Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

161 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just a Rumour (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16499819)

Nothing for you to see here. Move along.

Re:Just a Rumour (5, Funny)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499845)

Little do you know.... the black bicycles have been dispatched and are closing in on your location. I for one welcome our rumor-policing web-filtering overlords.

That's what you get for playing... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500007)

Chinese whispers

In Other News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16501307)

George Bush has just announced that a new law is in effect: Anyone caught talking about Lindsay Lohan's boobs will be fined one-million dollars US.

Re:Just a Rumour (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500149)

What would Chuck Norris do?

Re:Just a Rumour (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500753)

That's an example of what happens when slashdot no longer posts rumours as fact. *snicker*

Has somebody alredy been contacted? (-1, Redundant)

cmdrpaddy (955593) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499821)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

This news just from Bejing.... (5, Funny)

DiscWolf (976849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499867)

Duke Nukem Forever is going gold next week.

Oops, that one is going to cost me a lot of yuan.

Only malicious rumours? (2, Interesting)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499869)

Damn. I was hoping this could herald an end to bogus virus alerts and urban legends.

"Chinese Bans Internet Rumors" (-1, Offtopic)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499893)

Did the Chinese also writes the headline?

Re:"Chinese Bans Internet Rumors" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500335)

No. the chinese have better english than taco

Rumor? (5, Funny)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499899)

Are we sure this isn't just a rumor???

I wonder... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16499915)

...how do you do decide what is (or isn't) a malicious rumor? I'm sure the Chinese government knows very well.

Re:I wonder... (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500865)

The answer is within your very post.

"decide what is (or isn't) a malicious rumor". There's nothing more to it.

What about (4, Funny)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499935)

FUD, Trolling, Flames, Flame-Wars, dupe-posts, Bad Wiki repotage, and general spamming?

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:What about (1, Funny)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500347)

The best part would be that /. couldn't afford to keep Zonk.

getting the ball rolling (3, Funny)

cyberon22 (456844) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499941)

Ok gents, so what rumour are we starting this week?

* 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:getting the ball rolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500205)

China Buys, Loots Taiwan in Second Life

Am I the only one that invisioned thousands of Mao Zedong-like avatars going through SL like the Long March? Of course they'll be turned away by the Great Oompa Loompa uprising of 2009. =)

Don't even get me started on North Korea's counterfeiting of Linden Dollars ("damn, those bits looked so real") and the requirement that all avatars wear gray flannel Mao jackets.

Preposterous (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16499971)

This effectively kills their residents' ability to post Slashdot comments!

If it were anyone else.. (2, Insightful)

tont0r (868535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499973)

They would be branded at evil dictators for telling their citizens what to do,say,see and read. Maybe someone should sprinkle the magic democracy fairy dust in their eyes. -1 flamebait. :(

Re:If it were anyone else.. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500423)

Noone's calling China an evil dictatorship in a discussion because it's unnecessary, we all agree that they are. But they got nukes so that fairy dust (is that a nickname for some new WMD?) is too dangerous to deliver.

Rumor has it (0, Offtopic)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 7 years ago | (#16499981)

that this is true!!

anti propaganda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16499993)

The legislation also includes fines of 3,000 to 15,000 yuan for "organizations distributing defamatory material", the paper said.

Sooooo, does this mean they are going to fine the republican party every time they make a new advertisement?

Oh I can't decide (-1, Flamebait)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500011)

China would ban Fox News then. They have a lot to learn. Why ban it when you can use it for propaganda?

They're the ones to begin a lot of articles with "Rumor has it"...

Re:Oh I can't decide (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500401)

Because the Communist Party never has to worry about winning elections.

Re:Oh I can't decide (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500477)

They said malicious rumours. Guess who gets to decide what's malicious?

Re:Oh I can't decide (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500917)

Me?

