Slashdot Mirror


Obama Talks Internet Freedom, China Censors

eldavojohn writes "In a town-hall-style Q&A with (hand-picked) Chinese students in Shanghai, President Obama made several statements knocking China's firewall and censorship. Quoting: 'I am a big believer in technology and I'm a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity. And so I've always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I'm a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access — is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.' The Washington Post notes that the event was broadcast only on the local level, and in fact Chinese authorities removed from view what little coverage it had gotten, after about an hour. But at least American news media are gobbling it up."

312 comments

  1. we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Unfortunately, in Obamas' case, words speak louder than actions.

    1. Re:we'll see by bistromath007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you mean ACTA speaks louder than words. :V

    2. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you mean ACTA speaks louder than words. :V

      I think the phrase you're both after is "Talk is cheap".

    3. Re:we'll see by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, in Obamas' case, words speak louder than actions.

      Kinda what I was thinking. When he said:

      because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.

      Of course, that doesn't apply if you criticize HIS government or try to hold it accountable. Ask Fox News.

      Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama. Remember, the Freedom of the Press is just as much a RIGHT as Freedom of Speech, or Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure (privacy) or any other RIGHT listed in the Bill of Rights. Just because you don't like what Fox News says, doesn't mean that they don't have a RIGHT to say it! The fact that they are being bullied by the government should scare the shit out of EVERYONE. Saying that Fox News is NOT a news station (not the press) is the same as saying what comes out of YOUR mouth is not speech.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So who says Fox is being bullied by the government? Fox News?

      Bullshit.

      I'll believe that when other independent sources (say, BBC) confirm Fox is being bullied.

    5. Re:we'll see by narcberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To speak of freedom on Chinese soil, even regarding a limited internet environment, is a strong action.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    6. Re:we'll see by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama. Remember, the Freedom of the Press is just as much a RIGHT as Freedom of Speech, or Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure (privacy) or any other RIGHT listed in the Bill of Rights. Just because you don't like what Fox News says, doesn't mean that they don't have a RIGHT to say it! The fact that they are being bullied by the government should scare the shit out of EVERYONE. Saying that Fox News is NOT a news station (not the press) is the same as saying what comes out of YOUR mouth is not speech.

      It's a sad day when the Bill of Rights is modded "Troll".

      What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is this troll? makes excellent parallel; free speech and free press.

      perhaps he needs to site sources, like this. Note: TL;DR.

    8. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I especially object to the forced shutdown of the Fox News network by the military, revocation of the Fox News broadcasting licenses by the FCC, the lawsuits against Fox News by the Justice Dept., seizure of Fox News studios by Federal Marshals, and the imprisonment of Roger Ailes.

      If Fox News was really being violated, that's what it would look like.

      You conservatives obviously like to cry a lot about something which is NOT a violation of anybody's rights.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    9. Re:we'll see by ya+really · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's a sad day when the Bill of Rights is modded "Troll".
      What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

      Maybe it's when you UPPERCASE lettering to SHOW how important YOU are

      Seriously though, you could have said the same thing and been 100% less douchey about it and it would have made me want to use my mod points instead of giving this reply and voiding any points I have for this topic.

    10. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe that five other american networks did say that, by refusing a white house press conference from which Fox News had been blocked.

    11. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your comment still being on slashdot: that is your freedom of speech.

      Your comment being modded troll: that is everyone else's.

    12. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I especially object to the forced shutdown of the Fox News network by the military, revocation of the Fox News broadcasting licenses by the FCC, the lawsuits against Fox News by the Justice Dept., seizure of Fox News studios by Federal Marshals, and the imprisonment of Roger Ailes.

      It's much worse than that! The White House actually accused them of BIAS. Can you imagine?! When we all know they're fair and balanced.

      What give Nobama the right to say such a thing about Fox?

    13. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2

      Yea, whatever happened to it.

      Because Fox News isn't broadcasting anywhere anymore. It's obvious that their rights aren't protected, and they were shut down.

      Wait, What???? Oh sorry, here's Fox News on my TV right here!

      I guess their rights to say whatever shit they want are indeed being defended. My bad.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    14. Re:we'll see by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'll believe that when other independent sources (say, BBC) confirm Fox is being bullied.

      Would you believe The Guardian?

      How about MSNBC?

      There are many more. Google is your friend.

      As for the BBC, you trust a government owned and run network over free ones? Really? BBC is the NPR and PBS of Britain. Sorry, I think the "Bullshit" is coming from you.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:we'll see by Darth+Turbogeek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You have the right to speech, that is true.

      You do not have the right to be a fucking bunch of asshats and liars aka Fox News. With speech comes resposibility and the Murdoch press left that bit out years ago.

      --
      "Old Rallydrivers never die - they just fail to book in on time"
    16. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh hell, accusing a conservative of bias ALWAYS shuts them up. I once accused a conservative of bias, and he couldn't speak for FIVE YEARS!

      I can see why they think this is a restraint against Fox's speech.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    17. Re:we'll see by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Funny

      As for the BBC, you trust a government owned and run network over free ones? Really? BBC is the NPR and PBS of Britain. Sorry, I think the "Bullshit" is coming from you.

      I like to think a public news organization from country A can give a fairly unbiased opinion on matters of country B.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    18. Re:we'll see by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yea, whatever happened to it.

      Because Fox News isn't broadcasting anywhere anymore. It's obvious that their rights aren't protected, and they were shut down.

      Wait, What???? Oh sorry, here's Fox News on my TV right here!

      I guess their rights to say whatever shit they want are indeed being defended. My bad.

      So, are you saying that there is nothing between complete freedom and total shutdown?

      So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but FoxNews? Sure, not every network can attend, so I understand if the Shelbyville Gazette doesn't get invited, but Fox has the ratings to be considered on the short list of invitees. Even the other networks are getting uncomfortable with it:

      Despite the administration’s pledge to play nice earlier this week, the White House tried to exclude Fox News – alone among the five White House "pool" networks – from interviewing executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg on Thursday.

      After CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC balked at the plan Tuesday, ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the appropriateness of the administration's saying that Fox News, which he called "one of our sister organizations," is "not a news organization."

      (From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press... but what would they know, right?)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    19. Re:we'll see by arogier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really don't know what is more sad, regulating internet speech for political reasons or doing the same for commercial reasons.

    20. Re:we'll see by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You have the right to speech, that is true.

      You do not have the right to be a fucking bunch of asshats and liars aka Fox News. With speech comes resposibility and the Murdoch press left that bit out years ago.

      So, who decides who is telling the truth and who is lying? The President? And... you're OK with that? The President can declare who can say the news and who can't, what is news and what isn't, and what is truth and what is not?

      Oh, and yeah, lying (See CBS and their fake GWB NG documents) and being a bunch of asshats is protected by the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press. Read the Federalist Papers and ask yourself, "What if George Washington had declared that the writers of the Federalist Papers were a bunch of "lying asshats"?"

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    21. Re:we'll see by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      You do not have the right to be a fucking bunch of asshats and liars aka Fox News.

      Perhaps you would like to show me the part of the Constitution that prohibits me from being an asshat and a liar.

      In fact, it seems to me that one of the most important lessons of the Bill of Rights is that asshats (or the nicer term, "people I don't like") have the same rights that I do.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    22. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, are you saying that there is nothing between complete freedom and total shutdown?

      I'm saying that you're a big baby, and Fox News is still on the air. What are you crying about?

      The First Amendment never guaranteed that other people won't make fun of you, or call you names, or disagree loudly with your crap.

      So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews?

      Yes. I don't invite child molesters to my house either. And that's my right of association.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    23. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you can be an asshat...but other people can be an asshat to you RIGHT BACK IN YOUR FACE.

    24. Re:we'll see by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews?

      Yes, it's OK.

    25. Re:we'll see by Draek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, because refusing to give an interview is [i]"deciding what is truth and what is not"[/i]. Riiiiight. Let's face it, the whole Fox News thing is just Fox overdramatizing for the purposes of creating a controversy, as is usual for US TV stations.

      Oh, and yeah, lying (See CBS and their fake GWB NG documents) and being a bunch of asshats is protected by the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.

      If it were so, libel wouldn't be a crime.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    26. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the PM of Canada does not call the shots at the CBC. Politics can play a role in a gov't owned institution but if they are independent it's minimal.

    27. Re:we'll see by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      How is Fox being punished?

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    28. Re:we'll see by tolkienfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I read the article linked to at The Guardian, and A) it's not the publication but a post on a blog, and B) it doesn't say what you seem to think it's saying.
      It doesn't say that Fox is a news network that is being bullied.

      I haven't read the other link, but I suspect I'll find something similar...

    29. Re:we'll see by Starlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You just totally lost me. I don't watch Fox News, but comparing them to child molesters is a very far stretch. Yes, I said very. It's because you went from intelligent conversation to utter ignorance and, yes, lies in one post. Again, I have no use for Fox News, but I respect their right to cover news events. The Obama administration's attempt to exclude Fox News, arguably the most viewed news source on cable TV, was politically incorrect any way you look at it. If you can't take criticism, you don't belong in politics, and you damn sure don't belong running an entire nation. Take Iran's president for example. Or China's administration. Or any country's leadership which protects political gain at the expense of the citizens' rights.

      --
      Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
    30. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      The guy you're replying to is a moron. Anyone can be as much of an asshat as they want. Maybe he's talking about Belgium or Japan or someplace where there are obviously no asshats at all.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    31. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      No, that's wrong. We do indeed have the right to be liars and asshats. Look around here for all the proof you need.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    32. Re:we'll see by jjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no violation of their free speech to not invite them. Fox is still perfectly free to publish/broadcast what they want, to pursue whatever stories they want, and to express whatever negative criticism they want out there.

      There's a difference between preventing someone from expressing themselves, and not facilitating it. Your right to free speech does not entail an obligation on my part to listen, or let you borrow my megaphone, or invite you to my press conference.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    33. Re:we'll see by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Your comment still being on slashdot: that is your freedom of speech.

      Your comment being modded troll: that is everyone else's.

      Unless you live in China : i'm sure they blocked this article already , or slashdot for that matter.
      Now , for the rest of the world : yes , at this moment , the internet allows freedom of speech.

      However , if one tries to stop a news station , that is censorship , no matter how you put it.
      And if that's allowed to go through , it's just a matter of time before internet censorship is a fact.

    34. Re:we'll see by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We the people already held all the rights. We only consented to surrender SOME of them to form a limited social contract to secure life, liberty, and property. We don't have free speech because the government said we could....we have freedom of speech because we never gave it up.

      This. Until "progressives", socialists, and the marxist democrat party decided that a dependent voter base was a key to power.

    35. Re:we'll see by jhoegl · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Srsly? Just because Obama did not want to interview with the #1 B.S. rumor starter in the USA that is obviously pro-republican doesnt mean they are being "bullied". Fox news had the option to go through all the interviews and pick them apart. Instead they ignored it, pretending it didnt even happen. Hmmm... there seems to be a similarity between Fox News and China. Want proof of Fox News being liars? youtube.com and look up Fox News caught or any other variation and enjoy the comedy. Oh, and the other point where Fox News officials are saying that "Oh its obvious where we put the news and the commentary". Really? Daily show examined this claim and found that Fox news perpetuates their own B.S. news. Fox news is destroying themselves and everyone else is laughing while they do it.

    36. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You just totally lost me. I don't watch Fox News, but comparing them to child molesters is a very far stretch. Yes, I said very.

      I did not compare them to child molestors. I included child molestors as another random category that I do not invite to my house, to illustrate that the right of association is an important right.

      The Obama administration's attempt to exclude Fox News, arguably the most viewed news source on cable TV, was politically incorrect any way you look at it.

      Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The President's job is to accomplish his agenda that he was elected to accomplish. To do that he needs to explain his program and counter the objections of his opponents.

      Fox News is clearly the voice of his opposition. They can speak, but Obama doesn't have to help his opposition in any way. He would be a fool to do so.

      Again, I have no use for Fox News, but I respect their right to cover news events.

      Obama also respects their right to cover news events too. Fox can write anything they want to write. But he has no obligation to help them write their stories.

      Take Iran's president for example. Or China's administration. Or any country's leadership which protects political gain at the expense of the citizens' rights.

      Not even close. You claim my post was utter ignorance, but look at yours. In the countries you mentioned, they would have shut down the opposition instantly. Fox is still on the air. And they will not be taken off the air.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    37. Re:we'll see by Cimexus · · Score: 5, Informative

      NPR/PBS, reliant as they are mostly on voluntary public donations, is a mere shadow of the legislatively-created and taxpayer funded BBC in the UK (or the Australian equivalent, ABC, for that matter). A poor cousin at best. You can't compare them like that, it's chalk and cheese quality-wise.

      Not many people see PBS as a high quality or popular channel in the US. But, in Australia the ABC is one of the most-watched and best-quality networks (and has multiple channels in most areas). Ditto with the UK and the BBC.

    38. Re:we'll see by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      What if George Washington had declared that the writers of the Federalist Papers were a bunch of "lying asshats"?

      Well, assuming the constitution had still been ratified, we would have a much more strict interpretation of it. The government couldn't so easily have expanded it's own power as it does today. A more Jeffersonian interpretation would prevent all of todays liberty usurpations.

      When Franklin said "A republic, if you can keep it"...he was talking about man's tendancy to vote for the easiest, most provided for life. Freedom is hard, and never more than a generation away from loss. But we vote for the government to expand into housing (HUD, Frannie, et al), retirement (SS), health (medicare, medicaid, socialized med)...we vote for bigger governments at every juncture. This...for a couple hundred years, and you have lost your liberty. You can't "keep it".

      "Oh...but I want the gov't to give me stuff"...." I don't lose anything"...."I still have freedom"...no you don't. If you were free, what you owned would be yours. Instead, the government can decided some of your money is theirs...so it can be used to help your neighbor buy a house, go to the doctor, get solar cells, buy a new car...the list goes on and on. Every time the government expands, it took people's property away to do it. And every area it expanded to was once someone else's property. What if Obamao decides "every American deserves free access to quality computer repair"...or web dev, or networking, or lawn care, or cabinetry....sucks if you worked in one of the nationalized fields.

      Hamilton might not have been an asshat...but his federalist view of loose interpretation sealed our fate as being incapable of "keeping it".

    39. Re:we'll see by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah same with the ABC in Australia. Accusations of bias occasionally get flung its way (let's face it, it's an easy target being government-funded), but any empirical study will show it's easily the most balanced and fair of all the TV/radio networks. Indeed, most accusations are usually of the "you are too biased AGAINST the current government, rather than for it" nature.

      The Australian ABC/British BBC/Canadian CBC really do a top notch job of providing free, quality programming and journalism. It's a real shame the US doesn't have an equivalent (and no PBS do not count ... having seen their stations in a number of US markets, they are nowhere near as good).

    40. Re:we'll see by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there really any difference?

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    41. Re:we'll see by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Washington? Perhaps not. However, his successor, John Adams, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. James Madison, author of several of the federalist papers. attacked this new law as a unconstitutional infringement of free speech and the press.

      Here's how the Massachusetts Legislature attacked James Madison's Virginia Resolution

      This construction of the Constitution, and of the existing law of the land, as well as the act complained of, the legislature of Massachusetts most deliberately and firmly believe, results from a just and full view of the several parts of that Constitution; and they consider that act to be wise and necessary, as an audacious and unprincipled spirit of falsehood and abuse had been too long unremittingly exerted for the purpose of perverting public opinion, and threatened to undermine and destroy the whole fabric of the government.

