IOC Admits Internet Censorship Deal With China 380
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.
Not Patriotism... Money (Score:5, Insightful)
[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)
Exactly, there's a HUGE amount of money in this. So what China wants, China gets.
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a new friend. Brilliantly said.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:4, Funny)
If the Wichita Weekly Sentinel ain't reporting it, it ain't news!
Re:Obama's shady dealings? (Score:5, Informative)
For starters, his corrupt close relationship with a slumlord who's now in prison for bribery of Illinois officials [suntimes.com], who just "happened" to then give Obama a $300,000 "deal" on a house and later another $600,000 "deal" on a plot of land next door to expand Obama's yard space.
And then there's the borderline illegal tactics Obama used to get into political office in the first place [cnn.com] by preventing his opponents' names from being on the ballot, while Rezko was bankrolling his first campaign...
I've lived an hour from Obama's house. Trust me when I say I know him from the days before he went on this big campaign: the man is dirtier than a Lousiana mayor.
Re:Obama's shady dealings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Borderline illegal is the way of saying "it is legal, but I don't like it"
Actual quote from the article: Watch Burns describe how Obama used the rules to his advantage
Real fair and unbiased. Really...
So he went out there and checked to make sure that their signitures on the ballots were taken in a legal method? This is somehow "dirty" or "underhanded"? Granted, one guy didn't get to run because he was 67 signitures away from having his required number, but then it was his fault for not double checking to make sure he was following the law. I have no problem with a potential president who wants rule by law.
How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?
Re:Obama's shady dealings? (Score:5, Insightful)
"How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?"
Why aren't you upset that he's dirty in the first place, regardless of whether he's "dirtier" than anyone else?
Well Said! (Score:5, Informative)
And to answer the PP:
So, he knew a guy who had a company that had one big financial issue, and did 5 hours of work for him in the 6 years he was in office. And this suddenly makes him a huge criminal?
No, he:
-actually refuses to release the records showing how much work he actually did.
-is on record as naming the guy as one of his "best friends."
-Got nearly a million dollars' "discount" from the guy on his house in two deals, in addition to extremely sizable donations to every one of his campaigns.
So he went out there and checked to make sure that their signitures on the ballots were taken in a legal method?
No, he tied up the petitions to get on the ballot in legal maneuvering till the due-date expired. Plus, keeping people off the ballot is what they do in socialist/communist countries like China and Cuba and Venezuela, not civilized countries.
I have no problem with a potential president who wants rule by law.
I'd love to have one. Too bad neither the Democrats nor Republicans are running one.
How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?
It makes him just as dirty. And you should, as the above responder mentions, instead be asking the question: why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
Re:Well Said! (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes him just as dirty. And you should, as the above responder mentions, instead be asking the question: why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
I don't know - maybe because it reminds them of FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and Clinton, to name a few from the last hundred years? I'm not saying the Republicans are angels by any stretch when it comes to campaign shenanigans - but then they aren't the ones trying to claim the moral high ground, generally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying the Republicans are angels by any stretch when it comes to campaign shenanigans - but then they aren't the ones trying to claim the moral high ground, generally.
Who are you kidding? Both sides ALWAYS try to claim the moral high ground. If they can't, then they try to knock the other side off the high ground. Neither side is any cleaner than the other. People just tend to pick a side and then turn a blind eye to that side's dirty dealing while demonizing the other side. I think that makes them feel that there is at least a good side out there. Otherwise they'd have to face the truth: powerful people don't get that way by following the rules. They get that way
Re:Well Said! (Score:5, Insightful)
> why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
A better question is how you got the idea that a major political party of a large country is going to be able to find and select an experienced, electable candidate who isn't dirty?
Personally, I find it safest to assume that anyone willingly participating in national level politics is probably a scumbag.
c.
Re:Well Said! (Score:4, Interesting)
If there is any dirt to be broadcast on Obama I'm sure Fox and Rush are broadcasting it so its not like there is any sweeping conspiracy that will keep it all secret. Its still common for Fox anchors to intentionally confuse Obama's name with Osama Bin Laden and imply he is secretly a Muslim terrorist infiltrating the government as some Al Qaeda plot. Media bias cuts both ways now, get over it.
