Vietnam Imposes New Blogging Restrictions 206
GMAW is one of many to mention that the Vietnam government has approved a new set of regulations aimed at bloggers. The new restrictions ban bloggers from discussing certain subjects that the government deems sensitive or inappropriate. Not only are the topics limited, but bloggers are being directed to only write about issues that directly impact their personal lives. "The rules, which were approved Dec. 18, attempt to rein in Vietnam's booming blogosphere. It has become an alternative source of news for many in the communist country, where the media is state-controlled. The new rules require Internet companies that provide blogging platforms to report to the government every six months and provide information about bloggers on request."
Didn't they choose Communism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't they choose Communism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of them chose communism. A lot of them didn't. Having lived and worked over there (on a Linux related project even) I know good Vietnamese there who supported South Vietnam and the US. After the south fell they spent years in re-education camps. They had been to the US in the 60's and received training on computers and electronics. Now they don't own a single thing and are kept out of any good paying job by the communists who still seek to push the former South Vietnamese. They live in poverty even poor Americans cannot imagine. It is very sad what they are doing to their own country. But the poor brainwashed people of Vietnam still support communism.
I'm not sure we can really fault the poor and uneducated who chose communism. They were starving and were just looking for a better way. They did not have access to world news or history classes from their villages and only knew what they received in the form of propaganda.
But we can definitely fault the corrupt communist leadership for taking advantage of these poor people and making millions of them pay with their lives.
No, they didn't (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you haven't heard of it, Vietnam didn't become a communist state as a result of some democratic process. Military force [wikipedia.org] was involved, with the help of foreign [wikipedia.org] powers [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The USSR and China got more than equal match in Vietnam in the USA... still, it wasn't any of those countries that won or lost the war. It was, indeed, the fact that the North had more popular support, like it or not.
Of course, this is actually quite sensible. Vietnam commies weren't originally that - they were just a bunch of "freedom fighters" struggling against foreign powers occupying their land. They didn't really have any specific political agenda outside of that, but they looked around, and it so hap
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, the previous generation choosed communist, but it was the only way to gain independence back then. We have China (ROC) in the north, the French in the South. And the only force that can prevent us from being enslave one again is the communist.
So at least we got a bed to sleep ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, as I recall, the choices the Vietnamese faced then were communism, French colonism, or democracy under Ngo Dinh Diem, an corrupt extremist autocratic thug who routinely abused human rights, rigged elections and polls, and used his military to crush any groups who criticized him or who weren't Catholic. In any case, the South Vietnamese didn't really choose communism. They were stuck with it, mostly because of the corrupt of their "democratic" leader and the ineptitude of the South Vietnamese army, grea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Communism is a loaded propaganda term that's basically meaningless, but I'm guessing you mean "strong state socialism", which is an economic system. Strong state socialism with free communication and democracy would be an interesting experiment - we can see weak state socialism, working great, in Northern Europe.
Saying that Communism means Totalitarian Socialism would be like saying Capitalism means Fascism. It's certainly the way it was presented as a propaganda term during the cold war, but it's not terr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although to be fair, it was technically the previous generation that made the bed.
It's pretty easy to choose Communism when Democracy is blowing your babies in half.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trend was towards Communism before the war started, IIRC.
Which war would that be, French, British, American or Chinese?
Re: (Score:2)
British? I think you mean Japanese.
So I guess no... (Score:5, Funny)
Communist? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Communist? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is absolutely true. They have a stock market and everything. They are very capitalist in that even the communist leaders are playing the markets, making investments, and trying to acquire as much wealth as they can. The free market is definitely in effect. The big difference is that there is little transparency and no real regulations to ensure that it is a fair market. So corruption is everywhere destroying the efficiency of the market. You are right: Is is capitalism without democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
"The free market is definitely in effect. The big difference is that there is little transparency and no real regulations to ensure that it is a fair market."
Sounds like capitalism at its finest.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. For capitalism to work it requires a fair market. This is why Vietnam is not really seeing the benefits of capitalism and remains quite poor with very bad infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
"For capitalism to work it requires a fair market."
That's why capitalism doesn't work, since it never guarantees a fair market. Only a goverment can through rules and regulations try to approach a fair market. The essence of a company is to subvert all those rules and regulations and become the most powerfull company in existance. That's how you explain abusive monopolies and lobbyists. They come from the center of all the greed of a company. The invisible hand of Adam Smith is simply a powerfull force(most
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really believe that the only form of capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism?