      Responses to the Virginia Resolution

      I think that qualifies as a genteel way of declaring that at least one of the writers of the federalist papers is a "lying asshat".

    42. Re:we'll see by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      Libel is not a crime. It's a civil tort. The 1st Amendment does indeed protect false speech, to the extent that it protects you from the government itself. Private individuals, not so much.

    43. Re:we'll see by coaxial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but FoxNews? Sure, not every network can attend, so I understand if the Shelbyville Gazette doesn't get invited, but Fox has the ratings to be considered on the short list of invitees. Even the other networks are getting uncomfortable with it:

      Well yes. And it's perfectly fine to be uncomfortable with it. Fox has long been known to be biased from both left and right (e.g. Jonah Goldberg). Is it awkward and troubling for a media outlet to be singled out from an administration? Sure. At the same time though, it's not exactly that FoxNews has been on the up and up. It never was. Even when it was launched it was heavily promoted on conservative talk radio. I'm sorry, but when I hear "It's fair and balanced!" from Rush Limbaugh, I'm suspicious. Now if this endorsement was coming from the Columbia School of Journalism or the Annenberg Political Fact Check, or the Pulitzer Prize winning St Petersberg Times' Political Fact Check, then yes. But an unabashedly biased source, no thanks.

    44. Re:we'll see by jandersen · · Score: 1

      We the people already held all the rights. We only consented to surrender SOME of them to form a limited social contract to secure life, liberty, and property. We don't have free speech because the government said we could....we have freedom of speech because we never gave it up.

      "We the people ..." - yeah, get the slogans out right from the start, so nobody starts thinking on their own. It's funny, they all talk about "the people", but it always means "the ones that agree with me". Objectively speaking, "the people" means everybody present - including the 55% that actually think society should care about its citizens (ie. including the "progressives, socialists, and the marxist democrats" in your language) as well as the ones who don't really care either way; all in all probably 99% of the people. If you don't want to be part of that kind of "We, the REAL people", it must mean that you want to be an outsider.

      And you've got it wrong when you say that "we already held all the rights and agreed to surrender some of them". Humans are social animals, and living in social groups is part of our natural survival strategy. Giving up some freedoms in exchange for the freedom we enjoy because we are part of a socety is written in our genes. If you weren't part of a society, there is a lot of things you wouldn't have - but you would certainly have the freedom to stand on a mountain top and scream obscenities, if that is what you fancy.

    45. Re:we'll see by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly.

      Fox will make a crusade out of this, in the way that McGreal describes Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly as doing. But who cares what Beck and O'Reilly say, beyond the universe of people who are already proven to care what they say? Nobody. They have their 2 or 3 million viewers. Fine. Bully for them. The other 307 million Americans are busy doing other things.

      I think the GP has shot himself in the foot.

    46. Re:we'll see by LKM · · Score: 1

      Of course, that doesn't apply if you criticize HIS government or try to hold it accountable. Ask Fox News.

      Because the government censored it! They occupied Glenn Beck using military force! They detained O'Reilly! Wait, what?

      By the way, people say Fox News is not a news station because their news shows are mostly selective reporting, mischaracterizations, and opinions. Not because Fox News is not part of the press. HTH.

      And finally, saying that something is not a news station is part of freedom of speech. Basically, you're saying that Fox News should be allowed to say whatever they want (with which I agree), but that the people who criticise them are doing something wrong (which is absurd). You can have either or the other, but not both.

    47. Re:we'll see by LKM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike the Bush government with MSNBC, Obama's White House never blocked Fox News from anything.

    48. Re:we'll see by LKM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but FoxNews?

      So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except MSNBC? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but MSNBC?

      I'd say yes. Yes, it is. And this actually happened, unlike that Fox News thing. Hopefully you were ranting about the Bush administration back when these things actually occurred in real life.

    49. Re:we'll see by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      Ask Fox News.

      Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama.

      You've been watching too much V. Fox "News" has never had any problem spinning thruths and claiming that others are doing the spinning, even when it was blatantly obvious. If there's any restriction going on (highly doubtful) it's of their own will.

    50. Re:we'll see by AmigaMMC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fox news is destroying themselves and everyone else is laughing while they do it.

      Not everyone else, a good chunk of people in the Southern States still takes the word of Fox "News" as Gospel. Well, the same people also listen to Rush Limbaugh religiously (pun intended), big supporter of Fox "News" - You can't switch radio stations in Texas any time of the day without tripping on one broadcasting Limbaugh. Enough said.

    51. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews?

      Yes. You have to draw the line somewhere. Censorship is when you tell them what to say, not when you refuse to talk to them.

      If they want to know what you said, they can watch C-SPAN.

    52. Re:we'll see by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      obscenities

      Honestly I don't think obscenities would exist without a society, and probably a prudish Victorian one that makes everyone embarrassed when I say the word "cunt".

      All that aside, we should at least agree that Marxism has in its total caused far more harm than good, even if we cannot say the same for socialism and liberal democracy in general.

    53. Re:we'll see by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 1

      But Fox news is really not a `news' organization at all. They are an organ for the hardcore right wing of the US, and they exist just to push the right-wing agenda, and what they report as news is uncorrelated with the facts.

      Just because they have circulation is not a reason to invite them anywhere. I don't think the National Enquirer or Penthouse is invited to the White House either.

      BTW, I don't remember the right wing issuing loud howls of protests when unfriendly reporters were banned from reporting being `embedded' with the military during the Bush years.

      Magnus

    54. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does FoxNews claim to be a news network?

    55. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. I had to laugh at the mocking language in the snippet, "with (hand-picked) Chinese students," as hand-picking the questioners has been the modus operandi of the Obama administration. The legitimate press doesn't have access to the administration, only those who won't ruffle any feathers.

    56. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they strongly encouraged and supported a war on terror that has resulted in loses of many lives. Comparing them to child molesters is far lighter than what they should be compared to, liers and supporters of assasination and illegal wars basically.

    57. Re:we'll see by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      As for the BBC, you trust a government owned and run network over free ones? Really? BBC is the NPR and PBS of Britain. Sorry, I think the "Bullshit" is coming from you.

      The BBC is not government owned or run. And yes, I'd trust it over any commercial channel, which have obvious interests in pushing the pro-business line or chasing ratings.

    58. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reading is not your forte', is it? The person above you just said the White House wanted to hod a press conference without FOX being there. It's also worth noting that when Obama did his "tour" of Sunday morning programs he appeared on every network except FOX.

      "right wing of republicans" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AEt180Wnls
      white house slams fox - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ntf0mqdhQ
      ABC report on war against fox http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVPXBfB7LZo
      ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN Refuse Administrations Request To Block Fox http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yMshqX6vBM

      I could post a lot more videos, but of course you'll reject all them.
      I swear Liberals are more religious and faith-based than christians.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    59. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Both the BBC and aussie ABC have been accused of bias. BBC even admitted to being biased in a self-generated report - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554749/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation.html

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    60. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>society should care about its citizens

      We (i.e. virtually all americans) believe in the right to get health or sickcare.
      We also believe in the right to choose smoking, drinking, or overeating as a lifestyle.
      We even believe you have the right to replace your damaged lung, liver, or fatty heart.

      What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft of another man's labor (he works; you take the product of his work i.e. his money). We are amazed that Europeans do not.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    61. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Your comment still being on slashdot: that is your freedom of speech.
      Your comment being modded troll: that is everyone else's.

      Modding someone "troll" is the equivalent of censorship, because it makes the comment invisible once the score drops below 1. The proper response is not censorship. The proper response is to click reply and say "I disagree".

      As for rights, even the ancient greeks and romans recognized their existence. Lock a man in a cage and his first instinct is to search for escape. He has an inalienable desire (what we call a "right") to liberty, not a slave.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    62. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>to illustrate that the right of association is an important right.

      Yes it is. It also includes the right to bar illegal aliens (or worse: Bin Ladan soldiers) from crossing the Canadian border. Strange how people never make that logical connection.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    63. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>>>So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews?
      >>
      >>Yes, it's OK.

      No it isn't because it then sets the precedent for the White House to block NBC, or ABC, if they make a critical remark about the president. Pretty soon we will have a media that won't report negative facts, for fear of having their WH press pass revoked.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    64. Re:we'll see by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Not really, Obama knew there was absolutely nothing the Chinese government could do about it other than keep his speech off the news. While I'll applaud the attempt, I'd like to see him make that speech about China in front of the UN or to the Chinese gov't.

      Now if I went over there and gave the same speech, there's a good chance I wouldn't be available to post this comment for the next 3-5 years.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    65. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      This is why the States need a Constitutional Council where they can declare, as one body, which laws they consider constitutional or unconstitutional and their decision will be ultimate (yes even over-ruling the U.S.). Had such a thing existed in the 1790s the Sedition Acts would have never taken force, and no prisoners killed as a result.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    66. Re:we'll see by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Why do you call the private networks "free"? They all obey their master, in the case of BBC it's the UK government, the others obey big money corporations. None of them is free, really.

    67. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > Modding someone "troll" is the equivalent of censorship, because it makes the comment invisible once the score drops below 1. The proper response is not censorship. The proper response is to click reply and say "I disagree".

      I disagree. By browsing at '1' you made the choice not to read the posts that others consider (for reasons that you know you might disagree with) unworthy of your attention. By making this choice you enable the 'censorship' that you yourself complain about. But there is hope! Total freedom of censorship is but a few mouse clicks away. Reading at -1 is way more fun anyway.

    68. Re:we'll see by Thiez · · Score: 1

      What are Bin Ladan soldiers and what are they doing in Canada?

    69. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Fox "News" no longer has a predominant staff member that raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 I'll start listening to them. Until then, they have _no_ credibility.

    70. Re:we'll see by jambox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah but Fox News go out of their way to pull every dirty trick in the book to cause problems for Obama. And his guys aren't expected to reciprocate? Frankly the quality of "news" on Fox is so poor that they only really exist as a conservative mouthpiece anyway, so I don't know why they expected to get invited to a democrat whitehouse. Years before Obama got elected he'd been saying "american politics is going down the tubes, let's not bicker any more, both sides need to state what they want and let's see where the compromise is" etc. So the healthcare thing starts off and he gets paid shills turning up to public gatherings and protesting on behalf of medical insurance companies and Fox reports it with a straight face *as if they were just concerned members of the public*. Just straight out lying cause you want the other guy to win probably is going to make people angry in the long run.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    71. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Anon. Coward wrote:
      By browsing at '1' you made the choice

      No. Nobody "chooses" that option. It's the automatic default for visitors to this site, and the moderators are well-aware of this, which is why they seek to demote people to (0) or (-1). It makes the post invisible.

      Also the simple fact is "I disagree" =/= mod "troll". That's not the purpose of the system. If you disagree then hit reply and say so. Don't use false moderations.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    72. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      You wrote, "Fox News is still on the air".
      Somebody else wrote, "Because Fox News is still broadcasting."
      .

      That's technically not true. FOX News singlecasts to a satellite which then receives *limited* distribution to paying cable customers. It is neither broadcast nor receivable "over the air"

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    73. Re:we'll see by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Excellently stated, sir. I don't know if the majority of Americans would consider that theft of another man's work, however. I suppose most people I deal with on a day-to-day feel that way, but I still know some slackers who think they are owed health care, and expect working folks like you and I to pay the bill.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    74. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not compare them to child molestors. I included child molestors as another random category that I do not invite to my house, to illustrate that the right of association is an important right.

      Since when does the government have the right of association?

      Since when does the government have any rights at all?

    75. Re:we'll see by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You are stupid beyond belief.

    76. Re:we'll see by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      Amendment I

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      abridge (verb)

      1. to reduce the length of (a written work) by condensing or rewriting
      2. to curtail; diminish
      3. (Law) Archaic to deprive of (privileges, rights, etc.)

      From: ArcherB (796902)

      What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

      There is no way you can make the claim that Fox's voice has been silenced when they are shouting from the highest mountain "Woe unto the Fox Network! See how we have been wronged!"

      Fox News does still has access to the White House press releases, thus they still have the same access to the information just like a vast majority of smaller news agencies. They just no longer have the privileged access to the President.

      Privileged access to the President is not an inalienable right. If that were true, then every news agency from Fox News to the Podunk Town Crier would be able to compel the President to do an interview. That isn't the case.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    77. Re:we'll see by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      That is the choice of the networks involved. They can be nothing more than mouthpieces and enjoy full Presidential support, or they can set themselves up as opposition and find themselves off the friends list.

      I know it's hard for your limited intelligence to comprehend, but there is no requirement for any part of the Government to hold press conferences about anything with anyone. It is purely voluntary.

    78. Re:we'll see by glueball · · Score: 1

      the States need a Constitutional Council
      They do. It's called a Supreme Court.

    79. Re:we'll see by Ironchew · · Score: 1

      You use such sweeping generalizations. Some Americans believe what you believe, yes, but many can see that the single-payer system of healthcare is far more efficient than giant corporations that have no obligation to actually treat an illness and every incentive to maximize profit. Genetic diseases aren't lifestyle choices. While we're on the topic of "the neighbor paying the bill", how about the United States' military expenditures? I'm certain that many Americans don't like to foot the bill for invading countries and killing people, but we have a political climate that is far too complacent about such things. It would be nice if mainstream news made more noise about our $1 billion+-per-day giveaways to defense contractors that routinely violate international laws.

    80. Re:we'll see by ahankinson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whoa, whoa. Hold on there. Nobody's saying he did it. Just... just... isn't it *interesting* that he isn't denying it? I mean, nobody thinks he really did it, but imagine a world where everyone rapes and murders young girls. I mean, is that the kind of future we want for our children? By not denying it, Glenn Beck is opening up rape and murders of young girls to be a socially acceptable practice. Friends, I don't know about you, but I find that completely unacceptable. Glenn Beck just needs to come right out and say that he didn't do that, then he'll be free and clear.

    81. Re:we'll see by ahankinson · · Score: 1

      "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

      I've always wondered how that would stand up when what is being said is half-truths, willful deception and twisting of facts. Do we still have to defend their right to say it?

      In rational discourse, where each party acts in good faith to uncover the truth and facts, I completely agree with you. But what I've seen isn't particularly rational discourse.

    82. Re:we'll see by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      PBS has some of the best pre-school and elementary school programming. Everyone knows Sesame Street.

    83. Re:we'll see by Volvogga · · Score: 1

      I don't think someone has ever heard the term "Slippery Slope" before.

      In any case, discussion is one of the things you are kinda required to have in a democracy. You're argument is silly and is bordering on having an almost dictatorship-like approach. Just because you are nice about shutting someone down (which cutting a news agency out of the biggest political coverage around is crippling them in a pretty big way) doesn't mean you are not, in fact, shutting someone down. So previous poster's comments were right on. Sorry.

      Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The President's job is to accomplish his agenda that he was elected to accomplish. To do that he needs to explain his program and counter the objections of his opponents.