Maybe part of the problem is this country desperately needs a new President that doesn't suck as bad as the current one, and then we run in to the problem that all politicians suck, especially these days. Unfortunately power corrupts, politicians are practitioners of power, so they all tend to be somewhere between a little or very corrupt. We are just extremely aware of it these days thanks to the internet and saturation media coverage of campaigns and candidates.
If the media destroys them all we will basically be left with no one qualified running the country, kind of like the situation we've had for the last 8 years.
I should point out George W. got his fortune from a sweetheart deal with his dads rich friends, who gave him a giant cut of the Texas Rangers, which he later cashed out at a huge profit with almost no risk on his part. There is also the fact he was busted for cocaine possession in Texas though his connections kept him out of a felony conviction that would have killed his political career. And of course its a near certainty he for all practical purposes deserted the National Guard which his family connections got him in to ahead of others to keep him out of Vietnam. He may have bailed on the Guard because the Guard started testing for Cocaine, which he was using, and didn't want to get caught. He didn't even fulfill the very modest requirements of his guard service and got a free pass and again his connections managed to destroy all the incriminating records. None of this stopped him from becoming President so where was the liberal media bias from 1999 through 2004. Rather was the only one he tried to make an issue out of it and he was destroyed. Why did the "liberal" media behead one of their own if there was a grand liberal conspiracy.
McCain isn't exactly better. You may forget but he was one of the "Keating Five" and was knee deep in the corruption of the Savings and Loan scandals in the 1980's and was doing favors for Keating who was one of the most famous and corrupt execs in the S&L scandal.
We could switch to Hillary though she has shady dealings on Whitewater, the Rose law firm, missing records and host of other scandals from the Clinton presidency none of which quite stuck but didn't go away either.
So I suspect the "media bias" you see these days is the "liberal" media is biting the bullet and embracing Obama because there just isn't anyone better. At least he is very smart, charismatic, a good speaker and is a complete change from the disaster of the last eight years. I think at this point a lot of the liberal media, and a whole lot of the rest of America just wants the Republican gone, and Obama is the man for better or worse. The Republican have no one but themselves to blame, since they had it all, until their hubrus, arrogance, corruption and incompetence completely burned their bridges with the American people.
If we keep playing the gotcha politics you are going to end up with someone with a squeaky clean record but who is totally incompetent, or like the last eight years someone who is incompetent and still corrupt like Bush.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Media bias cuts both ways now, get over it.
Actually, you might be interested in real studies on the matter. Here's one from UCLA [ucla.edu] (hardly a right-wing place), which determines that drudge, fox news, etc are actually pretty damn even and not as right-wing as you claim, while the "traditional" media lean FAR left.
I should point out George W...
You don't have to convince me here. All I want to know is how much Mexican bribery money he and his cronies like Johnny Sutton get every year to keep the border open and
Re:Well Said! (Score:5, Informative)
My God, media bias isn't something you can quantify in a study, its in the eyes of the beholder. You also have to decide where the middle is. The middle in the U.S. has moved dramatically to the right in recent years, since Reagan and especially since 9/11. The middle in most of Europe would be considered very liberal in the U.S. I think most of the world thinks the middle in the U.S. is now hovering dangerously close to right wing nut job.
The accuracy of the study was shredded when they said Fox wasn't biased. I'm sure when Fox is reporting generic wire news they don't have much bias, no one does, but everyone of their stars and commentators drips right wing bias, every time they cover politics they drip bias. Bill Kristol and Karl Rove are two of their star contributors, say no more. Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes politics are well known and they created Fox News to carry news from their political perspective. They are constantly cheerleading the Bush administration and the Republicans. The night of the 2006 elections their entire election team was crushed because the Republicans got clocked and their run was over.
