Slashdot Mirror


85% of Chinese Citizens Like Internet Censorship

cynagh0st writes "A Pew Internet & American Life Project report indicates that of an overwhelming majority of Chinese people that believed the Internet should be 'managed or controlled,' 85% want the government to do this managing. This is resulting from surveys on Internet use over the last seven years in China. 'The survey findings discussed here, drawn from a broad-based sample of urban Chinese Internet users and non-users alike, indicate a degree of comfort and even approval of the notion that the government authorities should control and manage the content available on the Internet.' The report goes further into describing the divide in perspective between China and Western Nations on the matter and discusses the PRC's justifications for Internet control."

63 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. the other 15% by prgrmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    are in jail

    1. Re:the other 15% by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      85% of Chinese Likes Censorship

      That's not what they were asked because the Chinese government did not approve of the question. They were asked if they approved of government control. The two are very different, especially in a socialist state where the government controls everything.

    2. Re:the other 15% by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They were asked if they approved of government control. The summary says they were asked if they liked control, and if they did, if they preferred it were done by the government.

      That is kinda like asking Americans if they think terrorism should be fought, and if so should it be done by the US DoD.
      It's a loaded question designed to get a specific answer from a select group.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:the other 15% by psychodelicacy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My government (I voted for the other guy, but that's my tough luck), against whom I protest when I think they're wrong, does bad things. Therefore I (who do not agree with the things my government does) have no moral right to protest against what your government does.

      Yup, that works.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    4. Re:the other 15% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China is NOT socialist... it does a insult and a disservice to socialism to say this. China has nothing to do with socialism as it does not implement socialist ideas. Socialism is based on returning control to the people of economic systems so that they are run for and by the people in the common interest through democratic control over governments and economic corporations.

      Socialism does not conflict with ideas of democracy and freedom and coexists well with them. Socialism can actually be a part of a vibrant, free democratic society, and one that recognises human rights such as free speech.

      Socialism does not necessarily mean centralisation either, especially not to any greater degree than the US economy has been centralised, in fact it decentralises control via democratic control of the people of corporations. Socialism basically extends democracy into the economic realm.

      Socialism can also be implemented in a competitive atmosphere where you can have completely independant democratic corporations competing with each other in the same markets, so it does not mean a centralisation of control of economy into a central organisation. The essential component of socialism is that all large economic structure should be controlled for and by the people, and that can include multiple democratic companies existing and competing in the same markets. The idea already exists in many areas of the US economy with employee owned corporations, which is a form of socialism.

      Socialism also requires an extensive protections of human rights including free speech and human rights. Personal property rights are also important too and co-exist with socialism, the idea is that large scale economic structures and large aggregations of production assets should be democratically controlled, but that personal property rights should be respected, that people have a right to own a home and other personal effects, and small businesees as well. Many socialist proposals require democratisation of the corporation after it reaches a certain size, but small mom and pop businesses would be completely privately owned.

      Socialism does not also mean a merging of government and economic corporations, the two can remain independant entities, although both are democratically controlled.

      You might call Sweden or Norway socialist (to an extant) but the term is no way to accurate to describe China. China is democratic or socialist in name only, as the country routinely violates the right of its peoples for the benefit of an elite government, has terrible human record, and highly flawed or nonexistant democracy.

    5. Re:the other 15% by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but their people are in jail for different things than ours. Their people are in jail frequently for things that would be completely legal here with our freedoms of speech and press. Our people are in jail frequently for either violent crimes or drug charges. In China, people guilty of those things don't go to jail; they're shot in the head instead. And unlike here in the US, death sentences in China don't take decades to be carried out, after too many appeals. They're sentenced, and then taken out and shot right away.

      I don't think it's completely fair to compare the incarceration rates of China and the USA without adding in all the people they execute in China.

      As a side point, our prison population would be much smaller if 1) drugs (especially marijuana) were legalized or decriminalized, so that prison was only reserved for violent offenders and serious white-collar offenders (fraud, embezzlement, etc.), and 2) we didn't have the enormous illegal immigration problem we have--much of Mexico's population is in our prison system rather than their own. China probably doesn't have a big illegal immigration problem, but as far as I know they're at least as tough on drugs as we are, so they probably have drug offenders in prison as well, making that point not a valid difference between the two.