      Umm... it would seem to me that all it would take to counter the objections of his opponents is a COUNTER ARGUMENT! A fact, a scenario depicting the failings of the opposition argument, or even a damn 'think of the children' speech is better than just saying "No, I don't want to hear it, lalalalalalal!" Really?! You're serious about this?! News Flash: (hehehehe pun) If a President can't counter an opposing argument with facts of his own, either he/she isn't worth a damn, the idea isn't worth a damn, or both. This had better be a troll, or I am just going to succeed from humanity.

      Lastly, as far as I know, right of association protects people from the government, not the other way around. I can't really comment further than that.

      --
      Vol~
    84. Re:we'll see by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The President's job is to accomplish his agenda that he was elected to accomplish. To do that he needs to explain his program and counter the objections of his opponents.

      You come off like the president is a servant of the people, but then label it HIS agenda. First and foremost is that he does not seem to be living up to his campaign promises.

      One of the things Obama had run on, something he harped on often, was that he wasn't going to be partisan. Does blocking the only major right of center news organization sound to you like he isn't trying to be partisan?

      You say that he has no obligation to help them and I say that you are wrong. He IS obligated to help them in the same manner that he helps the other major news organizations, because he IS a public servant. A free press is a central tenant of our foundation, not to be discriminated against because of what criticisms they might have. All forms of discrimination are wrong. Early in my life, Democrats seemed to have a clear and unwavering stance against discrimination but I guess those days are over.

      A news organization throwing their hat in the ring for a particular person, viewpoint, philosophy, organization, or party is nothing new. The danger in allowing discrimination of coverage is that it can motivate the squashing of news stories. Would ABC be more or less likely to cover the next scandal within the executive branch, if there was already precedent set for being blocked access? Think about it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    85. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      The President is a man. He has a job, like everyone else. He has rights, like everyone else.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    86. Re:we'll see by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      HA!! That is the best summary of this issue that I have ever seen! It does seem the guy was whining in a one sided way, wasn't he?

    87. Re:we'll see by locallyunscene · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's really hard to find any news about this story except for random blogs and that one commentators outburst. The primary source I found was politico here.

      After the White House tried keeping got involved with Treasury's decision whether or not to allow Fox News in a round robin of interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg, the five networks bureau chiefs banded together until Fox was permitted in. The joint action shows one of the difficulties if the administration tries to marginalize Fox, especially when that disrupts the network pool. (Fox's own report via Johnny Dollar). UPDATE: From what I hear, the situation was more between Treasury and Fox after the networks decided to pool interviews with Feinberg that had been requested by some, but not all of the networks. The bureau chiefs agreed that all networks should be included in the pool, including Fox, which had been missing from Treasury's list of networks involved in the interviews. The White House was contacted by Treasury, but as a spokesperson points out, they did not keep Fox from interviewing Feinberg. “The fact that Major Garrett conducted an interview with Ken Feinberg at a time when all the other networks did speaks for itself," deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest told POLITICO. “This White House has demonstrated our willingness to do a round of interviews with a range of networks but not Fox," Earnest added. "Clearly, that didn’t happen yesterday.” Indeed, the White House conducted interviews recently between Obama and five Sunday show hosts without including Fox's Chris Wallace. UPDATE 2: A Treasury official tells Mediaite: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."

      So either Fox didn't request the interview or the Treasury didn't add it to the list and consequently they weren't in the orig pool.

      Something to watch out for if it happens again, but I'm not going to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by error. However it looks like you're misrepresenting or unaware of the facts. It was the Treasury, not the WH, who didn't have Fox Entertainment News in the orig pool and the WH approved the additional interview for Fox Entertainment News.

      Interesting that this story is a month old, I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either.

    88. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. You fail the 1st Amendment.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    89. Re:we'll see by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      If Fox Entertainment News was actually blocked I would agree with you, but they weren't.

      The article you're quoting is outdated: here's the rest of the story:
      The Treasury didn't have Fox Entertainment News listed on the original list of networks requesting an interview, this was claimed to be a Treasury staffer error by one source I read.
      Subsequently, Fox News was not in the orig pooling of networks for the interview.
      Fox Entertaiment News got a separate interview of the same length as the other networks.

      Becuase this story is a month old, I guess the other news networks attributed the omission to error rather than malice.

    90. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I don't think someone has ever heard the term "Slippery Slope" before.

      I don't think that someone has ever heard that it's a logical fallacy to rely on the slippery slope.

      In fact, it's ridiculous to think that an entire government would stop talking to the press. What makes you think that would happen, or could happen?

      But I do know that forcing a person to talk to someone they don't want to talk to IS a violation of rights, so why are you proposing it?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    91. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. Offtopic. Wrong.

      Five freedoms. Learn them. Everyone, including the Prez, has them.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    92. Re:we'll see by XedLightParticle · · Score: 1

      The Danish public service TV/Radio company is accused of being biased against the govt. from time to time. Just to add to the pile of "Tax/Govt. supported news sources can be fair" comments. The quality of the entertainment programmes varies tho, but mostly it's good.

      --
      If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
    93. Re:we'll see by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The GGP said:

      So who says Fox is being bullied by the government? Fox News?

      Bullshit.

      The Guardian link is a non-Fox News, non-conservative source that shows that the White House is at "war" with Fox-News.

      The MSNBC link shows a video from MSNBC speaking of the White House's "war" on Fox News.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    94. Re:we'll see by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      I applaud him for not going to Fox because Fox has PROVEN themselves not to be interested in telling the truth. This has nothing to do with belief or religion, or even politics.

    95. Re:we'll see by guruevi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting that only Fox claims that they were excluded from interviewing a politician. The other news organizations would have had a field day if the White House actually censored Fox News from participating.

      Fox News is not a newscast, it's an opinion network that they misrepresent as news. They misuse and misquote sources, they use fake footage, they instigate crowds, host fake 'tea parties', misrepresent laws etc. etc.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqdtZlec0s
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E

      I believe any organization would be right to exclude Fox from press conferences and interviews because they are not reporters, they are not neutral, they are not a newscast.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    96. Re:we'll see by XedLightParticle · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm european, and I understand your perspective.

      On the other hand, who earns on the american model? The banks and insurance companies, not you as a citizen. I bet you that you spend just as much on percent of your income on loans + savings + insurances + taxes as I do, if not even more.

      You have to either save up or borrow money for education, I don't, and it's reflected in the reputation that general american education has versus the european. I pay extra for smoking, can't wait until they realize that fat should be taxed like tobacco and alcohol, basically these added taxes ensures that at least on healthcare, no one are cheating anyone (except from the fat people so far).

      Of course there are lazy slackers around living off government money, but at least I don't have to reject 20-30 beggers each time I go for a downtown walk or train trip, they're at their home, spending my money on beer and drugs probably. The relief of this alone is worth the money, never feel guilty, never waste my time, don't have to look at poverty and a failure of society each second I'm outdoors.

      I have done what I could do for the poor, so they're not really poor anymore, but slackers? yes maybe, I don't care.

      --
      If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
    97. Re:we'll see by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      How is giving "scoops" to every network other than FOX News any different from giving them to ONLY FOX? If you want to bedevil Obama's White House for his treatment of FOX, you have to do the same thing to Bush's for his preference for FOX.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    98. Re:we'll see by webheaded · · Score: 1

      I hate Fox News too, but as a government official, I'd tend to think that its his job to let everyone in. He's right in that they're not news, they're asshats, and all of that, but when he starts denying press coverage to them, that's a line I'm drawing in the sand. Calling them names and not inviting them to press conferences are, in my mind, very different things and that is a place no one wants to go.

      I want to agree on a personal level with you, because I hate that channel, but honestly its just wrong and I think you know it at least a little.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    99. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think it's okay that we had a man who killed a woman by drinking and driving in our GOVERNMENT but oh no we can't have someone accused of a crime working for news? You liberals are more fanatical than the worst christians.

    100. Re:we'll see by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I want to agree on a personal level with you, because I hate that channel, but honestly its just wrong and I think you know it at least a little.

      WTF? You're accusing me of insincerity? That's why I'm giving my reasons for my thinking. If I wanted you to only believe me because I was sincere, I wouldn't bother explaining WHY.

      I'd tend to think that its his job to let everyone in.

      REALLY. They would let you or me in? Really? What if we started a little paper or a website. Do you really think they would let us in then?

      Come on, think about it.

      Also, whether you tend to think it's his job to let everyone in or not, it's not. What you think about it doesn't affect reality.

      The President doesn't need to give any press conferences at all. And in fact, through most of US history, there were no press conferences. Do you really think that John Adams went out and talked to the press that ridiculed him every day?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    101. Re:we'll see by Applekid · · Score: 1

      BTW, I don't remember the right wing issuing loud howls of protests when unfriendly reporters were banned from reporting being `embedded' with the military during the Bush years.

      Here's my pet peeve: whenever someone talks along the lines of "the other side didn't complain when it was their guy being hailed as a hero" or "we didn't lampoon that guy on the other side".

      People are hypocrites. Hypocrites ought to be exposed. But two wrongs don't make a right, either. If it's wrong to exclude certain popular media groups because of their bias, then it's wrong regardless. It's wrong for the Bush administration to exclude MSNBC. It's wrong for the Obama administration to exclude Fox News. If politicians were honorable men that held sacred the office they hold, they would bury the hatchet and do the RIGHT thing. We as the general public should hold them to doing the right thing.

      Saying that Alice didn't complain when, in the past, Mallory instigated something against Bob in no way justifies the continued action but just swapping the names around.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    102. Re:we'll see by garynuman · · Score: 1

      NPR/PBS, reliant as they are mostly on voluntary public donations, is a mere shadow of the legislatively-created and taxpayer funded BBC in the UK (or the Australian equivalent, ABC, for that matter). A poor cousin at best. You can't compare them like that, it's chalk and cheese quality-wise.

      Not many people see PBS as a high quality or popular channel in the US. But, in Australia the ABC is one of the most-watched and best-quality networks (and has multiple channels in most areas). Ditto with the UK and the BBC.

      I think your confusing quality and quantity of programming... yes the BBC has what, 4 television channels along with 5 or so radio channels and as such it is a MUCH larger organization than NPR/PBS, but PBS still produces NOVA, Frontline, Charlie Rose, and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer which is in almost every case higher quality programming than ANY of the "major" US news networks (not even to mention they also make sesame street and antiques roadshow, which have been a cornerstone of entertainment for our country's young and old for decades). NPR also is an invaluable news source, it is a great place to turn if you want actual news presented in an educated well researched manner. Their news stories are relevant, factual, and don't pander for ratings. You are correct in that most Americans don't view NPR and PBS as popular stations, but this has NOTHING to do with the actual quality of the programing. It's sad that people prefer the sensationalist crap that is FOX first and foremost, but all major networks are guilty of to some extent.... just please don't relate people's preferences to quality, because at the end of the day we do still live in a country where NASCAR still claims to be the most popular spectator sport...

    103. Re:we'll see by gtall · · Score: 1

      Where does the BBC get its funding? I was under the impression the Brits were taxed to support it. From this side of the pond, that makes it government run.

    104. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your argument is that your candidate of choice is doing exactly as Bush did? What happened to all that change I kept hearing about?

    105. Re:we'll see by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's funded by the licence fee, yes. But the government has no control over the BBC's content - it operates independently, and there is a separate BBC trust to oversee it, again independent from government. Its charter requires that it be independent from both private and government influence.

    106. Re:we'll see by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      One can be for the good of the populace, in the case of a benevolent dictator. The other cannot.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    107. Re:we'll see by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's not criticism when somebody goes "La la la, you're a dickhead" in response to everything you say. And the moment you say, "I'm not a dickhead," he goes off to the teacher and tells on you for saying dickhead.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    108. Re:we'll see by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      One is for profit, and one is for personal power.

    109. Re:we'll see by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      If you don't report facts on a specific segment without reporting opinions or interpretations, you're not a news channel.

    110. Re:we'll see by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      That also means the BBC and ABC are controlled by their respective governments, with the ability to twist the words into their interpretation. I do not know if they do this, but it is possible. I think I'd rather have 3 news streams that I can dig the truth out of than 1 news stream where there's no way to compare to pick out facts.

    111. Re:we'll see by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The President can declare who can say the news and who can't, what is news and what isn't, and what is truth and what is not?

      And when has that happened, exactly?

      Oh, and yeah, lying (See CBS and their fake GWB NG documents)

      Except you're full of shit, as usual. The documents were verified - for accuracy of content. If someone forged them, they "forged" the truth. But it's wonderful how wingnuts can make up these standards on the spur of the hat for things or people they disagree with - like the rhetorical standard they held Gore to - that never apply to themselves.

      Case in point, all the wingnuts frothing at the mouth over Dan Rather, yet have no problems with Sean Hannity using footage from Glenn Beck's 9/vomit protest (thousands of people) for Michelle Bauchman's much smaller protest.

      Because you take pathetic hypocrisy to 11.

    112. Re:we'll see by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1
      Modded as Troll because it's true. Thanks, it's a compliment.

      --
      "Troll" is not a substitute for "I disagree"

    113. Re:we'll see by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Right now the International Governance Forumn is going on in Egypt. This is the UN bunch of wonks that would like to have control of the Internet DNS cause they think US control ism well, it's not them.

      They've been meeting for 4 years talking about this. Nobody in the US seems to take them seriously, and it really seems like a way for people in every contry to self select some "internet governance" guy then they all go drink bad wine and listen to bead speeches ad Keiren McCarthy opined.

      John Zittrain from Harvard/Berkman was there, and Milton Mueller and the usual US policy wonks. One of Zittrains posters was torn down by a UN security official because the Chinese protested - the poster mentioned the great firewall of China.

      The first rule of the great firewall of China at the UN is you don't talk about the great firewall of China at the UN.

      http://twitter.com/zittrain
      UN security forces destroy our poster at Internet Governance Forum for mentioning China's firewall: http://bit.ly/3nF2AG #IGF09 #UN-FAIL

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    114. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either

      They all reported on it. ABC, CBS, and CNN all talked about the White House's decision to exclude FOX, and that they told the White House, "Either FOX is included in the interview, or we're not participating." I don't know if NBC reacted or not. Don't remember.

      >>>Fox Entertainment News.

      Well I'm glad I'm talking to a non-biased person. I guess you're too busy listening to DNC-NBC. ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    115. Re:we'll see by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    116. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Interesting that only Fox claims that they were excluded from interviewing a politician.

      How can you say that? No really, I'd like to know. I provided not one, not two, but THREE links to non-fox Networks about the white house decision to exclude FOX, and that they thought it was unfair, and yet you still make that ridiculous statement. How do you do that with a straight face?

      Personally I'm happy FOX exists..... .....and what I'd like to see next if the Libertarian News Network, and maybe a Communist News Network, because we need ALL points of view on television, not just the pro-big-government view that has dominated since the 1950s.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    117. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Modding someone "troll" is the equivalent
      > of censorship, because it makes the comment
      > invisible once the score drops below 1.

      The persecution complex of the far right wing is absolutely hilarious! Almost as funny as their mentally challenged understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      We're not stopping you from speaking, we're just tuning you out --same as that homeless guy that keeps telling me about the govn. robots controlling his brain. Could it be that we just don't want to hear the stupid things you're saying?

      And the Whitehouse doesn't need to entertain the questions of outrageously partisan, pretend news orgainzations either.

    118. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Interesting

      BTW:

      Here's a link to MSNBC calling a *black* rifle-carrying man a "white racist". Wow. Deliberate tampering of video like that shows a clear agenda. BTW I agree with my black brother. "Stealing" is the best way to describe making your neighbors pay for YOUR desire to buy new things.

