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!

UN Officials Remove Poster Mentioning Chinese Firewall

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the can-you-spell-hypocricy dept.

Censorship 409

At a UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum in Egypt, anti-censorship group Open Net Initiative was startled by a demand from UN officials to remove a poster mentioning Chinese Net censorship. When ONI refused the request, security personnel arrived and took away the poster. The group was promoting a new book, Access Controlled, a survey of Internet censorship, filtering, and online surveillance. A witness said, "The poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because of the reference to China and Tibet. We refused, and security guards came and removed it. The incident was witnessed by many." Here is a video of the removal.

cancel ×

409 comments

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

But hey... (3, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109864)

The UN would be better than ICANN, right?

Censorship depends on the country. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110300)

In the age of Barack Hussein Obama, the new American ideology is that all nations and all cultures have identical value. This ideology says that the quality of life (and freedom of speech) in Egypt and China does not differ from the quality of life (and freedom of speech) in Germany and France.

This foolish ideology occasionally conflicts with hard reality: the security forces (of the United Nations) under pressure from the Egyptian people tear down the posters condemning Beijing's censorship of the Internet.

The hard reality says that both Egyptian culture and Chinese culture are inferior to French culture and Germany culture. In Germany and France, freedom of speech is a basic human right. Anyone -- citizen and non-citizen -- in Germany and France is entitled to freedom of speech. If a Chinese agent attempted to tear down similar posters in Germany, the German police would arrest the Chinese nitwit and throw him into prison for a few days.

In China (and Egypt), a nitwit tearing down posters condemning censorship would be praised as a guardian of the "great" Chinese nation, and the brave soul who displayed the poster would be thrown into prison for a few years.

Buddha damn Chinese (and Egyptian) society.

Re:But hey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110358)

The UN would be worse than ICANN, right?

Re:But hey... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110600)

No us that aren't in the US, definitely. To you in the US, perhaps not. But hey, China owns the US anyway, so... ^^

OT: Your sig (was:Re:But hey...) (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110676)

I read it as "the 14th haddock dot com." Just thought you'd like to know."

U.N. and Human Rights... (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109870)

Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane. All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...

The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise). Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (3, Insightful)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109892)

If it exists to exert and expand UN control, it's doing an utterly terrible job of it.

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109958)

Let's hope it stays that way.

Expaning UN control (4, Insightful)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110024)

There are three ways to expand one's power:

1. Convince people to give you power.
2. Trade for it, which requires having something to trade.
3. Use violence or the threat thereof to get people to do what you want.

The UN doesn't have anything useful for #2, and "you and what army" for #3. #1 is the only option left to them, and sovereign nations are not very easy to convince to give up their power (except, maybe, for post-National Europe).

Re:Expaning UN control (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110552)

There are three ways to expand one's power:

1. Convince people to give you power.
2. Trade for it, which requires having something to trade.
3. Use violence or the threat thereof to get people to do what you want.

The UN doesn't have anything useful for #2, and "you and what army" for #3. #1 is the only option left to them, and sovereign nations are not very easy to convince to give up their power (except, maybe, for post-National Europe).

This very article shows that they're willing to do #3. Sending guards to literally tear down a piece of paper that is potentially offensive to China...

Re:Expaning UN control (1)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110562)

I'm sure they are willing to use violence. But for anything that matters, it's a question of "you and what army". The UN doesn't have a military force, it has national military units that the national governments allow it to borrow.

Re:Expaning UN control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110742)

> The UN doesn't have anything useful for #2, and "you and what army" for #3.

And this is a Very Good Thing.

Yes, thankfully (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110038)

If it exists to exert and expand UN control, it's doing an utterly terrible job of it.

We are all lucky that the natural state of bureaucrats is one of ineptness.

But the U.N. is doing a lot more behind the scenes than you realize, the recent inter-nation secret copyright treaty is one facet of that... people here care a lot about copyright issues which is why you know about it, but how many OTHER similar secret multi-national treaties are being drafted that you and I know nothing about?

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (4, Insightful)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109952)

Like the rest of the world, the U.N. would like to think that China and their human rights abuses don't exist.

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (0, Troll)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110684)

The UN denies that China exists?