I could very well say that government doesn't work because it always leads to totalitarian regimes. You could respond that government isn't only totalitarian and can have checks and balances... but the same thing can be said of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say it requires a perfectly fair market. The more fair it is the better it works. Even Vietnam is seeing some small level of prosperity today thanks to their change towards a free market economy instead of a command driven economy. The average American would say most of them live in squalor but it is better there now than it has ever been.
I don't know where you live but here in the US we lead lives like faery tales compared to most people in the world (although most of us have not traveled enough
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is Korea, one of the largest-scale social experiments of all times. I'm not sure if the nort
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent I think a lot of the economic growth (especially wrt South Korea) just had to do with Western backing and not press/individual freedoms or the "seed of... political help" as you say. South Korea lived under a dictatorship for a good part of its post-war history, but we supported their dictator against the North's Soviet-backed dictator. Wiki reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee [wikipedia.org] - the bit about torture of political opponents makes a crackdown on blogging seem tame all of Vie
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Vietnam is communism in name only (not even that since it calls itself socialist).
That in itself doesn't mean much. I thought most communist countries call themselves socialist, I think it still fits within the term, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Some of those countries and the communist countries that don't call themselves socialist call themselves democratic.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, you even show that Vietnam cannot be called communistic as you quote one of Marx's criteria, namely collect
Re: (Score:2)
There is *a lot* to read up on in order to understand it, but hopefully I can summarize it without too many errors...
During WWII in 1945, Japan took formal control over Vietnam and installed Bao Dai as Emperor of the Empire of Vietnam. When the Japanese surrendered that same year, a nationalist Vietnamese independence movement called Vietminh among other smaller nationalist groups took over. The Emperor abdicates and becomes the head of a new government in Hanoi. Ho Chi Minh read the Declaration of Independ
Re: (Score:2)
Just a few minor points:
While the Japanese didn't formally take control of Vietnam until 45, they were basically handed control when the Vichy government took over in France. The Viet Minh existed before WWII, and were armed by the US in order to keep the Japanese busy.
Ho Chi Minh was involved in laying the groundwork for the communist revolution in China, but his real ties were Soviet. The PRC and USSR didn't get along too well, which ultimately led to the conflict between Vietnam (USSR backed) and Cambodi
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the corrections.
In retrospect, I think it's easier to say now that Ho Chi Minh would have been better than it was then. As you said, roughly 90% of Vietnamese were Buddhist. There was a growing Catholic minority. Both groups feared the potential for violent religious persecution under communist rule after seeing what happened in China. Diem milked those fears heavily.
I always remember this story (possibly an urban legend) about Johnson insulting Minh once early on, and Minh in turn implying th
And this is why we have.... (Score:2)
....anonymous re-mailers and such...hosted at universities of law.
No more "Surf Vietnam"? (Score:2)
What the Pho? (Score:4, Informative)
The new restrictions ban bloggers from discussing certain subjects that the government deems sensitive or inappropriate. Not only are the topics limited, but bloggers are being directed to only write about issues that directly impact their personal lives.
If I was a Vietnamese blogger, the new restrictions would directly impact my personal life.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the Streisand effect (Score:2)
If history has taught us anything, it's that every attempt to suppress freedom is met with one very simple response: underground movements. People don't stop doing what they want to do, just because some smartass in a suit doesn't approve - they just "hide". Drugs, gambling, prostitution... these things haven't disappeared as a result of laws prohibiting them, nor will freedom of speech.
Bloggers will use concealed identities and secure channels to divulge the information they want to divulge. The more im
technology-specific laws are bound to deprecate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The closest thing perhaps to communism would be the isolated communities of indigenous peoples. While the closest thing to capitalism would be Hong Kong.
Re:Necessity (Score:5, Insightful)
Communism like capitalism is an economic model and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, religion or human rights.
Communism as espoused by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto required the use of public education as an instrument of social control, the destruction of the traditional family and the destruction of traditional religion.
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis"
"The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention"
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."
There is of course some context to these quotes, which you can check out for yourself - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt [gutenberg.org]
I don't think it is unreasonable to use the Communist Manifesto to answer the question "What is communism?". The answer most definitely has everything to do with freedom of speech, religion and human rights.
Keep your newspeak to yourself. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nothing like that at all. Communism is a political philosophy not a science. Evolutionary theory has changed in response to new evidence, as you w
Re: (Score:2)
Disclamer: IANA Expert on Communism... but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night (err... I mean, I have read the Communist Manifesto)
In the Communist Manifesto Marx calls freedom of the press a "bourgeois freedom". Although I don't think he called outright for censorship as necessary for Communism, he certainly didn't think press freedom was an important concern.
