China, Once Again, Using Censorship Elsewhere To Justify Oppressive Great Firewall Of China
from the well,-duh dept
Back during both the ACTA fight and the SOPA fight, we pointed out that any move by Western countries to do even minor censorship would be used by the Chinese to justify its own much more oppressive censorship via the Great Firewall of China. The fact that the MPAA held up China as the model of a country that does censorship right played right into the typical Chinese justifications for its internet regime. In fact, Chinese officials have been quoted claiming that they really first put the Great Firewall in place to stop copyright infringement, but have since expanded it to better protect the public.The latest, as pointed out by Dan Tobias in our comments, is that the official newspaper of the Chinese government is now pointing to various attempts in the west to "block" content to explain that internet censorship is in the public's interest (they refer to it as "web regulation" but you know what they mean). They cite a variety of cases that we've spoken about as heading down the slippery slope to justify their own censorship. They mention Germany's plan to try to tax Google for fair use-level snippets, Facebook's new efforts to censor speech they don't like, the UK's new hysteria blaming Google for child porn, and even the Turkish Prime Minister blaming Twitter for social unrest.
The new rule for Google Search is said to be a milestone that marks Germany's first efforts to regulate its Internet services.The op-ed then argues that these are all just different ways of recognizing that free speech online is dangerous and needs to be regulated for the public benefit.
Many countries are trying to regulate their Internet services. Under pressure from public opinion, many well-known websites are becoming more self-disciplined. For example, Facebook has started to provide training for its website regulators to help identify and delete inappropriate remarks. In Turkey, where chaos and turmoil are running rampant, the Turkish government criticized social media as the top threat. Similar denouncements have also been heard from the British Parliament.
Finding ways to take concrete regulatory approaches that appeal to the broad masses is what really matters. Considering the complexity of public opinion, this is the most difficult part of Internet regulation. People are starting to understand the necessity of Internet regulation when they are publicly informed of some major measures and actions in advance, thanks to more transparent approaches.Note, of course, that this was presented on the very same day that the government sought to censor any mention, no matter how oblique, of the Tiananmen Square uprising.
Most Chinese are looking forward to free speech on the Internet, while at the same time are expecting an orderly social environment. People already understand that free speech can not go against social order. Internet regulation is not only an embodiment of the government's will, but is also laid on the foundation of the public interest.
Through the Internet, Chinese people are becoming more knowledgeable about democracy and freedom. Although this virtual community has bred some political and moral traps, Internet regulation has to be carried out until those spreading adverse remarks fear the strength of the public interest.
When you start down the slippery slope of censorship, even if the intentions are good, you have to realize that others will use it to justify any and all oppressive censorship as well, in the name of "the public interest."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, china, free speech, internet freedom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Delusion rate of fools who think that enforcing a copyright utopia does not come with consequences to liberty = 100%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Germany's plan to try to tax Google for fair use-level snippets"
That makes your take, and no doubt the source from which you re-wrote, not about censorship in China but defending mega-corp Google, the commercial front SPY AGENCY that the NSA has "direct" access to.
So actually it's YOU, Mike, cynically using China's censorship to justify letting secretive corporations grow without limit and without responsibility to society.
We The People don't want either communism or corporatocracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Germany's plan to try to tax Google for fair use-level snippets"
is NOT in the realm of censorship.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/
"When the State singles out the press, though, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from passing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government." - US Supreme Court
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/233/case.html
" It is bad because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties. A free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves." -- US Supreme Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Germany's plan to try to tax Google for fair use-level snippets"
But Google is NOT the press: it's merely TAKING the content that the press makes and grifting money from it.
Germany is merely doing as decided in the US, er, Meltwater case: scraping headlines is NOT "fair use".
So you fail on the merits again, but do show that promoting Google is your main purpose!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Germany's plan to try to tax Google for fair use-level snippets"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Germany's plan to try to tax Google for fair use-level snippets"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Firewall built by US Tech
Here is a series of slides from an internal presentation at Cisco dating back to 2002, as the Great Firewall was being built. The slides discuss its purpose, and you can see on slide #57 that suppression of China's religious minority, the Falun Gong is directly mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great Firewall built by US Tech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only time...
Actually the only time free speech really matters is when it hoes against the social order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only time...
Politics means something different in every part of the World:
Int he US it means taxes
In Europe it means social service
In the middle East it means religion
And in Asia it means order
(and in Africa they said: "Politics? Fuck this shit we are going to shot each other)
So you are badmouthing free speech in the eye of the chinese gov and public there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship
A month of censored posts already. Amazing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: censorship
Censorship not a spam filter. Mike doesn't want me posting he hates opposing views I guess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: censorship
That's why your posts are so quickly reported by the user of the site.
Its not that Mike hates your point of view its that he has realised that you cannot have a structured argument with a petulant child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: censorship
Exactly what Masnick is complaining about others doing in his post above.
See, this is why Masnick is a laughingstock and mercilessly mocked everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: censorship
The only people who think AJ 'regularly destroyed' Mike, was AJ, and the one or two people who agreed with him, everyone else saw him as the hypocritical child that he was/is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: censorship
average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced. Just like horse with no name, bob, out_of_the_blue, hurricane head, darryl, John Steele, Paul Duffy, Keith Lipscomb, Evan Stone, Andrew Crossley and Brigham Field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
Its clearly not doing a good job at keeping your replies out as I keep stumbling upon them whenever I'm trying to read proper comments about the Articles in question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
Also, why do you even try to post without your name, it's not doing you any good, as everyone knows it's you right away anyway, and having to come up with 'new' names every post has got to be annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: censorship
It's truly sad to see how low Techdirt has gone - and how few of you guys understand it.
Oh, and it's not "people clicked to report it", let me repeat it again: When I post, my posts are immediately put into moderation and are NOT shown on the site.
That is censorship, plain and simple. This post will likely get added days after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: censorship
If you guys love triggering the spam filter so much, guess what. You get your binky taken away. That's just too damn bad, and it sounds so familiar - oh, right. That's exactly how you feel about people accused of downloading stuff. They get their Internet access taken away. Why don't the lot of you just crawl back into your caves where you can lick your wounds and privately brag about your e-peens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't even surf those sites just for the sole purpose of downloading. It's just fun to do and it's an awesome way to find the next new thing that you might love. 95% of all software I legally own has been found through a dump site.
If I like something I'll buy it because I have no problem supporting shit I enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Actually, that "Internet regulation has to be carried out until those spreading adverse remarks fear the strength of the public interest" bit kinda terrifies me. It sounds like something a mob boss would say while his henchman had a shotgun pressed up against the back of your head, except it's being applied to an entire country.
Nobody should have to live under that kind of tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]