China to Control Reports of Foreign News Agencies 268
afa writes "According to Xinhuanet.com, Xinhua News Agency on Sunday promulgated a set of measures to regulate the release of news and information in China by foreign news agencies. From the article: 'Where a foreign news agency violates the Measures in one of the following manners, Xinhua News Agency shall give it a warning, demand rectification within a prescribed time limit, suspend its release of specified content, suspend or cancel its qualifications of a foreign news agency for releasing news and information in China, on the merits of each case.'"
well then.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Had enough yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:well then.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As an aside I have no problem with online gambling and think the government is wasting their time pursuing this. However they do have a plausible case given that this is a murky area of the law. Imagine if I was selling handguns here in the U.S. to customers in the U.K. and shipping them without filling out the proper paperwork. From my side, it's a perfectly legal operation in the U.S. However if I were to visit Heathrow, U.K. authorities might consider me an illegal arms dealer.
Re:Well now (Score:1, Insightful)
I do not agree with the actions of the Chinese government in its extreme efforts to censor and control its citizens, but at the same time i support the right of a people to choose their governments. Although it can be argued how much choice the Chinese have when it comes to their form of government we cannot immediately assume that our form of democracy is some sort of perfect thing that needs to be instilled in the rest of the world. If the majority of the Chinese are content with their government or its actions (which is the case otherwise their country would be in a civil war until it changed) we as a world community have to respect their right to govern their country.
That being said any company operating in China has to respect that as well. If the international news agencies do not want to be subject to censorship they have a choice, they can leave. It is not the job of companies to decide when government policy should and should not be followed. They are required to, and should be, adhere to the laws of the land where they operate, no matter how wrong they think those laws are. If they don't leave the country and in turn try to reverse the policy of the government they are not only attempting to place themselves above the law, but (since they are not Chinese firms) they are also attempting to instill foreign ideals on Chinese society, both are wrong.
Even in our "democratic" society a core element is respect for the opinions of others, even if they don't agree with you. We have to remember to place that same respect in our thinking when it comes to other nations in the global community.
Re:Well now (Score:5, Insightful)
In the American Civil War, the majority of people in the Confederacy were content with their government and its actions. Should the world community have respected their right to govern their country?
..unelected committee of 150 people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Key scary bits... (Score:2, Insightful)
-- undermine China's national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity;
-- endanger China's national security, reputation and interests;
-- violate China's religious policies or preach evil cults or superstition;
-- incite hatred and discrimination
And so forth; read the article in full. Now, which part of the above is horribly bad and oppressive?
Can't you see that it is exactly this kind of brainwashed tunnelvision that constantly undermines America's standing in the world? The US has some higly dubious laws, policies and practices; but we are all supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, no matter what a country like China does, they are always guilty. So, to take an example, in China you are not allowed to incite hatred and discrimination - this, I take it, is interpreted in the US as 'horrible suppression of a fundamental freedom' rather than 'protection of vulnerable minorities'.
And I think I'm actually being kind here, calling the average American biased. The alternative would be to take you serious and believe that you are cold, selfish and uncaring.
i find it sad (Score:1, Insightful)
especially for news agencies, what a better way to defend freedom of press than to comply with these regulations !
Why the surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems simple logic to me. Give a bully what he demands often enough and they begin to see it as their right.
Re:Key scary bits... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the very quote you've chosen, "undermine China's national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity" seems to me to be, to use your terms, "horribly bad and oppressive". It is a totally subjective and unqualified restriction which may interpreted by the XNA in any way the current regime sees fit, which is about as "horribly bad and oppressive" as any censorship gets, don't you think?
Having read the article in full, and selectively pulled out the bits I find most abhorrent, with an explanation of why I understand them to be so, I have posted them in the hope of further clarifying the problems with this new stance taken by the government. If that means that I will "score some points with the big majority of /. readers who will never read the article", thereby presenting what I believe to be a more informative perspective on the article than would be gleaned by such readers, then so be it. This is, after all, the purpose of the moderation system.
Finally, your stance on the article seems to more closely match the problems with reactionary US laws than anyone's. You think that justifying one or two possibly reasonable items in the new law such as preventing "incitement of hatred and discrimination" justifies the whole law - when clearly items such as not allowing news agencies to "endanger China's... reputation" are massively oppressive.
If you're happy to see a large part of an entire nation's liberty sacrificed by its government for the sake of "security" or, in this case, control, then you are far more guilty of the very "brainwashed tunnelvision" you denounce than I.
It was in fact Benjamin Franklin, a Merkin, who said something to the effect of "Anyone who is prepared to sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserves neither, and will lose both". Maybe you should think about such things a little more before you start swinging, hmm?
Re:Well now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Get our own houses in order (Score:3, Insightful)
However, you do need to put it in perspective. Pretty much all of the UK citations you make were cases where the government put a spin on their own releases (or plain lied), which appears to be the role of government everywhere. The news agencies themselves were not prevented from reporting as they saw fit on what the government said and did, and that's the real issue here.
