China Rewards Porn Snitches 541
MinimeMongo writes that the "Associated Press reports that China's police ministry on Sunday handed out rewards of up to $240 to people who reported pornographic Web sites in a campaign to stamp out online smut...The online crackdown is part of a sweeping official morality campaign launched this year on orders from communist leaders."
control (Score:5, Insightful)
What the Chinese govt seems to understand, and what I fear most for their subjects, is that sniffing, blocking, filtering, and controlling the Internet is the most important means of keeping power from the people in the future. How will they do it? Is it possible? I fear that it IS possible. If you control all the fiber coming into the country, and you control everything published inside the country, then you can just keep on governing the old-fashioned way.
Re:control (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:control (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they proceed to arrest you, try you, and do other things you probably would prefer they didn't.
Re:control (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the Police State, zoloto.
Look, I can see the logic behind outlawing child porn. I don't really agree with it being illegal. Abusing children, that's illegal. Downloading a picture of it, I don't see anything wrong with that. Note that I never intend to do that myself, but it's not my job to tell other people what's right and wrong. If you want to look at 17-year-olds fuck, great. I don't really care. I do care that people try to take away the rights of my fellow man, though.
Outlawing regular porn, porn made by consenting ADULTS, is the first step on a very slippery slope. When you tell adults what they can and cannot see, you are taking away a very important right. When you take away one thing, it only gets easier to take more. Slippery slope.
No, it's not a slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of thinking was exposed during the whole Janet Jackson thing, anyway. People claimed that free speech was threatened, but it's fairly obvious that that sort of thing has never been acceptable. Despite that we've maintained a thriving democracy with some of the best free speech protection in the world for more than 300 years nevertheless.
Only on slashdot could a story about the chinese communists cracking down on porn turn into a condemnation of american democracy.
Re:control (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:control (Score:5, Insightful)
Not always; see this paper [ucla.edu]. What can happen is that once the infrastructure is established for "mild" surveillance or censorship, the cost to implement more invasive control is now lessened, which may cause people to now support it whereas they wouldn't before. (That's not a good explanation, the article is much better).
Now in some cases you can accurately predict peoples motives such as the movie and porn industry want to do whatever it takes to make money at any cost to the consumer just as the cigarette and alcohol companies do.
Gosh, just like the computer, telephone, and ball bearing companies.
Do people have a choice?
Yes.
What do you mean by "consenting"?
Chosen freely when one is in a sound mental state.
Suicide is "consenting" but it is a decision made when your deck isn't full.
Always? What about someone with a terminal disease in a great deal of pain?
How about being in a porn video? How can you ensure that the decision is informed and isn't made under duress?
How do you ensure that anything anybody does isn't being done under duress?
There are whole other sides to the everybody look at porn arguement. It destroys people but do you care?
I care about preserving the freedom to pursue goals that others may disapprove of, provided they don't harm anyone else. I also care about preventing moral busybodies from enforcing their personal beliefs at gunpoint.
Re:control (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a slippery slope.
Slippery slope [datanation.com] arguments are, by default, considered to be fallacious. By introducing your argument this way, you're effectively prefacing your comment with the statement "What I'm about to say is misleading and probably wrong".
Why would you do that?
control-North Korea. (Score:2, Interesting)
Welcome to North Korea.
Re:control (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:control (Score:5, Interesting)
The CCP isn't doing this because they care, they're doing it because they are afraid if they don't the people will get upset, and it will undermine them.
"Morality" has always been an important aspect of Chinese culture, as much as in early puritan America, earlier Europe, and the modern middle east (complete with killing adulterers)
Think of a society like a living organism. Cells can only take so many "insults" before becoming cancerous. Similarly, individuals can only become so annoyed before they revolt. We tend to think of those insults as oppression, but they can also be in the form of not being able to oppress others enough. Just look at the US civil war.
The internet is not a magic bullet that routs around all 'censorship'. It's a constant battle, and requires education. Unfortunately in "communist" China the government has decided to try to stamp out porn rather then try to err on the side of freedom (not particularly suprising).
Anyway, I'm off to China for my new bussness venture of anonymously setting up porn sites and then turning them in for a reward. Zai Zhen, bai bai le~.
Did you actually read the message you replied to? (Score:5, Insightful)
[Parent Message]: Wow, what a fat lot you know about China and the CCP. I think what you say is mostly bullshit. Morality is actually important to most Chinese
Can I point out the bleeding obvious, which is that this is what he actually said?
Anyway, in response to the rest of your message: I didn't see Autopr0n extol the virtues of Christianity in his post.