Not Really New (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500017)

A good friend of mine who use to be a journalist in China talked about a few months about how the freedom of speech isn't as abridged as we'd like to think of it in the west. He had mentioned the biggest part was that you can't talk about people from a perspective that can ruin their reputation because it is a big part of their culture (as it is in many parts of Asia).

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:Not Really New (2, Insightful)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500579)

Ok, here is my rumor: I think the 1989 Tianenmenn crackdown by the Chinese army was a mistake and that the current government of China should publicly apologize.

Will you shed a tear for me when I am locked up for spreading rumors?

Re:Not Really New (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500751)

That's an opinion, not a rumor.

A rumor would be something that masquerades as a fact.

Re:Not Really New (2, Insightful)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500949)

Ok. "The Chinese government is truly a compasionate and caring group of people who are doing what they are for the betterment of the people of China rather than a pack of power crazed lunatics." Does that meet the standards of rumor?

Re:Not Really New (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501341)

Not to me, I'd still consider it an opinion, but your point is valid - it can be a blurry line between opinion and rumor.

Re:Not Really New (1)

azuravian (850674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500943)

It isn't slander if I lie about someone and defame their family ON THE INTERNET.


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 referring to US law).

Oh yeah, IANAL.

Re:Not Really New (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16501295)

Kinda depends on the manner it is placed on the internet. This is why this is better gotten from an attorney as opposed to IANALs or worse yet, Anonymous Cowards.

Speaking to a lawyer that has had to do take down notices, he specifically said there was a difference in context...mainly because the internet laws are as they are. For instance, if you build a webpage about someone and have it structured in the form of a article, it would go towards libel. However, if you present this in the form of a posting in an internet forum or newsgroup, it is slander. It is the context.

He said this was mostly untested water and the few cases that are out there right now are still being reevaluated for context into the bigger picture.

As for the idea of out and out lie vs. unsubstantiated rumor -- you are absolutely right. I have a feeling that if any of the take down notices I ever had to put out were tested, I'd lose. Its hard to prove. And its horrible that it is hard to lose. At the same time, I've tried to talk to all the people we've ever sent these to in the past personally, and either they refuse to respond (and I have a good idea who they are anyways), or I find out they are posting directly from the IP# of a competitor. Knowing this, I have no problem being 'a part of the problem' (as opposed to part of the solution)...the industry I am in has a lot of dirty people involved. The type that if they didn't have lawyers, they'd break your legs (which they may still do). Lot of good moral people as well, but its far more lucrative to be an asshole.

Re:Not Really New (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16501351)

Wow... I didn't expect to see someone actually defending the Chinese government.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Why is the sentiment good? It's ludicrous. So are you saying that you shouldn't be able to criticize a government because a government is actually a group of people? That's so... I don't know... it's just so ridiculous I'm not sure what to say.

yuk o fail it! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500019)

woUn't be shou7ing

Dear Slashdot, this is China: (2, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500023)

this article is a malicious rumour and you have been fined accordingly. Please pay 15,000 yuan.

Re:Dear Slashdot, this is China: (3, Funny)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500295)

But if the article is a malicious rumor then it can't be true, then I can't be fined, but if I cna be fined, then it must be true and not a malicious rumouir, which menas I cna be fined, which means.... arrghh!!!!

Re:Dear Slashdot, this is China: (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501005)

Dude, we're talking a Chinese provicial government. Check your logic at the door when dealing with them. Mutually contridictory statements in the same sentence are a requirement for them.

Re:Dear Slashdot, this is China: (1)

Ignatius D'Lusional (1010911) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501159)

Dear China: Please find enclosed one shiny American Nickel. You may keep the change.

Grammar much? (-1, Offtopic)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500027)

On the main page this article title is "Chines Bans Internet Rumors". Want to fix that?

defamation (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500031)

OK. And in the US, you can sue someone into the ground for posting malicious rumors against you.

