights to make sure they don't slip away quietly. However when you are a in a country that doesn't guarantee (or even respects) freedom of speech things like Open Source as free speech, or pornography etc... all seem like silly ideas. They just want to say Hey I dislike this government without getting killed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by junner518 (1235322)
      FREEDOM IS SLAVERY [wikipedia.org]
    • by mi (197448)

      Happiness in slavery.

      No, it is the Western illiberals, who seem to think so. Because, you know, there is no absolute evil in the world — with the exception, of course, for those people, who think, that there is — those must be fought tooth-and-nail... Growing up in the USSR and hearing about "progressive humanity" agreeing with Communists (and denouncing Capitalism), I was flabbergasted: how could they possibly be so stupid?

      Maybe the West is making too big of a deal over this, as many Chinese ci

    • Google for "Stockholm syndrome" if you don't know what it is yet.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    An hour later, and they're hungry for censorship again.

  • by skgrey (1412883) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @04:55PM (#26150693)
    They don't like it this way, they just know better at this point. It's like hitting a dog with a stick anytime he goes to get a snack from you, eventually he won't go get the snack even if you aren't carrying a stick. The dog learns not to like snacks, because who knows if you are hiding a stick somewhere. It's just safer not to like snacks. The chinese people are tired of being hit with sticks and are afraid. It's fear, plain and simple.
    • by Sinbios (852437) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:55PM (#26151537) Homepage
      Care to justify your assertion that they don't like it this way? Your own beliefs regarding free speech, etc., are not valid justification for what other people may believe.

      As hard as it may be to believe for jaded Americans, the majority of the Chinese actually approve of and trust their government. I say this because it seems in America, people whine and bitch about being forced to choose the lesser of two evils, whereas in China people generally tend to be content with whoever Congress deems suitable to elect.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Korveck (1145695)
      You are missing one bit: the dog is convinced that the stick is good for it.
    • by Valdrax (32670) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @09:05PM (#26153535)

      Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the other poster that you've simply missed out on the fact that the Chinese actually do *like* this system. If you had a time machine and took pictures of what happened at Abu Ghraib back to 2000 and asked most Americans what they thought of the events, they would've been horrified. Tell them that these were prisoners of war, and they might have been setting bombs that killed soldiers, and most Americans would have still been appalled.

      Fast forward a few years until it's *our* government doing it, and patriotism / nationalism / partisanship or what-have-you has made a bunch of people wrap their brains around the notion that torture is good. Why? Because they love their country / their chosen ideology / their President or whatever, and they rationalize away any negative behavior as good. The Chinese people do the same thing. It seems to be a universal human quality that one takes pride in the group one is in and rationalizes away all bad behavior. So, I'm not surprised that the Chinese like it.

      Plus, unlike us, they have been raised from birth with a values system that prioritizes social stability and harmony over individual liberty. 2500 years of Confucian thought doesn't just vanish with the modern age. China would never be the birthplace of democracy. It's just not a natural progression of their dominant social philosophies. Hopefully, they can learn, but they'll have to overcome far more inertia than the early American colonists did. FAR more inertia.

  • Human Rights (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evanbd (210358) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @04:56PM (#26150699)

    Maybe the West is making too big of a deal over this, as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way.

    Many US citizens liked slavery, once. And not letting women vote. The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right.

    I'm sorry if it makes you feel awkward to take a stand on basic human rights, but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.

    Then again, I rather suspect you knew all that. I suppose I've been trolled.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by genner (694963)

      The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right..

      Except it's not a minority being opresses it's the whole country.

    • by brian0918 (638904)

      but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.

      What?!? You're saying that we should not always aim for the "common ground", the "bipartisan" route - that sometimes it's actually right to stick to your principles??? What an un-American thing to say!

      [/sarcasm]

    • by tygt (792974)

      ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.

      Not that I disagree, but do you think that ethics are absolute?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by evanbd (210358)
        No, but I don't think they're entirely relative, either. For example, I think slander and libel laws are reasonable limits on speech. I could see different communities reaching different, legitimate conclusions about what precisely those laws should cover. I believe that there are many valid viewpoints, but also many less valid or completely invalid ones.
    • Re:Human Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sunderland56 (621843) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:36PM (#26151207)

      Many US citizens liked slavery, once. And not letting women vote. The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right.

      Don't give all of your examples in the past tense.... Many US citizens still support oppressing the rights of gay people. Many US citizens support the unconstitutional searches, seizures, and wiretaps that have gone on since 9/11. A huge number of US citizens supported invading a foreign country and overthowing their government.