ROC

But you have to admire (-1, Flamebait)

countvlad (666933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110094)

Their attempts to expand human rights. I mean, I'd like the right to free healthcare, free housing, and a minimum standard of living. Sure I don't know who will actually provide said healthcare, build said housing, or develop said minimum standard of living, but since I have the god given right to it I expect someone to get off their ass and give it to me. I'm just sooooo glad things like that are on the list when governments can't be bothered to permit something as simple as free speech.

Does anyone really take the U.N. seriously considering who they let in? And why the fuck are these things "rights"? Are doctors and contractors going to go to jail if they don't give you these free services? I realize this is Slashdot, but is anyone actually naive enough to believe we're ever going to achieve some star trekesque utopia without physically removing whatever region of the brain provides free will?

Re:But you have to admire (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110290)

Does anyone really take the U.N. seriously considering who they let in?

Say, who was elected president of the US again ? What did he promise to do again ? (btw : he also promised the UN to restrict American freedom of speech, fortunately his track record of keeping promises is somewhat abysmal). Oh and add the whole of Europe to that. Most of the non-free countries, whether muslims, chinese or communist have no illusions about the UN : they refuse to pay membership fees (yes saudi arabia, the richest country on earth with the worst human rights record per capita blames the west for human rights violations while not even paying for their seat), and you can be sure that they'll be out the second it no longer directly (and unfairly) advantages them.

Of course calling out democrats on the actions of the people they elected ... that's ... shall we say "frowned upon". To them it seems "he promised free healthcare" is proof positive that there won't be any consequences. And if it turns out bad ? Oh they'll do the same as always and blame "politicians" and whisper "especially the republicans" and then reelect the next guy "but he promised free cars !". Democrats aim for the lowest of the low and fortunately every now and then America surprises them.

Re:But you have to admire (0, Troll)

Cobra Spaz (1480491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110626)

You must be listening to one of those entertainment\pretend news stations like FOX news. Or even worse it sounds like you may have been brainwashed by pill popping Limbaugh.

Everyone knows that FOX news and Rush Limbaugh are to be compared with the National inquirer when it comes to news.

Re:But you have to admire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110480)

yup. The fact is it takes a lot more in a person to pick up a gun and earn living. Provide equal opportunity for everyone, make pay differences more tolerable, and you'll have enough doctors and contractors to go around.

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110216)

Josh04 is right; it doesn't exist to exert and expand *UN* control.

Actually, it exists to make the exercise of unbridled power a trifle less inhumane and a great deal cheaper. Basically, it works like this. Imagine we have a country that is so powerful that it can do anything it fricken' wants to and nobody can stop it. Let's call our imaginary country "Upper Slobovia". US decides it wants something to happen. It could go to war, but instead the UN security council sits down and "debates" the US wishes. In the ideal scenario, they make a resolution that amounts to this: let's just pretend we've already had the war and move on. That's why the UN works so much better than the League of Nations; it doesn't try to enforce *peace*, it just allows wars to be conducted in a less picturesque way (which is why people fond of the picturesque aspects of war hate the UN).

Of course, sometimes the security council can't agree to pretend the war has already happened. Then they vote for a different kind of resolution, one that they can pretend does not authorize an actual physical invasion, but US pretends *does*. The invasion proceeds, but the war does not spread to other countries, who have taken the stand in Security Council resolution so-and-so that the party of the first part can invade *only* pursuant to the terms set down in article 22-b. These terms, translated into dozens of different languages' versions of diplomatese clearly state that US can't invade except under conditions were a reasonable country would judge invasion to be a better option than not invading, and since we're all reasonable countries (excepting US) that's clearly a stand *against*. Even though this scenario is less desirable than the "pretend we had the war and move on" one, it is *still* and improvement on the League of Nations.

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (1, Troll)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110528)

Huh?

Did you use Babelfish to translate that from Swahili?

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110658)

Huh?

Did you use Babelfish to translate that from Swahili?

No. He used Babelfish to translate it from "Incomprehensible Thought Process Gibberish" to "Barely Comprehensible English Gibberish".

He seems to be saying something about the UN existing only so that the US can pretend to listen to them except in cases where the US would rather not listen to them and goes ahead and does whatever the hell it wants to because the UN can't do a damn thing about it either way.

He's still butthurt about the invasion of Iraq and Gitmo I think.

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (5, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110378)

And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how?

I mean, at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious. Our previous ambassador wanted nothing more than to tear the whole thing down. Half the nation thinks diplomacy is for little girls and real men point missiles at each other until a vein pops or someone blinks.

