Slashdot Mirror


China Bans Horror Movies

KublaiKhan writes "According to an article on Reuters, the Chinese censors have decided that horror movies are verboten. 'Offending content included "wronged spirits and violent ghosts, monsters, demons, and other inhuman portrayals, strange and supernatural storytelling for the sole purpose of seeking terror and horror," the administration said. This is apparently a sort of Chinese version of the Jack Thompson effect, as the "mental health of adolescents" is cited as one of the reasons for the ban. Presumably, this ban — much like the spitting ban — is intended to improve China's image in the rest of the world before the Olympics open; but given the Streisand effect, would this ban perhaps unintentionally spur a surge of horror movie popularity in China?" Blizzard has had trouble with skeletons in World of Warcraft , and I imagine this decision stems from similar objections.

11 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Improve their image? by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And just how exactly is it supposed to improve their image with the rest of the world to look like a bunch of censorious tyrants?

  2. What a worthless government by rastoboy29 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long will the Chinese people tolerate this stuff?  They have to meet with their Western colleagues, and explain that they may not be allowed to visit a certain internet sight, see a certain movie, etc. because their government doesn't think they can handle it.

    It's embarrassing.

    1. Re:What a worthless government by oddfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody in America with half a brain and true concern for the flagrant abuses of basic universal human and civil rights is advocating doing anything with China other than cutting off the (economic) lifeblood that's keeping this despicable government in power in the first place. We are entirely within our rights to advocate this sort of policy because many of us cannot stand the idea of supporting that government financially through trade. A violent overthrow in the style of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen, I can't see America attacking China unless we slip pretty far (Nevermind how far we've slipped already in the past eight years).

      It's not that we're responsible for democracy and human rights in China, but rather that every responsible conscientious human being is responsible for ensuring the spread of the basic values that the Chinese government refuses to allow its citizenry. It doesn't matter how proud the Chinese people are or how powerful they think they could possibly be against the government that made Tienanmen Square happen. There's a point where you have to realistically view just how weak and powerless you are to prevent your government from doing whatever it damn well pleases.

      Basically it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems ourselves".

      No, basically, it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems if you don't because tomorrow it might be us becoming subjects." If the Chinese people won't or can't step up to the plate to prevent the spread of a very dangerous totalitarian government, well, sorry guys but someone will do something about it.

      To reiterate, nobody's with good intentions and a solid head on their shoulders is advocating a violent overthrow, we want peaceful change, we want to take the steam out of this current regime so that the Chinese government would be that much more willing to sink or swim. Sadly, this will have the side-effect of being at least partially harmful to the population, but it's definitely the path of least bloodshed. Chinese citizens are proud of their history and culture, as they very well should be, but to refuse the assistance of those with genuine concern is just stupid and foolhardy. We aren't trying to dictate the future of your country so much as we're assuring the continuance of civilized society that doesn't suppress its citizens mercilessly. And you can bet your bottom dollar the Chinese government would love nothing more than expansion, which we're not going to allow.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
  3. Geography 101 by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I just thought you might like to know that, while they are all in Asia and are very close to each other, Japan, Korea, and China are actually different countries with different kinds of culture, laws, and government.

    Based on this, I can't help but wonder what a Korean horror movie (The Host) and a Japanese horror movie (Godzilla) have to do with the Chinese government banning horror movies...

    What makes this a coincidence?

    It just seems like saying, "Oh? You are from the United States? Coincidentally, there's a special about Costa Rican rain forests on TV right now."

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  4. Re:What is the problem here? by unlametheweak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are two entirely different cultures and what are you doing passing judgment on the Chinese? I am not passing judgment on the Chinese. I am passing judgment on human beings. More specifically I am passing judgment on human beings who are dictators.

    You can dilute and diverge the argument over more trivial cultural differences (nice try), but the topic is about censorship and more generally human rights, and not more specifically (as you imply) about a cultures spitting habits.
  5. Re:On So Many Levels by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the frivolous stuff that actually hits a lot of people that gets a lot of people angry enough to do something. The big things that only hit a few people are easier to sell to the masses, since it's always someone else being affected. But when everyone is affected...

    If horror movies is the only thing hit, I predict nothing will come of it. But if this is the start of a trend, then something very interesting might be about to happen.

    Revolutions have been started over taxes on tea...

  6. Re:What is the problem here? by Haeleth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be interesting to hear your non recursive definition of a 'dictator', as I wonder how many other leaders may fall into this category.
    My non-recursive definition of a "dictator" is a leader who uses oppressive means to hold onto power, where "oppressive means" are things like stifling free political speech, rigging (or simply not holding) elections, and intimidating or imprisoning peaceful political opponents.

    The leaders of China stifle free speech, do not hold elections, and imprison political opponents: therefore they are dictators. The same goes for the leaders of countries like Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, arguably Pakistan, etc.

    On the other hand, the leaders of countries like the USA, Canada, Britain, France, etc. encourage free political speech, hold elections that the majority even of their opponents believe are free and fair, and do not intimidate or imprison peaceful dissidents; therefore they are not dictators, by my definition.

    Seems fairly clear and consistent to me, but I'm sure you'll find something to nitpick.
  7. Re:whats scary is: by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However the situation in China over the last two decades has been decreasing amounts of centralised control and more situations where ordinary citizens have been able to get corrupt government officials removed. It's no democracy but it is vastly different to a totalitarian state like North Korea and vastly different to the China of thirty years ago.

  8. Meta commentary by the /. site by sukotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The more crap you put up with, the more crap you are going to get."

    Is the current fortune at the bottom of the page.

    Can I moderate the fortune +1 ?

    --
    Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
  9. Re:Godwin 101 by Nuskrad · · Score: 4, Insightful
  10. Streisand effect doesn't apply by pikine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Streisand effect applies when some private information is leaked about a public figure, and the person tries to protect his/her own privacy while inadvertently making that information more popular. It has to do with people's curiosity to peer into someone else's private life, but anti-censorship is most often used as an excuse.

    In the case of horror movie ban, there is no person's private life involved, so Streisand effect doesn't apply. It is perhaps more similar to public ban of pornography in some countries, where people still try to stealthily distribute pornography by various means. However, pornography is fueled by people's curiosity about sex. I don't think horror movies incite people's curiosity about anything.

    My own feeling is that there will still be a small percentage of people who are fatally attracted to spirituality, psychic, voodoo, and witchcraft. They will continue to smuggle these horror movies and perform cult worship. However, most people will live happily without being bothered with annoying horror movie advertisements.

    Speaking of which, I was eating at a food court that has some television, and it showed a trailer of a horror movie with green slime, deteriorated tissue, fermented blood, and all this crap. Though I didn't react outrageously about it, it really disturbed my appetite. Such a dining experience!

    --
    I once had a signature.