Slashdot Mirror
China Sets New Rules On Internet News
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."
Time and time again "national security" is shown to be the antithesis of freedom. Be it in China or the United States, putting such a focus on protecting "national security" results in severe harm to the liberties and life of the nation's citizenry.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
This is a pefect template for the the FEC to use when they decide to regulate political blogs. Free speech is guaranteed through censorship.
Software Wars
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.
The Reuters copy is a bit spotty in its coverage...more information can be found here, here, and here.
Interesting quote from the third source listed above:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
How can this post be redundant? It's in the first 3 posted for the story. Moderators - if you don't like someone's opinion, either say so or apply an appropriate moderation. Kindly look up the meaning of the word "redundant."
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?
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Just another example of what I call "The Taboo Effect." When something isn't allowed, you'll want to do it more. Perfect example: Marijuana. Or downloading music. This new rule could cause an explosion of anti-"public interest" blogs and websites.
Speaking of blogs, how does this rule work for servers that are outside of China? I can just see the headlines now: "Capitalists Use Myspace to Thwart China"
A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
In the west you dont even know when "public opinion is being guided" in supposed national interest.
Surur
Information is the location of things. Computation is moving things around.
The Republicans are running China!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I was thinking that the Chinese Gov. didn't want someone posting something like "Hey, our glorious people's government just put a new missle silo and airstrip next to the N. Korean Border here. It may be in anticipation to liberate N. Korea from the Captilistic American Pigs and their leader the evil George Bush if they should invade and occupy."
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
How is this different from the United States where any suggested attempt to overthrow the government, assassinate the leadership, or other movements to change the political system are met with charges of treason?
Except in China they nip it in the bud earlier than we do. But during McCarthy era, the government felt that certain people posed a credible threat to the political system and acted upon it. In China's case, they feel that certain people are trying to change the political system there, hence the crackdown.
Having said that, the government is trying to mix capitalism with an authoritarian government, and it's been working well so far. The quality of life is rising in China, and as long as that continues, I'm sure most people in China value socioeconomic freedom over political freedom anyday. That includes most people in the world.
There are certainly other democratic countries where the quality of life is worse than that of China's.
In China it's one party. In US it's Military Industrial Complex and it's entertiment division (washington).
Ah yes. Whe have Michael Moore, they have Jackie Chan.
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.
China is NOT a "communist" country.
They have an authoritarian government with a capitalist economic system. "State capitalist" is the more correct term. (authoritarian states are not necessarily communist, although the reverse is generally true).
This may be offtopic, but usually the conversation always manages to drift towards this anyways regardless of the original topic.
The media insures that the democratic agencies follow the rules of democracy. If the press is censored you are robbed both democracy and later freedom. Governments do have a right to classify certain information, but that information has to be rooted in laws, whose purpose is to protect yours and my freedom.
The problem isn't "national security" as such, and there's nothing wrong with a community (country-sized or any other size) protecting itself.
The problem is that "national security", "patriotism", ironically even "democracy", are also the first excuses someone reaches for when they want to take your freedom away. No, let me rephrase that: the problem is that the people tend to get stuck on some _words_ instead of their _meaning_.
E.g., people are raised to rant and rave about how they have a right to free speech, but don't actually know what that right means. ("Congress shall make no law...") Most think it means the exact _opposite_: that they're allowed to troll a board or shout obscenities at the neighbour, but the government is still allowed to censor anything. I mean, duh, it's the government, of course they're supposed to tell us what to do and what not to do, right? Wrong-
E.g., people are raised on ideas like that patriotism means they must obey and do their duty, but they lose focus of: to whom. Hint: it means to the country, not to one particular party or leader. Sometimes the patriotic thing to do might actually be to disobey a bad leader.
And so on.
So you're left with whole generations which have been raised basically with a Pavlov's dog kind of reflex. You ring the bell, the dog does something by reflex, without thinking. Same here. You say "patriotism", people get a knee-jerk reaction to obey anything. There's a whole bunch of magic words that just trigger a reflex, without much thinking or questioning.
And it should come as no surprise when some people do come along and use them to their own interest. It's like having a big red button that says "push here to get an immediate advantage." Is it any surprise when some people come and push it?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Or maybe not!
[Closed captioned for the humor impaired.]
What's great about the bulk of the media in the US is that they impose these limitations and bans on themselves, without having to have the government do it for them.
Ignore Alien Orders
Actually, it has the tone and tenor of the speech codes that many universities have.
It's a given that accommodating National Security and Freedom of Speech here in the states is a delicate balancing act, but the restrictions on speech one finds at universities are gratuitous and serve no purpose.
Does anyone have an example of speech being restricted that is not solely designed to prevent the dissemination of information that could result in harm to U.S. troops or citizens?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
All your mind are belong to us!
"The state bans the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest"
This is a quote about the US and the Dept of Homeland Security, right?
http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK' Sun Sep 25 2005 16:52:50 ET China on Sunday imposed new media restrictions designed to limit the news and other information available to Internet users, sharply restricting the scope of content that can be posted on Web sites. In 1998 during a meeting with reporters, Hillary Rodham Clinton said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites. Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.
Hillary Clinton Continued:
"I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to --"
REPORTER: Sounds like you favor regulation.
MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor of. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully.
END
"They're rights online" I can't imagine too many Chinese would be able to get onto Slashdot.
