Slashdot Mirror
China Praises UK Internet Censorship Plan
mormop writes "The Chinese government has praised UK Prime Minister David Cameron's plan for censoring social networking sites at times when the government feels threatened, believing it legitimizes China own behavior. Quoting Chinese state media website Global Times: 'Britain's new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas.'"
You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.
Now the UK should know there doing something wrong when China Praises you for anything.
Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.
...they're going to be making looters in the UK pay for their own bullet.
In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!
Seriously, how far down the road are you when you get that kind of support from China.
Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.
Manage the future internet all you want, if it gets so bad as to become entirely useless, a replacement will come along.
Either that or we'll pester the EFF to hire terrorist cells to dismantle the government. Hey there's an idea...
Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.
We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.
In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!
Oh the Nazi's would have loved our immigration politics over the last decade or so.
This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
Just like the War against Terror allowed everyone to justify punitive actions against their own "internal terrorists", like in Chechnya, and more recently Syria. Great - thanks a bunch Mr. Cameron. Next time, think before you open your mouth, please.
When I first read this headline I could have sworn it was an Onion article.
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
london was a joke.. kids stealing consumer-bullshit they couldn't afford...
i am still waiting for the germans to really lose it... for example over the eurobonds they're forcing on them right now... that is like a treaty of versailles that forces them to burn their german euro's... there is 60+ years of anger in the german mind over living in a parliamental dictatorship that claims it has to be that way because they still have so many nazi-genes in them that even something like a referendum on the federal level is verboten... xD
you might like that political experiment called europe... having a single currency... buying things in the US for small money...
but when the germans, finally, get angry.. europe will be over...
i tell you.. the germans.. they're 90 million in a small country... and they're already fucking angry... when they lose it.. it will be the beginning of the end.. or else they will have to pay for everything their and other european goverments have done wrong...
lets hope they go for peaceful protests instead of voting nazis and let them do the cleanup...
As time goes on, more and more I get the feeling China realizes the absurdity of the world and wants to exploit it to their own gain. It takes some serious gall to go and embarrass your rival by associating them with yourself, but China just managed an astounding success at it.
Great Intellect...
I'm shocked that any western leader would not know by heart, that censorship is a no no. And is't barely 6 months Egypt's dictator was lamented for doing the exact same thing.
I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either. This reminds me of when Bush's war on terror gave Putin an excuse to wage his own war on terror in Chechnya.
When will our leaders learn that merely being elected doesn't make you an automatic "Good Guy" in the eyes of the world.
- in related news, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parises Cameron's commitment to uphold law and order (by any means).
Run with the lemmings, and you'll get your feet wet.
Of course that's alright. Censorship with qualifiers is all fine and good, right?
Actually, yes. For example, the constitution of my country guarantees me freedom of expression but such a freedom is applied only to the cases where I don't hurt others. e.g., it would be expression of my political opinion to punch certain representatives in the face but it's still good that my opinions can't be used as an excuse for hurting others. Similarly, the government shouldn't suppress people's ability to express their political opinions but they can and should restrict people's communications when it comes to planning crimes that cause harm to other people, such as openly planning violent riots.
The question is where to draw the line but I don't think it's that difficult: If you openly plan action that in itself is illegal, government can restrict that. If you don't, they can't.
I've thought for about 15 years now that the major distinction between China and western democracies is that the China is much more overt in their totalitarianism. Western democracies seem to be getting more overt (e.g. internet filters, national security letters, the TSA) as time goes on.
China welcomes our new censorship overlords!
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.
You might want to look up the differences b/w Communism & Fascism. China's been Communist since 1949, and that's never changed. Just because they introduced government sanctioned slave labor for foreign companies wanting to make a quick buck doesn't make them Fascistic - the Communist Party still runs things everywhere.
/. posters are Leftists, and a good number of them Communists as well, but just because they disagree w/ China doesn't make the Chinese government something other than Communist. Also, as others pointed out in this thread, they are probably using the British example to use as a tu quoque argument the next time the subject of human rights in China is raised, particularly if raised by the Brits.
/. are alleging. Also, as cappp pointed out, the PM did specify into looking @ whether such restrictions should be imposed when it's known that they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.
/. would draw a moral equivalence b/w a Western democracy on one hand, and a Communist or quasi-Islamic dictatorship on the other.
I know that the bulk of
It's also noteworthy that what the British government is actually doing doesn't come even close to what the pro-anarchists on
Yeah, regimes like China and Syria too use similar language to rationalize their crackdown on the internet. Only that while Britain is considering such moves to prevent actual thugs from running amuck, China uses it to suppress people who want freedom of expression, or freedom for Tibet, while Syria uses it to crack down on their Sunni Muslim majority and prevent them from massacring their Alawite and other non-Sunni population by massacring them instead. Only retards like those on
Didn't S.F. just demonstrate this?