    6. Re:the other 15% by fastest+fascist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One might, of course, ask whether or not the statistics the chinese government gives out about their prison population are likely to be accurate.

    7. Re:the other 15% by superyooser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they have fewer people in jail because they've already executed them. Much more efficient and economical that way.

    8. Re:the other 15% by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, we should fight terrorism.

      No, the military should not be doing it. Terrorism is a bogyman meant to scare you into allowing the military to gain more power.
      It has worked awfully well.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  2. Look! by callocx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, a censored survey!

  3. Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    85% Chinese is afraid of the government.

    1. Re:Real News by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not that simple. There are a fair amount of Chinese - both inside China and outside of China - who do not share my belief in the necessity of free speech. That's part of the reason why the Chinese government is still in place: according to a good chunk of the population, it's doing a good job. There are significant philosophical differences between China and the West (as nebulous a region as that is). This is one of them. Belittling them, dismissing them or otherwise ignoring them will not help in dealing with them. One of the biggest strength of the Chinese government right now is that it can leverage a massive and widespread feeling in the population that the West is treating China unfairly and more like a stupid dog than an equal nation. Then again, another useful item to keep in mind is that 0.1% of the population amounts to 1 million people. In other words, Chinese crackpots are about as big a group as certain European nations.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Real News by mounthood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are significant philosophical differences between China and the West (as nebulous a region as that is). This is one of them. Belittling them, dismissing them or otherwise ignoring them will not help in dealing with them. Oh... it's philosophical! Well, in that case, we should apologize. I thought it was about control and power, and how ruthless and brutal the Chinese government is. Now I understand.
      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    3. Re:Real News by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was thinking about this, and I'm not sure that it is a cultural difference between the Chinese and the 'West'. I know that's how many people (a lot of them pro-government Chinese, from what I've seen) are presenting it, but I think they may be mistaken.

      Think of some of the things that the British or American governments do and say with more or less full support of their populations. There are plenty willing to argue that the government is doing 'x, y or z' in our best interests despite the fact that history has demonstrated that even the best intentions are almost always corrupted. In the same way that many 'western' people accept that far-reaching new laws will only be used against terrorists and are necessary to protect us, many of the chinese accept that their government is protecting them from biased international propaganda rather than more or less the exact opposite.

      My point is this: perhaps it's a function of general human apathy more than of any one particular culture.

    4. Re:Real News by computational+super · · Score: 3, Insightful
      she agrees with it, since "too much information can be confusing for the people" and that she thinks it is good that the government has some control over all this "confusion"

      Oh, hell, that's not just China - 90% of America thinks that way, and 50% of Slashdot thinks that way if you bring up the right "think of the children" sort of censorship.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    5. Re:Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's starting to become the same way in America. Just replace anarchy with "terrorism" and we're apparently willing to deal with "oppression" in our own right.

  4. Accurate? by MiKM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I were living in China, I'd be wary (and probably afraid) of speaking out against gov't censorship and control of the Internet.

  5. Shocking~ by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean people that spend all their life being managed and controlled want the internet to be managed and controlled?

    I'm shocked I tells ya, shocked~

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Shocking~ by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean people that spend all their life being managed and controlled want the internet to be managed and controlled?

      This is one manifestation of a larger question: how realistic is it to assume that a society that is quickly growing richer wants to rock the boat that has raised their living conditions? It always seemed naive to assume that a richer China would necessarily demand more freedoms. When you consider the effort and sacrifices required to overcome the odds in securing a middle class lifestyle in China today it seems preposterous to assume that these very same people are somehow going to form the vanguard demanding change. Most of these people aren't going to give up their comfortable high rises or prized automobiles for anything or anyone. This may change in time but that time is a long ways away.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    2. Re:Shocking~ by YourExperiment · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a similar manner to people who become used to having a monkey for a president, and end up voting him in for a second term?

