Slashdot Mirror
China Allows Most Online Criticism But Cracks Down On Mobilization and Gossip
hackingbear writes "Harvard sociologist Gary King has just completed two studies that peer into the Chinese censorship machine — including a field experiment within China that was conducted with extraordinary secrecy. Together, the studies refute popular intuitions about what Chinese censors are after. He found that the censors actually permit 'vitriolic criticism' of China's leaders and governmental policies but the censors crack down heavily on any move to get people physically mobilized to act on such criticism. In a related development, China's top court issued a ruling on Monday to threaten a 3-year sentence for people posting online rumors viewed by 5,000 internet users or reposted more than 500 times. Though, in the same ruling, the court also clarified that a person reposting false rumor should not be punished if he or she does not clearly know the information is false, even if real harm is done. "
That is, a censor that filters out gossip and any request for me to physically move.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
So, it's just like America, where you can say whatever you want about politics, but if three people are holding protest signs on the side of the road, the FBI will try to wiretap and infiltrate them.
post 2001
"... But Cracks ..."
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
... all the "Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya!" you want, but censor things like Occupy Wall Street. Got it.
"And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free."
So what are they going to do after all the teens and women have been locked up?
but instead of filtering out mobilization, we simply pre-arrest acitivists, and harrass the piss out of them, and then deny it.
oh, and instead of little black ubiquitos boxes, our surviallence is subversive, and hidden.
...and sadly, there is nothing we can do about this, not even by assembling outside the governor's office on 15 Main Street at 12:15pm when he leaves for a lunch meeting.
And they don't allow any religious foolishness which gives them a leg up on the United States of Jesus in my book.
In Soviet America NSA knows everything. Before you make second post criticizing current regime they will bust your door down.
So in essence the censorship apparatus of the Chinese is exactly the same as their Western counterparts.
nailed it!
It's interesting to watch China spin a hybrid culture starting from a central planning state like that implemented by Mao and branching out into an economic powerhouse. America started from a clean slate and basically wrote and implemented a new state from the ground up using ideas from people like J.S. Mill and John Locke. China seems to be taking a more tentative and perhaps a more organic approach of melding business enterprise while maintaining a central planning government. It should be interesting to watch the economic imperatives rub shoulders with the rear guard of the politburo over the next couple of decades when a strong middle class evolves.
Yes, they are sent to jail. It's very subtle but that's the meaning everyone gets.
The title says it all, how we're all soon going to follow them. It's not oppression, censorship or repression of freedom anymore, it's benevolence of the state. Sinking to new lows, both them and the idiots blogging/reporting this.
Gee, I wonder who gets to decide which rumors are true or false?
This is a mistake many — Americans and foreigners alike — make about America's political system. True, we only have two major parties, but that's because we use them completely differently: we vote for persons, not for parties.
Whereas in most (all?) Democracies world-wide the voters pick parties on their ballots, Americans pick actual people. Party-affiliation in the US is neither official, nor binding. There is nothing about "parties" in the Constitution or Federal voting law (and very little in State laws). Politicians can and have changed their party affiliation. A party is as strong as the number of elected officials, who choose to affiliate with it.
On contrast, in other countries people vote for parties — and the parties then assign legislative seats (and other perks) in proportion to their share of the vote.
Not saying, which system is "better", just pointing out the huge difference. The difference, which might explain, why the US only has two — because they are both very diverse and would've split up, had the voting rules been different...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"...but the censors crack down heavily on any move to get people physically mobilized to act on such criticism."
"Oderint, dum metuant."
or:
"Let them hate, so long as they fear."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Accius
You may say what you will, but you may never actually do anything about it.
Why really, we're just not the gossipy kind! ..
Oh, you'll never hear one of us repeating gossip!
So you'd better be sure and listen close the first time.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"3-year sentence for people posting online rumors".
Really misleading. The law interpretation actually is 3-year sentence for posting online slander. Slandering is a criminal offense in China, as is the case in most other countries. Of course one can argue that the government can use the law for persecution, but that's an entirely different point.
So the Chinese censorship de jure functions pretty much the same as the US censorship functions de facto?
I mean, look at Reddit and Facebook. Plenty of vitriolic criticism and people who think activism means clicking the "like" icon but little actual organized protest.