      A majority of Americans support the Children's Internet Protection Act [wikipedia.org] - and so a majority of Americans also support censorship of the Internet, just like the Chinese do.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PiSkyHi (1049584)

        I am a westerner living and working in China now, I find that partly because of the governments insular attitudes, people in China are blissfully unaware.

        When I say blissfully, I mean most are actually very happy people. The level of freedom they have in the workplace these days (I'm talking white collar) is of an equal or higher standard than the west in terms of conditions. I think most people feel there are enough problems in the world for each person to be a good representative of their people.

        It is h

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by peterhoeg (172874)

          This is also posted from within China.

          And while a great number of sites are inaccessible (a number of blogs on wordpress.com and blogspot.com for a starter), it seems otherwise completely random which sites have been blocked and they simply time out as opposed to telling you that you can't go there,

          At least when I was living in Singapore, things were done properly. If you accessed a site deemed BadForYou(tm), you would be diverted to another site explaining that access had been blocked by the Media somethin

    • Re:Human Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:53PM (#26151501)

      Look we already sent them a very tersely worded letter saying that, if they didn't improve their human rights record, we would probably still come to the games anyway.

      What more do you want from us?

    • by homer_s (799572)
      but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.

      You are correct. But, which ones are valid and which ones not? There are multiple viewpoints about *that* and they are all valid.
  • by techno-vampire (666512) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @04:57PM (#26150727) Homepage
    In America, people complain when the government starts censoring the news. In Soviet China, people complain when it stops.
  • IOC Must Learn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by critical_point (1430417) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @04:59PM (#26150753)
    The IOC must learn that there is no long term positive effect of allowing a totalitarian government to host the olympics in exchange for agreements that are slowly implemented and quickly removed, just as the western countries have learned that when the IOC makes such a mistake it is wrong to respond by boycotting the games.
    • by swb (14022)

      The IOC is an organization committed to athletics in the US, Europe and a handful of Asian countries. Elsewhere, membership in the IOC is a perk that the junta/dictator hands out to someone's brother-in-law to take junkets and collect hard currency kickbacks from potential host countries. You expect them to bite the hand that feeds them?

      Expecting the IOC as an organization to care about political issues is a waste of time, especially considering the grandiose gold-plated Disneyland that's expected to be b

  • Why wouldn't they? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:02PM (#26150789)

    As far as most Chinese are concerned their government is great. For more than a decade the average Chinese citizen has seen there lot only improve. Naturally the government there is taking full advantage of this by giving themselves all the credit. Thus to many in China it seems that the government is doing a great job, and who are they to argue with success?

    It won't last though. There's a generation of children being born who will take economic prosperity for granted. It's the nature of humanity, and by that same token they'll want more than just that. With economic power in their hands they'll want political power, and that's when the government will be in trouble.

    • by wumingzi (67100) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:28PM (#26151117) Homepage Journal

      It won't last though. There's a generation of children being born who will take economic prosperity for granted. It's the nature of humanity, and by that same token they'll want more than just that. With economic power in their hands they'll want political power, and that's when the government will be in trouble.

      Maybe, maybe not.

      Taiwan went from single-party (and single-family) rule to a full-fledged democracy in the course of about 15 years. The old farts who had been running (and robbing) the country were quietly retired and a generation which was willing to allow more political pluralism were seated in their place. This happened with a lot of protests, legislative fistfights, and more than a few cracked heads on the street, but it did not involve putting the heads of the Old Guard up on a post in the process.

      On the other side, Singapore has become wildly prosperous, with no sign of democracy or pluralism anywhere in sight. The People's Action Party (read: Senior Minister Harry Lee and his son Lee Hsien Loong) still run everything. It's a weird place. It's clean, it's modern. People go in, people go out. If living in the Lees's Disneyland [wired.com] pisses you off, you're free to go to Australia, or the US, or wherever you like. Everyone knows the rules, and nobody rocks the boat.

      • Everyone knows the rules, and nobody rocks the boat.

        But it is also boring and lame. I spent a week working there this year and by the last day I was seeing the gaps all over the place. I think if I had to live in the region I would spend a lot of time in Malaysia which, despite its flaws, is more of a "real" country to me.

        Singapore is a big shopping centre.

        • by wumingzi (67100)

          But it is also boring and lame.

          I agree that it's boring and lame. If Singapore is the logical conclusion to Chinese affluence, we can probably be assured of Yet Another American Century.

          I merely was stating that the argument that prosperity -> democracy does not always happen, and that democracy -> a sharp and unpleasant end for the old guard also does always happen.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Samah (729132)

        ...you're free to go to Australia...

        ie. the new China (in terms of Great Firewalls).

  • by tomknight (190939) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:03PM (#26150813) Homepage Journal
    The government want to censor what it deems "illegal content" (such as references to Taiwan as a country).

