Chinese Ban Internet Rumors 161
dptalia writes "Chongqing province in southwest China has just passed a law fining people who post malicious rumors online. An individual can face fines of 1,000 to 5,000 yuan ($630) and an organization can be fined between 3,000 and 15,000 yuan."
Just a Rumour (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just a Rumour (Score:5, Funny)
That's what you get for playing... (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
This news just from Bejing.... (Score:5, Funny)
Oops, that one is going to cost me a lot of yuan.
Re: (Score:2)
Only malicious rumours? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rumor? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
just my 5,000 yuan
I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"decide what is (or isn't) a malicious rumor". There's nothing more to it.
What about (Score:5, Funny)
I think we're going to need a rate card for all this...
Oh the other hand, if more governments took up the cause, think of the revenue! The US could pay off it's national debt in 48 hours.
Coooool.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Spam (Score:2)
Do those count as rumours, and would they be fineable? Unfortunately most of them I don't get from Chinese, but those that spread them need to be hit with a stupid-stick.
Re: (Score:2)
getting the ball rolling (Score:4, Funny)
* China Buys, Loots Taiwan in Second Life
* Wen Jiabao is also my father
* Tangshan is bigger than Tianjin... at heart
* Norman Bethune was gay
* Shijiazhuang: the next Hong Kong
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the most important rumour:
Hu Jintao and Kim Il Jong discovered to be gay lovers when Condelleza Rice walked in on them during a recess at the multi-lateral negotiations. Rice then asked if she could join in this "diplomatic exchange which is helping to bring mutual understanding and cooperation in East Asia".
If it were anyone else.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not Really New (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the time, this rule is the one invoked when censoring something...talk bad about the gov't, you are implicitly impugning someone. Its horribly implemented with no safe guards (especially since employers can be fined and employees can be jailed), but I can see why the sentiment is good.
I've had my name slandered several times in the past over the internet. I don't know why the slashdot crowd gets up in arms when someone patents something by appending On The Internet, but if you state this in terms of other non-rights they get upset. I'm not stealing if I'm Stealing On The Internet. It isn't slander if I lie about someone and defame their family ON THE INTERNET.
Most of the time, if speech like I've had to endure were put up in a newspaper, my rivals would have lost a house over libel. If they would have done it at a public gathering, it would have been slander. (and if they merely mention it to a neighbor, well, thats an out and out lie that I can handle on my own). People don't see the value of reputation anymore in the west. People are too selfcentered and care nothing about anyone else -- until it happens to them (for my part, I've never said anything online or in public that wasn't backed up by non-ambigious documentation and even then, I've tried to talk to the other party personally before I have done so).
So I'm all for China stringing up anyone that ruins someone elses reputation through rumor. The US just passed the 300 Million mark this weekend. China has 1.5 Billion. Personally, I think we have enough idiots on this planet and wouldn't shed a tear about the few that want to throw unsubstantiated lies about others online. Have solid backing evidence...I'm all for it...Publish what you got. Pure out and out rumor...you need to leave.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Will you shed a tear for me when I am locked up for spreading rumors?
Re: (Score:1)
A rumor would be something that masquerades as a fact.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Your right, it isn't slander. It's libel. And, at least here in the US, the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff, not the Defendant. You would have to proof that, not only was it a lie, but the person who said it knew it was a lie, did it with malicious intent, and that you suffered damages because of it. However, a rumor, is typically viewed to be opinion, not fact. Therefore, libel law does not apply (again, I'm ref
Re:Not Really New (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that different than what is developing here? Oh wait, China: you get a fine. USA: you get hauled off to a secret prison.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo! (Score:2)
1) It really can screw people up.
2) There is almost a backlash that goes waaaay back the other direction.
And they'll both be your fault if you're one of the folk pushing for "anything goes".
You believe in anarchy of speech? Fine. Just remember, teh door swings both ways, and when it'
How the Internet is different in practical terms (Score:2)
Newspapers carry an impression of credibility from the fact that they're edited and are big established institutions. Posts on a message board are obviously a single person's output and most of us take them with grains of salt. If someone on Slashdot tells me that you did something bad, like starting a war of agression, I won't think less of you. If the Washington Post and LA Time
Dear Slashdot, this is China: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dear Slashdot, this is China: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
defamation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the CCC defines "what isn't" libel
- things that are resonably expected to be true
- of public interest [safety/concern not voyeurism]
- published within the boundaries of the laws of the land
If you knowingly publish, cause to be published, or otherwise produce something in print, radio, newspaper, television, etc, that causes loss, contempt, or harm to another, you may be found liable for libel.