Restriction of speech is still necessary:
However, some governments would very much like to extend that to banning anyone who disagrees with public policy, banning anyone who has encountered difficulties with the government, in short, banning anything they personally don't take a liking to. That, my friend, is what I consider "censorship."
Exactly what constitutes "hate" literature is open to some debate in most societies.
Both legitimate and illegitimate censorship require the same technology tools, though.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Cameron has no intention of following through with this: he's just playing up to the hard-of-thinking Daily Mail-reading reactionaries. Any such law would be smacked down by Strasbourg immediately.
Just as he had no intention of using rubber bullets or water cannon on looters, nor any intention of bringing back hanging.
The man is a despicable mountebank of the lowest order.
I despair for UK politics: the Labour party has been eviscerated by its own class enemy, the Liberal party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, and the Tory party has nothing to offer but greenwash and moronic rabble-rousing.
Now it's just a case of voting for your lizard to stop the wrong lizard getting in.
I can actually hear Palpatine: Good! Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take North Korea's place at my side!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"... when your enemies praise your architecture of aggression"
Did anyone notice the unintended irony of the word "groupthink" in the Global Times article?
The economic and social turmoil in the US, Britain and France might trigger a worldwide groupthink and introspection on the boundaries of democracy and freedom of speech.
Some of you may not have seen this. It's just a bit of fun.
But too true.
http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/
If you think about it, Germans would run the continent better than most of the continent runs themselves.
instead of ohhh canada, lets start that with OHHHHH china
Idiot reporter or idiotic china, they said the other day they are no doing this so yeah shut up
Well done UK have-a-go-criminals. You've played right into David Cameron's arms. For the sake of some stolen gadgets, you're giving him (in his mind and Daily Mail readers only) a mandate to remove all of those civil liberties we once had. Shame all of UK society's going to lose them thanks to you.
Shouldn't you be complaining about the people doing the bad thing, rather than the people who gave them a (poor) excuse to do a bad thing?
Great Intellect...
Both the US and UK have criminal offences that relate to preparing or conspiring to commit violence, murder and acts of terrorism. If in those situations the police as a matter of principle waited until actual violence, attempted murder or terrorism were 'in progress' then that would substantially increase the chance of people getting hurt. So, in point of fact, you can arrest someone for something that hasn't happened yet.
I don't support the suggestion of limiting Twitter/BBM, and I don't think it will happen, but organising which shops/streets to smash and loot is not a legitimate activity and while not not of the level of severity of murder, it's still very undesirable.
...
The original article is an opinion piece. It ends with a little editor's note that it represents the author's point of view only. That's not the same as the Chinese government congratulating their new UK comrad.
"We've always been at war with Eurasia and we've always been allies of Eastasia."
Qualifier: I'm not a Tory and dislike David Cameron.
But I'd give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt in this case. He has not said the government will ban social media or block it during riots. He has just said that he will ask a group to consider whether it would be right. The conclusion may well be "no it isn't right", but as of yet we have absolutely no idea how broad or limited the conclusions will be.
In any case it is important to consider the cultural differences between Britain (and in this case I believe Western Europe) as opposed to the US. Europeans tend to have a more relaxed attitude to free speech. Most consider the right approach to be Free speech with qualifiers, i.e. slander, privacy, inciting hate, child pornography, truth in advertisement, etc. There is always a discussion as to where you draw the line, but this isn't isn't usually considered a binary choice.
I recognise that the US may have a larger share of people who believe that any sort of censorship is wrong, and this is cool. But in this case it doesn't really matter what you think. England (I'm going to assume England only here and ignore the subtleties of UK vs Scots law, etc) is not the US and its laws should surely be representative of its own people?
How is this relevant to the discussion, you may ask? Well, it may be utterly impossible that blocking social media during a riot is compatible with the US libertarian view of free speech, but it isn't totally out of the question that Cameron's group can come up with a plan to block social media during riots which is compatible with the majority definition of free speech in England.
I am, in fact, sceptical that he may come up with a sensible solution which involves social media blockage, but I'm willing to hear what his working group has to say on the matter before I make up my mind.
England (officially London, but events are spread all over the place) hosts the 2012 Olympics and the government must be scared spitless that there will be a repeat of last weeks "minor difficulties" either during or in the run-up to the games, when all the world's media will be present and reporting live. They don't really care that a bunch of shops got burned and others looted, sicne there's no election for some years - but they do care about their world image.
I think we can therefore say fairly accurately that there will be massive restrictions on the freedoms that citizens have, to ensure there is no possibility of any disruptions to the two weeks of running and jumping next summer (plus the paralymics, of course). The only question is: how much of that security clampdown will ever make it into the press?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
When you take away a person's right to speak, you leave them with far fewer options and it leaves you ignorant of what they really feel and believe. Only an idiotic government tramples free speech.