    What do the people seem to want (according to the quoted survey)? A more reliable source of information, and who should ensure the internet is "more reliable" other than the state?
    "Since the only legitimate source of authority in many aspects of Chinese life is the state, when Chinese citizens are of the opinion that some aspects of the internet should be controlled, it is natural for them to assume that the state should take the lead in doing the controlling."

    The censorship we're seeing is (IMO) wrong. The survey seems to be being misrepresented in this context. Or rather, the people's wishes are not being reflected in the way the censorship is being condected...

    • by tomknight (190939)
      (Sorry, meant to keep editing, pressed submit instead)

      What I was trying (and failing) to say was that the survey appeared to show that "the people" do indeed seem to want some control of the internet, to make it more usable and reliable, and that the state would be the only body able to provide it. This isn't the spirit of the Chinese government's censorship, and the survey can't be used to support the its current actions.

  • by james_shoemaker (12459) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:06PM (#26150857)

    I have heard people complain about things like spam and porn on the internet and say "Why doesn't the government do something about it". If you frame the question properly in the US I bet you would get a surprising amount of support for government censorship.

    • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:16PM (#26150959) Journal

      If you frame the question properly in the US I bet you would get a surprising amount of support for government censorship.

      Yeah, but the nice thing about our system is that a surprising amount of support isn't sufficient to deny rights outlined in the Constitution. In theory anyway.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Prohibition got passed. Don't misunderestimate the power of mass delusions. With a 2/3 majority, it's possible to completely butcher our form of government.

        If George W. Bush had asked for broad eavesdropping powers with no oversight or certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to be written into the Constitution shortly after 9/11, I suspect he'd have gotten it with little opposition.

        • by mdmkolbe (944892)

          With a large enough majority (or the right minority) it's possible to butcher any form of government (except maybe robotic overloads and manifest god-kings that actively use their god powers).

  • Not to sound like the Chinese who "like it that way", but I don't think a complete censor of Chinese news broadcasts to America would effect me in the least. I suspect the same major stories (Free Tibet, the major Earthquake, and the Olympics) would have aggregated into the American and British news sites that I read... and that's all that I really need (or want).

    However... I sincerely believe that long-term diplomatic relations are needed with China to prevent any potential future pissing contests like

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:16PM (#26150963)

    I was there during the Olympics and had internet access through a residential hookup. There was a lot of censoring going on: for example, URLs containing "blog" were generally not accessible. It was clearly not related to what was on the blog, but a blanket thing.

  • Scared (Score:3, Insightful)

    by yusing (216625) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:23PM (#26151057) Journal

    "as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way."

    Particularly those who are concerned that the masses will learn how miserable and fettered their lives are.

  • So what if China sensors the internet? So does Saudi Arabia, our ally and nothing is said...and they do not allow women to drive..and women must always seek permission [from men] to go out.

    This reminds me of Iran.

    We (the USA), supported a dictator in Iran but when the people rose up and forced him out, installing their own dictator we did not like, we branded them evil.

    Ca anyone tell me that the USA does not censor the internet in anyway? That is...one can get anything on the internet from anywhere in the

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by El Yanqui (1111145)
      You kind of went off on a tangent there. Actually, the entire post was a tangent. As far as anyone in the USA accessing anything on the internet: What is the government censoring? Please be specific here as I'm no longer in the USA and am curious what I can get here in Europe that you can't. I know of many blacklisted sites/subjects but that has more to do with internet providers than the government deciding that a certain word is verboten to search for.

      Please enlighten me as to what specifically you in A
      • by bogaboga (793279)

        As far as anyone in the USA accessing anything on the internet: What is the government censoring?

        It depends on where in government you happen to be. At the department of State we have Content-control software. Which strictly speaking is censorship in action by government.

        • Are you saying the department of State is censoring the internet access of all Americans?
          • by jcnnghm (538570)

            Know, he's saying that he works at the Department of State, and they filter his internet access at work. GP is apparently not particularly clueful.

            • I'm glad our nation's diplomats are seeing a filtered internet. We really wouldn't want them informed with the information they need to do their jobs.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by jcnnghm (538570)

                There is nothing unusual about having your internet access filtered in the workplace, which is a far cry from the great firewall of china.

    • Interesting argument. Being a hypocrite does indeed weaken the moral basis of the argument against censorship. However, your post reads like an argument to stick your head in the sand and let censorship happen. I don't like that.

      Here is my argument: Censorship is morally wrong. I condemn China for censorship. I condemn all Iranian dictators (supported by the US or not) for censorship. I condemn any censorship that might be going on in the USA.