Let me be the first to say [No Carrier]
My list of multiplayer
Peoples Republic of China: The formal name of China is supposed to be a republic ran by people. In reality (outside of Hong Kong), the government of China is mostly a corrupt, power-hogging group of politicians.
Supreme People's Procuratorate: The leading prosecutor in China, the name implies that this prosecutor is of and by the people of China. In reality, this prosecutor is nothing more then a judicial puppet for the Chinese Communist Party and their whims.
People's Liberation Army: The main army in China. Of course all armies in the world have had their own share of bad raps and human rights abuses, and the PLA is no different. While the name implies it is for the public good, they are merely the the stick that the Chinese Communist Party uses to enforce their nationalistic laws (along with the police of course). This can be seen in the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989. Also evident is the behind-the-scenes labor camps that MANY political dissidents are sent to, and these are rated below even the worst US prisons.
It is no surpise to me how they pepper their press release with things like "toward serving the people " or "maintaining national and public interests." This sounds too earily of 1984:
war is peace, fear is love, lie is truth
Rather than quoting quotes about 'the story'...why not just go see it.
China tightens supervision over online news services
BEIJING, Sept. 26 -- Online news sites that publish stories containing fabricated information, pornography, gambling or violence are facing severe punishments or even shutdown.
These new measures were part of a new regulation on online news services, jointly introduced yesterday by the State Council Information Office and the Ministry of Information Industry.
"We need to better regulate the online news services with the emergence of so many unhealthy news stories that will easily mislead the public," said a spokesman with the information office at a press conference yesterday.
Services that provide online news stories, that have bulletin board systems (BBS) or have the function of sending short messages containing news contents to individual mobile phones are all subject to the regulation.
News sites set up by news organizations but publishing not just their own stories, and sites by other organizations featuring news stories must get approval from the State Council Information Office. Sites by news organizations that only carry their own stories should register at the main office or provincial information offices.
The regulation also spells out that media attached to the central government or directly under provincial governments are not allowed to provide any stories to other online news sites without approval.
A temporary regulation on online news services was published in November 2000. But according to the spokesman, "it has lagged far behind the development of online news services, in technology, content and form. So it is necessary to have an updated version."
The public will help information departments at all levels supervise news sites. Anyone who finds unhealthy online stories can visit http://net.china.cn/ and report.
Does anyone have an example of speech being restricted that is not solely designed to prevent the dissemination of information that could result in harm to U.S. troops or citizens?
I defy you to explain to me how "free speech zones" prevent harm to anybody, or are anything but a blatant exercise of power on the government's part for power's sake.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Well, he is just blabbing the same tired platitudes without saying anything new. It's not redundant to this article discussion, but on Slashdot I've certainly heard the same BS a million times.
Suppose some major $SHIT happens in $COUNTRY, which was not caused by some natural factors. The public will be understandably angry and will demand some $ACTION to be taken to appease their own fears.
I mean, what else can some $GOVERNMENT do? It is only natural that they will take some actions to improve "National Security". Once whoever is in command get to that point, it becomes a slippery slope when they realise how easy it is to mobilise public opinion, congresses/parliaments around it to get whatever they want done.
I'm not blaming governments per se, but that's only human nature in full motion. It takes a very enlightened constituency and congress/parliament to avoid getting caught in that trap -- and we know that is just not the case, since congresses/parliaments (who should check over government's actions) also have their own short-term issues (staying in office, getting reelected, becoming future president/prime minister)
Ahh...I may have missed something. What is a Free Speech Zone? Who authorizes it? Where are they generally located?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Recently, famed investor Jim Rogers said, "Massachusetts and California are more communistic than China." Having recently returned from there, I'd say he's right.
Some of us do realise when the bell rings; stopping oneself from salivating however is a somewhat more difficult exercise. In the UK the political agenda is re-enforced through the media on a daily/ hourly basis (I believe the US has good old fox-news). Over here, soap operas such as East Enders and Emerdale feed the masses their daily message for social betterment - today it's racial intergration; tomorrow it's stealing state benefits - the list goes on. Tune in to BBC 1/ ITV 1/ Channel 4 & 5 between 6:30 pm and 9pm and you will here yesterday's politic rhetoric neatly and succintly summarised for those of us who do not watch the offical state programming . err sorry I mean the news broadcast...
The sad thing is that this isn't a new problem, but some people seem to be unable to learn from the past. I hope most people here have read Orwell's thoughts on the matter, but for those of you who haven't: Politics and the English Language. Written almost sixty years ago, and as true today as it ever was. Quote:
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3652171. stm
Heaven help those few Chinese who seek to cast off the crushing totalitarian oppression under which they have suffered for over half a century now. And may those western corporations complicit in these evils suffer the same fate as those who have reduced a great nation to near-slavery.
(And I'm a bit surprised that Slashdot is a day behind with this story- it was on the wires and in the blogosphere early Sunday EDT.)
I came, I saw, I left. It looked better in the brochure.
Clearly China wants it both ways:
They want the economic success of a capitalist free market
They want to retain their authoritarian power
They have a society awakening to their economic power. I wonder how well they will be able to keep that society "capped" as it rises. I know an "old" society can get lazy, and accept caps, but I think a new one will be exploring its limits, and find discomfort in those boundaries. In 5-20 years, I suspect China will be in for "Interesting Times."