  6. Skewed results by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did they perform this survey? I would have a feeling that the majority of people in China are in three or more similar categories:

    1. Afraid to answer anything "anonymously" as they know better.

    2. Afraid to answer anything other than what they think the State wants them to say (see #1).

    3. Are so ingrained in the sheep mentality that they just don't know any better.

    4. Are just like Americans and don't really care but don't lie about it.

    1. Re:Skewed results by hardburn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder if we're not looking at this with cultural filters, though. It could well be that the Chinese have a mindset that makes government control work where it has failed in the West.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    2. Re:Skewed results by radish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      5. That's actually what they prefer.

      It seems rather insulting to me to assume that because someone thinks differently from you they must either have been coerced or just be dumb. Sure, either of those is possible, but so is the option that they just like things a particular way.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  7. Riiiiiiiiiight.... by swb311 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how many no votes were censored.

    For the common good.

  8. If you gave the same survey in the US or UK... by thatseattleguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...or another ostensible democracy, and asked the same question, I wonder what percentage would say "yes" here as well?

    I think it might me much higher than most Slashdotters would believe.

    1. Re:If you gave the same survey in the US or UK... by NemosomeN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think the government should step in to censor internet traffic in order to prevent the dissemination of dangerous materials? (For example, child pornography, terrorism-related communication, etc.)

      Do you think the government should step in to censor internet traffic in order to prevent the dissemination of dangerous materials? (For example, political dissent, unsanctioned scientific theories, etc.)

      Even the same question, if you put someone in the mood to say yes or no, could yield wildly different results.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
  9. What would you say? by reality-bytes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So when the central government sanctioned and vetted Chinese Academy of Social Sciences comes round to ask if you like the government to censor your communications....

    ...how do you reply?

    Don't get the answer wrong now will you.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  10. Censor child porn, please by athloi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think we all like some censorship. I would like to avoid ever hearing about or seeing child porn and would not like my children to have access to easy recipes for explosives and drugs. (Access to scientific materials is legitimate and should be encouraged, and if they can find out how to make explosives and drugs from that, it's probably not a bad thing.)

  11. It isn't skewed voting... its skewed teaching. by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When people are raised in a certain way, they think a certain way. Often, children in abusive households become abusive themselves...

    so... what about children raised in a red china communism 'I love the government' household? ...

    To add to that problem, how can 85% of chinese vote for an option they've never experienced - if they are living 'well' enough, by their standards, and don't know differently, then why would they change?

    1. Re:It isn't skewed voting... its skewed teaching. by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When people are raised in a certain way, they think a certain way. Often, children in abusive households become abusive themselves... You got any evidence for that claim? I know a couple of people who were beaten and abused in every way except the sexual one (and a few who were even in that), and none of them have become abusive. I've not read a single study that claims a strong correlation. There are correlations to other things such as depression, low self-esteem, eating disorders and lots and lots of other stuff, but from all I know, abused children are not any more or less likely to be abusive parents then everyone else.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  12. Hmm, by kabocox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd go as far to say that 99.99% of humanity thinks that censorship is a good thing as long as they get to pick what is censored from the rest.

    Everyone wants the government to be their censorship tool. The government will happily censor stuff. It's just various groups want different things censored and want to be allowed to view their chosen content.

  13. Unless it's a unanimous 100%, by JesseL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's not enough to justify the infringement of a human right.

    There is no majority large enough that stripping even one person of their rights against their will is justified.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  14. Issues. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a repressive government people will public speak party lines, most of them say it so much they start to beleave it. So the stats are not that unbeleavable. But I am sure if you can find a non-repressive government I bet you will still find a good number of people pro-censorship. Just as long as it is blocking information they don't want to hear.
    Even on Liberal anti-censorship slashdot. Oposing view points are often quickly modded down just because people don't want agree with it or beleave it to be true. While it is not censorship in true sience of the word, it is a way for the moderators to say Hey I don't want people reading this, and if they do I don't want them to think it is a valad argument.

