China's Response To the Internet Addiction Death

eldavojohn writes "Last week, news broke of a tragic incident that resulted in the death of a 16-year-old boy at one of China's internet addiction camps. Details were scarce except for reports that the camp remained open. New reports are now coming in from China Daily that report 13 arrested and the camp closed down on Friday with 122 participants being sent home. The vice-chief of the district has stated that the authorities are working on the case to identify and punish the criminals involved in the death. Xinhua is reporting that the camp was unlicensed. This is directly in conflict with what the Southern Metropolis Daily reporter is saying, 'When the reporter arrived outside the rear wall of the school, children on the third and fourth floors started to stick notes into aluminum cans, drink bottles, and slippers, and others folded notes into paper planes. They tried to throw them over the wall, but owing to the distance, none of them succeeded. Some children had papers bearing the messages "SOS" and "beating" which they waved out the windows. Some wrote calls for help on their clothing, which they displayed to the reporter. Some even yelled for help. They were all stopped by the instructors.' Here is that original story in Chinese. Is China handling this delicate issue appropriately or are the news reports of justice and monitoring treatments merely a facade?"

Comments

Of course not...

[Darkness404]

Is China handling this delicate issue appropriately or are the news reports of justice and monitoring treatments merely a facade?

Of course it is not, you cannot say that a country that allows for few basic freedoms, has a mostly state-run economy, and has almost no non-state run news. Along with no real way for its people to voice their opinion in government matters. So lets see, we have no third-party news service, no public records, and no way for Chinese citizens to act against this. How can anyone say they are anything but a facade?

Re:Of course not...

[ground.zero.612]

Is China handling this delicate issue appropriately or are the news reports of justice and monitoring treatments merely a facade?

Of course it is not, you cannot say that a country that allows for few basic freedoms, has a mostly state-run economy, and has almost no non-state run news. Along with no real way for its people to voice their opinion in government matters. So lets see, we have no third-party news service, no public records, and no way for Chinese citizens to act against this. How can anyone say they are anything but a facade?

Ok I'll bite. They aren't a facade because they clearly have the manpower to overthrow their government, but have not done so. Either they keep their current form of government because it works better than anything they've had in their history, or because they are completely broken as a people and thus indifferent.

Re:Of course not...

[DrgnDancer]

Not to defend China, which certainly does have a very bad track record, but your logic doesn't make sense. The fact that the Chinese government does not grant what we consider normal and appropriate rights to its people has little to do with how they handle this matter, which appears to relate to a non-government unlicensed facility. Just because a person or entity does things which we disagree with doesn't mean that they will always without fail make every choice with an eye toward "what's the opposite of what Darkness404 would do?"

It's certainly possible that they will handle this badly and cover it up, they've done so before. On the other hand, to assume that you simply know what's happening, because you disagree with other policies of the Chinese government is a complete non sequitur.

Re:Wait and see

[Anonymous Coward]

Since in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and they were not proven guilty...

Re:Wait and see

[phulegart]

what court found that grass did not reflect green light? Here, you are using an example that would never exist, to prove your point. Since that example WOULD and could never exist, you not only did not make your point, you only succeeded in proving that you are really bad at using analogy.

Now. Have guilty people been found innocent in the past? Sure. Does that mean every person found innocent is guilty? Nope. Does that mean that most people found innocent are guilty? Nope. All it means is that some guilty people have been found innocent in the past. It does not reflect or prove out any future percentages. Some people who are innocent have been found guilty in the past. Does this mean every guilty conviction is incorrect? Because some innocent people have been found guilty, exactly what percentage of guilty convictions are incorrect? Exactly what percentage of acquittals are incorrect, based on the number of incorrect acquittals that have been passed out?

The fact that you are attempting to "educate" people in how they should never confuse law with reason is one of the reasons why our legal system faces the troubles it does. If the law finds someone that YOU believe is guilty, to be innocent, then your choices are clear. Accept the decision of the courts and stop persecuting that party found innocent, or find the necessary proof to PROVE they are guilty. Standing there with your hands on your hips shouting.. "But he is GUILTY! I have no proof, but I just KNOW it!" does nothing at all.