In addition, I should point out that most fanatical (relatively speaking) Christians would support the censorship and supression of porn (whilst probably jerking off to it in private); you seem to have made the mistake of assuming Autopr0n shared the views of all fellow Americans, and (to some extent) that all Americans shared his views.
(*) IIRC Autopr0n *seemed* to be American, but I wouldn't bet my life on this.
Re:control (Score:5, Insightful)
Get baptised [sic] or 'born again' or whatever is the cheap and easy way. Now you're a good person - a 'Christian' full of the Holy Ghost.
It sounds to me like you hate Bush and are working backwards from that to deem his faith lacking or in some way not sincere. You also seem to be working from the specific to the general, which is sometimes called a Fallacy.
My guess is that you already hate Christians or Christianity, because later you say this:
you can be a hedonist and highly moral, you can be a Muslem [sic] or a Communist and highly moral; whether you can be a Christian and highly moral is another question, which I can't answer, since I'm not one.
So your logic is:
hedonist == Potentially Moral
Muslim == Potentially Moral
Communist == Potentially Moral
Christian == Unknown because you're not one
So either you actually are a hedonist-Muslim-Communist and you can attest to all of them, or (perhaps more likely) you don't really understand Christianity, but realize full well that it's okay to vilify and hate the religion in the USA. My guess is the later, but either way... whatever... your assertions are baseless. But don't let logic stop you from posting to
Re:control (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is a key difference between Christianity and both Islam and Communism. Both of the latter two religions (yes, Communism is a religion) promise world peace once the entire world is subjugated and morality externally imposed. The word 'Islam' is the name for the promised peace that will result once all the earth is subject to Sharia law. The word 'Communism' is the name of that state of peace and well being that is promised once all of the old capitalist systems have been overthrown and replaced with a world wide commune.
Christianity, on the other hand, while sharing the goal of promoting morality, dismisses the possibility of achieving true morality by external control as impossible. Consider the strong willed child whose parents make him sit down: "I'm may be sitting down on the outside, but I'm standing up on the inside." For Christians, true morality begins when God changes the heart, and transforms from the inside, and finally manifests itself in external behaviour. World peace will never be achieved until Christ returns to destroy this universe and move all those who have been internally transformed to a new heavens and a new earth. (In some interpretations, there is first a period of 1000 years of externally enforced peace on this Earth with Christ as the ruler - which ultimately fails, proving the need to destroy this world and start over).
Christians who think that true morality can be externally imposed are heretics. The heresy is called "legalism" or "phariseeism" after the Jewish sect prominent in the New Testament. A more subtle mistake Christians make is to think that they, as an individual, can transform their own lives by imposing a set of rules on themselves. This is no more effective than having the government do it - the result is an annoying "holier than thou" attitude. In Christian doctrine, the process of becoming truly righteous must begin with a supernatural internal change initiated by God Himself.
The use of external force is reserved for Secular Government. The specific example Paul points to was the secular Roman government - but this does not mean that officials of the government cannot be religious. The purpose of government is to externally impose morality - for example, "do not murder" is a moral principle which the government attempts to enforce. ("Whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.") It is supposed to be understood, however, that this external enforcement does not produce true righteousness, but only enables the society to survive.
Attempts to externally enforce sexual morality are similarly founded on the survival of society. The healthy growth and development of children is best promoted by a stable two parent family. This principle is the basis on which the government claims the authority to take children away from a clearly disfunctional family (locking kids in closets, etc). It used to be the principle on which our government implemented sanctions against adultery. It used to be the principle on which premarital sex was sanctioned - it tends to create children in need of a home. It is also the principle on which gay marriage should not be allowed. It is one thing for people who will never raise children to fool around and cut their own lives short. It is a more serious matter to bring children (e.g. adopted) into that environment.
Re:apropos (Score:5, Insightful)
It is precisely that line of thinking that kept Ross Perot from winning. If we thought he had a chance, it would have been a landslide! Don't waste your vote. Vote for the right candidate, whether R/D/whatever. Even if your guy only gets 0.001%, at least you've made a statement. Simply picking the lesser of two evils does a grave disservice to democracy IMHO.
Re:apropos (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and the fact that he's a psycho. Would you really have prefered Perot to Bill Clinton?
Re:apropos (Score:5, Interesting)
First-past-the-post encourages the tactical voting [wikipedia.org] technique known as "compromising": voters are encouraged to vote for one of the two options most likely to win, even if it is not their most preferred option.
If enough voters vote using this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes a form of runoff voting [wikipedia.org] where the first round is held in the court of public opinion. This can give substantial power to the media as voters will tend to believe their viewpoint on who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election and use that viewpoint to decide where a "tactical" vote would be (in the voter's opinion) best used. This can also become a system promoting votes against more so than votes for.