    People are humans and humans feel threntoned by different ideas then their own, it doesn't matter if you have just a GED or a PHD you will feel threantoned by different ideas. When people feel threntoned they will try to move to higher powers to prevent the threat.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  15. Is it really that big of a divide? by tool462 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there was a poll among Americans asking if they felt that terrorism needed to be "managed or controlled" and if they wanted the government to do this managing, I bet the numbers would be similarly high. People aren't magically different across the globe. As long as the average individual isn't too badly off, they tend towards maintaining the status quo. In China this apparently gets translated to "I'm happy now. An influx of radical new ideas may upset this happiness. I'd rather things stay the way they are. The government needs to protect me from this." In the US this is "I'm happy now. An influx of radical terrorists may upset this happiness. I'd rather things stay the way they are. The government needs to protect me from this." You can substitute the fear du jour from almost any point in modern history with similar results.

  16. Its not always where you live by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it also is the question your asked and who asks it.

    Take voting in the DNC primary, by all accounts and polls one candidate should be getting even more votes than they are getting yet once behind the privacy of the voting booth they don't get them.

    Some questions make people uncomfortable whether their freedom is in jeopardy or not. It is also instinctive in some people to give the answer that they believe the questioner wants regardless if its a true one.

    While I do agree China is a special case I have seen friends answer complete strangers in what I knew wasn't what they believed but instead what they wanted the questioner to believe.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  17. How different are we? by cozziewozzie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many people in Europe and the US want the net to be censored?

    Including child pornography, illegal material, the anarchist cookbook, DeCSS, Nazi propaganda sites, etc?

    The level of censorship in China is obviously leaps and bounds beyond anything else in the world, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. but I think that people overestimate the meaning of free speech to the average citizen. As long as it doesn't bother them, most people don't have any problems whatsoever when extremists, deviants, weirdos, and the like are censored, as long as it doesn't directly concern them and the stuff they're interested.

    The majority of people in China are not interested in politics, both traditionally, and because it's been a bad idea to be involved in politics for the last 50 years. So if they don't read Dalai Lama's speeches, Japanese version of history, or Germany's take on political freedom in China, they don't particularly care, as they're not interested in it in the first place.

    Even here, people clap happily as the FBI and similar agencies in Europe freely read our emails, search our computers, confiscate hardware, all in the name of counter-terrorism. Make a Pew poll in Europe and let's see how many average people have a problem with this?

    The situation in China is obviously far worse, but instead of patting ourselves on the back and going on about evil Chinese and how much better we are, it would be wise to draw some parallels.

  18. I do not believe polls from communist countries by kyknos.org · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in a post-communist country and I remember the communism very well. Most people in the Czech Republic, before the fall of communism, would probably answer "yes, we agree with the goverment" in any poll, regardless of the question, if they just weren't absolutely sure that the authorities wouldn't know their answer. Because free expression of opinion, in such a country, may mean anything from financial loss to death.

    --

    SHE does throw dice.
  19. A simple solution... Test question, maybe? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Question 1. Do you believe that there should be a way for Law Enforcement officials to identify those on the internet who engage in illegal activities, for the sake of protecting the naive or easily prayed upon?

    Question 2. Do you want us to have the power to know what you buy online, what your daughter looks like in a bikini, and read the email you sent to your working-away-from-home husband (Paul) with that photo of you(?) in the black and scarlet red corset (and not much else)?

    If you answered differently to both of those questions, your opinion is not valid for this survey.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  20. In other news... by gnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Crest reports that 4 out of 5 dentists agree...

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  21. Stup, ungrammatical headline by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "85% of Chinese likes Censorship"

    What semi-literate posted that?

    Anyway, the summary is misleading as well as poorly drafted. If you read TFA, it's not a simple survey about "Censorship: good or bad?", it was about the perils of the Internet, and whether the government should protect users from porn, stalkers, malware, fraud. Put in those terms, you'd get similar answers anywhere. And of course, Chinese are not stupid. Those that DO have misgivings about government controls are exactly the people who suspect that every word they write is monitored.

  22. Read the report. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Read the report. It isn't as black-and-white as the summary makes it out to be.

    The findings for one type of online content -- politics -- may seem more puzzling. Since 2005, the percentage of users who say that online content about "politics" should be controlled or managed jumped from 8% to 41%, by far the biggest increase of any items tested.

