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."

10 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. "National security" is the antithesis of freedom. by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. At least they are being honest. by Surur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:History in the making by metternich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The last great communistic/socialistic/whatever government on the planet.
    Hardly... While there is still some remenants of the old state-run economy, China's increasingly capitialistic these days and has been so for some time. Heck, they recently changed the rules so capitialists can join the Chinese Communist Party. I think "Authoritarian" is the word you're looking for, and there are plenty of other countries that word would also describe.

    --
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
  4. No, not reall by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:No, not reall by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cheney never said anything like that and his record suggests it is unlikely he ever would.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  5. The great irony by Crixus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:Holy crap! by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny, I was going to say Democrats are. They're the socialist-wannabes, aren't they?

    Actually, by European standards most US Democrats are pretty comfortably to the right of the center in politics. Everytime I hear you Neocons accuse liberal or moderate right wing politicians in the US of being Socialists I wonder what would happen if somebody introduced one of you US-American conservatives to a real live 24 carat way-left-of-center Socialist, never mind an acutal honest to goodness die hard Communist like we have them over here in Europe? My pet theory is that you would go red in the face, then steam would shoot out of your ears and your eyes would bulge out followed by a massive bang as your head explodes. Many US-Americans speak very belligerently about Communists, Socialsits and how they are the spawn of Satan etc... but I get the feeling most US-Americans have little or no idea what those words acutally mean.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  7. Re:Before anyone brings it up... by stinerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes ... and Hitler was part of the National Socialist party ...

    Godwin! You win!

  8. Clearly the US should respond ... by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... 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?

  9. Boo Hoo they mean by gelfling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.