I also don't buy the idea that Communism is just an economic model. Again, I've only read the Manifesto and a couple other excerpts fro
Re: (Score:3)
While you are correct, the Communism being referred to is the history-free Communism-lite popular on college campuses which really amounts to nothing more than a kindergarten-level notion that 'sharing is good'.
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't mean that they don't really believe it. Its not hard to understand that a benevolent dictator would rather have distractions and sensitive subjects removed from public discourse.
The fable of "The Emporor's Clothes" is popular for a reason. Not only does it represent an issue that exists throughout the ages, but it is also a criticism of that kind of mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not hard to understand that a benevolent dictator would rather have distractions and sensitive subjects removed from public discourse.
Yes, it is, actually, at least to me. I don't see how "benevolent" and "seeks to suppress truth and freedom" can be reconciled. (Not to mention "dictator", but that was obvious.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is, actually, at least to me. I don't see how "benevolent" and "seeks to suppress truth and freedom" can be reconciled. (Not to mention "dictator", but that was obvious.)
Don't get me wrong - I don't believe it is ever a good idea. But I can imagine the mindset that justifies it and truly believe it to be right.
To that mind, they have the right answers to their population's problems. Criticism from the population simply serves to distract people from the right, chosen course. It also might threaten that population's standing with its neighbors - a matter of airing dirty laundry in public. For the good of that population, it is best if malcontents simply keep it to themse
Re: (Score:2)
He probably does buy into it. Just think how many people in the west would buy a clampdown on bloggers if they were told it was to "fight terrorism" or "protect the children".
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think like you actually.
About 10 years ago I got into a discussion with an American on the topic of what you can say and cannot say. It happened to be around Ernst Zundel in Canada. I said it was quite alright for the state to censor speech, etc, etc.
My American friend said, "oh really..."
He then put up the argument and said, "With him muzzled will he stop thinking what he is thinking? Will it stop his cronies to stop thinking what he is? Will it even stop the hate?"
I argued many things and basica
Re:Necessity (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he's saying is that governments who drive subversive speech underground aren't really doing themselves, or their citizens, any favors. Ideas don't need sunlight to grow.
Look at the US's case. We don't criminalize any speech, really, except kiddie porn and direct incitements to violence. (The McCain-Feingold campaign funding law is an arguable subject but there it's funding and timing, not content as such, that is involved.) So any nutcase with a chip on his shoulder can propagate the most outlandish, hateful tripe you could imagine. Things that would get him prosecuted in much of the EU, or executed in China.
What happens as a result? Not a damn thing. The resulting cacophony of dissidence just raises the "noise floor" of popular discourse. No radical point of view gains any more traction than it would have if it were aggressively suppressed by the government; if anything, we've become a more conservative nation since the Internet gave the nutcases their soapbox.
Suppressing speech is always pointless at best, and more likely counterproductive.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, you can't forget the essentially-equivalent effect of media censorship versus government censorship. However, the topic at hand concerns individual bloggers being punished for speech on the Web.
Re:Necessity (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is that in Vietnam, it's possible to die in a Blogging accident?
Re: (Score:2)
This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders.
No, there aren't. There isn't even one legitimate reason for a state to censor what its citizens have to say, about anything or to anyone, as long as what they're saying is either truthful or obviously fictitious (eg, I could see not wanting someone to publish that election polling places have closed when they're still open, or the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theater).
And while they may have the best interests of their constituents at heart, there's another proverb that relates to that: the road t
Re:Necessity (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno if that's true. Though the only time that comes to mind is in times of (actual) war. The citizens should not allowed to publish the locations and troop strengths of army regiments, for example; it may directly endanger those soldiers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though the only time that comes to mind is in times of (actual) war.
Governments all over the world frequently ask newspapers not to report stories.
Sometimes the Government claims 'National Security' and other times they just ask nicely.
Every now and then, a newspaper says no and a government scandal is born.
All you're really saying is that Western Nations aren't as blatant about their censorship...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments all over the world frequently ask newspapers not to report stories.
Sometimes the Government claims 'National Security' and other times they just ask nicely.
Every now and then, a newspaper says no and a government scandal is born.
All you're really saying is that Western Nations aren't as blatant about their censorship...
I think the larger point is that the US and other nations with inherent freedom of the press have to ask news outlets to hold a story. In Vietnam, I'm quite certain they simply tell the press what they can and cannot say. One of those pesky little "checks and balances" Communism doesn't have to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking primarily of the boneheaded "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" horseshit. (Obviously, specifics of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would fall under this, but that sure as hell isn't part of the same thing.)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that if some Joe Random Civilian knows enough about locations and troop strengths of army regiments to interest the enemy, then the army already screwed up. Perhaps they ought to be encouraging that kind of posting, to flush out what is already out of the bag (and perhaps to spread misinformation through people making shit up, as people will do).