If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process. If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.

Your discourse helps no one and all it does is promote a helpless fatalism in international politics.

P.S.: Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories. "Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity" should be "never attribute to a massive conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by one middle-manager overreacting." I'm guessing one middle-management-esque official in the UN saw the poster, took unnecessary authority of the situation and demanded that it be taken down. When he didn't get his way he called guards whose job is to listen to higher ups, who did as their job asks without questioning their "boss". And the result was a petty diplomatic incident wherein someone overreached and may even get punished for acting hastily and calling yet more attention to Chinese censorship.

Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110606)

You should like a typical Libetarian nut. The UN is a diplomatic forum. The only nutter are the people who thing it is more than that

The purpose of the UN (1, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110642)

> Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.

The UN actually does a good job doing what they were designed to do. It is just that most people were misled as to what they were designed to do. Look at how the UN was organized, one nation state, one vote in a world where most were unfree hellholes. The UN is thus essentially a Parliment of Tyrants, by design. So look at it's output and you will see it is actualy doing a good job of advancing the march of tyrany and human rights abuse.

Turning the Internet over to the UN must, as night follows day, lead to the advancement of the goals of tyrants. Anyone shocked by this simply wasn't paying attention.

Can I spell hypocrisy? (4, Funny)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109882)

Yes, I can. Unfortunately, it looks like kdawson can't.

Re:Can I spell hypocrisy? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110354)

Whush

Re:Can I spell hypocrisy? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110686)

Why do you think he was asking for help?

Because the UN... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30109922)

Is sooooo interested in your personal freedoms. ;-) Beware.

The UN is not working for us (4, Insightful)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109930)

The UN prefers the interests of member governments over western ideals? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Seriously, imagine the Republican Party leadership, and/or the Democratic Party leadership, if they never had to stand for elections. How much would they care about our interests? Now, remember that most of the UN doesn't belong to our culture either. Why would a bunch of government employees, mostly from dictatorships of one kind or another, be opposed to censorship?

Re:The UN is not working for us (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110308)

Seriously, imagine the Republican Party leadership, and/or the Democratic Party leadership, if they never had to stand for elections.

Fortunately Republicans are against the UN (not against never having to be re-elected though), and the Democrats are FOR the un. This sort of difference is useful in deciding your choice at the next elections. Well, that's if the US still has some spare change to organize such unnecessary things by the time Obama's through.

Re:The UN is not working for us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110598)

The leadership of both parties is not elected. The leadership positions were purchased from those elected by corporations years ago.

Values (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109956)

So the United Nations established under Western ideals has averaged to the point where they are no better in protecting our values of plurality and free-thought than China? Really? Color me shocked, guess those trade balances are more important than whether or not some person gets their head smashed-in in the back room.

Re:Values (2, Insightful)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109998)

The UN was originally the alliance of anti-Nazi powers: US, UK, and USSR. Out of the three, two were western. Now, however, most countries are not western and not interested in becoming western.

I don't see why the US is paying 22% of the costs [un.org] .

Re:Values (2, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110042)

The sad part is how well the US and UK have been respecting Citizen rights lately. Maybe the issue is systemic instead of an isolated act of stupidity.

Re:Values (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110398)

The issue is systemic. Since torture, rape, collective punishment,and trade in nuclear weapons technologies are prohibited, and yet member nations commit them as federally sanctioned acts (and the US is not innocent, most clearly in torture in Afghan and Iraqi prisoners lately), the failures are clearly system.

It's just the alternative that's so much worse: can you folks imagine if the current US Imperial wars were not constrained by the lack of UN support, especially if we'd gone on from Afghanistan to chase Osama bin Laden into Pakistan? Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and few restraints against using them.

Re:Values (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110106)

Cause we pay for wars anyway, might as well pay for the allied forces as well... Not like it's bankrupted our economy or anything.

Paying for wars (1)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110594)

Cause we pay for wars anyway, might as well pay for the allied forces as well.

When the US provides the majority of the troops, and the UK provides the majority of the remaining troops, why bother? Besides, the international organization we have for military purposes is NATO.

Re:Values (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110326)

Actually, no. The UN was originally the "league of nations".

And there is a very good (or very sad, if you've got any faith in government left) reason you don't see that little tidbit mentioned on their site.