      Edited http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI (notice they cut off the guy's head so you can't see he's black)
      Whole unedited video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx26QtQIM

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    119. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Informative

      The difference is Glenn Beck has video evidence of Van Joanes saying he's communist, or Anita Dunn saying her favorite philosopher is Dictator Mao, or Obama telling SEIU (in 2004) that he wants to see government take-over health care completely.

      Do you have any video evidence of Beck raping a girl?

      Furthermore, what the hell is wrong with asking questions? As the Founder of the Demcoratic Party said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." What he said of God also applies to our leaders. Question boldly. This is OUR government and our right as a free people. What surprises me is that Beck seems to be the only one on TV doing it.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    120. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      >>>You are stupid

      Wow.

      That was a persuasive argument. I am now in full agreement with thee, due to being overwhelmed by thy impeccable reasoning skills.

      /end sarcasm

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    121. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Well the networks disagree.

      When ABC, CBS, CNN heard that FOX was no longer allowed to be part of the press pool, they all decided not to participate. They drew a line in the sand and told the Administration straight up, "Either we all participate, or none of us will cover you." The administration, realizing they need television coverage, agreed to those terms.

      The nets are not dumb. They know if FOX is excluded, then next time it might be ABC or CNN who gets excluded.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    122. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court serves the interest of the government in DC.

      It does not serve the interests of the 50 State Legislatures. The U.S. Constitution is a contract between two parties - the central government and the states, just the same as the Lisbon Treaty is a contract between the EU and the Member States. As parties to the contract the States certainly have a right to decide if the contract has been violated, and stop that violation in its tracks. Hence the need for a Constitutional Council whose members are selected by the States.

      Furthermore to say the U.S. Court should police the U.S. Congress makes about as much sense as saying Microsoft's HR should police Microsoft's Board of Directors. You can't have an organization police itself. You need to have a separate organization.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    123. Re:we'll see by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      >>>You use such sweeping generalizations.

      So do most people when people say things like - I have hospital bills and my neighbors should pay them. It's my right to take their money. - What a sweeping, generalized statement to make, and I see in on television many times per day.

      >>>many can see that the single-payer system of healthcare is far more efficient than giant corporations

      By that reasoning everything should be provided by a single payer. Government-made cars (Tribant), government-made trains (amtrak), government-provided housing (Fannie and Freddie), government-provided ________. Everything would be "more efficient" if the government just provided it.

      Of course that would also mean a loss of freedom of choice. Government monopoly == no choice. It also means my money is no longer my money; I'm forced to pay for other people's lung replacements, train tickets, homes, or new cars.

      I am anti-monopoly; completely and totally.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    124. Re:we'll see by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with asking questions. It's just that every Fox News defense from you sounds like republican/anti-obama fanatic propaganda. Just like Fox News itself, by the way, as others were glad to demonstrate with their own links.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    125. Re:we'll see by binaryartist · · Score: 1

      Fox news is entitled to its opinion. Censoring news to only allow news or opinions that you like is another form of censorship. As long as Fox news is not doing anything illegal it has the right to do what it is doing. If you think something is wrong you should bring about a new legislations that punishes people who distort news.

      --
      When a thief sees a saint, all he sees are his pockets!
    126. Re:we'll see by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      >>>I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either

      They all reported on it. ABC, CBS, and CNN all talked about the White House's decision to exclude FOX, and that they told the White House, "Either FOX is included in the interview, or we're not participating." I don't know if NBC reacted or not. Don't remember.

      >>>Fox Entertainment News.

      Well I'm glad I'm talking to a non-biased person. I guess you're too busy listening to DNC-NBC. ;-)

      I don't watch TV news, so when I was talking about reporting I was referring to print articles. It's harder to add corrections to TV news later so it's good for headlines and quick reporting, but if you want to dig deeper I've not found it to be very useful.

      WRT Fox Entertainment News, I think it's important to call a spade a spade. Their objective is not journalism, but entertainment and as a result it's more of a tabloid than a news company. They take the barest glimmer of fact and distort it into unrecognizable headlines. I've no problem with a dissenting voice, but I'm not going to respect it if it does no factchecking and consistently uses logical fallacies.

      Of course, I don't think that's a remotely valid reason to exclude it from any interviews. While I'm willing to chalk this up to an error, I'll be watching what happens next in this war of words between the WH and Fox.

      FWIW I avoid HuffPost, Slate, DailyKos, the New York Post, and other ridiculously biased "sources" as much as I can as well. I'll read the headlines on aggregators and wait for the rest of the story to come out on politifact or factcheck. If I can I'll look for the primary source, as in this case.

      I'm a liberal sure, but I try to be objective when looking at fact checking. The liberalism should come in the interpretation of the facts rather than the gathering and presentation. IMO that's where a lot of news sources fail these days.

    127. Re:we'll see by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Since the tax exists to that sole purpose, the government has no say in it. The worse it can do is to treat cutting or extinguishing that tax. I'd love to see the brits reaction to that.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    128. Re:we'll see by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Don't feed the troll AAARGH*dies*

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    129. Re:we'll see by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

      I've always wondered how that would stand up when what is being said is half-truths, willful deception and twisting of facts. Do we still have to defend their right to say it?

      In rational discourse, where each party acts in good faith to uncover the truth and facts, I completely agree with you. But what I've seen isn't particularly rational discourse.

      Unfortunately, yes. We still have to defend their right in saying so if we truly believe in freedom of speech. Otherwise we have no base for wanting it when it's our turn to be muffled.

      Then, after defending the right, we can go and sue them for libel.

      Unless you can come up with a perfect system capable of detecting rational out of non-rational discourse...

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    130. Re:we'll see by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Of course it's your right to just sit down and die if you happen to be in a situation where the treatment to save your life can't be paid by your said labor. I prefer to side with the people that believe that right to health care means have access to health care regardless of financial situation.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    131. Re:we'll see by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      By that reasoning everything should be provided by a single payer. Government-made cars (Tribant), government-made trains (amtrak), government-provided housing (Fannie and Freddie), government-provided ________. Everything would be "more efficient" if the government just provided it.

      Of course that would also mean a loss of freedom of choice. Government monopoly == no choice.

      The difference is that the choice you're defending is:

      - I have a life threatening health problem and I can pay for the cure. Do I pay or do I die?

      It's your choice. But it also comes with this situation:

      - I have a life threatening health problem and I can't pay for the cure. Do I die or do I die?

      You're not choosing between different brands. I hope you can see the difference.

      If your life gets in danger, it will be your choice to think "gee I should have saved more money or helped approve public health care but I didn't, too late to repent now". I myself know that I can't save sufficient money for every possible life-threatening disease, so since I don't want to get in that situation, I prefer to defend public health care.

      Now back to Obama's project, it's not even forcing you to use public health care. If you think private health care is better and you have the money, by all means, go and pay for it.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    132. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh, I protested at a health care town hall forum but haven't got my check yet. Jambox where is it? You act like you know.

    133. Re:we'll see by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I found that surprising that other networks would stick up for Fox. It is pretty common knowledge that most of the other news organizations look down upon Fox.

      Found an article confirming what you said: http://www.fancast.com/blogs/tv-news/networks-refused-white-house-after-fox-news-boycott/ No idea if the source is trustworthy though:) just a quick google.

      I started thinking why, and then it occurred to me, that letting the white house decide what's news is a slippery slope for sure. Although I think Fox news is a horribly biased agency, and is responsible for most other networks following the money trail to crap reporting and lowered levels of true journalistic research.... I suppose we should stick up for them.

      It makes me wonder though, just because you have a high number of viewers, and call yourself news, is there no way to actually make an objective call whether it is news or not? How extreme would Fox News have to get before the vast majority of America would say "Hey... that's not news, it is entirely opinion supporting a pre-determined agenda"?

       

    134. Re:we'll see by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the other guy,

      But I defend FOX News because that's who people are attacking 99% of the time. If they were not under attack, I wouldn't be talking about FOX at all. In other words, you started it! ;-) Also it's worth noting that many persons (i.e. libertarians) consider FOX to be "liberal news media". It's all a matter of perspective. From my viewpoint when you watch the actual NEWS (not the commentors like Beck, Hannity, etc), FOX covers both leftist and rightest viewpoints. The other networks only do the left "we need more government" view.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    135. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NBC and ABC did not got to court and defend their right to tell lies.

      The difference here is that Fox is *not* a news organisation.

    136. Re:we'll see by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I could care less about the interests of my state legislature.

    137. Re:we'll see by Meski · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, in Obamas' case, words speak louder than actions.

      Kinda what I was thinking. When he said:

      because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.

      Of course, that doesn't apply if you criticize HIS government or try to hold it accountable. Ask Fox News.

      Of course, media groups can't be held accountable

    138. Re:we'll see by simplexion · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng6yuqI-iUk Not everyone on Fox News is a moron.

    139. Re:we'll see by jhoegl · · Score: 0

      You are right. I mean that whole Vietnam thing and how the news covered it back then was SSOOOOO pro government. Oh, and I love how Fox news was pro government during the Bush administration, oddly republican. DIdnt hear a damn thing about the billions lost in Iraq, the billions spent in Iraq, and how the pretense to go to war was as false as Vietnam.

    140. Re:we'll see by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Honestly I don't think obscenities would exist without a society, and probably a prudish Victorian one that makes everyone embarrassed when I say the word "cunt".

      Perhaps, although I am not so sure. From Wiktionary: "A prude (Old French prude)[1] is a person who is described as being excessively concerned with decorum, modesty or propriety." So, while "cunt" seems offensive to a puritan, I think the essence of obscenity is the "wilful offensiveness".

      All that aside, we should at least agree that Marxism has in its total caused far more harm than good, even if we cannot say the same for socialism and liberal democracy in general.

      Again, I think perhaps this is more a question of what you understand by "Marxism". In my understanding, Marxism is simply the economic theory detailed by Karl Marx in "Das Kapital"; it has its merits as an input to the scientific discourse on economics, but I don't think it is fair to view it in the light of what people like Lenin and Stalin did in its name. That would be like judging all Christians based on what the Spanish Inquisition did.

      I have a lot of sympathy for the socialist ideals; that doesn't preclude me from understanding that a lot of evil has been committed in its name. Still, I think it is wrong to summarily judge anything based on only one side of the story; when I was young I used to be very anti-American - nothing American could ever be good - but I have learned that there is always more to things. So, if I can go from that point of view to one where I can see that there is a lot of good as well as bad in America, it should be possible to do the same with respect to USSR, China, Iran, ...

      There is a lot of shit in the world today, but there is also a lot of good. It is within our power to make either Paradise or Hell on Earth; and whether we live in what is formally a democracy or not, we actually have a lot of influence on things - it doesn't have to be the way that it is.

    141. Re:we'll see by jandersen · · Score: 1

      What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft of another man's labor (he works; you take the product of his work i.e. his money). We are amazed that Europeans do not.

      You have such an amazingly narrow outlook on the world; and you seem to prefer to use strongly emotional words. Why is that? To me at least, it makes you less credible.

      Surely, in a caring society full of caring people it is not a question of forcing anybody? If you see somebody in desperate need of help, don't you feel that you want to reach out and help? At least if it something you can easily do? I can assure you that I don't resent seeing people receiving public help, I am not that petty, and I don't believe for a moment that Americans are either. And I think you should remenber that you can all too easily end up in a situation where you are in need of public help - wouldn't it be nice in that situation to be able to get it?

      From what I hear, it is not uncommon in America to lose everything if you are hit by a disease that requires expensive treatment. It seems to me that in America, a very, very few make it to be absurdly rich, but the rest can look forward to an old age full of worry. As a European, I can retire in the knowledge that because I have paid my taxes, I need not worry about health and a lot of other issues - I have the right to receive care.

    142. Re:we'll see by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      With a proxy client (TOR or whatever) in China, you could find out live what is blocked and what is not. For instance, This site used to provide just such a service.

      You might find Open Net Initiative's page on china of interest too.

    143. Re:we'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, +5 for bashing Fox News. Oh yeah, that's insightful. Just what slashdot needs, more political trolls. It sucks watching this place get turned into the Huffington Post.

  2. Whitehouse.gov by BearRanger · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're streaming this speech, and historically China has not blocked this domain. So, provided there are curious Chinese citizens who are aware of the visit they have a way to hear directly what was said.

    1. Re:Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Streaming in Chinese? Let us say it was the other way around, and the Chinese president was speaking here, how many "curious American citizens" would even understand what was on the Chinese equivalent of whitehouse.gov?

    2. Re:Whitehouse.gov by pavon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The non-rhetorical answer:

      10M Fluent english speakers in China (0.77%) vs
        2M Fluent chinese speakers in the US (0.57%)

      However, an additional 300M Chinese (~23%) are learning english. That is an awful lot of young impressionable students.

    3. Re:Whitehouse.gov by Palpatine_li · · Score: 1

      When Obama made his first speech as president, the speech video had "Communism" deleted after "Fascism" in China.

    4. Re:Whitehouse.gov by sam0737 · · Score: 1

      ...which I actually did yesterday. I'm in Shanghai right now.

      But, I guess for someone who can listen and understand live English audio streaming with no caption and such, s/he should be well aware that unrestricted Internet access is essential.

      May I put it in another way...GIVE ME BACK THE DAMN FACEBOOK.

    5. Re:Whitehouse.gov by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which would be fine, if Chinese students were allowed to have political opinions.

    6. Re:Whitehouse.gov by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not allowed to express political opinions. The government can't control what they think, except by controlling their access to contrary opinions.

    7. Re:Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool ignorance bro.

      My observation was that the number of people who were politically apathetic was about the same as the west.
      Furthermore, Chinese students/young people came up with Grass Mud Horse, so there's hope of revoking the censorship within a generation. They are not completely stupid, and there are many people who care about YRO in China

    8. Re:Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't control what they think...yet.

    9. Re:Whitehouse.gov by ljgshkg · · Score: 1

      Actually, they're allowed to express political opinions. If you BS about it, nobody cares, and actually I do see a lot of opinions around. So just express is not a problem.

      It only becomes a problem when the communists think you're "creating problem", or in their terms, "affect the harmony of society".

      Personally, I don't neccessary like the western way of strong expressions that tends to really "affect the harmony of society" (as bad in Hong Kong sometimes). But unfortunately, they don't have a efficient way of letting opinions flow into the "brain" of the central government, and the central government is still having big problem controlling local governments (which is actually the biggest problem that avoid the central government to do anything "better").

      Basically, most people always "express" their opinion not about central government, but local government (because federal government actions usually doesn't affect their life in a bad way, instead, often in a pretty good way these days, my opinion, at least). But those local provincial governments have their own court system and police who sometimes just go capture those people who try to go to Beijing to complain about local governments. Sometimes, they even cross the province boundary to stop those people.

      Certainly a hard problem to solve. But it's really what most Chinese care most about. Federal freedom... I think it's much less of a concern, if you get right down to what exactly are the problems that people are having. At least, for now.

    10. Re:Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're totally forgetting about propaganda. The force is quite strong; it's much more (and WORSE) than simply filtering contrary opinions. It goes on the world 'round. So much, in fact, one could make the claim that citizens of unnamed 1st world countries have no clue what's really happens in the world in their name, although they *know* they have a "freedom of speech".