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It can probably be argued that most governments would fail except for the fact that people work to make them work, and the quality of the government is very dependant on the people in the system.
An old example is the idea of a government run by the inmates of a insane asylum. No matter what system you used, the government would still be psycho. This argues that there are more psychos running businesses and in government than many are willing to admit, and might not be far off the mark. It is hard to imagine that a sane and rational implementation of any system would emerge in any such circumstance.
Therefore, corrupt officials would argue that exposing corruption is not good for national security, since it exposes the weaknesses of the system to the potential enemy. In fact, exposing corruption would be the best way to the strengthen any political system. You could argue that this is what happened after the fact in hurricane Katrina, where mother nature applied a test that was failed by many without mercy.
It would be interesting to see how much traction an chinese committee for honesty in government got. Done carefully, it could do well.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Xinhua as the story too. Interesting quote: The public will help information departments at all levels supervise news sites. Anyone who finds unhealthy online stories can visit http://net.china.cn/ and report.
...new regulations on Internet news content which ban the spreading of any news with content that is against...
I read this as "...new regulations on Internet news content which ban the spreading of any news with content — that is against national security and public interest."
It is an interesting phrase to surround with a link. Does this mean it's okay to place news articles that have absolutely no content at all?
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Cable News must be directed toward serving the people and freedom and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests.
Yes. China is not Communist anymore.
The large enterprises are majority owned by the government (CNOOC, for example, is 70% owned by the gov't) but minority shares are available through the stock exchange. I wouldn't say they have a capitalist economic system, although it has increasingly capitalistic elements.
Normally, I'd make a point that "State Capitalism" is an oxymoron (since Capitalism means the seperation of state and economics), but it oddly "kinda sorta" fits China today.
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?
free speech zones are a bad idea, but i think they are a response to protesters who block doors, sidewalks and generally disrupt other peoples daily routines. many protesters seem to think it is their right to stop me from doing what i want to do becuase they disagree with me. if protesters would respect the rights of others to disagree and go about their business, we probably wouldnt have them.
always mosh clockwise
It would sound like a good constitution (it even includes the Freedom of Religion) if they didn't literally throw it away with Articles 51 and 52:
In other words, the freedoms that come before those paragraphs are only suffered at the state's whim. If they feel that you are in any way working against the state (e.g. the criticism they just "allowed" in Article 41) or attempting to undermine the "unity of the state" (e.g. the freedom of religion granted by Article 36) then the state will step in and run you over with a tank or throw you in jail.
So much for the constitution of the People's Repulic of China. Be very happy if you live in a country to whom rights are more than words on a sheet of paper.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Government's first responsibility is to protect its citizens.
The public interest part is the part to be concerned about. That is just squelching disagreement.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
And of course all the big companies will scramble to comply with this so they can make all that extra money instead of trying to stand up against such a thing. Sadly most big companies are probably in favor of this.
Why does Slashdot persist in posting such a waste of read? Listen, Folks, because apparently this is fscking news to some people. China is a communist nation. I know, I know, some of you sitting there with hand-over-mouth, agast that such could exist in this day and age but it's true. I'll pause while everything you've ever read on Slashdot about China comes crashing into focus.......
....
Okay. Welcome to page 12, where the rest of the ENTIRE FSCKING WORLD HAS BEEN WAITING FOR YOU TO CATCH UP!
Another story about how a communist party does what communist parties do. How about a story when the Great Wall that separates China from--uh--China...never mind. How about a story when the Communist Party of China calls it quits and says it was just kidding for the last 80-odd years?
Afterall, Slapdash logs your IP address.
:P
Oh, and I am posting this from Beijing.
Get a grip on reality.
And I love Taiwan.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
To have someone compare US and Chinese techniques for protecting national security in the same sentence and first post makes me upset, to put it mildly. I truly hope he is not an American, who takes for granted the incredible freedoms we have. If this were China, he'd be jailed for that comment. I know we're not perfect, I personally don't like the Patriot Act and other encroaching measures, but we always work through them in our system. In China, there's nothing to work through. Everything must serve the state. Totally different mindset.
yes.
feh. stuff.
Apparently, not every website participates in this new era of censorship. Some Chinese sites still proudly display Free Tibet! Remember Tienanmen! slogans on their pages. Long live freedom of speech!
The fast majority of the west doesn't give a damn about iraq. All they know is that europe is being overrun by muslims and that they are not happy with it. Oh and that gas prices are going through the roof.
It is very easy to look at the media and see a definite slant to events in the world. I seen pro-muslims claim that newspaper X was anti-muslim and anti-muslims claim the exact same newspaper was pro-muslim. A good example was todays dual story of hamas attacking israel with missles and the assasination of a hamas leader in response.
Basically both the cheap free newspapers here reported both facts, but the assasination was mentioned on the front page and the hamas attack was just 1 sentence in the main article. Also it featured a photograph that was not directly related to the story of a massive explosion.
So was this article pro-palestine? Well the hamas attack had no fatalisties, "only" 5 wounded. While the assasination killed. The purely objective thing to note here is that Israeli's are obviously better shots.
So the "real" story is that hamas is an organization that has vowed to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and that Israel has chosen to wipe out Hamas before that happens. Or is it the other way around? At this point in time it is like trying to figure out who started the northern ireland conflict.
