Bloggers Test New MS China Filter

earthbound kid writes "Rebecca MacKinnon at Global Voices Online has set up a test of Microsoft's censored blogs on MSN China (see previous Slashdot story) with screenshots. It seems that MSN rejected titling a new blog 'I love freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy' (in Chinese) because 'The title must not contain prohibited language, such as profanity.' MacKinnon managed to use a workaround and got a pro-freedom blog up, for the moment."

Comments

Why would China not have it screened?

[NRAdude]

I face the fact that China and United States are agressive competitors. China has a list of banned books, and U.S. Congress has a list of banned books. Freeom of speach obviously does not apply to either of them.

The people, as a majority, on the other hand, seem to always be the outspoken critic that takes the back-seat. How can the people choose a government above them that doesn't correspond to reality? Simply because all government today is implemented in corporate form. I've looked across the Constitution for China, and it is verry sadenning to see it explicitly dedicate powers to various entities that perhaps could not be immediatly changed but by revolution, and worse is it bares false witness of itself by saying China is a "Socialist Republic" every other sentence.

United States, however, is separate from the United States of America because according to Title 28 Section 3002 15a, "United States" is a Federal corporation. And thus the struggle in America is just this; you have federal government and then you have a federal corporation called "United States" in that federal government. About 200 years ago, after the Constitution for the United States of America was written, it was declared by Benjamin Franklin to be a Republic simply by observing the text: not WE THE PEOPLE of the such-and-such STATE of state, but "the people" hold all authority and power and can assign duties to statesmen. Then, a certain "We, the People" emerged, separate from the people.

Cites,

Title 28, Section 3002

(15) "United States" means--
(A) a Federal corporation;

Title 28, Section 1746

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)".
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)"

Re:Why would China not have it screened?

[Peyna]

First, let's look at the entire definition of "United States" as it pertains to Title 28:

"(15) "United States" means--
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States."

In other words, anywhere you see "United States" it applies to any of those things listed under A, B or C.

A) a Federal corporation, does NOT mean that the United States is a federal corporation, it means that within Title 28, any thing that mentions "United States" applies to all Federal corporations, etc.

An example of a Federal corporation would be TVA or FDIC.

Also, what exactly does law regarding the certifying of statements to be given to courts have to do with China?

Please, take more things out of context and try to draw conclusions on them, it's hilarious.

Re:Why would China not have it screened?

[ScentCone]

United States, however, is separate from the United States of America because according to Title 28 Section 3002 15a, "United States" is a Federal corporation.

How's that tinfoil hat fitting? First, just because you see the word "corporation" used in a sentence doesn't mean that somehow it's a business being run by investors just like whatever private-sector company you love to hate.

First, the definition of the word:

1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.

3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.

From the latin word for body, you can use the term "incorporate" all sorts of ways. As in, "This comment incorporates my thoughtful response to your not very creative attempt to perpetuate hatred for American businesses."

Think in terms of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting, or any other similar structure set up to act under a charter established by the federal government. You might also want to get to know the definition of the word federal: "Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government."

Yes, the states have some rights and powers, but the federal government exists expressly because there are some things best handled by a central authority. Some of those things are agencies or organizations chartered to perform certain roles. Those organizations incorporate certain rules, limits, responsibilities, and missiones that outlive the tenure of any particular individual citizens that happen to work within those structures. They are the embodiment of their charter. That allows the organization's mission to continue without constant reinvention every time someone leaves. Sort of like the difference between a store owned by one person (which goes away when that person goes away), or a store owned by a group of people that have incorporated in order to allow the store to thrive, grow, and continue to employ its people and serve its customers whether or not one person leaves or stays. But the most important aspect of it is the charter, which defines where the authority is, and how it's applied to the organization's activities.

The sections of code you're reading don't convey anything at all like what you're saying they do, and you of course know that. What you're trying to do is increase the "evil" quotient associated with the word "corporation" just because it's fashionable to do so, and because when that works, you can then tie that word to people you don't like (politically, for example), and spare yourself the trouble of having to actually explain rationally what you don't like. It's like using the word "witch" 400 years ago - a catch-all instant condemnation (but only for other people already caught up thinking that way).

Re:Is the US really that different?

[TheSpoom]

It should be noted that Disney made up neither Snow White nor Beauty And The Beast.

Re:Is the US really that different?

[agraupe]

You've never been to Cuba, have you? I have, twice. Although it is safe to say that freedom of speech does not exist, there aren't secret agents listening to your every move. On one tourist tour (you know, the ones where they cover everything up... so you no doubt think), the guide actually criticized some elements of the Revolution. Not harshly or anything, but it's not like he was worried about secret agents of the government hearing him. And this was someone who was put in a position with Western tourists (i.e. is supposed to be the *most* patriotic). Perhaps, it is just that you believe everything you hear about Cuba from the US media, which is mostly nothing more than propoganda. And, of course, Batista wasn't exactly a saint either... nor were any of the other American-backed dictators in Central America.

China *DOES* have free speech

[Urusai]

The Republic of China, whose capital is Taipei, has democracy and free speech. Those Maoist insurgents on the mainland are illegitimate. There is only One China!