Chinese Journalists Beat Censorship With Web

chris-chittleborough writes "When Beijing tried to make a journalist's pay at one newspaper depend on official reactions to their stories, a web-savvy reporter was able to create a groundswell of public opinion and reverse the move." From the article: "Just before the meeting, Li had posted a blistering letter on the newspaper's computer system attacking the Communist Party's propaganda czars and a plan by the editor in chief to dock reporters' pay if their stories upset party officials. No one told the editor in chief. For 90 minutes, he ran the meeting, oblivious to the political storm that was brewing. Then Li announced what he had done."

Comments

Re:Freedom fighters

[lasindi]

Freedom has rarely ever been given back in any form because an electorate said, "please sir, might we have some more." It usually takes overt acts of defiance which makes this journalist all the more heroic given which society we're talking about.

A lot of people on Slashdot say this, and while I agree that it's very important to vigilantly guard civil liberties, I don't think this argument that "freedom given away 'temporarily' is impossible to get back easily" really flies. Also, the electorate usually doesn't "say" something timid like "might we have some more." It's usually a firmer "back off!" For example, look at the Alien and Sedition Acts that were passed under John Adams' administration; under our modern interpretation of the 1st Amendment, the laws were clearly unconstitutional, and a lot of Americans at the time thought so too. What happened? In 1800, the electorate threw John Adams and his Federalists out of power and voted in the Democratic-Republicans with Jefferson, who strongly opposed the acts. A similar episode came when Ford was kicked out when Americans voted after Watergate was exposed. The point here is that the American voters tend to tolerate relatively small transgressions on their freedoms, but if politicians take a real serious chunk, they'll let them know.

The irony is that in America, anyone who votes for the two major parties is voting for the rise of Fascism.

There is a slippery slope here, but you're turning it into a vertical cliff. The only censorship advocated by American political parties today is censorship of "obscene material" containing violence, sex, expletives, etc. While I completely agree that this ought to be covered under free speech, let's look at this honestly: this isn't political speech. Alberto Gonzales would like to could get rid of porn not because it's critical of Bush, but out of genuine (from his perspective) concern about "corrupting" children. The slope is slippery, but there is still a very significant bump that any politician wanting to do political censorship would have to overcome. However, even if political censorship is acceptable, that doesn't mean that all semblance of free speech disappears immediately. Look at many European countries, where denial of Holocaust or "hate" speech is prohibited. Such speech is banned for truly political reasons, and yet (nearly) free political discourse still survives in Europe.

Again, I think that any censorship is silly and unethical. It's both futile and unnecessary; people will always get around it, and with free speech stupid ideas will die without logical underpinnings. But freedom is not quite as fragile as you think, and you completely exaggerate the political climate in America. Saying that censoring curse words by law on TV is the "rise of Fascism" would be like pointing at someone who just got a ticket for speeding and saying that they will turn into a serial killer. Yeah, the censorship of "obscene material" is wrong, but it's not the end of the world.

A nation that won't even tell private security officers at stores like Best Buy to leave them alone when they're harrassing them, won't stay free long.

Why do you see things through such a black and white lense? Some people don't mind if Best Buy takes steps to prevent shop-lifting, even if it's a bit of a bother sometimes. Many Slashdotters seem to think that if authorities even dare to check on whether or not you're breaking the law, whether through surveillance cameras at the Olympics, checking IDs at airports, or DRM on music, that is the end of the free world. The government can't be constantly watching because there is a danger of abuse, not because we're supposed to always presume that no one would ever violate the law when given the chance. Best Buy can't just lock you up because you look guilty, but you also cannot expect them to not do anything to prevent shoplifting.

In short, there is a lot of gray area between not letting minors buy Grand Theft Auto and totalitarian political censorship that you are completely ignoring. It's not good, but it's not fascism.