You report that 95% of non-americans saw the whole WMD thing as a sham, I doubt that figure but you seem to link that automatically with those same people being against the invasion. Nice leap but I don't see that on the workfloor. An awfull lot of working class people here in holland have just one question if they even think about it. How come they have to pay for iraq refugees who flee their so called oppressive goverment but when that goverment is then overthrown all those so called refugees are against it? Either you are for a goverment or you are against.
But I agree most media is incredibly bad at investigating the real story. It is easier to make some sensation story. Massive headlines about how EU agriculture subsidies are causing hunger in 3rd world countries, followed by massive headlines how cuts in EU agriculture subsidies are putting farmers out of work. WTF? Take a bloody side!
I think the worst mistake Bush made was the whole WMD nonsense. Had he simply gone for "Saddam is a ticking timebomb for his own people, the minorities in his country and the rest of the world and we are no longer going to wait for sanctions wich the entire world is ignoring to work." he might have had a lot more support.
The sad thing is that I am old and I remember the same blind sheep like you complain that the world wasn't doing anything when Saddam gassed the koerds.
Hell some guy send in a letter recently to the "spits" complaining that America deserved New Orleans for invading Iraq and why wasn't the west doing anything in Dafur (muslims killing blacks and vice versa). In the same letter the guy complained that America had invaded iraq AND was complaining they hadn't invaded Dafur.
What is a goverment supposed to do with people like you. They are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't.
So how does this relate to china? Well lets face it, china needs only look at russia to see what happens to a superpower who lets the west dictate what it should do. So china will happily continue with its current policy knowing that with each passing year America and the west will be more and more dependant and less able to take a stand against it.
Mainstream media does not see this but frankly neither does the alternative media. The only way to get true unbiased news is to make your own by getting it from multiple sources. If you are only reading news stories that condemn the war in Iraq then you are not well informed. Don't then complain that other people aren't either.
At least the chinese know they are getting a 1-sided version of the news. You do not.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
China is becoming one big free speech zone, George Bush style
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
But since these evidently predate 9/11 and therefore the Patriot Act, they are not part of the National Security vs. Free Speech argument.
And I actually have a little bit of sympathy for the position of the government in this case because these "protesters" have shown themselves as nothing more than mobs, bent on violence....Can we say Seattle anyone?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
though they may try to control the individual's power of choice, the individual is free and truth will find a way.
Slashdot is not blocked, and probably won't be anytime soon. The BBC on the other hand...
I'm not a moderator, but you get my +1 and "Insightful".
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
war is peace, fear is love, lie is truth
Uh, sorry but you got that wrong. It is Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength.
Sibel Edmunds
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ha!
The funny thing is I can be pretty sure you're not posting from a jail cell right now for saying that - and I have a pretty good idea which country you live in.
Only people living in true freedom fail to understand what it means to do so.
So she hasn't strayed too far, politically. ;)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
It sounds like they're trying to live in peace and deter violence from errupting when people would overthrow the gov't. They're essentially banning speech that could result in violence, which is also banned in the USA. There are very well educated people who would agree that speech that incites a riot, should not be protected under the First Ammendment (and it's not, at the moment).
However I still don't think the end justifies their means in this case. My point is simplyt this: just because it's censorship, doesn't automatically mean that everyone should jump on the bandwagon and say that it's a bad thing. Step back and think about it first.
Oh, wait...
Nevermind...
Who says he hasn't? Much of the technology that China uses to crush free speech on their phones/internet comes via America, not EU, Russia, Canada, Mexico, Japan, etc.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Any government fearful of its own people has no moral right to rule.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"The state bans the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest"
that quote could just have easily been attributed to bush...
the only diff is that bush WANTS that but its not [yet] in place.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It may be that they are getting confident. It may also be that they are beginning to panic. Or it may be a sign of some slight power shift in the leadership of the party. Then again, it could just be few isolated hard-liners in some ministry of information of whatever they call it trying to test water and see what can they get away with. Heck, this is Slashdot, one can even speculate about invisible hand of Microsoft trying to tip the ballance and then claim that with Windows, you can get much tighter controll of information than with Linux ;)
Anyway, the point is without further information, all you can do is speculate. I don't follow Chinese politics, so I really don't know what's going on. The only fact is that this is happenning. My oppinion on that is it is quickly going to evolve into enormous stupid byrocratic hurdle, everybody will hate it, and eventually it will become another nail in the coffin of one party rule in China. It may take a long time, though.
AccountKiller
... to this and other human rights abuses in China by, uh, giving $162 billion per year (and increasing) business to China, $55 billion dollars Foreign Direct Investment, and ship hundreds of thousands of US jobs to China.
</sarcasm>
Is China already too powerful/influental that nobody could influence them even if they wanted to? Or is it simply that nobody in the ruling class cares about human rights abuses as long as there is more money to be made?
First of all, the entire "National Security vs. Free Speech argument" far, far predates 9/11 and the Patriot Act; in the US, it goes back over two centuries, at least to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Second, the use of Free Speech Zones has expanded dramatically since 9/11. And third, what happened in Seattle (rather overblown in the reporting, I suspect) was the action of a small group of organized vandals; to abrogate the entire assembly clause of the First Amendment on that basis is absurd. The Bill of Rights is designed to make it hard for the government to control people; that may be unfortunate from some people's POV, but the alternative is much worse.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Damn "National Security" or "public good". This is not patriotism, but the same familiar prounoucement in China century after century. It's the first refuge of a despotic regime, but it should be the swang song of a dying government. It's tolerance by the Chinese people speaks volumes about their culture.
