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.
Actually (and this is drifting even FURTHER off topic, heh), America wasn't named after Amerigo Vespucci. For a long time it's thought it was that way, but unless someone is a royal or a leader then a place they discover is named after their LAST name (so it would have been named Vespuccia if it was named after he) - take a look at other examples... Cook Straits, Magellan Straits etc.
The man they think America was actually named after was Richard Amerike, a merchant from Bristol in the UK who traded and shipped supplies to people in Newfoundland.
More info here
[ Disclaimer, I am Chinese, and I live in China. Specifically I live in Hong Kong, which may or may not be "China" in your definition. ]
I have always been perplexed by Westerners' belief that they are somehow responsible for human rights and democracy in China. I have been more perplexed at how they believe sticking their noses into another country's matters will make things better.
I don't live in Mainland China (which is the part under direct control of the CCP), so I don't claim to have authentic first hand facts. However, my proximity with mainland China is probably good enough for me to tell you what I believe is a fact: Most people in China would like to have more civil/political rights, ARE aware of abuses by their government, but nevertheless loathe any foreign attempts to meddle with the problems. Basically it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems ourselves".
If you're asking why China has been so resistant to external pressures to human rights reforms... this is the reason. Basically nobody in China wants "Western democratic countries" to dictate their path. I'd add that the recent Iraq disaster is deemed to be a telling story of what it could be like to be "liberated" from a dictatorship.
If you think I'm misguided, and have good reasons for that, please let me know.
Don't quote me on this.
There is a difference here though. The swiss have always been europeans, the Mexicans have never been americans. Before anyone declared independence in america, the europeans over there were called spaniards, brits, french, etc. Then the US became independent, and they were thus refered to americans, since they could not be called brits anymore. At that point they were actually the only americans, the Mexicans were still spaniards, the canadians were still brits. When the mexicans got their independence, they became Mexicans. Thus, they were never refered to as americans.
And besides, the be honest, "European" is more and more starting to become "Citizen of the EU". Not so much in Europe, but in the rest of the world. Too bad for the swiss, norwegians and some others, but they are in fact an insignificant minority, thats the price you pay for staying independent.
I don't know, but human rights seem like a very bad thing if that's the case. For me at least, it means the right of an individual person to have the freedom to do as he/she feels like it as long is there is no direct physical and unwanted harm done to that person or his or her property.
I will defend this right with as much force as I can. I will attempt to be as fanatical as my opponents are to do me harm if I exercise these freedoms.
To answer your direct questions: The right to have sex with random adults before marriage and even after marriage? Yes, this would be one example of a human right. The right to kill your neighbor when they stumbled upon your house "as self defense"? No. Killing to protect your life is self-preservation and is understandable and very human. Killing merely to protect your property is wrong (though some people in the West would disagree). Killing to protect your property in a military sense (protecting one's land from invaders) is a more complex subject, but there are reasons where it can be justified. This is a tangent and I won't elaborate. The right to show pornography to minors? If there is no force or coercion involved (that is, no harm done to the minor), then yes this is a right. Granted a lot of people will say that a minor does not have the intellectual capacity to consent. But to me the consent issue here is irrelevant, since the viewing of pornography is not harmful. You will have to give me the benefit of the doubt here because arguing about this issue would be a tangent and off-topic. The right to abuse substances? It depends what you mean by "abuse substances". If you mean drink alcohol or use other mind / mood altering substances then yes. Sex and drugs are moral issues. They do not cause harm to an individual. Of course they MAY cause harm depending on how they are used. Again I'm not going to argue here.
But more important to having these freedoms, however trivial they may appear to you; is the right (not so much) to be free to do something, but to have the right to be free from oppression and punishment. If what a person "hurts" is nothing more than some religious, political, ethnic or traditional dogma or moral; then these rights should be paramount and superceding. I don't mean to insult a persons traditions, but these traditions cannot harm me, or anybody else. If a person imposes their own morals or traditions on me then this would be offensive. In the same vein, I will not impose my morals on you or anybody else. And no, giving somebody freedom is not imposing. I don't know, but human rights seem like a very bad thing if that's the case. To me puting people in jail, breaking up families, and destroying a person's career just because you do not like that person's morality is wrong. Some cultures even kill people because of their morals. Even in the West we have vigilantes who kill people because of their morals: this is wrong and violates human rights. If you disagree with this then you are wrong and I will do everything possible to stop you. When you say "I don't know", I certainly hope that you do indeed have some doubt's about your beliefs. Keeping an open mind and having the ability to feel empathy and have tolerance can be very helpful in having a peaceful and happy world.
I will say that the issues you bring up do not reflect on my personal moral outlook (for example, adultery is something that I personally feel uncomfortable with) or lifestyle, but I wish for people to have freedom of choice and more importantly freedom from repression.
Best regards,
UTW