    11. Re:Whitehouse.gov by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      The government can't control what they think

      They think they can, though.

    12. Re:Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? What happened to the thoughtpolice?

      Posting AC although the crime has already been committed, and my thoughtkarma dunked to the negative millions.

    13. Re:Whitehouse.gov by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      The non-rhetorical answer:

      10M Fluent english speakers in China (0.77%) vs

        2M Fluent chinese speakers in the US (0.57%)

      However, an additional 300M Chinese (~23%) are learning english. That is an awful lot of young impressionable students.

      Just curious, how many of the 2M chinese-speaking Americans are ethnically Chinese? My guess is the percentage of Americans who are of non-Asian descent who speak Chinese (Ie, non-Chinese-Americans who took the effort to learn Chinese on their own initiative, as opposed to Chinese-speaking Asian Americans who "inherited" chinese speaking from their parents) is a much smaller percentage than this 0.57% suggests. How many students do we have enrolled in our public schools who even have an option to learn Chinese as a second language?

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    14. Re:Whitehouse.gov by fm6 · · Score: 1

      It only becomes a problem when the communists think you're "creating problem", or in their terms, "affect the harmony of society".

      That's the party line (so to speak). But "harmony" is just a euphemism for "control".

      Your federal-state explanation doesn't jibe with the facts. For one thing, the PRC is not a federal entity — government is strictly top-down. And even in a federal system the central government has some control over local activities. Are you actually asserting that the Chinese central government has less control over the actions of local law enforcement than the U.S government?

      You also seem to think that the central government has never put dissidents in jail just for being dissidents. Not true.

      Don't fall for the "you don't know how we do things here" excuse. It's a standard feature of morally bankrupt systems.

  3. In Soviet Russia... by Ambidexitronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...ah, I just don't have the heart to finish the joke anymore. I'm so glad to have had the opportunity to have been raised in a culture where free speech and personal choice are so highly prized.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You've been raised in a culture where media manipulates your mind and stirs up antagonism towards other countries.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you are afraid to?

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's so easy to mod a post as 'Troll', isn't it? None of you have ever visited China and yet you strongly believe that the Chinese have no freedom of speech.

  4. Anti-censorship, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So that's why he's opposing and releasing all of the information about the ACTA treaty as well as allowing the pictures of the "POWs" that were enhanced interrogated to be shown. It's great to know that he got rid of all those national security and state secrets defenses in the courts, too.

    1. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by twostix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And putting legislation online at least five days before it's voted on.

      And allowing congressmen enough time to read legislation rather than ramming it down their throats at 2am.

      And ending backroom politics.

      And get rid of the lobbyists - though perhaps I misheard him on that one and he actually said "I promise to hire as many lobbyists and absolute freaks and weirdos into my administration as I possibly can".

      And and and.

      He's done absolutely nothing that he said he would do, and in fact has been even *worse* than Bushco regarding midnight bills, etc. So why is the media not lighting a bonfire under his feet? When I watch your media (MSNBC, CNN, etc) it would appear that they're absolutely infatuated with him. He's a political figure not a monarch or religious icon fer the gods sake.

      (And not much of an "orator" when he's just got to wing it either I notice)

      And before the lefty mods come down on me like a tonne of bricks, I'm no right winger and actually believed he would be different and better. Stupid me ay?

    2. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      ---insert typical, "when my party does it it's ok" defense here---

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's done absolutely nothing that he said he would do, and in fact has been even *worse* than Bushco regarding midnight bills, etc. So why is the media not lighting a bonfire under his feet?

      Absolutely nothing? Not lighting a bonfire?
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

      The Obameter Scorecard
      Promise Kept: 54
      Compromise: 14
      Promise Broken: 7
      Stalled: 17
      In the Works: 149
      Not yet rated: 274

      Feel free to read the about page
      The Truth-O-Meter is good fun too.
      Every day it tracks the veracity of statements by public figures & politicians.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by Symplectic · · Score: 1

      And putting legislation online at least five days before it's voted on.

      Like the health care bill was put online on the 29th of October, the Manager's amendments on the 3rd and the vote on the 7th (more than 72 hours prior as promised and more than 5 days after the bill)?

      And allowing congressmen enough time to read legislation rather than ramming it down their throats at 2am.

      Number of votes in the house after midnight this session 0. Number in the senate this session of congress 0.

    5. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd really like to see the numbers run on past politicians for comparison. I'm sure a compassionate conservative wouldn't get us into an unnecessary war, would leave no child behind, and give tax cuts to *everyone*. Bush 1 didn't raise taxes, Reagan didn't increase the national deficit, and Clinton Did Not Have Sex With That Woman!

    6. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

      The Obameter Scorecard
      Promise Kept: 54
      etc....

      They're a bit more generous than I'd be in some cases.

      As an example, they rate as a "promise kept" "signing the UN Convention on the Disabled". Since it hasn't been approved by the Senate, the "signing" part, while literally true, is completely meaningless - treaties require Senate ratification before they can actually be implemented.

      Note, for reference, that Clinton "signed" (actually, Al Gore signed, but who counts, he was working for Clinton at the time) the Kyoto Protocol. And then didn't bother to put it to the Senate, since he knew that they wouldn't ratify it. Net result: one photo op, no treaty.

      Personally, I'd have waited till the Senate had ratified it, and the implementing legislation had been passed before I called it a "promise kept".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took a browse through the "Truth-O-Meter", expecting out of context quotes. I did not leave disappointed.

      I did, however, find the "Pants on Fire" icon to be pretty funny. (o:

    8. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by Vairon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you're not from the US and don't understand how its government works. I'll assume either that you or failed civics class as a child. This country has 3 branches of government. They are designed to have equal power. They provide checks and balances on each other.

      A simplistic view of the three branches would be:
      Legislative - They make the laws. (Article 1 of the US Constitution)
      Executive - They enforce the laws. (Article 2 of the US Constitution)
      Judicial - They decide if the enforcement matched law. (Article 3 of the US Constitution)

      President Obama has power over the Executive branch.

      > And putting legislation online at least five days before it's voted on.
      He doesn't put legislation online. He's the leader of the EXECUTIVE branch of government. The LEGISLATIVE branch (not his branch) is responsible for stuff like, you know, legislation. They would be the ones who should put legislation online.

      >And allowing congressmen enough time to read legislation rather than ramming it down their throats at 2am.
      He doesn't control congressmen. That's not his branch of government. Complain about someone else who actually controls that please.

      >And ending backroom politics.
      This may be a perfectly valid complaint. It would have been nice if you'd been specific and cited an example though.

      >And get rid of the lobbyists - though perhaps I misheard him on that one and he actually said "I promise to hire as many
      >lobbyists and absolute freaks and weirdos into my administration as I possibly can".
      I think he would argue that people he hired were the best people for the job. Until it can be shown that the way he executes the law of the land is being mishandled due to the people he hired to advise him, I would hold my judgement. Personally I dislike the idea of corporate interests being able to pay for someone to influence my leaders. However, in a free society I don't see how you can prevent lobbyists.

    9. Re:Anti-censorship, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, Obama has to actually sign the bills. He can refuse to sign bills that went through Congress inappropriately. He also had promised a wait before signing bills which hasn't happened.

  5. Free Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They block it and we sniff it.

  6. Meanwhile on Fox News by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Funny

    The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese

    Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese

    Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True, true, but it goes both ways.

      Far Left - "Obama is perpetuating cultural hegemony and displaying his intolerance toward other cultures' ways of life by forcing Western cultural norms down their throats."

    2. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by dragonxtc · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm a republican and even I found that funny

    3. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

      The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese

      Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese

      Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States

      As I sit here and read all these comments about how great it is that we live in a free country and how terrible it is that the Chinese don't, I am shocked by your comment. The primary tool of the Chinese government is the control of the media. As long as they control the media, the rest doesn't matter. They can even give their people the absolute freedom of speech. It won't matter because the only information that the people receive will be good news about the people in power. How can they say anything negative when they don't know of the government doing anything negative. Sure, the party leaders don't read every news cast that every reporter reads, but if a reporter says something they don't like, they are whipped back in line with a quickness.

      Fortunately, here we have the Bill Of Rights. It guarantees your right to say whatever you want. Just as importantly, it guarantees the right of Fox News to say whatever they want. It's sad that that right now, Fox News is the only network that is critical of the Obama administration. In other words, Fox News is the only network that is DOING ITS JOB! I find it sad that so many like yourself will openly mock the only network that separates the American media from the Chinese.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    5. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Cry me a river. The medias role is to enlighten and educate, not being a bunch of whiny bitches presenting whatever "view" their corporate masters want them to. If they can not plainly state that Obama's speech is the closest thing to "fuck you China" any US president has ever come, then they don't deserve to be called media because they have thoroughly failed.

    6. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So is it complete coincidence that Fox News began "doing it's job" meaning being completely critical of the actions of the President only once George Bush left office?

      That same Bill of Rights also grants the government the right to criticize a news organization that seems to relish making the news as well as covering it.

    7. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by user4574 · · Score: 1

      "Fox News is the only network that is critical of the Obama administration."

      What are you talking about? Even The Daily Show regularly criticizes the Obama administration. Fox is just the only network going full-on Joseph Goebbels with their coverage. And while I'm happy that the Bill of Rights exists and allows such free speech, Fox news perpetually fails at even its self-stated goal of delivering "fair and balanced" news coverage. But if by "doing its job" you mean going above and beyond to create a manufactured atmosphere of bigotry and fear, then yeah, I totally agree.

    8. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by brainfsck · · Score: 0, Troll

      People mock Fox News because it lies and gives so much airtime to pundits who are clearly divorced from reality.

      But I'm sure you knew that already.

    9. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking kidding me? Fox News is critical of Obama because he's from The Other Team, not because they have nuanced and serious criticisms of his policies. They raise asinine complaints and conspiracy theories, they outright lie, hell, they're even backing political protests. Stop drinking the Konservatism Kool-Aid and open your eyes. Fox is not the shining beacon of hope and reason in a world gone madly socialist. Fox is the living incarnation of all that is wrong with American politics. The "us vs. them" mentality, the willingness to do absolutely anything to take the other guy down, ethics or reason be damned, the pervasive religious bullshit--Fox is all that and more.

    10. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meanwhile some liberal somewhere makes up:

      On Fox News The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese

      Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese

      Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    11. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by twostix · · Score: 1

      CNN - "Oooh he gives me a tingle up my leg".

      *shudder*

      Apparently that's the standard that Fox is supposed to be aiming for.

    12. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Bwahahahahahah!

      mod parent +1 Hilariously delusional.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    13. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      It's sad that that right now, Fox News is the only network that is critical of the Obama administration. In other words, Fox News is the only network that is DOING ITS JOB!

      Fox News would be doing its job if they would have given the same report had a republican given that speech instead of Obama.

    14. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by SpeedyDX · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As a product of both Western and Eastern cultural influences, I think that a remark like that is not necessarily off the mark. Freedom isn't something you can just give to a people and expect them to do great things with it. It depends greatly on the socio-cultural norms and lifestyles of a people, and how well their infrastructure can support it. Without proper education, for example, radical freedom can result in someone throwing their lives away by making poor choices.

      Now you can argue that freedom means that it's their choice if they throw their lives away, and it's none of your business. And it's true, that's a great thing about freedom. But you have to keep in mind that that very viewpoint is a product of your socio-cultural upbringing. We Chinese have many sayings that refer to other Chinese as brothers or sisters, as one big family. If a member of your family suffers, the entire family suffers. To the Chinese, that's not a good thing. So with even this one facet of freedom, the freedom of others to throw their lives away and the freedom for you to ignore them, is both a strength and weakness depending on your point of view.

      Now I'm not a cultural/moral relativist. I very much dislike relativism as a philosophy in general. However, that doesn't mean that we in the West can feel smug about our superior cultural values. It just means that there may be some true measure of how to live a good life, but we don't necessarily know what that measure is. Freedom is, in my view, definitely a part of that measure, but there still remains several questions. How much freedom? Which aspects of life should be subject to freedom, and which should be subject to regulation? Questions like these have not been conclusively answered, and it's up to the people of a certain culture to try to determine for themselves what those answers are. Isn't that a part of freedom? To be able to decide, as a people, what rules should govern your own society?

      So yes, I think that Obama is showing at least some cultural insensitivity. Not because of some far-left cultural relativist reasons. But because a part of freedom lies in the ability to define the boundaries of freedom in your own society.

      (I realize that there will inevitably be replies that will ask how the people of China are determining their own freedoms, since their system of government is not democratic. There are several responses to these replies. One of which is that the people of China are not sufficiently inclined to pursue the Western style of democracy because the Chinese government is working well enough for them. China's growth as an economic powerhouse has not been an accident. Another response is that they do have some elected regional representation, but that their power is simply not as great as their counterparts in the West. And it's not an oddity that the power structure in one government is different from another. -- In any event, regardless of whether you think each individual Chinese person has the power to change the circumstances, the fact is that it's not Obama's place, or any American's place, to decide for them whether they want to pursue freedom, how much of it to pursue, and in which aspects of life they should pursue it.)

    15. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      How about looking at the individual and not justifying oppression due to consensus? Social consensus does not justify the individual being subject to tyranny.

    16. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile some conservative somewhere makes up:

      On Fox News The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese

      Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese

      Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States

      because many conservatives realizes how much Fox News is the jackass channel.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    17. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by TheMuon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you are thinking of Chris Mathews of MSNBC. Unless someone at CNN said the same thing.

    18. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We Chinese have many sayings that refer to other Chinese as brothers or sisters, as one big family.

      Boy the racists in Australia would have a field day with that one. I however, wonder why these sayings (and i don't know them but believe that they exist) cannot apply to the entire human race?
       
      Give everyone freedom, then work out how to remove anti-social behaviours...

    19. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by MoeDumb · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, ask the poor Chinese thrown into dark prison houses (which the Chinese government won't even acknowledge exists) simply for coming into the city to register a legitimate grievance if they have enough freedom. Or ask a Christian worshiping in a secret house church not part of the Chinese government-approved 'church' who, when discovered, is arrested, beaten, imprisoned and tortured for years with their Bibles confiscated, if they wouldn like the freedom to worship Jesus Christ without persecution and not the state.

      --
      Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
    20. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 0, Troll


      Far Left - "Obama is perpetuating cultural hegemony and displaying his intolerance toward other cultures' ways of life by forcing Western cultural norms down their throats."

      The what? You have a far left in the US? What're they called?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    21. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad that that right now, Fox News is the only network that is critical of the Obama administration. In other words, Fox News is the only network that is DOING ITS JOB! I find it sad that so many like yourself will openly mock the only network that separates the American media from the Chinese.

      I find it funny that you refer to Fox News as a "network" rather than a "news network". Very carefully put. Nice one.

    22. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything taken out of context can be funny.

      Please place these comments in the context where they were spoken, if they really were said.

    23. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by gtall · · Score: 1

      C'mon, everyone knows urine flows *down* one's leg...even Obama-giddy White House reporters know this.

    24. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by BitHive · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is retarded. You are retarded.

    25. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese

      Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese

      Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States

      TYPICAL SLASHDOT READER:

      I know everything. Enuf said.