I realize the following quote is profoundly Western, but I believe its a message that Mao would agree with even if it's to his disadvantage:
"What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." (Thomas Jefferson)
That a Chinese blackout on unapproved news doesn't incite the masses to riot and rebellion means that it's time that they stop manufacturing plastic crap and start manufacturing weapons for themselves. If they don't, they will be doomed by the opression, not just of their own government but to the parasitic transnationals that take advantage of their wage slavery.
How is it that they can't have enough self respect to stop this?
"Political power flows through the barrrel of a gun." -Mao Zedong
(and don't they know it!)
"INJURING THROUGH GREED
When taxes are too heavy,
hunger lays the people low.
When those who govern interfere too much,
the people become rebellious.
When those who govern demand too much
of people's lives, death is taken lightly.
When the people are starving in the land,
life is of little value,
and so is more easily sacrificed by them
in overthrowing government."
Lao Tze, approx 500 BCE
The difference between a republic and a people's republic is the same as the difference between a jacket and a straight jacket.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
...next time you are shopping for cheap goods made in china.
After living in Beijing for the last 20 months, I've witnessed more crimes against humanity than I did in all my previous 36 years of life.
Peace, or Not?
Seems a little misplaced to excoriate a country which has lifted more than 200 million people out of unimaginable poverty in the last 20 years. I suppose it's preferable to leave our gentle sensibilities in place and pave the streets with the corpses of those who starved.
There is an interesting question here...is "Free Speech" the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want?
Certainly the "whatever" has been decided...no shouting fire in the theater or saying Bomb or Hijack on a plane.
I have not heard of anything about time...
But the interesting one is where. Is that fact that you are not visible to the TV camera mean your rights have been violated? Is the fact that you cannot blockade a public place with a protest a violation of your rights?
Abortion Protesters are not allowed within x feet of a clinic. Using the same logic could political protestors be kept a specific distance from a convention of political office holder?
Is the disruption of one person's free speech an exercise of another's free speech?
Does the exercise of free speech include preventing others from accessing a public accommodation?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As an example, note that the two worst leaders of the last century, Stalin and Hitler, were on opposite ends of the left-right spectrum, but were squarely on the same side of the authoritarian-liberalism spectrum.
I mean, come on, this is CHINA we're talking about here. This is the same ol' same ol' we've heard coming out of this country for about.. oh.. a millenia?
"China set new regulations on Internet news content which ban the spreading of any news with content"
Fox News should be able to get through no problem.
and I think its catching. Many people like to clamor about us (the U.S.) supporting this fascist regime, but I think our cultural and economic influence on the Chinese people is getting them more addicted to freedom. The government may make proclamations like this, but for the last hundred years the chinese have been trying to get government right, look how its changed.
The next generation is growing up watching downloaded episodes of Friends (piracy IS good) and are now bestowed with a sense of freedom that can't be squelched by the government. From my visit there it seems like the educated kids do spend a lot of time thinking about what is right and wrong and they long for freedom, and I think the internet will play an important role in giving it to them.
On another note I would like to point out something that many Americans forget when criticizing the evil Red empire, this country is HUGE. They have cities with populations of our STATES for god sakes. They have been trying to govern millions of people for over 3000 years, and for all the bad things that have happened, they have figured a lot of things out. When you have 300 MILLION people moving to the cities in the next 10 years, should we open up the electronic polls in the next 5? thats the population of the ENTIRE United States, and lets not forget that theres more where they came from (the countryside). I'm not saying that we should let evils go without a fight, but I think that people should consider that its not as simple as just saying "your free" (hell, we are trying that in Iraq right? Hows that goin?)
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/ele c02.ga.primary.results/
c les/000/000/005/079tehyf.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Arti
"Appearing in print just months after the September 11 attacks, McKinney's charges couldn't be excused. Nor could her list of campaign donors, which included both terrorist sympathizers like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and apparent actual terrorists like former college professor Sami Al-Arian. Nor could her October 12, 2001, letter to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in which she rebuked New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for returning the prince's post-9/11 "gift" of $10 million and urged bin Talal to donate the funds to "charities outside the mayor's control," especially those that dealt with "poor blacks who sleep on the street in the shadows of our nation's Capitol." Giuliani had returned the Saudi's money because it came with the implicit condition that America "address some of the issues that led to such a criminal [9/11] attack," among them "its policies in the Middle East," where "our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek." To Giuliani, such a statement made excuses for terrorism. This wasn't a problem for McKinney."
It is quite true that the right to free speech does not, and can not, include the right to an audience. But it's also true that the rules have to be different where people in high office are concerned.
For example, time and time again it is ruled that celebrities (those who have chosen to live their lives in the public view) have less of a right to privacy than ordinary citizens; and time and time again it is ruled that more details can be exposed about the private dealings of politicians (in whose private dealings the public has a compelling and legitimate interest) than about the private dealings of ordinary citizens. And I have never heard a good argument made against such rulings.