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of "you shouldn't say this," the government should be engaging in even more secrecy?
You do know that there are civilians on bases, even in war zones? Civilians who talk? Soldiers who talk (especially in the age of the internets, where even soldiers have nearly unfettered access to commmunications)? It's infeasible for that to be perfect. Having the backup of "if you attempt to screw us, it's PMITA prison for you" is a deterrent from exacerbating those leaks.
No need for censorship. (Score:2)
People who are so credulous they will not check if the polling places are actually closed shouldn't vote. They will believe any promises the politicians make. As for shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, if I can't smell smoke or see flames, I would calmly stand up and walk (not run) to the nearest exit.
I think the only limits to freedom of speech
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of speech restriction, but denying the fire in a theatre one while embracing the HIV one just makes no sense. Both are situations where, by issuing a contrafactual statement, somebody can induce (some) others to act in a manner likely to be seriously harmful to themselves and others.
Re:Necessity (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, it's fascist bull just as we suspected. I lived in Vietnam for a year, married a Vietnamese woman, and spend at least two weeks there every year since. They have no legitimate need to censor the net other than to keep the current corrupt officials in power.
Re: (Score:2)
I learn best by example (Score:2)
Could you provide an example?
Re: (Score:2)
This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders. Most of these actions truly do have the welfare of the citizens and their crucial security in mind. These things are done to preserve their life most of the time.
No there aren't, no they don't, and no they aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Vietnam is small and weak, huh? I'll be sure to mention that to my Vietnamese friends when I get back home (and hope I don't get my ass beat). While we're at it, you might want to mention that to China, who tried to come in and take over after they gave us Americans the boot. Oh, and tell Cambodia and Laos how weak Vietnam is, too.
Re:Necessity (Score:4, Funny)
No, it wasn't a troll. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a "-50,000 Gormless Cretin" moderation category, the "troll" rating often gets used as a substitute.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
that he agrees with you completely?
Well played, sir (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points. mod up parent!
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there may be more than one side to a story doesn't mean they're all equally correct, in either a factual or moral view. A view *might* be popular because it happens to be *right*.
Re: (Score:2)
> because I pointed out a side that does not match the circumstances being discussed and in general violates the beliefs of the entire free world?
There, fixed that for you.
Debate clubs are just that, clubs, where arguing for or against "a side" doesn't matter. In the real world, it does matter. It matters a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like your "troll" mod was well-deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong on every point.
*sigh* You know, if you're gonna continue with this bullshit, you could at least try to make it believable, rather than making provably false assertions.
Either back up your statements with facts (examples of "very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders" would be a good start) or just STFU.
Go troll Digg.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong on every point. My reference is not to emotion but to fact.
Ok, let's go to the Merriam-Webster and look at your use of the word "fact". The closest definition to what you're describing is as follows:
Fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
This means that most rational people will view a "fact" as unvarying from person to person. "The sky appears blue on a clear day in most of the world" would be a factual statement. However, you didn't assert what many would call "fact". Here, let's look at your original post a line at a time.
This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders.
Why, sir, would a government seek to deny simple truth to those under its contr
Re:Necessity (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it does not fall into the standard /. creed.
If you don't support the /. groupthink(which they say they hate but deeply love)(which is ironically doublethink) you will be downmodded as troll/flamebait/overrated. It seems that the overrated tag is made especially for this situation. Some people may disagree with a message that is not troll or flamebait so there needs to be a solution. That solution develops in the form of overrated. Overrated is nothing more than a cheap populous vote on the popularity of the opinion. Don't agree with a post? Mod it overrated/underrated to "correct" the score.
Slashdotters claim to believe in absolute freedom of speech but if your opinion is unpopular it is hidden from sight. Well, that isnt a problem because everybody can still see it via the view levels, right? True, but it obscures the message and that is all /. needs, to make it harder to see views that do not conform to groupthink. It's like the great firewall of China, people with will can surpass it but it stops most people from seeing unwanted information and that's enough for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to defend improper mods, but freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to your dribble. Rant all you want, but there's nothing wrong with me adjusting my settings so that I don't have to read it. You are confusing Freedom of Speech with a guaranteed audience.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Credit crisis included, capitalism still works better than anything else we've tried.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that the credit crisis is due to government manipulation of the free market system. During Carter's tenure (he's not just peanuts), we had the Community Reinvestment Act, then doubled-down on it during Clinton's tenure because of this absolutely insane notion that you can create legislature that will foster individual responsibility.