Re:Values (1)

21mhz (443080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110138)

So the United Nations established under Western ideals

They weren't. And as long as they represent pretty much the entire world, they will try to avoid unneeded controversy, rather than getting bogged down in minor squabbles. I mean, bogged down even more than they are.

Re:Values (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110418)

They were. At least if you believe their member states.

To take one example, muslim states never actually signed the human rights declaration, instead they signed a document that's called the "Cairo declaration of human rights in islam" specifying [wikipedia.org]
-> sharia takes precedence over human rights, and the declaration cannot be understood except as a summary of sharia
-> women can not choose whether to marry, nor to whom
-> women are not equal to men, and have "duties" to perform
-> discrimination on the basis of religion is, in fact allowed
-> any action that might in any way convince a muslim to become either atheist or other faith, is punishable by death (yes, might, you read that correctly)
-> muslims have the duty (not the right, the duty) to use any amount of violence if there are any non-muslim members of government
-> any expression of speech that leads to "weakening of faith" is punishable by death, as is anything that could (not would, could) undermine governmental authority

These are the people that have majority in the "human rights council". These are the people Obama wants us to follow.

Hypocrisy (4, Funny)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109976)

from the can-you-spell-hypocricy dept

Well, someone here obviously cannot...

Posted by kdawson on 23:04 15th November, 2009

That explains it, I guess.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30109994)

I can't spell it either but most of the user interfaces I interact with can.

I can spell "hypocricy" (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110234)

I just can't *define* it.

If thats how they (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110000)

react to a poster about a book.
How do they react to torture ?
How about some freeze frames and a name/country of all the people?
Expose the Anglo and Francophone "just roll it" bureaucrats in their respective capitol cities. This is what your tax $ pays for.
With enough press, they might be recalled.
Protst the respective foreign ministries and demand a better quality of representative for your part of the world.
A minister for foreign affairs up for re election, remind the electorate of his/her track record.
Get close with a cam and ask them questions about this.
When their handlers lash out, some great fun for yourtube again :)

Re:If thats how they (1)

MinistryOfTruthiness (1396923) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110152)

I liked the repeated calls to "just cover it up." I'm a little surprised that they didn't see the double entendre in such a statement. I also liked how they mentioned that it "doesn't say anything about Tibet," as if that would justify what they were doing. It made me sick to watch that video, and it's for that reason that I trust governments less as they get bigger and more far-reaching. I'd love to know who the scumbags were who were clapping. If anyone knows, name and shame.

Re:If thats how they (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110304)

If its not your gov, then help "roll up" their tourism industry.
Outside every embassy or Interests Section hand out a pamphlets of this "roll up" guy.
If your city or state says no protests, go after your minster/representative.

Re:If thats how they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110624)

If thats how they... react to a poster about a book.

It has nothing to do with the book. It's because they referenced Tibet, and according to China there isn't a Tibet, it's part of China. This has nothing to do with any of the tinfoil hat theories flying around, etc. Egypt just doesn't want to piss of China, and mentioning Tibet as if it isn't part of China is a political no-no to them.
I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out that the real issue has nothing to do with anything mentioned in the article or summary.

For anyone who still doesn't understand: Referring to Tibet as a different country than China is the equivalent of claiming that the Confederacy was still a different country right at the end of the Civil War... it would have got you thrown in jail or executed for treason.

Stupid, yes. Idiotic, yes. Having anything at all to do with the Chinese Firewall... no.

Best votes money can buy... (3, Insightful)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110030)

One need only look at the "aid" money China lavishes on Africa in exchange for sweetheart deals to buy their natural resources to know why this happened.

Is anyone really surprised?

Re:Best votes money can buy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110570)

One need only look at the "aid" money China lavishes on Africa in exchange for sweetheart deals to buy their natural resources to know why this happened.

Is anyone really surprised?

If you think that western free market governments are somehow more honorable in politicking than the fact you just expressed about china, you have drunk the kool-aid. While I'm no apologist for China, the U.S. is number one at manipulation at the international level. Not by an inch, not even by a mile, unquestionably the most manipulative. I can count more coup's against democratically elected governments, initiated by the U.S. and over resource security, than I have fingers.

No surprise (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110034)

I fail to see the surprise.