    26. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Calling the speech a "fuck you" to China is an interpretation of events, which the news isn't supposed to do. Let them report what he said, not what they may or may not think what he said means.

    27. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile some republicans can't take jokes.

    28. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      meanwhile some democrats can dish it but can't take it.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Huh? You never made a joke though.

    30. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The far left you're quoting is so non-mainstream, they'd never vote for Obama, or any major party candidate. Recall that "liberal" was a dirty word on the far left long before it was a rhetorical cliche on the right.

      (Or maybe you don't recall. The term "far left" is itself a standard formula for conflating everyone to the left of Ronald Reagan with Karl Marx.)

      Which is not to say that you're wrong. A lot of liberals are pissed at Obama for not being the kneejerk liberal they thought he was. A little time reading his books would have disabused them.

      As for those of us who just want the guy to do a good job and don't care about his affiliations, well, his claim (backed up by his career, starting when the conservative contingent at Harvard Law School backed him for editor of the Law Review) and his rhetoric in favor of listening to all sides is what made me want to see him elected in the first place. I'm pretty much a lefty myself, but the system won't work without the right playing a role, since Americans are, all in all, a relatively conservative bunch. Unfortunately, Obama's consensus-building strategies can't seem to defeat the my-way-or-the-highway attitude that's dominated politics for the last couple of decades.

    31. Re:Meanwhile on Fox News by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Sometimes pointing out the truth can be considered funny.

      Also there doesn't have to be a joke in order to be a dish-vs-take issue.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  7. A tradition of the United States by QCompson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm glad that in the United States, the president agrees that an open and uncensored internet is important to ensure the free exchange of ideas. Sometimes, to ensure true freedom of speech, you have to allow that which you may find objectionable or offensive, because once you start blocking some information, you start to... OMG what's that? Child pornography?!? BLOCK EVERYTHING, ARREST EVERYONE, MONITOR ALL TRAFFIC!

    1. Re:A tradition of the United States by agrif · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not one to post quotes willy-nilly, but this one is particularly relevant to the free internet:

      The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. (H. L. Mencken)

    2. Re:A tradition of the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oblig. Pres. of Madagascar: SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!!!

    3. Re:A tradition of the United States by twostix · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm getting mighty tired of these quite frankly disgusting comparisons between China and western liberal democracies (mostly the US) on sites like this by western middleclass individuals living lavish lifestyles in soft liberal democracies whenever China comes up.

      It's not clever, it's not rational in fact it's offensive to the people who are suffering under the boot of whatever the hell China is these days (some sort of techo communist/fascist/authoritarian hybrid that we haven't seen before) simply for being so "evil" as to be pro-democratic or to have an opinion contrary to the local party official and/or state apparatus. Or pehaps even wanting to work in the city rather than being a peasant sorry to bad, no permit for you to leave your district.

      Truly the white collar middle class have become like petulant children in the west. That you find yourself having to advocate for the free flow of images and video of babies and children being sexually molested in an attempt to find something to criticize about the US is pretty damn telling about A) How damned wonderful it is to live in our respective western countries and B) How absolutely morally and intellectually bankrupt you are that you cannot see that but rather prefer to believe that your freedom is somehow impuned to even within 0.1% of the average Chinese persons day to day existence is to be honest rather disgusting.

      Educate your self a little you ignorant hick.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

    4. Re:A tradition of the United States by some_guy_88 · · Score: 1

      He didn't even mention China. He was just using the thread to make, in my oppinion, a valid point about the USA's view on child pornography.

      No need for the hostility.

    5. Re:A tradition of the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting mighty tired of these quite frankly disgusting comparisons between China and western liberal democracies (mostly the US) on sites like this by western middleclass individuals living lavish lifestyles in soft liberal democracies whenever China comes up.

      It's not clever, it's not rational in fact it's offensive to the people who are suffering under the boot of whatever the hell China is these days (some sort of techo communist/fascist/authoritarian hybrid that we haven't seen before) simply for being so "evil" as to be pro-democratic or to have an opinion contrary to the local party official and/or state apparatus. Or pehaps even wanting to work in the city rather than being a peasant sorry to bad, no permit for you to leave your district.

      Truly the white collar middle class have become like petulant children in the west. That you find yourself having to advocate for the free flow of images and video of babies and children being sexually molested in an attempt to find something to criticize about the US is pretty damn telling about A) How damned wonderful it is to live in our respective western countries and B) How absolutely morally and intellectually bankrupt you are that you cannot see that but rather prefer to believe that your freedom is somehow impuned to even within 0.1% of the average Chinese persons day to day existence is to be honest rather disgusting.

      Educate your self a little you ignorant hick.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

      Uh... twostix...

      I don't think QCompson was really comparing the US to China, I think he was just talking about the paradox of trying to create an open society when you ban things that offend you.

      Of course then again, I suppose most of us support some form of censorship or another...

      Copyright == Legal monopoly on the sale of an idea in order to encourage the creation of ideas. (At least in theory...)

      Still, you could argue that the idea of copyright itself it outdated...

      Regarding the kiddie porn statement, I am not sure if QCompson was stating that there are silly laws out there under the whole "Protect the children" campaign, or if he believes that it's silly for other depictions of illegal events to be shown but not this one.

      In any case.... Let the flame war begin.

    6. Re:A tradition of the United States by shadowofwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well said. I find the lack of decency expressed by the 'child porn market = free speech' crowd to be staggering. As if the opportunity to sadistically destroy children, or leer from a safe distance while other people do it for you, is a human right.

    7. Re:A tradition of the United States by loteck · · Score: 1

      You know between this and the Education speech, Obama must be getting kind of tired of having radical extremist political parties censoring his otherwise basic and principled messages. Good thing that kind of thing doesn't happen over he... wait...

    8. Re:A tradition of the United States by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Of course, this guy was involved in relatively legit adult porn, but I feel the sentiment bears repeating:

      Larry Flynt:
      [I]f the first amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you . . . 'cause I'm the worst.

      Erring *way too far* on the side of caution? Likely.
      However, I think of the statistician's battle between Type I and Type II errors in many many issues relating to legislation.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    9. Re:A tradition of the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I counter your Mr. H. L. Mencken's quote with Prof. Russell's "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

    10. Re:A tradition of the United States by invalid_user · · Score: 1

      Wittgenstein's opinion was that "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus).

      (Well, at least before his own doubts consumed him and made him a friend of the existentialists.)

    11. Re:A tradition of the United States by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Of course, this guy was involved in relatively legit adult porn, but I feel the sentiment bears repeating:

      Larry Flynt:
      [I]f the first amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you . . . 'cause I'm the worst.

      Erring *way too far* on the side of caution? Likely.
      However, I think of the statistician's battle between Type I and Type II errors in many many issues relating to legislation.

      You left out the children who are being molested for public viewing. It's not protecting them.

    12. Re:A tradition of the United States by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This presumes that being nudist makes you a "scoundrel".

      I see nothing wrong with the naked human body, nor do I feel ashamed to defenmd the practice. Plus I think those cops who arrest teens for taking nudie pics with their cellphones are the True scoundrels. Those cops should spend several weeks in jail.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:A tradition of the United States by QCompson · · Score: 1

      Well said. I find the lack of decency expressed by the 'child porn market = free speech' crowd to be staggering. As if the opportunity to sadistically destroy children, or leer from a safe distance while other people do it for you, is a human right.

      Ah yes. "...sadistically destroy children." Typical inflammatory speech used whenever the topic of child pornography comes up, hoping to silence all debate on the subject. That's also how politicians use it to pass misguided laws and pander to voters.

      So when a 16 year old sends a nude video of herself to her boyfriend, which one is sadistically destroying children?

    14. Re:A tradition of the United States by QCompson · · Score: 1

      Relax, Mr. Angry. I wasn't making a comparison to China, nor the Soviet Union, nor Nazi Germany. I was simply saying that a lot of American politicians will bark about a free internet and the freedom of speech all day long, but will be the first to support censoring certain information when it is an easy boogieman target.

      But I'm glad I gave you an opportunity to vent. Hope it felt good.

    15. Re:A tradition of the United States by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      If what you're opposed to is the misuse of pornography laws to prosecute teenage lovers, and are not merely using it as an excuse to protect the distribution of pictures of 40 year olds having sex with 4 year olds, then I'm in agreement completely.

    16. Re:A tradition of the United States by QCompson · · Score: 1

      If what you're opposed to is the misuse of pornography laws to prosecute teenage lovers, and are not merely using it as an excuse to protect the distribution of pictures of 40 year olds having sex with 4 year olds, then I'm in agreement completely.

      Frankly, it would be difficult to do one without the other, but that wasn't my point. It's interesting (but not particularly surprising) that even the mention of child pornography causes you to insinuate that someone is advocating that child rape should be a human right.

      And when discussing child pornography laws, you should probably limit using inflammatory language concerning sadistic young child rape, given that with the ubiquity of cameras the vast majority of child pornography currently being produced is likely teenagers taking pictures of themselves.

    17. Re:A tradition of the United States by steelfood · · Score: 1

      No, but there have recently been a rash of "if it looks like a minor" or "even if no child was harmed" or "stupid minor takes picture of self" cases where the result was more oppression. How does the excuse of preventing children from being harmed justify that?

      Censorship is a slippery slope. Better that it doesn't happen at all, than try to stop somewhere halfway.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    18. Re:A tradition of the United States by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      When you say, "Frankly, it would be difficult to do one without the other", you are in fact advocating the protection of distribution of pictures of child rape. Its disingenuous to avoid the issue by calling the plain statement of your position 'inflammatory'. If you're not bothered much by child rape, then you shouldn't be offended by being accused of protecting it. If you are bothered by it, then you can find a way to distinguish it from teenage romance.

      Unless of course you're only bothered by people speaking plainly of abuse, because the reality of it doesn't enter your personal space. In which case this would exhibit the kind of spoiled frivolity that twostix accused you of.

      It would be like saying that the distribution of all films of staged murders should be allowed, because not all snuff films are real, then saying its unfair to insinuate that murder is being protected. That trick can be played with any law at all.

      As a side note, whenever someone starts a statement with "frankly", I always wonder at the implied hesitation at being up front about ones position. As if deviating from a pattern of habitual dishonesty needs to be prefaced with an apology.

      Pedophiles do blatantly post on slashdot. I apologize if I've lumped you in with them unfairly.

    19. Re:A tradition of the United States by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I think liking freedom of speech causes you to be a childporn loving pervert which makes you rape children which leads to eating babies from there you join the RIAA and start a cellphone company.

      As Glenn beck would say: "I'm not saying they are I'm sure they are good people. But isn't it interesting that these freedom lovers want child porn to be legal? It makes you think doesn't it. And I ask you why WHY am I the only many with enough balls to ask these questions?? .. Its the liberal agenda and media that keep tiptoeing around the filthy rapist freedomofspeachers!!."

      At least he's not as bad as micheal savage (3rd most listened to radio show) who would simply suggest we form lynch mobs and kill anyone that suggests freedom of speech is good.

    20. Re:A tradition of the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you say, "Frankly, it would be difficult to do one without the other", you are in fact advocating the protection of distribution of pictures of child rape.

      Err, yes, I don't think that is something the GP would disagree with. Is that bad? Surely the rape part is bad, selling the photos would be profiting from a crime, so that should probably be illegal, too (and it would also be commercial distribution of someone's likeness without permission which I am pretty sure is already illegal, but I could understand making it a more serious crime). But just owning them or distributing them? That seems a bit extreme. I would think that law enforcement would be far more interested in tracking down the source of the images so they can prosecute the person who created them.

      Obviously this is ignoring silly uses of child porn laws like teenagers sending each other naked photos or drawings.

      It would be like saying that the distribution of all films of staged murders should be allowed, because not all snuff films are real, then saying its unfair to insinuate that murder is being protected. That trick can be played with any law at all.

      It had never occurred to me that videos of murders (or any other crime) might be in any way illegal. Are they? (Certainly videos of robberies are rather common from security cameras. They get used commercially a good amount.)

    21. Re:A tradition of the United States by QCompson · · Score: 1

      When you say, "Frankly, it would be difficult to do one without the other", you are in fact advocating the protection of distribution of pictures of child rape. Its disingenuous to avoid the issue by calling the plain statement of your position 'inflammatory'. If you're not bothered much by child rape, then you shouldn't be offended by being accused of protecting it. If you are bothered by it, then you can find a way to distinguish it from teenage romance.

      You're making the common mistake of conflating pictures of child rape as equivalent to actual child rape. No, I don't think simple possession of any particular photograph or media should be illegal if the possessor does not participate in any financial exchange and has no contact or affiliation with the producer or victim.

      What I meant when I said it would be difficult to do one without the other is that it would be hard to legalize the possession of some sexual photographs of minors and not others. If a 19 year possesses a video of his (legal) 17 year old girlfriend, would that be acceptable? What if a 14 year old makes a video and then sells it for money? What if a 16 year old possesses a sexual photo of another 16 year old but does not know them? What if a 40 year old possesses a sexual picture of a 15 year old that the 15 year old took him/herself? What if someone accidentally downloads an illegal photograph from usenet? These laws are outdated and incredibly harsh with punishments. They were designed for a time when stores would sell underage pornography over the counter, not for the age of the internet and camera-phones.

      I'm extremely bothered by child rape, as most rational human beings are. However, I am able to intellectually separate someone possessing evidence of a crime from the actual crime. I also want to take measures to prevent the actual sexual assault of children, not grandstand around while foaming at the mouth, proud to throw people in prison for downloading some picture from kazaa (and calling anyone who dares to question me a pedophile).

      Unless of course you're only bothered by people speaking plainly of abuse, because the reality of it doesn't enter your personal space. In which case this would exhibit the kind of spoiled frivolity that twostix accused you of.

      Great, more personal insults.

      It would be like saying that the distribution of all films of staged murders should be allowed, because not all snuff films are real, then saying its unfair to insinuate that murder is being protected. That trick can be played with any law at all.

      What a fascinating example to use, although I'm sure I'm missing your point. Are you trying to say that someone who thinks staged murder films should be legal (like they are) is proposing that murder is acceptable?

      On that note, it's easy to proceed to the obvious example: if you watch a video of an al queda member sawing off someone's head, does that mean you are a terrorist? Or that you are supporting terrorism? Or advocating it?

      As a side note, whenever someone starts a statement with "frankly", I always wonder at the implied hesitation at being up front about ones position. As if deviating from a pattern of habitual dishonesty needs to be prefaced with an apology.

      Frankly, that sort of psychological assessment would be hard to come by just by reading a couple brief slashdot posts. But frankly, I don't care.

      Pedophiles do blatantly post on slashdot. I apologize if I've lumped you in with them unfairly.

      Half-hearted apology accepted. Obviously I should have used the example of the recent federal law banning animal cruelty videos. Brains seems to shut off when child pornography is mentioned.

    22. Re:A tradition of the United States by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      The excuse of preventing children from being harmed does not justify the bullshit cases you mentioned, and in my view the bullshit needs to be opposed, strongly.

      The 'slippery slope' argument could be applied against any law. But we still need laws, even though the ones we have are so often stupid, and stupidly enforced. Its a never ending battle.

      Maybe in the end its a judgment call, and different people will draw lines in different places. I consider no line at all to be an extreme position, and an immoral one. And I don't think its prohibitively hard to draw a line somewhere between political speech and distributing pictures of child rape. If you don't think the rape image example is characteristic of the more common problem, then allow it to be censored and draw the line somewhere else.