    Guo said that the explanation for this increase probably lies in the spate of widely publicized incidents of fraud, blackmail, sensationalism, and other abuse of Chinese citizens via the internet. The Chinese word used for "politics" in this survey, zhengzhi, is not confined simply to political rights or competition for political control but may be understood to include larger questions of public morality and social values. While I love bashing Communists, the report simply doesn't allow it. It appears to be more of a cultural, rather than political, difference.

    Pretty damn interesting, actually.
    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  23. Order does have an appeal by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, its easy to paint everyone in China as a victim of internet persecution, but maybe the Chinese really do want a regulated and censored internet. I mean, think about it. China is a very conservative society. If the Chinese government really could block all porn, criminal sites, spyware sites, or even plain disruptive content, and everything like it, then, a lot of people who actually like where their country is headed wouldn't think too much of giving up the right to criticize their government in order to get their "safer" internet. I mean, if George Bush had won Iraq, and USA GDP was growing by 10% a year, real US wages were doubling, everyone was building like crazy, new skyscrapers were popping up everywhere, then, who would really be complaining?

    --
    This is my sig.
  24. Unless they are older than 65... by Tavor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless the Chinese asked were older than 65, they are unlikely to even know what it's like without government "control". It's akin to asking a wild mustang if he likes horseshoes.

    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
    1. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only problem is we elect greedy educated idiots now.
      There, fixed it for ya.
    2. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by kthejoker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, yes, American children as American citizens do have the exact same First Amendment rights as adults. Period. Truly offensive shirts (ie hate speech) are not protected by the First Amendment. "Content-free" offensive shirts ("EAT SHIT", "MOTHERFUCKER", etc.) are also not protected. Not going to class is not a First Amendment right. Your straw man and your incorrect interpretation of the First Amendment are damaging and should be called out as such. By the way: not through censoring, but through accountability.

    3. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by mog007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no such thing as a "free-speech zone". Public schools are not free-speech zones, but neither are libraries, or the steps outside the Capitol building in the District of Columbia. If you're on government controlled property, you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, and nobody else has any authority to make you stop. They can bitch about it until they're blue in the face, much like I can say whatever I wish, but they can't stop me from offending them anymore than I can stop them from offending me for attempt to suppress my rights.

      Since only Congress may pass laws which have any influence, and since Congress is forbidden to stifle free speech according to the First Amendment, the government has no authority in limiting what a person says. Just remember the old adage "actions speak louder than words" and you'll realize that stifling free speech is only a method of controlling how a person thinks. I think the idea of murder is quite undesirable, but I should be free to talk about the mass slaughter of lawyers all I want.

    4. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tell that to Tibet... or this guy... Yes, a lot of China is prospering, but not all of it, and it's doing so at an incredible price. For one, the ecological impact of their "awesome 10% growth" is absolutely mind boggling to any western nation. Yes, China has it's good points and bad points, just like the US, the EU, etc. The one thing the "popular" nations have going for them is they freely let the people speak out in protest. This does not happen in China, there is widespread retribution on anyone who dissents, and no matter how you spin it this is a bad thing since if the government were to become untrustworthy (assuming it is even trustworthy now,) they would have no way of knowing. At least in an 'open' nation the cards are on the table and the people are free to hate on the poor leadership skills of their government; illegal detentions, poorly written and poorly enforced laws, and economic disparity aside.

    5. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you fucking kidding me?

      Do you know how many civil rights violations that happen in China every day? Do you know how many people have been forced out of their homes because the government wanted a new office complex? Do you know how many people are shuttled away to prison (or to their deaths) for saying the wrong thing in public, or for a petty crime?

      The Chinese can trust their government to do one thing: Fuck it's citizens.

      Huge populations of Chinese live in poverty. No chance for reparation either - because they don't vote, they have no say in their government..

      Don't even say "works for the vast majority" of the Chinese. It fucking doesn't. Just because a few protesters were out there doesn't mean the Chinese love their system.

      The problem is, too many of them know no different, and the Government makes sure it stays that way.

