Slashdot Mirror
Chinese, U.S. Condemn Censorship
More reactions both at home and abroad to the censorship issue. picaro writes "According to the BBC, 'party elders' in China released an open letter decrying the current state of censorship in China, and suggesting that 'history demonstrates that only a totalitarian system needs news censorship, out of the delusion that it can keep the public locked in ignorance.'" LWATCDR writes "The US government is upset over restrictions of freedom of speech on the Internet. The United States, has 'very serious concerns' about the protection of privacy and data throughout the Internet globally, and in particular, some of the recent cases raised in China."
Who is this letter being addressed to? Who will it reach that have the power to change the status quo?
I'm wondering what purpose this announcement serves. I'm glad to hear this, but is this just lipservice or a precursor to some real action?
I'm at a loss as to how such a major policy change can be brought about in China aside from a sudden onset of mass altruism. Part of it stems from a very poor understanding of the Chinese government structure. I'm sure I'm not the only one in the U.S that doesn't know.
Can someone fill in these information gaps?
The U.S. is as concerned about "privacy rights" as casinos are in letting you win. The quote comes from State Department flunky Josette Shiner, a 15-year veteran of the Washington Times and a member of the cult known as the "Unification Church". When a Moonie tells you, on behalf of the U.S. Government, that the government is interested in personal privacy it's time to run in the other direction as fast as possible. FWIW Shiner got her appointment from Bush to the State Dept. as a political favor to the Moonies for their support.
When a woman who has spent the majority of her adult life in service to Rev. Moon there's very little credibility there.
>>Just because you can say it doesn't mean there aren't consequenses from saying it!
>This is such a god damm strawman argument and I am so sick and tired of it. >People who say that freedom of speech and of the press are important values >(like the GP) aren't saying that speech should be free from consequences. >However consequences is defined in a very particular way.
It'd be nice if you gave a definition and not examples.
>When people, correctly, say that there are "consequences" to speech, they >aren't talking about bombings, riots, murder, and all that bullshit.
Actually, "people" might very well mean that.
>Stop equating some doofus at some university for getting himself kicked out >because he posts stuff on the internet (a legal consequence), with people who >riot in the streets, burn buildings, cause violence, kill each other, and >threaten to kill the people who said stuff they disagree with half a world >away.
Why not? Both are possible illegal (regardless of your claim to the contrary).
>Muslims, including many moderates, feel that a paper should not be allowed to >insult their religion. That is the very definition of a violation of free >speech.
If the Muslims are in power (ie, they run the government), yes.
>Threatening to kill Danish citizens is not a "consequence" of freedom of >speech.
Actually, that is a consequence. Threats are speech too.
>Pissing someone off doesn't give them the right to burn shit, and kill people. >That is not a valid "consequence" of speech.
You're right. But it's not a valid consequence precisely because burning shit, killing people, etc is already illegal. That doesn't mean people won't respond with violence to things they disagree with. What it does mean is that the government will not turn a blind eye to such violence because it dislikes the speech as well (look at the government protecting Klan members). It also means that the government will not preemptively make speech illegal and remove rights or privileges based on it (so, no withholding food stamps from political radicals or kicking out students from public funded universities for the things they say).
So, none of this protects you from the angry mobs directly (ie, you might still see riots and murder). It does mean that justice will be carried out, though, even when you're dead. So, to put it bluntly, consequences are all actions that are carried out as a side-effect of an act, illegal or legal. To turn a blind eye to this is to ignore that it takes courage to speak when there are those who would wish you dead. Now, if you wish to speak of justifiable consequences, that's really a whole other matter. But it's amazing how people who dislike certain things can justify almost anything.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h