China Blocks NYT Over Critical Article 94
Taco Cowboy writes "The New York Times has become the latest target of Chinese censorship. Censors of the People's Republic of China, in an almost unheard of, truly remarkable feat of neck-breaking speed, blocked the (paywalled) website of the New York Times, all because of one news article. That particular article was about the enormous wealth of the family members of a very prominent figure in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao. The wealth in question totals some USD 2.7 billion. "
(Also covered at the BBC.)
2.7 billion (Score:5, Insightful)
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
-Animal Farm
Re:So what ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay more attention to the news. The EU claimed that the antisemitism and other propaganda from these channels were human rights violations and hate crimes. The EU designated the person in charge to be personally sanctioned for these human rights abuses. The result was that all Iranian state owned channels were removed from European TV satellites. This is a different sanction than the sanctions for the nuclear program.
As far as questioning human rights violations by Iran, I have to wonder if you are an Iranian troll. The antisemitism on these channels was rampant. Only the abuses inside Iran (hanging gays, stoning women, torturing and murdering protesters, etc.) make it pale in comparison.
Re:So what ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The banning of Iranian Press TV is ethical and justified
The only way you can believe that is if you think banning Fox News is ethical and justified.
Like peas in a pod, both equally hilarious.
Re:So what ? (Score:2, Insightful)
A state owned media isn't media--it is propaganda. Any country has a right to censor propaganda from another state.
Think of it this way, corporate speech is not the same as an individual's speech, nor is state owned media the same as independent media. They are completely different concepts and they serve completely different purposes. One is designed for political and corporate power and the other is designed to disseminate information.
And no state has to allow another state to broadcast hate speech within their borders. Among the other things Iranian Press TV have broadcast include the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion [presstv.ir]. You know, the book that Hitler used as a 'warrant' to commit mass murder. So yes, vile hate speech by another state broadcast into different state's borders for propaganda purposes should by suppressed. And it is completely ethical to do so.
Anyone who doesn't realize the difference between an antisemitic hate speech propagandizer and a free press is a mental midget and does not deserve to be debated.
Re:2.7 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Words are words, deeds are deeds. (Score:2, Insightful)
Speech is never a hate crime or a human right violation. What EU have done is no different than what the Chinese did, POLITICAL CENSORSHIP. Words are words not deeds. A hate crime is a deed not a description of a deed.
Hating Jews is no different than hating Chinese.
I use to think we were better than others, with free speech, free press and all. But stuff like this shows just how far we've lost our way. We can't even condemn Chinese government censorship, because we're right there doing the same!
And saying they weren't banned because their website is still available, UK has web filters for Pirate Bay. You are inches away from filtering for secondary copyright offenses which probably aren't even a crime, let along a reason to censor the web. So how long before the website is banned too?
Nothing New (Score:5, Insightful)
The Times has been pushing the story for a few days on its home page, which is also unusual (an indication of how important they deem the story -- if you didn't catch it one day, you'll catch it the next... Or the next). The key here is that it's basically accusing the leader of the country of supporting massive corruption at a time when the reins are being handed over to a new group of people who will be selected in the next few weeks and control China for the next decade. The timing is seen as intended to influence China's politics at this very sensitive time and push people to call for reform. If China had NOT blocked it, THAT would have been a story.
Re:2.7 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
Truly this is the reason for the failure of communism. People are just people, no matter what political system you have there will be corruption because people are greedy. Communism assumes people will not be greedy and is doomed for this reason. Capitalism assumes people are greedy and tries to channel and focus this greed. Capitalism often fails as well because greed is an enormous thing and very difficult to control but at least the understanding of the problem is there. Ultimately even the leaders of Communist nations don't believe in Communism but just use it to their own benefit.
Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but in the US, speech, on its own, is protected. Let us suppose that John is an antisemite.
John paints a swastica on a synagogue. That's vandalism, and a particularly nasty form of it. In some jurisdictions it's treated as something eligible for enhanced vandalism.
John goes out and kills someone wearing a yarmulke. That's homicide, and evidence of his deranged beliefs may go a long way towards roving premeditation.
John attempts to distract everyone from the real problems of society by blaming it all on the Jews. That's protected speech. There's no underlying crime which is aggravated by his inanity.