      That's my moral compass, bogaboga. What do you say?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    And that's not meant to be an insult. It's a sad, unfortunate truth that has been manufactured by their government. I've had Chinese friends throughout my university years, and I can't count the number of times I got little other than blank stares when talking about Tiannamen Square. Then they see the pictures and the footage, and _that's_ when it really gets scary -- I would say the reactions were half and half.

    Half were disgusted that their government would commit such atrocities, and it really hit them p

    • by Sinbios (852437) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @06:23PM (#26151933) Homepage
      Uh, tank guy didn't get run over.

      Anyway, you have to realize that Chinese values are fundamentally different from your own. "The Right Thing", to you, might mean freedom of expression, the right to bear arms, etc., but that's not true of all people. Here in Canada, we believe The Right Thing is gays should be allowed to marry, and nobody should walk around packin'. In China, people believe The Right Thing is a centralized, stable government.

      Personally, I find it easy to understand the sentiments of the people you mentioned who believed Tiananmen was a case of "tough shit", because given China's chaotic political history, especially in the recent past, organized, stable government is a top priority for many people. And you can't blame them, given the shit they had to suffer through with unstable governments. Many people today still remember said shit, and deems it important to pass these values, namely avoiding said shit, down to the next generation. And the protestors were challenging those very values - the main goal behind the protest was further government reforms, and sought to basically remove the Party from power. In essence, completely disrupting the stable government that China had suffered through three or four periods of complete chaos for.

      Obviously Westerners, when presented with the two sides, take the side of the idealistic students clamouring for rights and liberty, since you've enjoyed the luxuries of stable government for centuries. I mean, when was the last major revolution in the Western world? The French Revolution? The availability of these luxuries means that you no longer rank them as high as someone who's lived through several turbulent governments would, and instead prioritize further luxuries like the freedoms I mentioned above. Well, when you look at those freedoms from the perspective of someone who just came out of the feudal age, they're really not that essential to life. So you must understand why they don't rank as high on the list of priorities for a Chinese person.
      • by SQL Error (16383)

        I mean, when was the last major revolution in the Western world? The French Revolution?

        Ignoring Spain and Greece and Russia and all of eastern Europe, France itself has changed its form of government 12 times in 200 years.

      • by evanbd (210358)
        We don't take the side of freedom and liberty because we value it over stable government. We take the side of freedom and liberty because we understand that not only can you have it along with a stable government, but it appears to be required for long term stability and peaceful rule. Pretending that one must choose between them is a false dichotomy (though I can see how it would be an appealing one when an oppressive regime is the one that finally creates order out of chaos).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by meringuoid (568297)
        I mean, when was the last major revolution in the Western world? The French Revolution?

        Depends what you call 'Western'. The French Revolution ended in 1799. Since then, a large part of the USA broke away and fought its own unsuccessful war of independence from 1861-65. The Irish Free State was established in 1922, after violent revolts on and off since 1916 culminating in a downright vicious terrorist campaign. Mussolini came to power in Italy in the same year, at the head of an armed coup d'etat by his F

    • by chrb (1083577)

      I have had similar discussions - the responses were divided between "Tianawhat?" and "Western propaganda! It did never happen!".

      And the best Chinese quote I got about democracy: "Our system is better - we always get the right people! Your system is bad - when people vote they sometimes choose the wrong person!".

  • ... but for a different reason. I, too, find these numbers suspect, but not impossible. If you are told from birth that this is the way things are supposed to be, you are likely to believe it.
  • China Schmina (Score:5, Interesting)

    by owlnation (858981) on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:41PM (#26151291)
    Just wait until the London Olympics. We'll show the Chinese. Ha, they don't even have 5 million security cameras. Amateurs. Hadriansfirewall will kick your Greatfirewall's ass.

    Comrade Gordon "the Butcher of Woolies" Brown-shirt, and Leader Jacqui "Winston" Smith will show you the way.
  • Lots of US "news sources" are garbage. So this is a double edged sword.

    Or did you think the whole world cares about CNN's coverage of Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears etc.?

    IMHO, CNN and Fox News both should be required to carry a banner (on TV and the intertubes) that says "For entertainment purposes only."

  • Check out the six pages of license agreement for tickets for Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics [vancouver2010.com].

    Amongst a whole raft of prohibitions "...Ticket Bearer [shall not] engage in political, commercial, advertising or other promotional activities. Ticket Bearers may not ... wear or bring political, advertising or other promotional or other commercial items or clothing into a Venue. Entry to a Venue will not be granted to any Ticket Bearer who is wearing or carrying any form of political, commercial, advertising or pro

  • Maybe the West is making too big of a deal over this, as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way.

    If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. - John Stewart Mill

  • Fuck China (the government, not the people).

A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.

Working...