If you go on and read about tactical voting [wikipedia.org], you'll see it says that "Duverger's law [wikipedia.org] suggests that, for this reason, first-past-the-post election systems will lead to two party systems in most cases." Quite discouraging if you ask me; I'd love to see more parties involved.
I just read some of these articles yesterday trying to learn about the British election system. It's very interesting stuff. Sometimes I wish I was a political science major...
Re:apropos (Score:5, Insightful)
You could say Perot cost Bush the election, or that Nader's votes came right out of a Gore's pocket - that's hard to refute if you look at how those voters would otherwise have leaned. But would we have been that much worse off, in either case, had it gone the other way between the two leading candidates?
I suspect the tactical voting phenomenon becomes less certain to prevail as the two leading candiates become less distinguishable from each other. It seems to me that with every passing election, the "middle" becomes more clearly defined by those two.
This relieves voters from worrying if tweedle-dee|dum will "accidentally" win if they "waste" their vote.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:apropos (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:apropos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:apropos (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:apropos (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:apropos (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush has been trying to do #4 since the "Mission Accomplished" banner was hung. As a matter of fact, that seems to have been his entire strategy: rebuild it so the population will welcome us as rescuers from the Evil Saddam. But I know people on the ground in Iraq (as I'm sure we all do) that have been involved in reconstruction projects. They repair or rebuild a generator plant, and it's attacked by insurgents. They repair pipelin
Re:apropos (Score:2)
How is Kerry a crook? He's done more to stop government thievery and corruption then most people. (speaking out against 'Nam, busting up BCCI and discovering the Iran Contra affair)
In the long run,... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, I could be wrong.
But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:2)
society: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct
Re:But... (Score:2)
The more insistant the official, the larger their infraction.
Yes, you can.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what does you can't legislate morality mean? It would seem that it means you shouldn't pass laws that are designed to suppress behaviors that should be personal choic
Re:Yes, you can.. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, the choice to view pornography or to not view it is a choice that I as an adult can make for myself, and as long as it's done in the privacy of my own home, my actions do not affect any others (this is not exactly true in all cases, but most people try to make sure no one will walk in on them, etc). So pornography is a self-regarding action that happens between consenting adults (the consenting and adult parts are why child pornography is illegal).
The theory is that as long as something is a self-regarding action, an adult in their right mind should be free to choose what they want to do. This is what most people are talking about when they talk about "moral" legislation. In effect, it defines what adult citizens should consider moral and not. Many people (surprise!) believe that an adult has the right to choose their own "rules to live by" without interference from 2nd parties.
I hope that helps things.
Re:Yes, you can.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Adultery is a moral offence that is a crime in some countries, but not in the US. The fact that it is not a crime in the US is part of the proof that US law is not, in fact, based on the Ten Commandments. So, the question would be if committing adultery is a "victimless" crime of the type you characterized as a "self-regarding action" or is it an offence that harms the person being cheated on? Clearly adultery affects more than the person who commits it. My point is not to argue that adultery should be illegal, but that there isn't a sharp line drawn that can demark all offences that one might call moral transgressions that should not be codified into law.
PS,
John Ashcroft is an example of someone who believes that his personal morality should literally be the law of the land.
Re:Yes, you can.. (Score:3, Informative)
It is still illegal in most (all?) states, just very rarely enforced - usually only in divorce cases where one side is being a jerk.
Re:Yes, you can.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The original quote (wish I could remember who said it, but I'm bad with names) concerned the fact that just because you make a law that says its so, doesn't mean people will think it's wrong.
I believe it was said in regards to civil rights laws, prohibiting people from certain forms of descrimination. The speaker was right, in regards to the fact that it still went on.
Morality can't be changed by a stroke of the pen, not even with the imprimatur of executive power.
In the case of murder, it doesn't matter whether or not it's seen as wrong by the perpetrator, we have decided that it's necessary in society to not allow murderers to go free.
As for pornography...as long as people don't feel it's wrong, the law won't matter. Heck, even if the people do feel it's wrong, it will probably continue. Prohibition in the US had very widespread support...but within a few years everyone was back to it again.
I think people need to realize that scale matters in moral decisions. We really do see little things as different from big things. Consumption to excess: bad. Minor consumption: fine.
legislating morality (Score:2)
Indeed, legislating sexual morality is a great tool of dictators.... Which is what I find so interesting about the politics of sexuality in this country....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes you can. (Score:2)
Re:Yes you can. (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot legislate morality: morality, honor, ethics, and law are distinct. Legislation is law: it is a list of punishments for actions. The rest are things you can try to teach people in your home, school, or church. Law is about changing the cost/benefit ratio associated with an action; the rest are about changing your motivations, your conscience, appealing to your wish to "belong", etc. Law may punish that which your morality believes to be wrong, morality/ethics/honor may inform the legislative body, but you cannot legislate morality itself.