      Regards.

    23. Re:A tradition of the United States by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Let me clarify here: I do not like the concept of kiddie porn either. It's just that I'm not so sure if the legal crusade against it is an effective way of managing the problem. [I say similar things about other issues that reside in other contexts]

      The First Amendment defenses are a tool here. A glorious tool being misapplied or used to do dirty work? I understand how something doesn't feel quite right there.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  8. He likes openness... and yet...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    he likes to hide the 3 strike rule using the 'we cant tell you about it due to national security' ruse.... bowing down to his corporate leash holders...

  9. With so much time for speeches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how does Obama find time to work at all?

    1. Re:With so much time for speeches by jaxtherat · · Score: 1

      Giving speeches is a large part of what a politician does. Don't confuse politicians with administrators.

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    2. Re:With so much time for speeches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, politicians, especially once they get elected and assume power, should be concerned with making and implementing policies, not talk about making and implementing them. From where I stand, it seems Obama enjoys the talking part, not the doing part. And, btw, the GP has it wrong. Obama isn't giving speeches, he's giving a speech. He hasn't added much content since I first heard him talk two years ago.

  10. I just don't know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an admittedly confused emotional being in this crazy world we live in - I just don't know what to believe anymore.

  11. What's the point by DrugCheese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of talking to the Chinese if the Chinese people don't hear the message. It's certainly falling on deaf ears on the Chinese authorities.

    And who cares if the American media is gobbling it up, the American people don't care.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:What's the point by gedrin · · Score: 1

      The Chinese people don't control the resources, production or monetary policy of China. The Party does, and its senior leadership heard things just fine.

      --
      Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
    2. Re:What's the point by gtall · · Score: 1

      The point is that Obama gets to tickle the American media with thoughts of "There, I showed the flag." Still, it is better that he said it than Richard Nixon kissing Mao's ass.

  12. All LIES by syousef · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Talk in bold. Reality in plain.

    I am a big believer in technology

    American IT workers laid off, jobs outsourced.

    and I'm a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information.

    DMCA

    I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes

    Renegs on promise to release Gitmo pictures

    because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.

    Continue to occupy Iraq

    They can begin to think for themselves.

    Decimate the education system

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:All LIES by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Where were you last year during the campaign when a few home truths like this might have actually done some good?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:All LIES by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Ignored

      Some even called me racist

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:All LIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is something funny about a hard core rightwinger like yourself who defended W's invasion/occuption of Iraq, Gitmo, etc, now carping that Obama is not moving fast enough on doing the things that he is doing and accusing him of basically neo-con actions.

    4. Re:All LIES by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine with a PhD in PolySci tells me that BO ran for office as a Centerist Democrat, but is running the country as a far-left Socialist. This may explain quite a bit, including why his numbers have plummeted so quickly. What it doesn't explain is why the members of his party aren't objecting to the way he misled them.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  13. Sure, poke the dragon in the eye... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope someone else is standing ready to buy next months $30B worth of treasury bills...

  14. Obama had it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is doing the firewall NOT just to censor. That firewall is TWO ways. It allows them to protect their military when it appears that an attack is about to occur, say, right after they launched their own attacks.

  15. Not so fast on the creativity by Trip6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Chinese are noted for their LACK of creativity due to their strict caste structure - in that a person of a lower caste cannot offer up a potential improvement in any process or technology that might embarrass a superior. This structure (or lack thereof) in the US is a big reason we develop so much new out-of-the box technology. All the Chinese know how to do is copy, right down to our architecture. The day they learn to think for themselves we are REALLY in trouble.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  16. Obama for freedom?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If thats all I got left supporting me, I'll turn in my indie card.

    Where are the troops he promised to bring home upon election?!!

  17. Freedom of speach YEAH! by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    That's why we can freely talk about Scientology any time we want!

  18. Removed the coverage from view by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    I hope they didn't remove the students who witnessed it as well.

  19. Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians by mooingyak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For starters, you're off-topic.

    When you've got the numbers working for you, you should stop playing stupid games. Is there a reason that you use Obama's middle name and not McCain's (it's Sidney) other than Obama's middle name being Hussein? It dilutes your point. I'd be curious to see the votes by race for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton (x2) in the last few presidential elections. That would probably make a better baseline.

    If you claim that normal support would be closer to 65%, then it's only 30% who voted based solely on race. Still a non-trivial number though.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  20. Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians by jjohnson · · Score: 1, Informative

    The AC above above is a race-baiting bigot, but one should publish correct facts to avoid leaving their statistics on the wall.

    Historically, African-Americans have voted Democrat 88-92% of the time, and sometimes as high as 95%. Going into the 2008 election, any Democratic candidate could expect to get that much. Obama, by pulling 96% of the black vote, at most pulled a couple of percent that he might not have gotten if he'd been white. And even then, it's not obvious that Hilary wouldn't have also gotten 96%, given Bill's popularity with African-Americans, and the current Republican party's outright pandering to racists and white supremacists.

    --
    Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  21. Fact check. Really removed from view? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really removed from view? A quick check on the chinese newspapers, here for example todays Shanghai Daily, proves different:

    http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=419690&type=Opinion
    "Many of the students asked questions in English about Obama's views on Internet censorship, global leadership and Taiwan....

    1. Re:Fact check. Really removed from view? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      They don't care if English speakers figure it out, they are educated anyways... its the masses. Not that fact checking isn't valid simply that common chinese sources with such an article would be necessary to show anything.

    2. Re:Fact check. Really removed from view? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      It took a bit of searching, but I think your link was to the "top of the opinion page", not a permanent link. Try this link instead.

      While it has "1 of 2" at the top of it, and talks about the town hall, I found no link to a second page, and the word "censorship" (appearing in your quote) does not appear in this article I read.

  22. Political Stunt by Grym · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It seems too convenient that the one moment where Obama was openly critical of Chinese leadership occurred during the only public venue which was not broadcast on live television. Those admonishments of Chinese censorship were intended more for us back home than the repressed Chinese people; a political stunt to appear as if he cared about human rights abuses without paying the associated political price of taking such a stand. If you doubt this, ask yourself this: why didn't he make such statements during his two earlier live broadcasts just days earlier?

    So continues the Obama Administration's strategy of trying to have its cake and eat it too. It's almost as if a PR firm was elected President instead of a leader. ("Now with more Change(TM)!") On every major policy issue he has tried to split the difference until what remains is an unrecognizable mess, like cooperating with the Chinese to censor his criticism of their... censorship...

    He is fast becoming a joke, a self-parodying symbol of a broken political system. Some examples:

    • The war in Iraq. Barack Obama made a name for himself by condemning the invasion of Iraq. As a primary candidate, he soon became THE "anti-war" candidate. He promised a complete withdrawal from Iraq within 18 months after election. His solution after becoming president? A "residual force" of more than 50,000 troops which will remain indefinitely. Well, so much for that...
    • Financial Regulation. Publicly, the Obama Administration has been very critical of the banking industry and its fraudulent practices which led to the financial collapse of 2008. At the center of the industry's dysfunction is the clear conflict of interest between Savings Banks operating as Investment Banks, which basically allowed these institutions to make bets with other people's money. This was made possible through the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. The very first step to preventing future bubbles would be to the modest and completely logical reinstatement the Glass Steagall Act. That option, however, is completely off the table, because it would be too disruptive of valued democratic campaign contributors like Goldman Sachs. So, instead, the Obama Administration has artificially supported the flawed banking industry by throwing an approximate 23.7 Trillion dollars, or 170% of annual GDP at it without requiring ANY substantial reforms. Of course, the administration claims reforms are coming, but what leverage is there now? Now invigorated with an infusion of public money, these firms have dramatically increased their lobbying and campaign contributions to prevent any reforms from taking hold.
    • Cap and Trade. Publicly touted as a beginning step to limiting carbon emissions, the Obama Administration's Cap and Trade legislation is nothing more than a massive government handout to polluting industries. So watered down with loopholes and handouts, there are serious questions as to if it will even accomplish its stated purpose of decreasing carbon emissions at all, let alone in the next few years.

    The list could go on and on including: comprehensive Healthcare Reform (i.e. Medicare for All with Prescription drug price negotiations), limiting lobbyist influence (in his own administration, even!), repealing Don't ask, Don't tell, etc.

    All of this, of course, is textbook post-Clintonian Democratic political strategy. The only problem is: this isn't the 90's. The public winds have changed. The information sources have changed. The problems are too big to be swept under the rug. I don't think even Barack Obama understood just how much his talk of transformative change and real progress resonated through the hearts of a disillu

    1. Re:Political Stunt by compro01 · · Score: 1

      His solution after becoming president? A "residual force" of more than 50,000 troops which will remain indefinitely. Well, so much for that...

      IMO, simply packing up and leaving on some arbitrary timetable is irrational and likely to create even more problems in future.

      Also, not really anything new. There are still over 40,000 US military personnel (Mostly Air Force and Marines) in Japan, another 35,000-ish in South Korea (Not unreasonable given the neighbors), and over 100,000 scattered around Europe (Much of those in Germany).

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Political Stunt by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      His solution after becoming president? A "residual force" of more than 50,000 troops which will remain indefinitely. Well, so much for that...

      IMO, simply packing up and leaving on some arbitrary timetable is irrational and likely to create even more problems in future.

      Agreed. Forcing the Military to comply with a purely political promise is a recipe for disaster. Politicians make statements like this all the time, seemingly committing their Military's to success, without any real intention of that promise being kept. Its nothing new, both World Wars saw promises to bring troops home by "Christmas" for nearly every year of both conflicts.

      At worst, we should hold him accountable for blatant false promises, Military or otherwise. Of course, we should also hold We The People accountable for being gullible enough to believe him. Like I said, this is nothing new.

  23. hand-picked by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What's with the (hand-picked) snark? Of course the students are hand-picked. Obama is a VIP, he's not going to be left standing in front of a random crowd. There's a lot of negotiation behind the scenes just to guarantee an acceptable level of security, and it's obvious that hearing a foreign dignitary speak is a privilege that's going to be distributed in *some* way.

    The Chinese fully realize that probably half or more of Americans will be very upset if something were to happen to Obama, and they're treating the problem appropriately, as would any other host country.

    1. Re:hand-picked by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Agreed ... that was snarky language.

      A couple of years ago, President Bush visited Australia. Audiences with him were hand-picked as well. And that's a meeting between two societies that are both English-speaking, Western liberal democracies, who are each others closest military and cultural allies.

      Attendees to any forum with a world leader will be hand-picked, regardless of the country you are talking about.

    2. Re:hand-picked by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      Or it could mean hand-picked the other way around. As in people who are modestly shy about applauding stuff that goes against the party-line.

      Really, I wouldn't be surprised if it was so.

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    3. Re:hand-picked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between security-checking the attendees and picking loyal party members.

    4. Re:hand-picked by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      "Hand-picked" in the sense of hand-picked by the Chinese government, before anyone gets near the security check point. The students were gathered together for "training" a few days ahead. And this is open news as seen in the Chinese internet news portals a few day back. The open or hidden messages to them would be cleared -- ``dare to speak about any sensitive topic, you would be out of school tomorrow.'' From the transcript I read, no student in the meeting raised any sensitive questions. Those questions were allegedly from the Internet user and were delivered to Obama by the U.S. council.

    5. Re:hand-picked by Neuromaster · · Score: 1

      They were not selected for security reasons. From a Yahoo news article "The students attending had clearly been vetted and their questions approved by the Chinese authorities. Two of the four questions from the audience came from student officers of the Communist Youth League" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091116/wl_csm/otownhall)

  24. Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the grandparent post, you deliberately missed the comment about the African-American voting patten for Barack Hussein Obama and against Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary. Both candidates are members of the Democratic party, but 95% of Afro-Americans voted for Obama due to the color of his skin.

  25. Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians by jjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does their primary voting pattern have to do with a general election? They had to vote for one or the other. And in fact, they were 80% for Hillary up through February of 2008. Obama didn't have the majority of their support until after it was mathematically clear that he was going to win the nomination at the end of March.

    So, your claim that they voted for him based on the color of his skin (as if black people are too stupid to pick a candidate for any other reason) is simply false.

    --
    Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  26. Re:Only an American... by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 2, Funny

    America! FUCK YEAH! Coming to save the motherfuckin' day yeah!

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
  27. Tradition? by Haiyadragon · · Score: 1

    America, *beep* yeah!

  28. non-politically correct commentary---- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why is the media not lighting a bonfire under his feet?

    Because "the established media" badly need Obama to help them maintain their obsolete business models by implementing new laws making the internet a pay-only channel, to remove the democractic right to open, free expression, and prolong the poorly-hidden class warfare - it seems almost all Americans willfully fall for the "and you too could be a squillionaire one day" horse-shit like it's cotton candy on pony day, and don't want ANYONE disturbing the "status quo" of ignorance, arrogance and global cultural genocide practiced and promoted by Hollywood's military conquest enablers.
    Obama's a wash, and I knew it before he was elected. McCain and Palin, unfortunately, were just so much worse an option, I personally really can't complain about Obama. Pity that USA doesn't have free and fair elections, what with all those bribesXXXXXX corporate campaign contributions, otherwise you might have yourself a nice country there.

  29. Well, unless you were arrested by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    if you are still here, then isn't that proof you can in fact talk about Scientology anytime .... hold on there is a knock on the door.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  30. At least they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I sometimes envy the Chinese, they at least know that they're being censored. Here in the "west", it's just getting started and people in general have no idea what's going on.
    The first step to defeating censorship is public awareness of censorship. China has us beat here. By the time China stops censorship, the western countries will have become what they demonzied.

    1. Re:At least they know by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      'Just getting started'?
      On what planet do you live? Ever hear of Echolon? Oh, yeah, it is 'only' used against the 'enemy'... sure.
      If history has proven anything, it is that if there is a way, people will use it.

      But you were nearly correct. The difference is that the Chinese know they are ruled by a group of people totally detached from the rest.
      Kinda like the 'homecoming queen'. You can vote for a select group of people you will never be a part of.
      Democracy only reaches up to the first level of the pyramid.
      The 'west' has not figured that one out yet.

  31. Hope and Change by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    The Chinese get no Hope and Change, instead they either get silence or the opportunity to live on several people due to the Weekly Organ van visit.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  32. Read Glen Greenwald at Salon wrt Obama/Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Glen Greenwald writes on Civil Rights, does a good job of critiquing Obama's administration, comparing it to Bush.

    Obama's Holder, for example, is pushing the argument that the gov declared methods of spying secret, therefore there is no way to sue it or the telephone companies, harder than Bush's attorney general did.

    Obama has NOT ended the wars, has NOT brought the troops home.

    He has NOT opened up the government, increased transparency, despite the rhetoric.

  33. speaking of bullshit by ethergear · · Score: 1

    Give me a break. The Guardian article you quoted leads with "Fox News is clearly an arm of the Republican party. Obama is right to throw caution to the wind and treat it as such." The MSNBC cite isn't even from NBC, it's a wingnut blog!

    1. Re:speaking of bullshit by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. The Guardian article you quoted leads with

      "Fox News is clearly an arm of the Republican party. Obama is right to throw caution to the wind and treat it as such."

      The MSNBC cite isn't even from NBC, it's a wingnut blog!