In the same way, the right to protest against a government must be considered more important than the right to protest against a private concern carrying out operations which the democratically elected government has made legal, and which have received the approval of the highest court in the land. Looked at that way, I don't think it's at all illogical to believe that the right to protest against politicians does go further than the right to protest against abortion clinics; indeed, I personally would argue that someone who wishes to protest against their president should have an absolute right for him to be requried to hear, consider, and answer their complaint. (Yes, he'd have a lot of work to do. But that's what being the leader of the free world is supposed to be about.)
In short, you are absolutely correct to say that the issue is not as simple as it is sometimes made out to be, and your argument is insightful and compelling. But I find the conclusion you seem to be moving towards - that it is reasonable to protect politicians from hearing the views of those who disagree with them - to be seriously worrying. Is that really your opinion, or am I extrapolating your argument further than you intended?
The problem nowadays appears to be one of degree and not of substance. The Patriot Act represents a very real encroachment upon civil liberties, and the justifications sure aren't that far from what your average Chinese technocrat is going to use as a reason for they're own anti-freedom measures.
The only advantage the US has at the moment is that it has a Constitution written by people of a mindset that probably doesn't even actually exist in the US today. The Bill of Rights is becoming more like the Ten Commandments, a gift from strange and wise gods who are poorly understood and paid a good deal of lip service, even by those who would seek to undermine what they did.
The real problem here is that subsequent generations of American political architects have never really been able to explain the justifications for the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights. Instead, Americans are basically fed a diet of jingoistic propaganda, a sort of religion of liberty.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"[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." Ever wish you could just send out 1.2 billion copies of Orwell's '1984'? Because I can think of a certain national population that is a little too tolerant of totalitarianism.
geez, a totalitarian communist oligarchy setting "new" rules regarding the broadcast or distribution of news via the internet within its borders-- first question to this is, why is THIS "news"? Next question is: how many TONS of paper does it take now, to produce the immeasurable volume of "rules" that they have produced thus far, since 1949, when "they" took power over there? I understand the obligation of "free" press, or those in most democratic nations, to report such events, but it should be noted that "THIS IS NOTHING NEW" for them to issue such "rules"-- their paranoid, xenophobic attitude towards their own citizenry is simply made apparent, again and again, with the passage of such "rules"-- another question: What are "they" afraid of, that might be published in such news outlets over there?
They share the monopoly on power and extremism of Lenin with
aggressive capitalism.
A very dangerous combination, as orthodox Marxism-Leninism (e.g. Cuba,DPRK)
was and is unable to make nations wealthy enough to seriously triumph
over free democracies.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/china-issues-new- rules-to-control-internet/2005/09/25/1127586740141 .html
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Freakishly extreme example:
I am probably not allowed by law to create nuclear explosive devices (I think that's a safe bet, though I haven't read the law). This is an infringement on my freedoms, no? This is clearly a case, though where my freedoms must be cut in order to protect national security.
Less-extreme example:
In World War II, there was serious censorship going on. People had severe restrictions placed on what they could print, and soldiers had severe restrictions placed on what they could write home to their families. This is clearly a case where our most basic freedoms (freedom of the press, and the freedom to correspond with our loved ones) had to be curtailed in favor of national security.
Normal Example:
I have been sitting here thinking of a way I could breach national security, and I just can't think of a way I could bring down the wrath of the government upon myself for "compromising our national security." This means that a: I don't have enough imagination, b: the US is not really interested in unreasonable encroachments on my freedoms, or c: some other reason I haven't thought of (see a).
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
"Is the fact that you cannot blockade a public place with a protest a violation of your rights?
Blockading a public place would interfere with the liberties of people who might not care what you think, and want access to that public place. Once you start physically interfering with people like that, it's not a matter of freedom of speech.
That being said, you should be able to say whatever you want, be it neo-nazi stuff or whatever questionable material like that, be it over the Internet or whatever else... just so long as it isn't interfering with someone who choose to ignore you, and just so long you're not doing so on the property of someone who disapproves; it's their property, they set the rules for that property. That's the beauty of the Internet... no one really "owns" it (yet).
If you say fire in a theatre, you're interfering with other people's liberties since it'll lead to an evacuation or whatever else, or at the very least, a disruption; you're not supposed to say anything in a theatre because you'll interfere with the show.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
that it is reasonable to protect politicians from hearing the views of those who disagree with them
I would say that I am not inclined to give anyone more protection, so to speak, from free speech than anyone else. To say it another way, no one has a greater right to free speech than anyone else and no speech has a greater protection (at least as it is stated in the Constitution)
I would rather say that it comes down to making sure that the exercise of one's rights do not infringe on another...the old, swinging of the arm right stops at the end of my nose.
I think that the equivalent argument with regards to speech means that you can have a protest and say what you like, but you can't create a safety hazard to yourself or others, you cannot block public or private accommodations, and you cannot disrupt the speech of others. But that's just my opinion.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
While China may be authoritarian, it strikes me that perhaps the best way to change this is through inclusion in our interactions rather than the reverse. Maybe through regular interactions and exposures to democratic and free market ideals, China will change slowly over time. After all, its economy is radically different than it was 50 years ago due to precisely this influence (as a caveat, life in the countryside is largely unchanged).
In other related news, a survey showed most people believe it's "Evil Big Business" causing high gas prices, not higher demand due to increasing consumption (especially in China) and practices like buying a large SUV to drive to work.