The applause is sickening (5, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110040)

The video itself was very mild in content. A bunch of people standing around looking at a poster that had been knocked down. But the awful moment came when the guard removed the poster and you can hear people actually clapping. It so reminded me of that quote "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

Re:The applause is sickening (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110092)

It's in Egypt, not exactly renowned world wide as the pinnacle of liberty.

Re:The applause is sickening (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110112)

The applause was sarcastic, or did you miss that?

Re:The applause is sickening (3, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110584)

Apparently I did. How could you tell? Or are you ascribing your own feelings to the situation?

Re:The applause is sickening (1)

lhoguin (1422973) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110222)

Of note, from the video, at 2:30, we see the actual order to remove the poster. The man giving the order is french, possibly a french representative of the UN. I can't remember his name, but my memory is failing me. The man he's talking to appears to be egyptian. My guess seeing this is that the UN removed it to prevent diplomatic issues with Egypt. It just wasn't the right place to advertise that kind of book.

It's good to be owed money! (5, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110054)

"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event just because someone is trying to impress or be in the good graces of the Chinese government.

That's what happens when you owe a lot of money to someone or want some of their money.

Up next: China takes back Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.

Now just remember that when you go to put all those Christmas gifts (Made in China) on your credit card (in a very circuitous route:Financed by China).

Yep! Now who's the Super Power, again?

Re:It's good to be owed money! (5, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110266)

Yep! Now who's the Super Power, again?

The US government prints pieces of paper which Americans send to China. The Chinese make actual useful stuff and send it to America in return. Americans end up with a pile of useful stuff, Chinese end up with a pile of pieces of paper.

Who's getting the worst of the deal here?

Re:It's good to be owed money! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110460)

Actually, that's not at all how international trade works. It's more akin to:

1. An American company wishes to buy shitty goods manufactured in China.
2. The American company buys renminbi using American dollars.
3. The American company spends the renminbi to buy the shitty Chinese goods.
4. The Chinese send to America the shitty goods that come broken, or end up breaking soon after.
5. The Chinese have both the dollars and the renminbi, and all the Americans got was some shitty, poorly-manufactured plastic toys.
6. The Chinese use those American dollars, as they still have perceived value in some areas of the world, to buy land, factories, natural resources and other property in Africa.
7. The Americans still just have shitty plastic toys and the Africans have near-worthless currency, but the Chinese have African land, factories, gold, oil, coal, and even people under their control now.

The Americans lost. The Africans lost. The Chinese won.

Re:It's good to be owed money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110534)

That's actually a very interesting perspective, especially when considering that part of the useful stuff pile is hi-tech weaponry and - more importantly - the mammoth beast that is the US Navy.
 
Sure this is slight hyperbole, and a lot of the weapons are still made in the US, but the point is that the Chinese Navy is still young and developing (http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/default.asp) compared to the size and history of the US Navy (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146). If push comes to shove (C: "Hey we wants some more of that paper that you owe us or we take Taiwan!"), what happens?
 
My thought: US: "Thanks but we're gonna stick all those ships that protect the sea lanes around Taiwan, aaaaand if those merchant ships leaving your port with only your defenses don't get to the US, we're not sending you any more paper..."

Re:It's good to be owed money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110568)

The problem occurs when China decides it has enough of our paper and stops trading for it. We're at the point where we need useful stuff from China because we no longer have the manufacturing infrastructure to make it ourselves. If China stops taking our money, our standard of living will plummet.

In other words, we need China, but they don't need us, which is why they get away with stuff like censoring posters at UN conventions.

Re:It's good to be owed money! (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110572)

Who's getting the worst of the deal here?

It depends - if you assume that Americans are a bunch of unreliable, untrustworthy bastards, then yeah, China is getting the short end of the stick. On the other hand, China quite clearly isn't making that assumption.

Re:It's good to be owed money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110622)

well in the short term,they are. Unfortunately for us, in a few more years, china will have the manufacturing expertise we lost, & they will have
trade agreements with the raw resource countries. We on the other hand may find it difficult to trade those paper dollars for oil, lithium and other minerals because china will be providing real stuff for that oil & lithium. And when that happens, our standard of living will drop quickly. Everyone thinks it can't happen, but how long did the financial crisis take to happen last year? Once the world decides our dollars are worthless since we can no longer provide useful goods for those paper dollars, we are screwed.

Re:It's good to be owed money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110272)

I agree.

Maybe we should stop buying goods made in China.