I knew this would pay off! (Score:3, Funny)
Could be a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
Could be a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
A government that excuses its actions by acting as a sort of parental figure, is a corrupt government indeed. Human beings are critical thinkers, thank you very much, and it is an insult to the intelligence of a Billion+ Chinese if China's government thinks it should "protect" them from "harmful content" so that they don't "harm" themselves.
I know that's not the real reason, but seriously, who does China think it's fooling?
HEH... and ppl who notified 'em the website will (Score:3, Funny)
Counterproductive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Counterproductive? (Score:2, Funny)
> Porn is an accessory to masturbation, the safest sex: no STDs, no conception. With China facing ongoing crises in both those human conditions, isn't porn the State's best comrade?
Presumably their accountants were dismayed at the productivity loss when 1,000,000,000 take time out to play with themselves, even if it's only for a few minutes a day.
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:5, Funny)
perhaps, though, they should create a list of state-approved electromechanical stimulation devices. somehow the notion of a state sanctioned "sexual energy dissipation device" would fit nicely with the whole "control" thing they're into.
quincy
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:2)
Slashdot is people? IT'S PEOPLE! IT'S PEOPLE! SLASHDOT IS PEOPLE!
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:3, Informative)
While at it, perhaps they should also offer state subsidy for the multiuser product [fu-fme.com].
--
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:2)
You're right, and hasn't there been cases where someone goes and rapes someone simply because they couldn't get their hands on some pr0n? (At least I think I remember reading something along those lines...) So I say, increase the porn, the number of rape cases will go down!
Seriously though, this is just the State legislating morality, which is always a bad idea. If anything, demand for the "forbidden fruit" will go up, creating the "War on Porn" (as oth
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:2)
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:2)
No, porn detracts too much from the human rights violations. It's called specialization...
yes, and the actors aren't even people! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yes, and the actors aren't even people! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:2)
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:2)
It's thanksgiving long weekend here in canada!
double edged sword (Score:5, Funny)
Busted! (Score:5, Insightful)
But the fact that this story contains the magic words porn, internet, & communist is likely to generate 1,000 responses. Sigh.
For something truly fun and interesting along the same lines, recently the Chinese had a brilliant spin on "citizen crime busters", offering bounties for people with camcorders who caught drivers breaking the law [chinadaily.com.cn]! Now there is a great idea!
Re:Busted! (Score:5, Funny)
Seems like a good rate of pay to me (Score:2)
That's more than most web coders get per webpage. This could give rise to a new phenomina
"pr0n site farms"
Re:Seems like a good rate of pay to me (Score:2)
A Win-Win Situation? (Score:5, Funny)
Wankers of the World, UNITE!!!!
all well and good, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:all well and good, but ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
This'll work out great in the long run, I'm sure.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's it... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Different society (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because a society is different, don't necessarily mean that its peoples are oppressed (and need 'liberating'). It's a big planet, there's nothing wrong with a little diversity.
Re:Different society (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Different society (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't the ability to read whatever one chooses fall under "liberty"?
Actually, in the UN declaration, what exactly is "liberty" referring to? It's one of those words with many different meanings.
Something important which is rarely noted (Score:3, Insightful)
If people want smut, they'll get smut, despite the legal framework attempting to prevent it.
Same with any other behaviour deemed 'antisocial' whether it's porn, drugs, prostitution or [laughs] fireworks, people will find a way to do what they want to do, hence the emergence of black markets. Governments could be profiting from taxing the crap out of this stuff, but instead they drive it underground.
As for rewarding snitches, well, I think you can guess what I think of that too. One big waste of money.
Re:Something important which is rarely noted (Score:4, Insightful)
But morality is legislated in many respects: murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc.... If you don't like it, throw on that GBH album of yours and dream of a day when you don't have to answer to any higher power. Until then, get used to the fact that you're less of an individual than you are a thread in a society that demands you to act in a manner congruent to the general beliefs of those around you. Welcome to planet Earth.
Re:Something important which is rarely noted (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent's example of "porn, drugs, prostitution, and fireworks" are all "victimless crimes" -- they are the actions of consenting people. Their actions might be dangerous to themselves, but they don't directly harm anyone else. There is no violation of basic human rights.
You tried to compare this to murder, rape, robbery, and assault which directly harm someone who didn't consent. In other words, an innocent person's basic rights are being violated.
