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."

Comments

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

China is now looking for a more "fair and balanced" way to report the day's headlines.

A Few Questions...

[Kelbear]

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?

Yeah right.

[mctk]

"The letter was signed on 2 February but publicly released on Tuesday."

Sadly, the writers made the unfortunate mistake of pointing out important parts using the infamous "black highlighter." They could not be located for clarification.

Re:hm

[B. Pascal]

Hello J.B.:

There is a difference between protecting privacy and censorship. Privacy protection involves stopping the dissemination of personal information. On the other hand, censorship involves stopping the dissemination of public information.

For example, protecting my medical records, making it inaccessible to others without my permission, is protecting my privacy. Stopping news report of an earth quake, for another example, would be censorship.

Cheers.

B.Pascal

Let Me Get This Straight:

[aquatone282]

If China censors free speech, that's bad.

But if fundamentalist religious zealots threaten us with violence for exercising free speech, we're okay with that.

Seriously - WTF?

Re:Let Me Get This Straight:

[msbsod]

Like this case: click.
Sad.

Re:Let Me Get This Straight:

[omgwtfroflbbqwasd]

Ya know, there's something that everyone born with the right to free speech seems to have forgotten lately..

Just because you can say it doesn't mean there aren't consequenses from saying it! To think that someone can stand on their soapbox and rant on about something that infuriates others and not have their ass kicked shows a severe lack of common sense.

That said, there's definitely room for tolerance of conflicting opinions, views, etc. in our world. But don't expect everyone to act that way.

Re:Let Me Get This Straight:

[lbrandy]

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. When people, correctly, say that there are "consequences" to speech, they aren't talking about bombings, riots, murder, and all that bullshit. 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.

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. Threatening to kill Danish citizens is not a "consequence" of freedom of speech. Pissing someone off doesn't give them the right to burn shit, and kill people. That is not a valid "consequence" of speech.

Re:Let Me Get This Straight:

[10101001 10101001]

>>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.

Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005

[MyNymWasTaken]

Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland all tied for 1st place.

The USA ranked 44th. (Fell more than 20 places)

China ranked 159th.

The Index also refutes the theory frequently advanced by leaders of poor and repressive countries that economic development is a vital prerequisite for democracy and the respect for human rights. The top portion of the Index is heavily dominated not only by rich, but also by very poor, countries (the latter having a per capita GDP of less than $1,000 in 2003).

Re:Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005

[A beautiful mind]

I wouldn't put too much faith into that list.

There is a reason why the USA slipped of course and ranks at 44th place, but abuses of press get a lot more press if it happens in the USA. The only way to know about these abuses is more or less the same mechanism that the report is criticizing.

Take for example Hungary, my home country at the 12th place. Now, around 80-90% of the media here is owned by ex-communist leaders who transferred their political power into economic one. That makes for a pretty biased press. I'm not sure if I would take the USA's press over what we have here, but I'd take the UK's press any day (especially the beeb) and they got the 24th place while Hungary is 12 places higher.

This freedom of press report should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm no expert on press in most of the world, but based on how it represents local press I have to conclude it to be pretty inaccurate.

Re:Hypocrits

[Atzanteol]

My god your right! I just tried searching for George Bush Sucks and got nothing! Nor does there seem to be any entries for George bush is a terrorist! This blatant censorship must stop!

Crock O' Shite

[PingXao]

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.

exactly

[circletimessquare]

many say the prophet mohammed cartoons were a direct provocation of muslim sensibilities. and they would be correct. and equally true is that many muslims are rightfully deeply insulted by the cartoons... but most of them they stew in their anger in silence, or wage peacful protests. and some say the western media only focuses on the most violent of reactions. there is some truth to this too.

however, the problem is that, even with all of these mitigations, there is still a worrisome, large segment of the muslim world that thinks their reaction, violence, is appropriate. in other words...
1. the muslims were provoked: true
2. most muslims react peacefully and appropriately: true
3. western media shows a disproportionate amount of violent reaction: true

and yet, after all of those mitigations, there still really are a lot of muslims, a disporportionately, worrying large amount, who reacted with violence. and this points to a real problem in the muslim world, that haters of the west, and apologists for the muslim world, or anyone else for that matter, would be foolish to think they can ignore as a serious issue.