Again, I ain't saying it's perfect, but the Beeb is pretty much free to report whatever it sees as pertinent (how true that is today and how long that will remain so seems uncertain, which bothers me a lot).
It's fair enough to point out that nobody can "cast the first stone", as it were, but then you seem to be saying that nobody has the right to criticise this story because their own governments have dirty laundry...? It think it's the right to criticise governments that is at stake here, so I don't see how your condition is helpful. By that same rule, nobody from China would be able to criticise either, and that's what got us here in the first place...
Re:Key scary bits... (Score:3, Insightful)
uhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)
you can think of gw bush govt anyway you want... actually, that's the whole point: you can sit here on slashdot or anywhere else and criticize gw bush and his govt all you want
but if you were to criticize the govt in china?
you would be raise the attention of these nice people [nytimes.com]
so at best, you are naive, at worst, you are seriously deluded about what really goes on in china
basically, you see the innocuous language above, "to protect chinese sovereignty" etc, and take those bureaucratic words at their least harmful interpretation
oh if only that were the truth
but i am afraid you are quite mistaken about what really goes in china with censorship
go ahead, search the internet, do some research on the subject if you don't believe me. confirm what i am saying via multiple sources from multiple countries
and keep in mind while you are doing that research that someone in china could not be doing the same thing: their access is filtered and watched
next time, please educate yourself a little before you start screaming high holy moral indignation
you're just revealing your own ignorance about reality
Great "Digital" Wall of China (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately?? there will be no traces left after the digital one... once this is past history.
"The grass is not, in fact, always greener on the other side of the fence. Fences have nothing to do with it. The grass is greenest where it is watered. When crossing over fences, carry water with you and tend the grass wherever you may be."
- Robert Fulghum
Aspiring nations (Score:5, Insightful)
Priorities have changed since the mid 19th century. Today the appropriate question would be: Does your aspiring nation seeking recognition have oil? Valuable minerals perhaps? Because in this day and age that, followed by a favorable exploitation deal with a major US/EU corporation belonging to the right people, is the qualifier for instant recognition by the great powers and thus the international community by default. Otherwise your aspiring nation will be caught indefinitely in 'prevent regional political fragmentation' hell which usually means that you can't buy weapons but the megalomanic dictator keeping the region in order for Washington and its favorite allies can buy them at discounted rates from select US/EU defense contractors. So you see that you are in for an up hill struggle if your aspiring nation can't bring anything of solid business value to the table. This is nothing personal mind you, just a solid mix of market driven economics and realpolitik. The Confederate misfortune was that cotton simply wasn't valuable enough a resource to risk pissing off the Northern states by supporting the rebels who into the bargain supported slavery which was rapidly becoming an international abomination at the time which was another barrier to anybody contemplating supporting them. Hmmmmmm..... perhaps priorites haven't changed all that much after all?
Re:Well now (Score:3, Insightful)
-- Winston Churchill
Absolute bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot believe there is anyone in the world who would actually fall for something this transparent. On the offchance you're just stupid and not trying to actually deceive people, let's turn this around for a minute. Although not everyone who reads this site is American, and neither the article nor the post you are replying to mention America, you seem to want really badly to distract us from thinking about China and get us to think about America instead. You want to talk about America? Fine. Let's talk about America.
Let's talk about the Bush Administration. Everything the Bush Administration has done in the last five years, they have done in the name of preventing people from "endangering America's national security, reputation and interests".
Are there, say, any things the Bush Administration has done in the last five years that you disagree with?
If so, why? After all, they were only trying to prevent the endangering of America's national security, reputation and interests.
Let's say the Bush Administration announced they were going to start banning importing or reading of foreign newspaper articles or websites that "endanger America's national security, reputation and interests". Would you at all mistrust them with that power? Would you complain?
If so, why? In this hypothetical example, they say they're only going to go after publications which "endanger America's national security, reputation and interests". What's so horribly bad and oppressive about that?
And the answer of course is obvious, which is that something like "endangering national security, reputation and interests" is so vague that if you write a blank check to anyone in a position of governmental power to take action aginst it, they can define "national security, reputation and interests" to suit their own needs and use that blank check to shut down simply anything and anybody they don't like. Likewise, pretty much anything that tries to hold any government accountable for its actions can be easily labelled by that government "undermin[ing] national unity". Almost any group any government doesn't like can be easily labelled an "evil cult". I don't think I need to explain the problem with the clause "include[s] other content banned by Chinese laws and administrative regulations".
Which part of Xinhua's little announcement/article is horribly bad and oppressive? The whole thing. It's dressed up in pretty language, sure, but hey, fascism always is.