See the difference? When you make laws against murder, etc. you are protecting innocents. But when you make laws against consentual sex or drugs, you are "protecting" a person against their will -- a violation of their liberty!
So, it's about protecting people's rights vs. violating their rights, but you argue that they're the same. Maybe this is why almost everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but a significant percentage of people disagree wrt. drugs and such. Have you considered the possibility that the ones who support these laws are oppressing the ones they proport to protect? I say the laws themselves are immoral, not the behavior they prohibit!
Re:Something important which is rarely noted (Score:2)
Why do you believe this? The first person who said it was a supporter of racial segregation. Obviously, he was wrong.
You may not be able to make people you find immoral moral through laws, but you can throw them all in jail.
Where can I download the list? (Score:5, Funny)
Why does the Chinese government care? (Score:2)
Re:Why does the Chinese government care? (Score:2)
Porn filtering list (Score:2)
China does not seem to have a firewall... (Score:5, Interesting)
I could find no evidence of a firewall of any kind. I read about the google results, but what else are people talking about?
Pat
Re:China does not seem to have a firewall... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
did you try going to sensitive sites? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:China does not seem to have a firewall... (Score:4, Informative)
The reason is that they are mostly concerned about the minimum effort for maximum results. By paying close attention to Chinese websites, they ensure that only a small percentage of the population can actually see the 'open' web. Sure, some will be able to fire up Google and find some 'bad' stuff, but that's not the majority of Chinese.
If you're a Laowai connecting your laptop in a hotel room, chances are you can surf for porn or political websites as much as you want. But if you're Chinese, and you're dialing up from home, you'll find your options are very limited.
On a side-note, given the connection to Western websites tends to be flaky (even through FTTB such as in my home), it's tough to distinguish between bad connections and censoring. Talk about obscurity through inefficiency.
This is probably happening because... (Score:2)
One small step... (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop online porn? (Score:2)
zerg (Score:2)
Morality (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anybody worried about looking at voilence and death? Is anybody worried about public brain-washing propaganda?
We live in strange times! War and soldiers and stylised to glory and heros, while sex and other fun and is somehow dirty and should be avoided. A strange so called "Morality", indeed!
In Body Pleasure And The Originbs Of Violence [violence.de] James W. Prescott relates the tendency towards violence to general sexual opression. It's worth a read.
(James W. Prescott was employed at the US Public Health Department and layed off five years after he published this document (in 1980), because he wanted to conduct more studies in the area of child abuse and neglect.)
I don't get it.
America is a nation... (Score:3, Insightful)
America is a nation where a thirteen-year-old schoolchild can be let in to watch a movie starring action hero becoming a vigilante and gunning down and knifing all the bad guys that have been trying to get in his way, but where that same thirteen-year-old cannot watch a movie where two people are making love.
America is a nation where exchanging money for sex is illegal everywhere but in parts of a single state
2 things (Score:2)
"Show us those porn sites you've found and get $$$!!!"
Also....I've got to say....if there's one straw that will break the camel's back, or in this case Communist China's back...its porn. Thou shalt NOT deprive a man of porn. Although they haven't really put an effort to kill their sex industry, so who knows.
My Next Job: (Score:4, Funny)
Stuff like KRGKGE.com or 3495ww43.com, etc.
Once the site is up and functioning, I contact a "citizen" in China, who reports the site to the authorities. We split the difference. I keep him fed with pr0n sites, and he sends me money for "finding" them.
Stupid fucking commie bastards. I could set up 50 sites a day. At $125 per, that's a nice piece of green...
RS
RS
I don't get it. (Score:2)
I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me that that's what many politicians are working towards in the US. When they complain about China, are they perhaps just jealous that the Chinese leadership has achieved what they haven't (yet)?
Sounds like a bug-fix bounty to me... (Score:5, Funny)
2) Report it to Chinese officials,
3) Profit!
Re:RIP Christopher Reeve (Score:2, Informative)
No hard feelings for modding me off-topic.
Re:RIP Christopher Reeve (Score:2, Informative)
Re:RIP Christopher Reeve (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Who knew (Score:2)
" Who knew that a communist regime could be moral"
One could muster a good argument that what they are doing is completely immoral actually. Loss of human rights and all that guff.
Perhaps a more accurate term would be moralistic
Re:They don't realize (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it is a commonly-held belief that sex crimes (ie: rape) are more about power and control than sexual gratification. I doubt that porn has much of an impact in that respect.
Re:They don't realize (Score:3, Informative)
I've heard various reports the availability of pornography reduces the occurrences of sex crimes. After a guy jerks off to porn, he has much less incentive to go out and do something unlawful to get off.