Rumors are not specifically libel, if yo
Re: (Score:2)
But yea, China could be a bit more harsh...then again, I would probably think China would find something that someone said, but it is what they said that I would question - not if that someone really said it. "You said we look weird...that is defam
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly can sue people for lying about you, you cannot sue them for expressing an opinion about you, and celebrities win these lawsuits all the time, almost always (I
Re: (Score:2)
BEIJING (Reuters) - Internet users in southwest China who spread malicious rumors online face fines of up to 5,000 yuan ($630) and possible detention, state media reported on Wednesday in the latest crackdown on dissent. Under legislation passed in Chongqing municipality, people who post "defamatory comments or remarks, launch personal attacks or seek to damage reputations online" will receive a warning or be fined between 1,000 and 5,000 yuan, the China Daily said. "Those whose rumors cause serious
Re: (Score:2)
So, yes, it would be wrong for someone to say "gfxguy is into child porn," but for it to harm my repuation would require people believe it without proof. If someone is willing to believe something bad about me without proof then it's a failing on t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a rumor website, for example, or a column in a newspaper called "Rumor has it...", the person writing the column can still be fined. Look at the title of the slashdot article... the ban is on rumors, it doesn't make a distinction where someone is obviously stating an opinion or an unsubstantiated rumor or not.
In Soviet Russia (Score:2, Funny)
Here's our chance (Score:2, Funny)
So what you're saying is..... (Score:1, Funny)
Even Scarier (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Officials from the state funded "Soylent Corporation" have refused comment...
This is China (Score:3, Interesting)
So this new law will get you fined if you point out that a corrupt official who is supposed to only earn the equivalent of $10,000 is driving a new Mercedes.
I titled my post "This is China". I am by no means implying that they are the only bad guys on the block. At least one other country has recently passed a law that removes people's right to due process and virtually legalizes torture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Max
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese internet culture (Score:5, Interesting)
For China, this is especially worrisome, because not only is the social order hurt, but the government as well. They're mostly worried that a particularly outrageous false rumor might force the government to change in some way. Note that this was done by a single provincial government - the lower ranks of government are particularly threatened. The Chinese government isn't a single monolith - the different ranks of government can be quite independent of each other. This article should have been titled "Chongqingnese ban internet rumors". But, after living in China for a while, I no longer expect the news that I read to be accurate in any way, nor do I expect that people who give me the news to care that they are not accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not just China, buddy. That's a pretty prevailant thing worldwide these days. If not necessarily false all the time, just useless sensationalism or heavily partisian.
People here (in the US) aren't skeptical enough.
The End of the Chinese Blogosphere (Score:2)
There may be a good reason for this (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why so many people believe everything they read online. It's not just in Asia. Some years ago I worked as a civilian computer programmer for the US Air Force. Roughly around 1995 or so, at my former base basically everyone got an internet connection on their PC and they believed every rumor that came out. If someone said it in email, it must be true because nobody would ever lie in email, right? One of my former co-workers used to send me copies of emails he got where I would see over 100 people on the CC: line about some wild rumor or another that they were aboslutely convinced was true. My favorite was the story about some guy waking up in a bathtub full of ice minus his kidneys. All of these emails would say to send the message to everyone you knew to warn them about whatever the rumor was. After a year or so, it got so out of hand that senior management basically had to pass an edict forbidding people from sending this stuff out to massive distribution lists on the base and they finally got it under control. Even today, my retired uncle believes every single negative rumor he reads. I used to reply to his emails and send him links to snopes.com refuting his emails, but I just gave up when he told me that it wasn't his job to verify the truth of what he passed on. He was just passing on potentially "helpful" information and it was up to recipient to determine if there was anything to it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2)
In other news (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If George Bush violates human rights then I am against it. If China violates human rights then I am against it. I am for human rights. Respect for human rights is not a team sport where you should root for your side no matter what. Its about absolute standards.
I think you are trying to drag Bush into this because you just can't pass on any chance to bash him, even if it means apologizing for China and providing cover for them to behave like animals.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you try to understand what Habeus Corpus actually is before trying to look smart, since you have failed miserably in this case. Habeus corpus applies in most countries that derive their law from English Common Law. It's one of the basic things that distinguish a "free" country from a not so free country...
Re: (Score:2)
Obligitory Demolition Man Quote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
*I kid, I kid...*
Digg (Score:1)
Title needs clarifying (ala operator precedence) (Score:1)
but when I RTFM I see it is actually: Chinese Ban (Internet Rumors)
The REAL problem with this law (Score:2)
The real problem in fining people who make "defamatory comments or remarks, launch personal attacks or seek to damage reputations online" is that this is obviously also open to such a flexible interpretation (albeit a bit more subtle than the above example).
Subjective law allows for abuse and therefore alway
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm missing something (Score:1)
Maybe I'm missing something, but don't a lot of countries have libel / slander / defamation laws?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, the part about China being a tyranical Communist dictatorship.
You're missing the point (Score:2)
This is about provoking the slashdot, "free speech no restrictions", "can't contol us", "I hate China" crowds.
The real concern IMO isn't the theory of punishing liars, it's the massive potential for abuse.
This potential for abuse of restricting legitimate speech is the fundamental reason for promoting free speech.
Finally (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
For all I know, (Score:1)
Fools and Their Folly! (Score:3, Funny)
Bad idea. (Score:1)
Not what I heard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in (Score:3, Insightful)
China is not communist (Score:2)
Is this true? (Score:2)
Chongqing is not a province (Score:2)
This just in... (Score:3, Funny)
That's just what I heard.
Moo (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm in Beijing right now... (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like the US and EU. (Score:2)
But the point, before I got side tracked, is that having a monetary punishment for l
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)