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."
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.
I think you mean ACTA speaks louder than words. :V
...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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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*
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.
I believe that five other american networks did say that, by refusing a white house press conference from which Fox News had been blocked.
Your comment still being on slashdot: that is your freedom of speech.
Your comment being modded troll: that is everyone else's.
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?
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!
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!
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.
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.
I really don't know what is more sad, regulating internet speech for political reasons or doing the same for commercial reasons.
http://www.aaronrogier.net
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.
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!
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.
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....
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
THL phish sticks
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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
Is there really any difference?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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.
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.
Exactly.
I think the GP has shot himself in the foot.
Dilbert RSS feed
Unlike the Bush government with MSNBC, Obama's White House never blocked Fox News from anything.
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.
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.
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.
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
>>>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
>>>>>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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
>>>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