Reprisal, while justified, may not be the best course of action if one's goal is for China's human rights record to impove.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Agreed
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!"
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.
I once had a signature.
and just to stir the pot further...check this out http://www2.stockton.edu/affirmative_action/Studen t_Policy.htm
I would suggest that offense Cindy Sheehan and the lot may feel by being told to go protest somewhere else pales in comparison with someone's adacemic career/rcord being demolished or even fired or expelled by intentionally or unintentionally getting caught up in a violation of some speech code.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1) Near slavery working conditions (people take a job and never make enough money to pay back the agent; mainwhile the agent holds all the worker's legal papers)
2) Handicapped children chained to a hospital wall
3) Child labor
4) Inhumanely dangerous working conditions for coal miners and construction workers
5) Women kidnapped to service the sex industry
6) Police abusing dissidents
7) Gov't critics dissappearting
8) executions for trivial crimes
This is just the stuff I personally witnessed, not stuff I heard from friends.
I'm not saying china is the worst place in the world, so don't say I'm rascist against chinese people. I know similar things are happening all over the world. Even here in the US we are becoming more like a police state. That's why I get so annoyed when all you hear about on the news is how China's economy is growing so fast. There is so much more going on over there, but it's not well reported.
So what I meant in my post is that next time you think about buying some cheap chinese made item, keep it mind it was probably made by some people making less money than they need to live while all of the profits are going to a cabal of weathly and powerful private and gov't people. I realize there is little you can do about it since you don't even have a choice when purchasing most things, but you should at least keep in mind what is going on and not accept it blindly.
Peace, or Not?
No, lying is the antithesis of freedom.
Protecting national security is all well and good. It's when the law used to do so is applied mendaciously that we lose.
Propaganda is also bad.
The current administration uses both, constantly, often in lieu of competence and diligence and honor.
The Chinese may be doing this to quell dissent of all kinds. But we're no better for allowing our government to lie constantly.
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.
No, I don't understand. The first amendment of the US Constitution was freedom of speech and freedom of press. This extended all the way into government affairs, with early Supreme Court cases ensuring that even views that would harm "the unity of state" could not be supressed. The second amendment of the US Constitution is the right to bear arms. The purpose of this was not only for common defense, but also to ensure that tyranny could never reign in the United States. The founding fathers understood that power corrupts, so to combat this they made certain that the populace was ALWAYS only a trigger pull away from overthrowing its government.
To this day, every citizen of the United States is allowed to carry weapons unless he has been convicted of a violent crime. If you know what you're doing, you can even obtain licenses to carry military grade hardware.
The freedoms of the people MUST be cherished by the US government, or it will find itself demolished from the inside. China has no checks and balances. If the government says it is so, it is so. The government would have you believe otherwise, but their actions (Great Firewall, Censoring of the Press, Jailing of Religeous Believers, etc.) speak far louder. Tell me, is this the tolerance and human rights that the Chinese government speaks of? The UN doesn't think so.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Abortion Protesters are not allowed within x feet of a clinic. Using the same logic could political protestors be kept a specific distance from a convention of political office holder?
Ah, and here's the difference. If an abortion protestor is not allowed within x feet of a clinic, they're free to locate a convenient place that obeys the law. There is no such ability with a "free speech zone". You may or may not agree that requiring people to meet at a certain location takes away their freedom to peacably assemble, to which I'd respond that in 2008, both of the major party's national convention free speech zones will be conveniently located on the south pole of Mars.
You may trust your government to behave, but for all I know, I'll show up at the "free speech zone" and be arrested the instant I break out the signs, because 30 minutes prior the police chief posted a notice in their basement saying that the free speech zone has moved across town.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
And what's wrong with the Homeland coming first? Obviously a billion poor farmers aren't going to rise above by themselves. The tribe must stick together and put the most important goals first. Propaganda from the capitalists would clearly only make things more difficult.
Apart from the obvious social ills that come with locking down free speech, it creates some pretty obvious problems around efficiency, innovation, and investment. Can't have efficient markets without good feedback.
That being the case, nations that don't lock down free speech will have a competitive advantage in the marketplace. So we should be looking to promote free speech and the exchange of ideas, rather than trying to lock them down with DRM, copyright, patents,the Patriot Act, etc, as we appear to be so hell-bent on doing.
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.
You obviously know nothing about A16, so shut your mouth asshole.
I don't know about you guys, but if you're a hacker you tend to casually stroll around senseless restrictions such as this with a bit of code or encryption.
I could never live in China and I can barely live in the U.S. Rejection and questioning of authority, control, and the status quo has been a driving force in my life for a long time.
new eastasia rules for internet prolefeed ministry of truth Sunday, September 25, 2005; 8:03 AM beinjing (minitrue) - new regs in eastasia re: internet increase control on websites and BBS. east asia gov depermits any prolefeed vs. national security public fullwise as thoughtcrime.: XINHUA / EASTASIA MINITRUE. regs start stat. eastasia gov: internet must "serve nation and eastasia-soc, require fullwise rectified guidance of thought." minitrue channels require fullwise compliance with eastasia-soc regs for internet. all operators to file with eastasia minitrue. eastasia thoguhtpolice on internet to stop thoughtcrime. thoughtcrime pages instantwise rectified. internet compliane regs for proles and outer party beforewise now uniform to include innerparty and minitrue sections. since 03/05 all mini-ed BBS student-only - prevent prole crimethink. student and outerparty managers register with eastasia-soc minitrue. biggest eastasia minitrue prolefeed internet ports: sina.com.cn andsohu.com. both carry prolefeed from eastasia minitrue. end minitrue prolefeed 09/26: new eastasia rules for internet prolefeed ONWARD TO FULLWISE VICTORY. ALL LOVE TO BIG BROTHER. OCEANIA AND BIG BROTHER ARE ONE AND WILL PREVAIL. signed, W. Smith
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
But you can wrap your black t-shirt around your face and wander around the cloud of tear gas if you think that will make a difference.