      The MSNBC cite shows a video of MSNBC. Ignore the blog, ignore the comments and let the video speak for itself. The GGP seemed to not believe that the WH was a "war" with Fox News and asked for Non-Fox sources. The Guardian link also shows this and it is certainly NOT a Republican, conservative or Fox News site, as you clearly pointed out.

      So, first you try to rebut by saying that my first source does not agree with Fox News, which is not what I was trying to show, and then you complain that my second link is conservative and it agrees with Fox News. The point was to show WH attacks towards Fox News, which both sites did. For more, please use Google. Search terms, "Anita Dunn" "Fox News", with quotes.

      BTW, challenging the WH and reporting on the stuff they do does not make you "an arm of the Republican party". It makes you a news organization.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:speaking of bullshit by ethergear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The MSNBC cite shows a video of MSNBC. Ignore the blog, ignore the comments and let the video speak for itself. The GGP seemed to not believe that the WH was a "war" with Fox News and asked for Non-Fox sources. The Guardian link also shows this and it is certainly NOT a Republican, conservative or Fox News site, as you clearly pointed out.

      I didn't comment on the Guardian at all. I noted that the article said the opposite of what you claimed. I didn't even load the video on that Freedom Whatever blog, thank you Flashblock, because I'm already familiar with the arguments.

      So, first you try to rebut by saying that my first source does not agree with Fox News, which is not what I was trying to show, and then you complain that my second link is conservative and it agrees with Fox News. The point was to show WH attacks towards Fox News, which both sites did. For more, please use Google. Search terms, "Anita Dunn" "Fox News", with quotes.

      BTW, challenging the WH and reporting on the stuff they do does not make you "an arm of the Republican party". It makes you a news organization.

      What Fox "News" broadcasts is not a "challenge" to the White House. It's made-up accusations, like this Anita Dunn nonsense, like the fuss about ACORN, like the association between the President and Bill Ayers, that make it an arm of the Republican party. These stories are simply specious, having no purpose beyond allowing the talking heads to call President Obama a socialist over and over on national TV.

    3. Re:speaking of bullshit by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      What Fox "News" broadcasts is not a "challenge" to the White House. It's made-up accusations, like this Anita Dunn nonsense, like the fuss about ACORN, like the association between the President and Bill Ayers, that make it an arm of the Republican party. These stories are simply specious, having no purpose beyond allowing the talking heads to call President Obama a socialist over and over on national TV.

      Oh, Good God! Fox News did not make the videos up! Anita Dunn really did say that Mao Tse Tung was one of her favorite philosophers. Could you imagine the uproar if a member of GWB's cabinet had stated that Hitler or Pol Pot were one of his favorite philosophers?!!? It would be broadcast nonstop on every news network until this cabinet member resigned in shame with full investigations to follow. Sorry, but Anita said it, she meant it, and it was on video. Fox didn't need to make anything up. If you believe that, you are deluding yourself. Look up the video for yourself.

      As for the relationship between Ayers and Obama, it was real. Sure, they may not have been best friends and swapped wives or anything, but there was a relationship. These guys not only worked together and served on various boards together, but Obama's political career was started at a meet-and-greet hosted at Bill Ayers' house by Bill Ayers himself. Again, if GWB or any other Republican and most Democrats had started their political careers at the home of an admitted terrorist, it would make the news 24/7. And again, this relationship is well documented by non-Fox sources and is public record/fact. If you deny that there was a relationship, you are deluding yourself again. You seem to be doing a lot of that lately.

      You bring up ACORN. ACORN is an organization that receives tax payer money whose members were offering to assist what they thought were a pimp and prostitute get tax breaks for their child sex slave operation. The evidence is on video and indisputable. Are you seriously OK with that? Sure, the organization has done some good, but there are other organizations that could do a better job without all the unadulterated corruption. Oh, and Obama once worked for ACORN and wears his Community Organizing experience like a badge of honor. You do know what the C and the O in ACORN stands for don't you? Funny how that relationship didn't get any media attention either.

      Finally, it has been proven that Fox News truly is the most "Fair and Balanced" network out there. I understand that you don't like views you disagree with being shared, but just because they are not YOUR views doesn't mean that those who with differing views should be silenced. You'll need to look up the First Amendment for the reasons why.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  34. Wrong link (Re:Fact check. Really removed...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That link is wrong, the correct one should obviously be:

    http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=419750&type=National ...

  35. Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians by 16Chapel · · Score: 1

    Yes, you said this before. Word for word. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1236735&cid=27997273

  36. Score card is meaningless by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    when the items in the loss category far exceed those in the win column in areas of importance or magnitude.

    Its like having a city claim crime is down because jaywalker incidents are down 100% while ignoring the fact it was because someone was shooting them.

    This is President Wall Street. Main Street won't matter to him until 2011. For all the anguish and hysteria over Bush and his so called allegiance to big business, at least Bush wasn't just handing money to Wall Street. Obama proved one thing about trickle down economics, its too slow and inefficient as a means to reward those who really support the campaigns, its many times faster to just send them tax payer money directly.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Score card is meaningless by LanMan04 · · Score: 5, Informative

      For all the anguish and hysteria over Bush and his so called allegiance to big business, at least Bush wasn't just handing money to Wall Street.

      Ahem.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

      On October 1, 2008, the Senate debated and voted on an amendment to H.R. 1424, which substituted a newly revised version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for the language of H.R. 1424. The Senate accepted the amendment and passed the entire amended bill, voting 74-25. Additional unrelated provisions added an estimated $150 billion to the cost of the package and increased the size of the bill to 451 pages. The amended version of H.R. 1424 was sent to the House for consideration, and on October 3, the House voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law. President Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its congressional enactment, creating a $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program to purchase failing bank assets.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    2. Re:Score card is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush TRIED to hand money to wall-street, but didn't have the approval to do so. Geithner's plan is modulo insignificance the same as Paulson's (bush treasury sec). Geithner was Paulson's protege. Enough of this partisan shit already. The republicrats have the same daddy, which is the establishment of money and power, not you or me.

    3. Re:Score card is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then he should've repealed it and not kept handing out more.

    4. Re:Score card is meaningless by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      bush mccain obama hillary ALL wanted the bailout btw. Making it a democrat issue is silly.

    5. Re:Score card is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatttt??T????? Are you talking about George W. Bush? The one that sent a 3 PAGE request for $750 BILLION to congress to bail out banks? His guidelines were basically "AS I SEE FIT". Something about spending the 750 BILLION at his own DISCRETION!

      You are talking about THE George W. Bush that wanted Fannie and Freddie to lend MOAR, not less? Something about "all American citizens should own their own home?" That was in his election speeches! I guess promise kept!

      Also, the George W. that was *so* fiscally responsible that he had not even specified the budget for the military? Oh yeah, they'll just pay the $300 billion every 6 months "out of the budget" so budget is not that fucked.

      And finally, *The* George W. that zeroed out dividend tax and some capital gains allowing a few of the ultra-rich to transfer hundreds of billion of dollars into their own bank accounts without paying 1 CENT of taxes?? The one that said to the $20k/plate fundraiser for his re-election "Some call you the super-rich elite. I call you my base"?

      Thank you for doing your research. George W. is the president that fucked the country up. And currently US is till fucked no matter what Obama does. If the 2000 election went the other way, not sure what would be the current fiscal policy, but at least it would not include the trillions (about 2) spent in Iraq.

      But then I guess US is public is fucked when it comes to thinking anyway. Like that "Joe the Plumber" that was concerned about him paying taxes when he's making more than $300k/year from his business. Turns out not only he wasn't a plumber, didn't have money to have a business like that and was making closer to $30/year, but he was behind on his taxes.

      The entire republican US demographic reminds me of the Ferengi

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi

      "You don't try to get better conditions when you are exploited as one day you home to being one of the exploiters."

  37. You have no understanding of US Government by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Do you? I mean, really, were you that stoned during your high school government class?

    putting legislation online at least five days before it's voted on. That's Congress' (Pelosi and Reid) responsibility, not the President's.

    allowing congressmen enough time to read legislation rather than ramming it down their throats at 2am. That's Congress' (Pelosi and Reid) responsibility, not the President's.

    And ending backroom politics. That's Congress' (Pelosi and Reid) responsibility, not the President's.

    get rid of the lobbyists That's Congress' (Pelosi and Reid) responsibility, not the President's.

    midnight bills, etc That's Congress' (Pelosi and Reid) responsibility, not the President's.

    1. Re:You have no understanding of US Government by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Then Obama shouldn't have promised it, should he?

    2. Re:You have no understanding of US Government by SunnyDaze · · Score: 1

      putting legislation online at least five days before it's voted on. That's Congress' (Pelosi and Reid) responsibility, not the President's. I'm pretty sure that should be: putting legislation online at least five days before the president signs it.

    3. Re:You have no understanding of US Government by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      get rid of the lobbyists That's Congress' (Pelosi and Reid) responsibility, not the President's.

      Well, except for the inconvenient fact that he has hired more RIAA attorneys into the Justice Department than, well, anyone else ever did?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  38. A very thoughtful comment! by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Thank you for a very thoughtful comment. Democracy is not the only form of government in the world, and certainly has its share of problems. China's current government also has its problems, but one cannot deny that China has made huge progress the past few decades. The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship - the trick is keeping a dictatorship benevolent. China has surprisingly well in that regard. I hope /. readers will think about what you said, rather than mindlessly jumping on the "democracy is best" bandwagon.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:A very thoughtful comment! by mi · · Score: 1

      Democracy is not the only form of government in the world, and certainly has its share of problems. China's current government also has its problems

      There is not a problem with Democracy, that China does not have in a much more serious form.

      Your attitude is that of a person equating illegal behavior of a jay-walker with that of a child rapist...

      the trick is keeping a dictatorship benevolent.

      Such dictatorships are not stable systems and "the trick" is simply unachievable. Democracies, on the other hand, are usually self-correcting and thus, however imperfect, are the best systems known today:

      Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Winston Churchill

      [... ]rather than mindlessly jumping on the "democracy is best" bandwagon.

      You've been given a mindful consideration and dismissed. Run back, see, what else People's Red Army can feed you to disseminate on the West's free forums.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:A very thoughtful comment! by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      There is no reason to suppose that democracies are self-correcting. Look at the path the USA is taking:

      1. The USA is almost at the point where majority of voters either pay no taxes or receive a net payout from the government. Once the majority can vote themselves largesse from the minority, why should they stop? Correction is no longer possible.
      2. The constitutional freedoms of the USA are being eliminated: Habeus corpus has been suspended numerous times, the government no longer requires probable cause for searches (Patriot Act), no longer must publish the laws and regulations by which you must abide (numerous TSA cases), freedom of speech is increasingly limited ("hate speech" laws), and on and on. While this could be corrected, there are no signs of it happening.
      3. Government debt is out of control. Although Congress recognizes the danger and says all the right words, there is no sign that they are capable of ending deficit spending. Doing so would mean putting a stop to (1) above, which the electorate would not tolerate.
      4. The government has become fundamentally an oligarchy. The only candidates with a chance at election are put up by the two major parties, and generally come from the same Ivy League inner circle. Behind the scenes, the two parties decide who should win which election, and guide the electorate to the right decision. Any non-approved candidate has essentially no chance.

      Do you really believe in correction? The only correction that I could imagine would be individual states saving themselves by seceding. The USA as a whole is almost certainly past the point of no return.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    3. Re:A very thoughtful comment! by mi · · Score: 1

      Behind the scenes, the two parties decide who should win which election

      This is my favorite part! Thanks.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  39. Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it's probably because the African-American voting block thinks Hillary Clinton is a cunt just like everybody else.

    YOU are the racist one, you seem to think that African-Americans can't think for themselves.

  40. Interesting you should think that by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Take a look at Nature, or the bibliographies in Scientific American, and see the number of Chinese names. Whereas the caste structure is just as bad in most places in the US I've been in, with VPs not wanting to hear anything about boat-rocking technology. I worked for one company where a junior engineer came up with an idea that would save $40 million per year. He was nearly sacked, because the VP was selling the board an unproven technology to do the same job that would save $20 million. The only reason he wasn't sacked was that the week before the new company President had delivered a staff lecture about how the "culture of fear" of the management had to stop.

    Pot, kettle. Creativity is universal in the human race, so is blind conservatism, it just affects different individuals.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  41. derivative in calculus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I checked, China seems to sport a positive derivative and the US has a negative derivative.

    What make you think that they think that the US have something useful to say?
    If your system appears to be failing, you're not going to get a very receptive response.

  42. bleh by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because internet censorship is the most egregious form of oppression going on in China right now. Sheesh.

    1. Re:bleh by gedrin · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is generally not concerned with matters like government control of religious institutions or redress of grievences in foreign nations. Net censorship is much more in its domain, and that seems apropriate.

      --
      Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
  43. Bush was limited in his Wall Street bailout by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    Dick had already pissed the money away to Halliburton and the Industrial-Military Complex, remember? It cost an awful lot to donate all that expensive depleted uranium to the Iraqis.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  44. Leon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not the Chinese censoreship that bothers me. they are open abotu the fact they sensor. It is the internet censorship in Germany and Australia that bothers me. Even people in those contries are unaware that it is going on, and that it is often polically motivated.

  45. China's control, bad. FCC control... by gedrin · · Score: 1

    Most people here seem to agree that China's policy of censorship is a bad thing.

    Most people at Slashdot also seem to believe it's a good idea to allow the US government's FCC greater authority over network communications.

    I'm not saying that the same sort of control is currently proposed. I'm just saying that it's funny to see Slashdotters who believe that the FCC will only use regulatory authority to prevent traffic shaping won't attempt to expand that authority or use it for purposes other than those desired. But yeh, the fact that China can just shut down a network because it's not conforming to government standards is bad.

    --
    Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
  46. ACTA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'I am a big believer in technology and I'm a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity. And so I've always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I'm a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access — is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.'

    Guess that someone forgot about ACTA amongst other things in that trite little piece...

  47. What a crock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a crock! This from the administration that wants to control and shut down the internet at his whim.

  48. Re:China's control, bad. FCC control... by angelbunny · · Score: 1

    I'm not really quite sure what consists of as 'most' especially when opinions vary from generation to generation.

    I know for a fact that China has a GIANT bit torrent user base and a large p2p, in general, user base. My guess is that many use this to circumvent the firewall.

    Also, most people I talk to seem to be quite anti FCC when it comes to restricting the freedom of speech which generally is the same thing china is doing except for television. However, I do know a good number of people who are pro regulating the internet for the user so corporations can't take advantage and do what China does.

    It really depends where you are and who you're talking to.

  49. Censorship by AniVisual · · Score: 1

    In communist China, they censor Obama on censoring you so they can censor YOU!

  50. What's NOT being said here... by KudyardRipling · · Score: 0

    So far, I have read nothing on this subject about the intractable DEBT that BHO (as well a majorities in the House and Senate) has incurred and how that ill affects USA policy vis-a-vis liberty issues around the world. It appears to me that all who are reading Slashdot (save myself) either are either not US citizens or US citizens that have (access to) an alternate citizenship. This would explain why the Bill of Rights has become a troll.

    "Who is the President?" is not only a question, it is also a statement.

    --
    Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  51. it's not a stretch at all! by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    after all, Fox has Glenn Beck, who may have raped and killed a young girl in 1990!