Nope. That's just Republican propaganda. The CRA was not responsible for the current crisis.The majority of the subprime mortgages were made by companies not covered by the CRA, and the CRA itself doesn't do what the Republicans claim.
As I understand it, the reason behind the CRA is that companies were refusing to make any loans to people in poorer or predominantly black areas ("redlining"), even if they were safe loans that would be well within the individuals' ability to pay. The CRA requires to them t
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not just "Republican propaganda." The CRA was a large factor in the current mess... you're very correct about it being a combination of greed, over-optimism, poor judgment and risk-taking. Real-estate securities have always been a stable investment because real-estate lending has always been of a very conservative and regimented nature.
Recent changes to it may have had a minor role in how things played out, but the issues are elsewhere.
Before the CRA, the idea of lending to a sub-prime borrower was simply out of the question... banks wouldn't do it, because the business of foreclosing on houses owned by the bank is simply a write-off for the bank to stop the bleeding... not exactly a money-maker.
I'm not sure if this was ever true, but it ceased being so a while ago. Firstly, banks and other financial institutions could charge much higher interest rates and fees for this type of loan. This was very profitable. Secondly, there was a perception that, due to rising house prices, they'd be able to get their money back via foreclosure. It was seen as win-win.
The CRA fostered an environment in which borrowers who had poor credit, no down payment, and an income too low to be deemed a safe percentage of total income for payment were suddenly turned into victims of racism or bigotry because the banks wouldn't lend to them.
Nope. In particular, the majority of sub-prime
Re: (Score:2)
There is a huge difference between seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws: drunk driving laws punish you for risking other people's lives, seatbelt laws punish you for risking your own life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fundamental flaw with communism is that it fails to meet the test of reality. If people were wired to be altruistic and benevelent, communism might work. But people are wired to be selfish and not all that altristic.
Capitalism is built on the idea that if you are looking out for yourself, everyone around you benefits. Maybe not directly and maybe not without some work, but it generally works out that way. Communism tries (and fails) to achive a state where everyone is looking out for each other more
Re: (Score:2)
A basic flaw in Communism is central planning. I haven't studied Communism significantly, so I don't know if central planning is a fundamental tenet of Communism or not, but it appears to be how Communism was generally practiced. With central planning a small group makes decisions, while with Capitalism various people develop plans that they try out for themselves. The result is often that the Communist plan comes up short, while under Capitalism many of the plans may also come up short, but a handful come
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I think it may be only true of Marxism and that there are other schools of communist (or at least extreme socialist) thought that would also oppose such a strong state.
A more immediate problem is that our current capitalist system is becoming more and more regulated and centrally controlled. A number of US states require interior designers to be licensed to practice. Many EU regulations are just as silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't socialism/communism by definition evil because it's based on violence and coercion? How can this be good in any way?
You've confused socialism and communism with authoritarianism again. Communism is a primarily economic model; authoritarianism is a political model. It's okay, though, lots of people get confused on this point, do it isn't just you.
Re: (Score:2)
No I don't think I'm confusing anything, although I apologize for being vague. Socialism and communism require an authoritarian government. Oops, tautology.
No, you are quite confused, and utterly wrong. There are plenty of socialist countries that are not authoritarian (like most of northern Europe). There are also numerous examples of small scale communism functioning just fine with little or no central control.
It is true that every country that has gone communist has also gone authoritarian, but it is certainly not a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the credit for that deserves to be given to Congress, for giving up and letting the NVA do whatever it wanted after it had been repeatedly defeated in the field.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical.
Another country does something that is wrong so you have to find some way to bring US wrongs into this.
So is the story was about US war, would you mention censorship in Vietnam?
Re: (Score:2)
Last time US invaded Vietnam, US lost the war.
Re: (Score:2)
They will arrest you directly instead.
This new 'restriction' is not really a restriction, they just need a tool to keeping a tight grip on bloggers. They already has something else to arrest anyone they want, as this is written in Vietnamese law:
- The communist party of Vietnam is the only political party in Vietnam
- All action that is against the government or the nation is strictly forbidden.
(roughly translated)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Communism killed more than 100 million people in the last century
Capitalism has killed more than a million people in the past 4 years. What's your point, other than to create a straw man? [antiwar.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they punish people for what they write, they're evil. When it comes to evil governments, that's one of the obvious clues.