Re:defamation (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500275)

Yeah, but it's quite hard. IANAL, but my understanding is that you need to prove both that the rumor was false and that the intent was malicious. Occasionally you read about some celebrity suing one of those star gossip rags, but it hardly ever comes to anything. I'm guessing here, but I imagine that the burden of proof isn't placed on the government in China :)

Re:defamation (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500433)

Which goes to show, if you post "rumors" online about someone that are true (malicious or not), then they aren't really rumors, are they?

Re:defamation (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500461)

It's called defamatory libel. S.298 of the CCC here in Canada :-)

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 you can reasonably prove that people would have considered the rumor as not fact you are not guilty of libel. But you also would have to prove that it caused loss, contempt or harm [physical, property, etc].

If I say "Company $X sucks." and their stock price goes down, it could be that reasonable people decided for themselves based on the crap quality of the products produced by company $X.

on the otherhand, if I'm a trusted reviewer and I say "product $X is crap" without actually reviewing it and people change their buying habits as a result, that could be libel.

Tom

Re:defamation (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500727)

"Tom has inceste with his sister".....Tom, who is a famous actor is spending millions of dollars fighting these rumors, and lost a recent contract in hollywood. Tom, says "hey i never had inceste with my sister, and my sister says that too...prove otherwise".

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 defamation, you are fined." the guy who said it "You do look weird, thats not a rumor"....

Re:defamation (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501041)

No, the anonymous poster is almost entirely wrong, IMO. Certainly libel and slander are wrong, but people need to be able to express their opinions - and opinions are also censored in China (unlike the U.S., where opinions are like... well, you know - and everybody's got one and no one's been thrown in jail for stating it as an opinion).

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 can't think of when they didn't, although I can think of when politicians didn't). The problem is that they often don't bother suing at all.

Re:defamation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500541)

Yeah, but it only works if you have enough money.

The system works for you if you add lubrication, just like in other 3rd world countries.

Here's our chance (2, Funny)

Centurix (249778) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500039)

We could out-source their rumor making, off shore it for them. I could make online rumors for the average mainland chinese for a fraction of the cost. They would be good rumors too, the kind you'd never get it you off-shored to India or Malaysia, quality rumors like "Low Ping has small nuts", or "Mai Ass is huge".

Rumour has it... (0, Offtopic)

CmdrPorno (115048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500047)

I hear there's rumours on the Internets...

Chinese banning chinese whispers? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500075)

I think my head just exploded!

So what you're saying is..... (1, Funny)

Slovenian6474 (964968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500079)

Chinese bans the internet

Even Scarier (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500087)

The Chinese government is disappearing the homeless and polical dissidents, and in a rather mysterious coincidence, is now providing more citizens than ever with government subsidized meat.

Re:Even Scarier (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500251)

Probably explains why Kraft's Hobo Helper is a big seller over there.

Re:Even Scarier (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500417)

Mmmm. Tastes like dirty.

Re:Even Scarier (1)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500533)

Don't be disappointed, disappearances are coming soon [pitt.edu] to the US.

Re:Even Scarier (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500737)

a rather mysterious coincidence, is now providing more citizens than ever with government subsidized meat.

      Officials from the state funded "Soylent Corporation" have refused comment...

This is China (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500097)

This is the country that calls anything that it doesn't like a state secret. You can get the death penalty for leaking a state secret. For example: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?Acti onID=157 [amnesty.org.uk] They really don't like it if you complain about things like police brutality. That makes you a terrorist. Police brutality is a state secret after all.

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.

Mod Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500711)

Why exactly was this modded flamebait? Poster but makes several valid points about human rights in China and doesn't deserve to be modded down IMHO.

Re:This is China (2, Interesting)

maxpublic (450413) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500915)

Ah, I see. If a country in Europe does it it's protecting people from "hate speech" or "slander", but if China does it it's "censorship". Funny, as an American I'm having a hard time seeing that well-nigh invisible dividing line between the two. Do I need my EU-approved secret decoder ring for this?

Max

Re:This is China (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501305)

Eh, not *everyone* in Europe agrees with such laws. Even though I have to admit that most people do. Ah well, eventually when we realize we are living under a dictatorship I'll have the dubious pleasure to tell everyone "I told you so".