"You're not helping..."
There is a massive protest going on right now in India against rampant corruption in the country. I know exactly how important it is to protect basic rights of citizens.
If you think governments won't misuse these kind of laws when they face situations like the protest in India. Think again.
Those terrorism acts have been used by councils to fine owners of dogs who foul the pavements.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I really think there aught to be a way to appropriately label news on slashdot in situations like this, where the original article is (as in this case) opinion passed off as fact or otherwise. Ether by moderation or by vote.
Otherwise slashdot acts as an amplifier of false or highly spun news... sure some readers might read the original article and realise that it's not true, but there are going to be many people who just browse over the summary, lightly accept what they read and move on... and regardless of not fully reading and judging the original article they will probably recall it assuming some level of legitimacy.
...I read the article and vote: Unreliable
Opposition party campaign managers are going to host a Thank You China themed brunch
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Anyone seen atdhe.net recently? I used to watch football on the site because it was free. Now it's been seized by homeland security? What does TV show copyright infringement have to do with national security?
Instead of setting up "The Great Firewall of China" we elect to attack the sites that infringe upon the "rights" of corporations. I am not against a company making a profit on their product - but don't poo-poo the Great Wall for being oppressive. We don't build a wall, we seize the offending site and wipe it off the map - tell me what is worse - to prevent access to information and site for some people (i.e. the Chinese or rioting British - from the article), or prevent access to information for everyone (i.e. the US's scorched site policy).
In the words of my favorite coach - it's time to stop pointing the finger and time to start pulling the thumb.
Okay, then. Let's see how far you're really ready to take that stance.
You agree that me shooting you should be illegal, I assume. Now, let's say that I point at you with a loaded gun, threaten to shoot you but then "pussy out" before actually pulling the trigger. Do you think that this should be completely legal and I shouldn't be punished in any way if I don't actually pull the trigger? I doubt you do. The thing is that by threatening you with a gun, I imply that I'm able and willing to commit a crime and I engage in risky behavior and thus cause you harm and terror even if I don't actually end up carrying it all out. That's why practically all countries recognize a crime that's called "illegal threat" or something along those lines.
Similarly, I believe you agree that a bunch of people breaking and entering into a shop to steal stuff in a time of civil unrest should be illegal... Do you really think that the same bunch of people organizing, planning and inciting that beforehand ("Let's break into [location] tonight at 11pm if no cops are around! We'll meet up 5 minutes earlier at [location]! Bring your friends!") should be legal if the action isn't carried out? That cops can't interfere before the first person actually breaks the window? The sole act of threatening such a crime causes harm to people (The police might need to put extra patrols to that area, the shopkeeper might need to hire extra guards, etc... Harm has been done even if the precautions taken end up with the action not taking place!).
We're all drawing the line at some point. Unless you think that there should be no such things as laws, you think that some actions should be illegal and some should be legal and you draw a line between them. I think that my stance of "You shouldn't be allowed to announce intent to commit illegal acts if such acts cause harm to someone, even if you end up pussying out" isn't any more arbitrary or fascistic that any other.
The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! -- Captain Picard
allow it, support it.
dont fear the growing pains.
complementing you on your parenting skills.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Instead of whining here u may want to sign a UK ePetition:
To allow government censorship sign this petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/8576
To do the right thing and maintain free speech sign this petition: damn this one is not through review yet. If you search for social media in the next view days you'll find it. Please sign.
East is East and West is Infected.
The Nine west handbags of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their Designer handbags." Can the Wholesale bags of individuals be decided only by those who live after them, not by their wedding dresses 2011, as the speaker contends? In my point of view, this assertion is too absolute.
sumThe speaker asserts that human mind will always be superior to simple wedding dresses machines, based on the reason that Beach wedding dresses machines are only tools of human minds. I agree with the latter part that cocktail dresses machines are controlled under human beings, however, I can hardly agree to the former part, because in many conditions, long beach wedding dresses machines indeed hold a capacity far beyond human beings so as to bring fabulous benefits to the society. In the first place,
I cannot accept the division. Moreover, the author also indicates that we should obey just cheap prom dresses and disobey unjust vintage prom dresses, which I cannot agree with either.prom dresses 2011, as far as I know, are consequences of balance among different groups of people. That is to say, each law benefits some people and inevitably goes against other people. For example, a law of forbidding smoking in public places does good to non-smokers,
While I agree censorship is bad in all forms, we as a people have placed restrictions on it. I want to yell fire in a theatre, but that's a crime. So actually we do allow censorship by our governments regarding free speech. Where we draw the line should be the discussion, not its bad so the UK is bad and just like china.