What China is doing here is unambiguously, unconditionally wrong, and what America is or isn't doing has absolutely nothing to do with that. You can try to make excuses for China; you can be an instrument of a totaltarian government if for some reason you get off on that. But you can't change what China is doing by dressing it up with pretty words.
In the meanwhile, I never cease to be saddened to see how much mileage propagandists can get out of accusing others of "bias"...
Re:So then (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words we try our best to preserve the illusion of the free press while we control it.
Re:well then.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because freedom of information across national and international boundaries is essential to the general freedom of the human race - freedom in terms of free from torture, free from oppression and exploitation, etc. The blocking of very specific forms of commerce in order to preserve business rules and local laws on what is considered acceptable business practive, if applied within reason, will have little impact on the planet overall.
Clearly there is a similarity between the desire to control information in general and the desire to control commercial activities, but there is always going to be some kind of regulation of any communications medium (the alternative being anarchy - which I'm sure some people would support). The question is whether the regulation being proposed is reasonable. Curtailing freedom of the press will probably facilitate abuse of human rights. Curtailing of gambling activities will most likely not.
Re:Aspiring nations (Score:5, Insightful)
Priorities have changed since the mid 19th century.
Not nearly as much as you would think (and seem to realize)... The South has sugar and cotton resources. They almost did find a European nation to 'sponsor' them in the same way the US got France to sponsor our revolution - by offering them money and access to natural resources.
Do you really think people are only selfish *now*? What is this rosy view of the past I find many slashdotters seem to have?
Re:Well now (Score:2, Insightful)
Fighting bad press on two fronts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well now (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps that was true fifteen or twenty years ago. But much of China -- at least the eastern seaboard -- has seen a great deal of economic growth in the meantime. I'd be willing to bet most Chinese are pretty satifisfied.
One thing I've become convinced of, especially in the last six years, is that democracy doesn't ensure a good or wise government. It certainly doesn't ensure a government that thoughtful people are happy with. I can understand why Aristotle listed democracy under the forms of government that are pernicious.
The important thing that various republican forms we call "democracy" do is give people the the power to "throw the bums out". It's easier and less disruptive than a full scale revolution. The more democratic the form of government, the less disruptive an involuntary change of government is.
Whihc makes holding those in power accountable for their actions easier and more efficient under a democracy.
It is probably impossible to change an unvirtuous, corrupt, but economically fortunate government under any system, because people don't feel the need to call the government to account. Most people don't like to spend a lot of time thinking about policy and politics, and so they judge by how things seem to be going right now. It's only after the bad policies of government become undeniably obvious that the urge to change their government takes the people.
Stifling bad news is not a wise policy, certainly when taken to extremes. Certain things are too big to hide, such as a futile and unpopular war, or economic growth stalling, or wanton greed by those in power and their favored cronies in the face of extreme disparities of opportunity.
Sooner or later, governments of every stripe harvest the fruit of their bad policies. The question is whether they leave gracefully or threaten to bring down their own house around their ears. The Chinese government should firghten any thinking person.
yeah, just imagine (Score:3, Insightful)
it's easier to just massacre those pesky protesters [cryptome.cn]
oh... wait you're worried about censorship?
don't worry! the public will never hear about any "massacres"
Clarify something for me, please... (Score:3, Insightful)
Between this kind of asshattery, manipulating their economy to maximize the amount of foreign money they get to keep, stomping on their citizens (Tiananmen Square, anyone?), outright thievery of foreign products (Redberry? Puh-LEEZ!), lies (that U.S. recon plane was in Chinese airspace - honest!), double-dealings, and everything else, could someone please explain again just why China is in the WTO, and the rest of the world 'needs' to do business with them?
I say screw 'em - they want to play by their own rules and the hell with everyone else, then let 'em play by themselves: don't buy Chinese anything!
Re:So then (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it hard to belive the 500lb bomb dropped on al-jezeera was accidental.
Re:Now this is censorship. (Score:2, Insightful)
South Park had an excellent episode on tolerance vs. acceptance. Just because I put up with another person's freedom of speech doesn't mean that I accept what they have to say, only that they have the right to say it.
If wal-mart carries Sheryl Crow's album (which possibly promots anti-gun messages), and they sell guns, they are sending very mixed signals. Just because wal-mart is a retail store does not mean they have to carry Sheryl Crow's (or any other artist's) music. If Sheryl Crow doesn't like that, then she should sell it in a different store, create her own store, or sell on the internet. No artist has a guaranteed right to sell their product in any store of their choosing.
As for the people at Giants Stadium refusing ozzfest, they only have that right if the government does not control any of that land (which, I believe they do). It falls under a similar category of private universities allowed to be affiliated with churches, and deny students based on certain qualities (as long as those qualities are not the ones outlined in the constitution).
On a side note, I think the first link you had was very interesting, and the correct view of both the dixie chicks speaking out, and of the constitutions protections (or non-protections) in them doing so.