I still have my Radio Shack SW receiver kit, 29 years on, which was manufactured in Japan. You know what? I think it's great. They did fantastic quality stuff then.

China? Everything I have had from China has been crap. Mostly our fault; Our engineers designed crap, but they manufacturer it even crappier.

10% of last years Christmas presents ( made in China ) didn't work on they day.
50% of the rest ( made in China) are now broken.

This year, I'm looking for some quality toys made anywhere else. I'll pay more, and buy less, but it will be worth it in the long run.

Re:It's good to be owed money! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110352)

It brings to mind the old quote, "When You Dance With the Devil, the Devil Don't Change - the Devil Changes You". The fact that we remain silent proves we are a changed country. China is the drug dealer and we can't piss them off because they may cut off our credit and cheap iPods.

Re:It's good to be owed money! (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110372)

Up next: China takes back Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.

I think it's unlikely the US would do nothing - but in any case, China would have a very hard time taking back Taiwan by force, unless they decided to repeatedly throw nukes at them until all the Taiwanese were dead. The only way China has to reach them is by ship, and Taiwan does have a significant military that possesses pretty much the same weaponry the US military has.

It has become apparent (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110076)

That the UN itself has become an arm of the chinese government, in censoring anti-censorship advocates.

Re:It has become apparent (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110540)

Some committees seem to have become branches of middle-eastern Islamic governments as well.

Re:It has become apparent (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110666)

Strange. Since the UN usually is the arm of the US government.
Whether this is because China now owns the USA (in terms of money they owe)...?

Stupid Chinese Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110128)

They really need to stop acting like children with regards to issues about Tibet. If enough of the Tibetan people want freedom, then give it to them, and the Chinese can pack up and go home and Tibet will end up screwed, or if enough Tibetan people want to remain a part of China because of the massive economic benefits then that's fine.

They need to talk about it though and stop trying to suppress it.

Posting anonymously because I'm off to China very soon, though there is almost no-chance they would care about some comment on slashdot.

was witnessed by many (5, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110146)

Prove it.

No, i wasn't kidding. One of the dangers of having governmental entities in control of information, and most of it being recorded only digitally: "facts" are a variable commodity.

Re:was witnessed by many (1)

lazylocomotives (1645339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110434)

You can see around how many people there were in the video. Sorry if I misunderstood your comment.

Re:was witnessed by many (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110694)

Then again: Prove that anyone or anything except for yourself exists at all. ^^

There are no facts. There is only relative information, obtained trough channels with trust relationships. (How much do you trust your source? And how much do you trust your own eyes? What you think you know is relative to your source and the trust in it.)
If it is a "fact" (which it can't) is actually irrelevant.

The question is, what it makes out of you, and what you make of it.

Those unofficials removes are a bitch (1)

aflag (941367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110150)

I mean, why are they even allowed?

Which UN policy did the poster contravene? (4, Interesting)

ExRex (47177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110170)

That's not made clear in the article.
Also, it was very odd the way everyone stood around the poster on the floor, not touching it or picking it up, as though it were a diseased, dead body which no one was willing to touch. So they called the police to come an take it away.
Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?

Re:Which UN policy did the poster contravene? (3, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110370)

"Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?"
They might not have diplomatic immunity. 24 h in a local jail until their embassy finds them and clears up the little misunderstanding?

Re:Which UN policy did the poster contravene? (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110438)

Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?

Let me guess, you voted for Obama, right ?

Re:Which UN policy did the poster contravene? (4, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110574)

"Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?"

Because they didn't want to be beaten and 'indefinitely detained' for 'interfering in the lawful duties of the authorities'.

Wake up - China is NOT your friend (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110252)

When will the rest of the world wake up and realize that China is NOT your friend?

Re:Wake up - China is NOT your friend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110356)

I know they're not my friend. They have money and power though.

They are my personal friends.

Another theory (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110288)

Is it at all possible that rather than it being "anti-censorship", it was simply that they didn't want someone trying to hawk merchandise? Is it possible that the witness jumped to a conclusion and filled in the details for what he thought was a reason?

I noticed in the video that the room didn't have any other posters advertising anything.

Oh the UN is such a joke (1, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110322)

Roosevelt's compromise to have ALL the countries in the United Nations wrecked it from day 1. The only way you can have a real UN is to have a league of democracies. The only way we would have a genuine and meaningful UN would be to have something like an EU + USA + Canada + Australia, and leave Asia and Africa out of it.