Chinese internet culture (5, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500099)

Chinese people use message boards a *lot* more than Americans. You might browse a few boards, even be a regular, but (some) Chinese people are rabid about it. In a nation with people are used to not getting the whole story from the media, message boards are looked upon as a source of "true" information. Of course, this is taken advantage of and people post fake information in order to hurt people, hurt business, or just cause mischief. Online witch-hunts are fairly common, when someone will post a complaint about you and a mob of posters will go and look up all sorts of information about you, call your boss, harass your company's support line, send you nasty SMS to your phone, etc. Here is a sample of a few of these types of stories [zonaeuropa.com] .

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.

JEJEJE (0, Offtopic)

riff420 (810435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500109)

In Soviet Russia, China ban YOU!

So What? GWB Ended Habeus Corpus (-1, Flamebait)

istartedi (132515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500115)

So what? GWB ended habeus corpus. We're getting closer and closer to being like the Chinese all the time. The next thing you know we'll be19ufknan /v
NO CARRIER.

Re:So What? GWB Ended Habeus Corpus (0, Offtopic)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500475)

Why is this flamebait? I don't want to hijack this story, but I think that we should first look to our own government before starting to criticize others'. We have an election coming up where 80% [cbsnews.com] of all votes will be cast on electronic voting machines operated by a private company. I shouldn't need to mention what kind of affiliation the owner has with the Bush Administration. We're being spied on, can be held indefinitely without a reason why or any contact with the outside world...I hope the people with their heads in the sand realize what is happening around them once they come up for air...

Re:So What? GWB Ended Habeus Corpus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16501105)

Nice post- do you even remember what this story was even about after that pointless, offtopic rant? Or did the "bush" bulb go off in your head and send you into a blind frenzy? Seriously now, you're talking about voting fraud in the US in a story about China limiting internet rights. Clinton pissed on free speech by having the 9/11 docudrama censored, why not mention that instead?

Just because you preface something with "I don't want to hijack this story" doesnt mean you didnt want to hijack this story.

Re:So What? GWB Ended Habeus Corpus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16501339)

Better adjust that tinfoil hat so that it can better hide you from the black helicopters ...

The End of the Chinese Blogosphere (1)

miller60 (554835) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500179)

No rumors? 1 billion blogs fall silent. Is it okay if they just copy American rumors and circulate those?

There may be a good reason for this (4, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500181)

I'm too lazy to look it up, but some months ago Slashdot had a story about how an internet rumor in China just about destroyed the lives of 2 people. An angry husband posted that his wife was having an affair with another man he had a grudge against. None of it was true, but the good Chinese netizens who read it didn't bother to question it. After all, if someone said it on the internet, it must be true! They found out where the man and woman worked who were accused of having an affair and people showed up to harass them for an affair that they weren't even having. The husband eventually admitted it was all a lie, but only after a lot of harassment was done towards his wife and the other guy. Similar stories have been reported in other Asian countries where angry netizens decided to start harassing people over articles they read about online that they had no way of knowing whether or not they were even true.

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.

In other news... (1)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500213)

...MySpace reported a massive fall in traffic from Chinese ISP's......

chinese whispers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500255)

does anyone else find it funny that a nation who's name is synonymous with evoking the thought of rumors is trying to stop them?

-Sj53

Re:chinese whispers (1)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500761)

I don't think they are trying to stop them, only control them. If you know anything about rumors is that they work like broken telephones [wikipedia.org] . Every person modifies the message a little bit that by the end you have something resembling nothing like the first one. If you play upon people's feelings you can end up controlling a large population through their own fears and anxieties. Of course, it might turn around and bite you in the ass as well.

In other news (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500257)

Bush suspends [huffingtonpost.com] Habeas corpus. Coming to your area: gulag!