      Just because something is different doesn't mean I have to accept it. "Western" governments are BETTER, and I have no problem saying that.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    6. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by manifoldronin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Truly offensive shirts (ie hate speech) are not protected by the First Amendment.
      Is advocating for women's right to choices "truly offensive"? How about burning the American flag? How "truly" an offensive would have to be to lose the protection from the 1st Amendment?
      --
      Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
    7. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by Lucid_Loki · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Consider Microsoft's take down order on Slashdot comments posting NT leaked source back in the day. Or the CoS attempts to do the same with OT II or whatever filth it was.

      'Freedom of information' and 'freedom to violate copyright' meet in the grey area in between the two. And that is precisely what the IP debate has been about for the past decade.

      At home I can access the BBC news service but downloading the full Adobe suite goes pretty close to being illegal. In China I can buy almost any software for a pittance but may have trouble accessing the BBC if they happen to be reporting on Tibet at the time.

      Given that copyrighted code and entertainment files are at the heart of the IP debate in the West at the moment as we search for new models of content delivery and where the Open Source software ethic vies for a foothold in capitalism I think it only fair to allow the same level of debate on the online content that the CCP makes available for it's citizens.

      And my point really was that a Chinese person is not free to view whatever information they want with a computer but neither are you nor I. If you can't decompile a binary to learn from its code and a Chinese political science student can't access revolutionary anarchist texts then censorship and IP laws are having the same effect are they not?

      I personally would obviously rather see much freer access to the web in China. However despite being an advocate of free speech I supported the Thai government's decision to ban YouTube last year. It really was in the best interests of the people, despite the streisand effect.

      I'd rather see debate like this on /. rather than the usual China bashing that gets done around here for no obvious reason that I can discern.

      China's playing a huge game of catch up and people will tolerate such things while they do. I genuinely think that given time , increased wealth and a greater place in world China will slowly ease on such controls.
    8. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by rumcho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it is true. you're touchin on one of america's major problems - lobbyists and special interests in Washington. as a matter of fact, passing legislation to ban gambling on the Federal level is unconstitutional, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There is no provision in the Constitution that gives rights to Congress to regulate gambling.

    9. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by paeanblack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How "truly" an offensive would have to be to lose the protection from the 1st Amendment?

      Speech that is 'likely to incite imminent unlawful action' is the current Supreme Court standard.

      If your t-shirt is sufficiently offensive to provoke a physical response from a 'typical' person, you can't hide behind the Constitution.

      The First Amendment lets you say what you want, but it does let you force people to listen. When you cross the line to forcing your audience's attention by shocking them, you lose your Constitutional protection.

    10. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by Copperfield · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually they can decide to not go to class and protest draconian clothing rules. In fact such a thing happened when I was in high school (would have been '88 or '89).

      Students decided a school board ruling to ban black colored t-shirts with evil rock and roll band themes was unacceptable and every student took part in a protest via sit-out in the cafe for much of the day and refusing to go to class.

      You seem to believe schools are not "free speech zones." I myself, think that is exactly what a school should be. I value children being allowed to develop critical thinking skills as opposed to being molded into the "good american" mindless consumer machines so popular in today's society. Society likes those results because the politicians and the rulers of our country dont want citizens capable of critical thought. They just want docile systems who will continue to allow themselves to be fucked every day with a smile on their face.

      Students have the same rights as any other individual to speak their mind and express themselves. Denying them that just feeds an already disgusting and corrupt educational system. These kids should be learning to think on their own and develop their own ideas on how the world should work.

      You seem to desire a continuation of the control and domination over young mind. May I ask, do you work in the public school system?

    11. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speech that is 'likely to incite imminent unlawful action'

      So my speech is controlled by what you might do?

      If your t-shirt is sufficiently offensive to provoke a physical response from a 'typical' person, you can't hide behind the Constitution.

      So what is a 'typical' person? Please define. I can say I can't think of any adult I know (excluding childhood of course) who would physically attack another over a t-shirt, I would argue attacking someone over a t-shirt is by definition not 'typical'.

      You arguments have more holes than swiss cheese.