Re:Oh the UN is such a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110368)

That's what we should do with trade as well. Cut out the third world. Let them trade amongst themselves. It stops us exploiting them and it lets them sort their internal crap out without dragging us down.

Re:Oh the UN is such a joke (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110422)

Agreed

Re:Oh the UN is such a joke (3, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110464)

This is not feasible. Too much of our food (and opium) comes from the the third world, too many critical minerals come from there, and too much of our sales of arms, pharmaceuticals, entertainment, and other processed goods goes to third world purchasers. And make no mistake, "second world" nations make little pretense of being democratic.

Are you willing to pay twice the current rates for computers because gold and mercury prices used for their manufacture are quadrupled? Even if you're willing, do you think many slashdotters would still be employed in that economy?

A failure from the beginning (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110452)

Roosevelt's failure was that he actually thought utopia was possible. Only four years after WWII, the Soviet Union... one of the Security Council members... was bankrolling and assisting a campaign of conquest in Asia, starting with Korea.

The reason why utopias do not work, and can never work, is their ignorance of human nature. You can't change it, and you can't get rid of it, and in governments, national policies are the instruments of human nature. You can no more "eliminate" war than you can eliminate any other force of nature. You can only do your best to be prepared for it.

Re:A failure from the beginning (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110544)

It's also "human nature" to try and control abuses. Sometimes it works, too. There are people building schools and educating women in Afghanistan, as well as the idiots who createed the encouraged torture at Abu Ghraib. Don't just say "it's human nature" and give up, because there are some successes, such as the prevention of World War III so far.

Re:Oh the UN is such a joke (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110494)

What good is a group of yes men?

Oh I didn't realize you had the EU in there. There would still be incessant arguing, then.

Re:Oh the UN is such a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110644)

you kiddin' right? since when the US theocracy is a democracy? in your democracy people is being jailed for nothing, besides the fact that your congresspeople is getting into the vocabulary bussiness: Now they want to redefine (please read 'specify') what torture is. They insist that half-drowning and sleep-deprived confessions are not 'torture'. I'd love to see how would they react if such 'non-torture' is applied to them, or even better, to their children or their elder parents.

Please, pretty please, until the day the US (not 'americans', this continent is not yours alone ppl) closes guantanamo and the base they just opened in colombia (shame on uribe for being a pawn for your country), and all the rest of the military presence in middle east is withdrawn please don't talk of democracy. The US is just an Empire.

Long live Emperor Obama

The US sucks big time, and so does the UN.

Undemocratic? (5, Informative)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110454)

"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event... "

The UN is a democratic organization and this act of censorship is completely democratic. It's wrong, but democratic.

That should be a lesson to those that confuse freedom and democracy.

Thank You (1)

rochberg (1444791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110530)

I, for one, thank the U.N. for their censorship in this case. I had never heard of this book. Were it not for this incident, I may never have learned of it. So I think the U.N. for bringing my attention to it.

Poster's Removal is an Admission of Guilt (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110538)

Seemingly, the poster was removed because it ostensibly violated a rule prohibiting posters that depict or mention human rights abuses. The part of the poster that ostensibly violates this rule is the mention of the Great Firewall. Thus, there is the obvious admission by whoever demanded the poster's removal, that the Great Firewall constitutes an abuse of human rights. The poster itself does not suggest or imply that it is a human rights violation, nearly so much as the poster's removal does.

Remember Guernica (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110556)

Right, these are the same people who removed the Guernica when Bush and Colin Powell were going to make their case to bomb the shit out of Iraq using bogus "intelligence."

Are you expecting the UN to be rational?

They'll regret it.... (1, Funny)

Abuzar (732558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110646)

Day's gonna come when those assholes'll a'gonna pay for it big time!
You just watch, fate's gotta way o'tearin' opressors assholes longer than the Chinese wall!

moD up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110680)

of aal legitimate reciprocating bad Raadt's stubborn I thought it was my

Egypt cedes it's sovereignty to the U.N. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30110682)

Next?

mall cops (4, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110706)

malls cops won't let you set up a stand in a mall... unless you pay rent and sign an agreement.
Maybe these guys didn't do that.

We must build a freedomwall! (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30110738)

It's the only thing that can stop future monstrosities like this. We can think about what exactly it's supposed to do later.
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>