So what you are saying is that free speech should be subjugated the convenience of shoppers. If even one person gets their daily routine disrupted then you think it's a good idea to round up the protesters and move them into a back alley someplace where they won't bother anybody.
evil is as evil does
now I know chaining children to a wall because the hospital owner is too greedy to hired another nurse is not technically a crime against humanity.
I think the Bush administration is looking for people with such a good understanding of the law.
Peace, or Not?
Nobody in the ruling class cares about human rights abuses as long as there is more money to be made.
Naturally.
Well, read the first sentence in the parent of your post and you'll see that he thinks it's a BAD idea, he's just explaining the motivation to have these silly "zones." You're picking a fight where there is none. Testosterone, frustration, go figure.
I have been skeptical of China's promise of "one country, two systems" since Hong Kong was reunified with China in 1997. How soon will Hong Kong news media lose their freedoms?
100 million dead would be a good starter.
I'll start listening to silly leftist lectures when they acknowledge the brutality of their ideology.
First of all, I think free speech zones are completely contrary to the principles that this country was founded on and that they should be eliminated
However, your comment is very common among the protest movement. As if shoppers were the only people to use the public roads. What about the people who are...
Nope, in the protester's mind, it's always shoppers, as if shopping were a terrible crime in and of itself. However, people use public roads for the listed purposes every day. Also, blocking a public road will only inconvenience one person if you block state rd #43 in bum-fuck Idaho. Blocking any street in Seattle will inconvenience hundreds. You have the right to protest the government for a redress of grievances. You do not have the right to restrict other people's freedom of movement. Blocking public streets and buildings is a crime, and I applaud when those protesters are removed and arrested.
That's pre 7-11 thinking....
many protesters seem to think it is their right to stop me from doing what i want to do becuase they disagree with me.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with them. It has to do with getting noticed.
The rationale is that by disrupting people's everyday routines, the message is more likely to get heard. Some will say that getting the message heard by annoyed people is counter-productive. Some will say that getting it heard at all is more important because most people can distinguish the difference between the message and the medium.
they are a response to protesters who block doors, sidewalks and generally disrupt other peoples daily routines
That's the price we pay for the use of public resources. Who is to say that obnoxious protestors use of those public resources in order to get their point-of-view across to the public in general is any less valid than your use of those public resources to go about your own personal business?
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.
I call bullshit!
I live in China hence the AC post on this one.
"Witnessed"? You have been in a coal mine? On a construction site? At an execution ground? An orphanage? Seen contracts for conscripted labour, including sex workers? Children working separately from their parents? In a factory environment?
Anyone with any experience in China knows that you did not witness all of these things - probably none. You are just passing on information that you read or heard about.
Have these things occurred? Probably. Do they occur more often in China? Probably.
Is the US immune from these problems? Where is the greater shame?
"You do not have the right to restrict other people's freedom of movement."
Somehow I think the first amendment trumps your right to travel down a particular street. According to your logic all protests are illegal because they all involve a group of people walking down the street "disrupting" your right to go to a funeral.
"Blocking public streets and buildings is a crime, and I applaud when those protesters are removed and arrested."
well with people like you we are a day closer to fascism aren't we.
evil is as evil does
aminaked.com is banned. jackasses.
America always want topple down china,some china people buy over do such thing.
From what I understand about Waco, was that the tank was used to bash the wall down.
After that a fire started on the inside, killing people. It's not as if they were firebombing the place on *purpose*.
And government agents can do a lot more to save your lives when you're not shooting at them. Once you start doing that, they're only concerned about reaching their objectives while staying alive.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Somehow I think the first amendment trumps your right to travel down a particular street. According to your logic all protests are illegal because they all involve a group of people walking down the street "disrupting" your right to go to a funeral.
No, people walking down the street protesting are using the street and I have no problem with peaceful protest at all. The ones who get my ire are the "black-block" kids who set up roadblocks, chain themselves to each other in front of doorways, smash storefronts and generally disrupt people as much as possible.
well with people like you we are a day closer to fascism aren't we.
Yes, when the people's right to blockade highways and private property is infringed, it's always facism.
That's pre 7-11 thinking....
"No, people walking down the street protesting are using the street and I have no problem with peaceful protest at all. The ones who get my ire are the "black-block" kids who set up roadblocks, chain themselves to each other in front of doorways, smash storefronts and generally disrupt people as much as possible."
all protests disrupt somebody. If I protest a business I am disrupting the ability of the business to make money. If I protest a politician I am disrupting the ability of the politician to go about his corruption without notice.
With enough people like you in the world protests will be illegal. All protests are disruptive to somebody and people like you believe that right to live life without disruption is more important then the right to protest.
So sad really.
evil is as evil does