CNN was blatantly liberal biased when Ted Turned ran it, it was no secret. Since Turner was replaced by Time Warner and CNN was getting clocked by Fox their liberal bias completely evaporated, at least at CNN US. CNN International is still pretty liberal but its based in Europe, and Europe is extremely liberal compared to the U.S. I can barely tell CNN America from Fox any more, and the quality of their reporting has completely cratered. The New York Time is indisputably liberal, its one of the last liberal bastions, lucky for the right, newspapers are dieing. CBS and Katie I can't detect political bias because she is so fixated on human interest stories most of the time. Gibson and Williams again I can't see the bias, but maybe I'm biased, and there is so little editorial left on the network news anyway since Rather was beheaded.
"He ran with a bad story, and rather than admit that he'd been snookered, he kept screaming about how obvious forgeries were "genuine" till CBS had no choice but to axe him."
It wasn't a bad story, it was an accurate story which is how Rather tripped himself up. He knew it was true, he was desperate to influence the election and stop another four years of madness and stuck his neck out too far. The problem was all the original documents were destroyed by the Bushistas. They certainly were by the time Bush was governor of Texas since he controlled all his records as Governor of Texas. The forgery was described by the secretary for the Guard commander as being about right, it just wasn't the original unfortunately. The original was probably burned long ago.
"Bob Barr would make a decent candidate"
Excepting even the Republican party wouldn't nominate him because he is a Libertarian and a real conservative and the Republican party doesn't remember what real conservatism is any more, they've fallen so far. No telling what skeletons he has in his closet if he gets put under the microscope.
"You mean like Jimmy Carter? Obama is dangerously close to him both in policies and experience level. And you remember the damage Carter did to us in just four years."
Well, then like now the Republicans elected him by being so corrupt and morally bankrupt the voters were going to throw them out no matter who was running against them.
I don't remember Carter well enough to remember exactly how good or bad he was, and the post mortem on him is completely biased against him now. I remember the whole of the establishment, Wall Street, the military, Republicans hated him and worked to make him fail. They did the same thing to Kennedy, Clinton and Truman. Johnson destroyed himself with Vietnam. Unfortunately most of the people with the real power and money in the U.S. are conservatives and Republican's and they routinely do everything in their power to destroy liberal Presidents and they generally succeed because they h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you might be interested in real studies on the matter. Here's one from UCLA [ucla.edu] (hardly a right-wing place), which determines that drudge, fox news, etc are actually pretty damn even and not as right-wing as you claim, while the "traditional" media lean FAR left.
Well, that seems to depend on your reference point. Americans have a very wide range of media sources to get their news from, and they can choose to change the news sources they consume anytime they like. In comparison they've got an entrenched two party political system you can only change every four years. (And believe me, from an outsider's perspective it's sometimes extremely difficult to tell your two parties apart)
Both the average political leaning of your media and your elected representatives pres
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You mean like Jimmy Carter? Obama is dangerously close to him both in policies and experience level. And you remember the damage Carter did to us in just four years."
Damage?
Oh, you mean by correctly predicting the energy crisis and proposing serious workable solutions, anticipating Peak Oil by three decades?
And then getting run out of town for his honesty and far-sightedness?
That kind of damage?
You could use a lot more Jimmy Carters, and if Obama is a tenth of the US President he was, you folks will be cou
Re:Obama's shady dealings? (Score:5, Informative)
Mmm. Well, first, the bit about "borderline illegal" tactics by Obama is just kinda bullshit. From the linked article:
So, by "borderline illegal," you mean, "a completely legal application of the electoral rules of Chicago that sounds fairly well in keeping with the political climate in the city?"
As for the Rezko thing, here's a better article (same author, more recent):
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article [suntimes.com]
So, there's the $300k under asking price sale from a doctor in Kenwood, not Rezko. The next door purchase of the vacant lot seems odd, but then of course, Obama did buy a bit of land for $104,500.
So your assertion that they gave Obama a deal on the house is merely untrue. That the gave him another deal on the plot of land next door is inaccurate - they bought it for ~600k, but he only bought a chunk of it. The most you could say is that the Rezkos somehow bought the land at full price to buy off the doctor to get him to sell Obama the house more cheaply, but that's at best a circumstantial argument.