Re:exactly

[kbahey]

First of all, there was a very small percentage of muslims who reacted violently.

Small percentage? There's thousands of Muslims rioting and attacking embassies. If it were a few small groups of extremists, that'd be one thing. But popularly-supported riots with thousands of people is another thing entirely. It's pretty obvious that the behavior of these violent Muslims is fairly representative of the feelings of the majority.

You can't call them "a few extremists" any more when there's thousands of them crowding the streets.

Let us do some math.

Assuming that there were demonstrations in 10 countries, and there were 2,000 people in each demonstration, this makes up for 20,000 Muslims involved.

I am in a generous mood, so let us say 5,000 in each demonstration, in 20 countries. Total is 100,000 Muslims then. Mind you not all of these were violent, nor involved property damage. The most notable torching of embassies was in Lebanon and Syria, perhaps a couple of others.

Now, how much is 100,000 in the total population of Muslims worldwide which is estimated at 1.2 billion or more? This is 0.008% of the total.

Even if we assume that there are 1,200,000 Muslims involved, this is still 0.01%.

Negligible for sure.

You can read an alternative view in some thoughts on the prophet Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Second, You are leaving out the political/cultural context. The muslims have been experienced a lot of suffering under colonial occupation.

Tough shit. Honestly, I really don't care any more. The Europeans haven't had control of the middle eastern countries for almost a century now; no one in those violent crowds was alive when there were any colonies. This is like the excuse that some black people in the US give for having atrocious behavior, that their distant ancestors were slaves. Sorry, it's not 1850 any more; it's time to join the rest of society and stop playing the oppression card. Even worse, the US has never had any colonies, so that argument really doesn't apply to the country they all hate the most.

You have a point here about the victimization complex, and I agree with it.

On the other hand, if it not have been for the two recent invasions of Muslim countries, this argument would have been stronger.

I've been rabidly anti-Republican since the Bush/Gore election, but any sympathy I ever had for Muslims is gone now.

Too bad that you sympathy is gone because of some choice footage in the media that leaves a lot of background and context.

By the same token, the rest of the world solely judges the USA from what they see from Hollywood and TV shows, as well as its actions (foreign policy and military). This is unfair, but it is the sore thumb sticking out. Judging should be based on a deeper multi-facted analysis.

We should pull out of these backwards, hellhole countries and leave them to their own devices.

Good idea. Intervention was wrong in the first place. But it is not going to happen, since there is so much at stake (oil, geo-politics, ...etc.)

A few answers

[pepsi_j_cola]

1) There are only a few top post in China that provide policy direction. Most of it currently filled by Hu, a civil engineer by trade (thus all the rail road, dam and other civil projects got a lot more funding.) 2) There is also a people's congress full of semi-elected people (some of them are appointed by local governments, some elect by villages, some by state companies). They mostly just rubber stamp what the top people want to do. But sometime they don't. 3) There is also a mass of state and local governments. The major cities' governments are controled closely from the top. But small cities and villages local government mostly ignore what ever the top tell them and do their own thing. 4) For a non-elect government, they still respond closely to the needs of the poeple. Like when the difference between rich and poor became an identified problem. The state abolished tax for the bottom 20%, lowered gas price for farmers and removed residency requirment to work in most cities. 5) To get to the top in Chinese Government, you would start in some government office. Then work your personal relationships, or prove yourself.

Re:hm

[Dashing Leech]

"The data for that cure would be my intellectual property and, therefore, private."

Sorry to go slighly off topic, and to do some lecturing myself, but I find it incredibly sad that we've (rather, the influence of the MPAA/RIAA and similar) have created a society that actual believes your statement above. That the absurdity of owning an idea as if it were tangible property is not apparent to everyone, but rather embraced by many if not the majority, almost brings me to tears over the future of civilized society. The really sad part is that this concept of private ownership goes well beyond existing IP laws. People don't actually "own" IP; the laws allow a limited (in time and extent) right of denial for copying, distributing, or implementing the IP depending on it's form. This limited monopoly is not an inherent right of ownership, but rather an incentive to publicize the IP so that others can learn from it and use it in the long run, thus benefiting society.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."