      Do you realize in some places in this world, if a woman were to show her face in public, she would be attacked? If that place were part of our country, would it be OK then? I mean the 'typical' people in her area are attacking her. It must be OK. She shouldn't have shown her face, she has no right! Cover up woman!

      P.S. Amusingly, my CAPTCHA is "armament", makes me think of the next amendment ;)

    12. Re:Unless they are older than 65... by Moofie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've read the Constitution cover to cover, and I didn't encounter the notion of a "free speech zone" even ONCE.

      I think your copy is broken.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  25. Modding is not censorship by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oposing view points are often quickly modded down just because people don't want agree with it or beleave it to be true. While it is not censorship in true sience of the word, it is a way for the moderators to say Hey I don't want people reading this, and if they do I don't want them to think it is a valad argument.

    Oh please. Stop this. Seriously. This gets regularly trotted out by people who have no concept of what censorship actually is. Do you know who actually does the "censoring" in Slashdot? You do. You, by setting your preferences to filter out comments under a certain threshold, you remove someone's ability to be read. As a result, you're the censor on slashdot. Not CowboyNeal, not the moderators, but you - and you alone. So stop blaming others for your actions.

    Not to mention that telling others that an opinion is worthless is not the same as censoring. Sometimes, I wish people would spend some time in a country that actually does censor speech, so that they understand the difference. Censoring speech: someone breaks your fingers or throws you in the slammer for propagating illegal/unwanted opinions. Moderating: a mark that tells others "Warning - stupid person talking."

    Normally, confusing the two is a sign that the person is 13 and hasn't gotten to political science in high school yet, but that'd make your UID too low. I can only assume you're just confused.

    I also have no idea how you managed to misspell "threatened" like that.
    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:Modding is not censorship by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are two kinds of "censorship", if you allow to take the term a little losely.

      One is the government-forbids-publication kind. That's what we usually associate with the word. That's what the eastern european and russian communist countries tried.

      But the other kind is the drown-in-the-noise kind. That kind is very active in the west. Unpopular political decisions are regularily scheduled to be just prior to some big media event (superbowl or whatever) so that they get drowned out. Some of the most successful politicians have extremely close ties to the media so they can request a specific amount of media coverage "between friends". An example: Germany's long-time chanellor Kohl had a huge problem years ago regarding illegal money he collected for his party. He probably should've gone to jail, though I don't know the legal details. Surprisingly little media coverage, even though it was the largest affair of its kind ever in western Germany's history. This week, he married again (his first wife died a couple years ago). It was a very small affair. Very small. He didn't even invite his sons. He did invite the two most influential figures of Germany's media industry.

      Coincidence? Your call. But if you think that media in the west is entirely neutral, unbiased and reports everything they should, then I have a few bridges for sale.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  26. 85% thought the government was conducting the poll by ukemike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    85% thought the government was conducting the poll.

    If you live in a totalitarian dictatorship and your phone rings and someone says, "I'm conducting a poll for the blah blah blah organization that you've never hear of before, do you think our glorious leader is a really great guy or do you want needles under your fingernails?" How do you answer?

    In a place where people legitimately fear speaking the truth, all polls are biased.

    --
    -- QED
  27. Re:makes perfect sense by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    True. Just look at how many of the DailyKOS posters have been jailed or executed for speaking out against the government. FYI that number is 0 (ZERO)

  28. Re:BAD MOD (insightful) by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are being sent there because they were allegedly captured as illegal combatants and/or provided support to a terrorist orginization

    FTFY. Everyone in Gitmo is an innocent man according to our laws.

  29. Re:BAD MOD (insightful) by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like I said, we can debate the wisdom and legality of Gitmo all day long. Personally I want to see it closed down ASAP and those within given every bit of due process that I'm entitled to as an American citizen.

    None of that changes the fact that the GP was a blatant troll designed to stir up a flamefest though.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  30. bad logic by HappyEngineer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Jim calls Bob's dog out of control because it pissed on his shoes, it is not logical for Bob to respond by saying that his dog clearly is not out of control because it has not yet mauled Jim to death.

  31. Also in the news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    100% of americans like corporate internet censorship because they think it's only censorship when the government is behind it.