Further, one thing I didn't see is any allegation of quid pro quo for the supposed payoff.
I fail to see why I or anyone else should take you at your word about Obama's supposed dirtiness. I see one bullshitty allegation, and one allegation that may be shady or may just be a stupid move that's relatively innocent.
Re:The AC had it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course. I should have uncritically accepted the allegations without proof. And my initial failure was compounded by critically examining the evidence presented and finding it wanting.
Ha. Well, then I guess there's no point in talking about it. You're so invested in thinking Obama a shady slimebag, you'll grasp at the thinnest of evidence as ironclad proof.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks for digging that one up. (Score:2)
I pointed out two more in a response above.
Interesting how the obamabots are desperately now downmodding my original post to try to hide even this. Imagine what would happen if more people actually knew the truth about their candidate?
Re:Not Patriotism... Money (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Yes, It could be the 100m BASH... since you mentioned bludgeoning I assumed I'd help out :-]
Wrong about Chinese reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
No problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Browse through a VPN to company HQ.
Or are VPNs banned too?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Why... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
No..... (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Mainstream media is covering it. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?"
Re:Mainstream media is covering it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What can they really do? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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:What can they really do? (Score:5, Interesting)
South Africa was banned from the Olympics for over twenty years because of Apartheid. Mind you, back then, it's unlikely that the IOC would have picked Johannesburg as a host city.
Everyone knew this was going to happen. They knew the Butchers of Beijing weren't going to truly open things up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What can *you* really do? Don't watch... (Score:2)
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
Surprise... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The conservative blogosphere isn't ignoring it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"...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 no longer worried about the Olympics (Score:3, Interesting)
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,
Re:The conservative blogosphere isn't ignoring it (Score:4, Insightful)
Not Suprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
or they could ignore it (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Only one thing left to do.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Only one thing left to do.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm automatically excluding every brand on my purchase list as long as they feature ads in the Olympics theme or sponsor the Olympics.
Re:Only one thing left to do.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
The IOC lied? My God, I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Not patriotism, business (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Every site deemed sensitive to China's communist leadership should add something about the Olympics on their website to become "Games related".
Ban porn... (Score:2)
IOC and China are a perfect match (Score:5, Funny)
One is ruled by ruthless despots. And so is China.
So, quit reporting (Score:2)
My Mother Tried This Approach With Me In 1964 (Score:4, Funny)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
What books did they exactly keep in there, or were they the books any kid at a young age wouldn't wanna come across?
I gotta remember that trick (Score:4, Funny)
When I want my kids to start reading I'll do that to them too. "Don't read these Evil Books!"
seriously... is anyone suprised by this? (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
"Dave writes:" (Score:2)
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.
Problem for reporters, but who else? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
IOC: Its OK To Block Bad Religions (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:IOC: Its OK To Block Bad Religions (Score:5, Funny)
Who would do better at the 100m freestyle, Jesus or Mohammad?
Jesus, he would sprint to the finishline.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But the finish line would come to Mohammed.
Blocking and the press (Score:2, Troll)
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.
As they would cooperate with the western censors. (Score:2)
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.
Ahh, the Olympics... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice summary... not (Score:3, Funny)
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. ... Oh.
IOC: OK.
China: Now, don't argue with- wait... what?
IOC: We said OK.
China:
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!
I thought the promise was.. (Score:3, Interesting)
..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.
DELETE PARENT: Copyright violation (Score:5, Informative)
I hate crap-tastic 'news' websites as much as the next guy, but PLEASE do not EVER copy the entire text of a copyrighted article into the Slasdhot comments. You are inviting a lawsuit by the copyright holder against Slashdot. Slashdot can probably pass on the buck to you, maybe, but since you posted as anonymous coward, that probably leaves /. holding the buck. Setup your own damn website to violate copyright.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
IOC admits Internet censorship deal with China [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DELETE PARENT: Copyright violation (Score:5, Insightful)
As you said, this happens here all the time and has for more than a decade. Have you ever heard of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/01/03/16/1256226.shtml [slashdot.org] - only time I've heard of.