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500313)

Hey retard. Try reading the bill. It only applies to non-US citizens. Habeus Corpus only applies to US citizens. Get your head out of your ass and stop believing the crap you read on your UFO conspiracy websites.

(a) Purpose.--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

"alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States".

Re:In other news (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500443)

Habeus Corpus only applies to US citizens. Get your head out of your ass

      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:In other news (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501343)

So, all countries based on civil law are "not so free" countries?

Re:In other news (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500669)

Dude,

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.

Obligitory Demolition Man Quote (1)

tont0r (868535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500283)

"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Re:Obligitory Demolition Man Quote (1)

sabernet (751826) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500835)

Still beats the three seashells.

Well... (1)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500357)

If it would keep down the number of e-mails starting with "FWD:fwd:FWD:fwd:fwd:FWD: I normally don't send this, but, this has to be true!" that find themselves into my inbox, I just might support this in the U.S.!

*I kid, I kid...*

Digg (1)

feucht35 (982967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500413)

There goes Digg China then...

Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500421)

In Soviet Russia, rumors ban you!

Title needs clarifying (ala operator precedence) (1)

Zoxed (676559) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500441)

I first read it as: (Chinese Ban Internet) Rumors

but when I RTFM I see it is actually: Chinese Ban (Internet Rumors)

The REAL problem with this law (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500483)

If a law allows the government to lock up people that "behave immorally", soon the government will stretch the meaning of the word 'immoral' from 'having sex on the streets' to 'showing a patch of skin'.

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 always *will* cause abuse.

Re:The REAL problem with this law (2, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500757)

That's kind of the point in a dictatorship. You create a ridiculous number of laws, so many that every citizen is at any given point probably breaking 2 or 3 of them. Then you selectively enforce the laws against citizens who have fallen from favor in the eyes of the government. Naturally you also want to randomly enforce them against random citizens as well so you can keep up a low-grade environment of anxiety. That keeps most of them in line, too worried about breaking some law they've never heard of to stir up any serious dissent.

$630$ = $6,300 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500701)

If you take into account the cost of life in China and the average income, 5000 yuan is more like $6300 than $630. That is *a lot* o money.

Maybe I'm missing something (1)

DrFaustos25 (788264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500717)

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't a lot of countries have libel / slander / defamation laws?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something (2, Insightful)

LindseyJ (983603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501257)

Maybe I'm missing something

Yeah, the part about China being a tyranical Communist dictatorship.

You're missing the point (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501313)

This isn't about slander and defamation laws that exist in the real world.

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 (2, Funny)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500721)

An internets free of women.

Clarification: (1)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501289)

I meant women talking, not pr0n. Don't get me wrong ok?

I hear there's rumors on the internets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16500783)

Not in China...

For all I know, (1)

Wizard052 (1003511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500807)

Maybe the news about the law itself is a rumour. So the Beijing Govt can go fine itself.

Fools and Their Folly! (3, Funny)

faqmaster (172770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500877)

Chinese ban internet rumors. Americans ban internet gambling. What's next? Some fool nation will ban internet pornography? Oh, wait....

Bad idea. (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16500999)

Theres information you want to be distribute, for the good of the whole society, that are distributed ONLY by rumors. A democracty may survive with rumorus banned, because there are lot of stuff that can be official. But a tirany like the china one, I think will absolutelly need rumors, because most rules are not writted.

Not what I heard (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501037)

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."
I heard that for individuals, the fines can be as high as 25,000 yuan, and they shoot your dog and make you use AOL for up to one year.

This just in (2, Insightful)

patio11 (857072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501287)

China, yep, still a communist dictatorship. This is news for geeks in the same sense that "Today, Microsoft and Bank of America made a lot of money, and many dragons were slain in WoW... ON THE INTERNET" is.

Is this true? (1)

joebok (457904) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501325)

I guess we'll find out if CmdrTaco or dptalia get fined...

Well, good. (1)

rantingkitten (938138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16501359)

You heard from George Bush himself that there are rumors on the internets. China is just heeding his words and putting them into action.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>