Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Censorship The Internet News

China Sets New Rules On Internet News 340

auckland map writes "China set new regulations on Internet news content which ban the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest. Established news media needed permission to run a news Web site, while new operators had to register themselves with government information offices. This move further widens a campaign of controls Chinese government has imposed on web sites, communication, leisure and businesses." From the article: "The state bans the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest ... [internet news sites] must be directed toward serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Sets New Rules On Internet News

Comments Filter:
  • How primitive (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:28AM (#13649642)
    In America, we just have all news produced by a relatively small set of companies that are politically sympathetic to the ruling political power. That way, it's automatically censored. No governemnt bureaucracy to get in the way. As always, we're the leaders.
  • by It doesn't come easy ( 695416 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:32AM (#13649666) Journal
    The last great communistic/socialistic/whatever government on the planet. This is akin to the Berlin Wall or the Iron Curtain. Now we have the Digital Curtain (I just made that up, heh, or maybe I read it and subconsciously made it my own -- who knows...).

    Wonder how long they can stand up to the onslaught of information not controlled by the state?
  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:43AM (#13649730)
    China seems usually slow to use their power - they try asserting control over something carefully. Markets, freedoms, social networks - they can all be controlled, as long as you assert yourself very slowly over decades. They seem to have had some level of respect for the Internet, though it has gotten away from them in many ways, they're likely very used to that with social networks. But, like with America, the exceptions aren't so dangerous as converting the easilly convinced that the freedom of the internet is not as important as loyalty to the state.

    Now, they seem to be getting more confident over their control - or else just want to send the message that they are confident. Is this confidence real, is it a false message, or could they be fooling themselves? I for one can't know - but it seems fairly conservative compared to the controls they could exert. It remains to be seen how they will enforce this, or try to make these new rules matter in the minds of their citizens.

    The other source of confidence, of course, would be in the inability for outside forces to act against the growing market importance of China. China has done a great job of controlling the markets they act conservatively to control - now they get to reap the growing political benefit of that control. Perhaps eventually, their sheer political mass may allow them to finantially eliminate critics afar... I for one fear the day they begin to truly adopt intellectual property laws. Not because they are an especially malicious force compared to other governments, but because they are humans concentrating a great ammount of power, who may begin to assert ownership of ideas more powerfully than ever before.

  • Re:No, not reall (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:58AM (#13649827)
    reminds me of when cheney said "we have to expect to give up some liberties in the name of freedom"

    all words and no meaning.
  • by kamapuaa ( 555446 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @09:37AM (#13650089) Homepage
    I can't imagine too many Chinese would be able to get onto Slashdot.

    I'm reading (and writing this) from Shanghai, without using any proxy server.

  • Cuba... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LinuxInDallas ( 73952 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @09:42AM (#13650134)
    All this crap from China and we still do business with them. Meanwhile Americans can't even travel to Cuba. What's the deal? Is it all economics?
  • by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @10:06AM (#13650340) Homepage Journal
    Here [] is a pretty good explanation. It's important to note that they are, under the current administration, almost always kept completely out of the President's sight and hearing.
  • Free speech zone (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MECC ( 8478 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @10:17AM (#13650419)

    China is becoming one big free speech zone, [] George Bush style []

  • by Kev_Stewart ( 737140 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @10:24AM (#13650474)
    and a lot of Chinese people regard ANY news source as not entirely trustworthy - even foreign sources. From what I saw, they got almost all their information via gossip or text message.
  • yep! She was also (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BitterAndDrunk ( 799378 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @10:52AM (#13650669) Homepage Journal
    She was also the leader of the Young Republicans on her college campus.

    So she hasn't strayed too far, politically. ;)

  • Re:Holy crap! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @11:25AM (#13650924)
    Blair is alot of things, most of all he is not a Socialist. The labor party defined it self as a 'Democratic Socialist party' (Yes, there is a big difference between Social Democrats and Socialists, the latter are usually more radical). Today New Labor has flushed most of the original Social Democratic ideals of the Labor party down the toilet. The best descritpion of him that I have yet to hear is that he is: "... a tory infiltrator in the Labor party who by some fantastic chain of events managed to become it's leader". People have even speculated about whether or not he is a Neocon []. Labor may have started out as a left wing party but today they have migrated considerably further to the Right of the policial spectrum.
  • by pikine ( 771084 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:18PM (#13652292) Journal
    You have to realize that, not withstanding Articles 35 and 41, any right of speech, publication, or suggestions of criticisms on state organ must be made with the premise to protect the unity of the state. As long as you establish your loyalty to the state, it doesn't mean the government can randomly throw you in jail or run you over with tanks.

    This is often overlooked by the "freedom fighters." They try to fight the system itself rather than fight under the accordance of the system. Take the open source versus proprietary war for example. There may exist open source extremists who would run around erasing copies of Windows and install Linux. However, some open source developers also make their software available for Windows, so even Windows users have choice. The difference is that, when you're promoting choice using open source software, you have to recognize that those who are using proprietary software also have a choice.

    The goodie bag stuff for freedom defender is that, although you promote whatever you believe, freedom of speech or what not, there are people who choose to live happily under the current system of the state and the constitution. You simply shouldn't cause disturbance to other people's lives in the name of freedom. You have to find a way to defend your rights while preserving the unity of state.

    This has been necessary for China in the past century due to extreme poverty and scacity of resources. It had been too costly to tear down a system and build a new one. If you want to improve the system, you must find a way to do that without disruption. That's the historical background of this constitution.

    And think about why even Linus wouldn't approve some radical changes to the Linux kernel.
  • by LionKimbro ( 200000 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:23PM (#13653303) Homepage
    I just want to note:

    That guy [] didn't get run over by the tank. I'm using the very same resource you just linked.

    He was ordered to be run over, but the tank driver refused to follow those orders. (The tank driver was later arrested.)

    You wrote: "Be very happy if you live in a country to whom rights are more than words on a sheet of paper."

    I recognize that our rights are more than words on a sheet of paper. But I'm a little more interested in what people will do.

    In this case, the tank driver resisted an order to kill.

    I frequently wonder: Would an American do the same? I remember WACO, and I note many places where our media is clearly subserviant to the US government.

    We must take refuge in more than just our rights, we need to think about the spirit behind those rights.

    In this respect, I think Americans are much weaker.

    Chinese know that they resist their government. Americans do not.
  • by Jherek Carnelian ( 831679 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:21PM (#13654625)
    No, I don't understand.

    Given his odd word choice through the post, I'm thinking the author is at least native mainland chinese, probably immigrated to the US. Within that context, I think his post is an attempt to explain Chinese thought on China's system and not the way the world in general should be.

    It is interesting to compare the part about some people just being happy with the way things are and not wanting to rock the boat. I read somewhere (probably here) recently that 70-80% of the colonial population were not interested in breaking with the British. It was only the 'agitators' who wanted to form a new country. That such a small proportion of the population could drag the rest along into such a huge change in direction is interesting, and probably terrifying to the chinese goverment.

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.