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!

China Praises UK Internet Censorship Plan

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-know-you're-on-the-wrong-side-when dept.

Censorship 355

mormop writes "The Chinese government has praised UK Prime Minister David Cameron's plan for censoring social networking sites at times when the government feels threatened, believing it legitimizes China own behavior. Quoting Chinese state media website Global Times: 'Britain's new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas.'"

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

+1 (5, Insightful)

That Guy From Mrktng (2274712) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103792)

You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.

Re:+1 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37103830)

Let's hope politicians don't try to stall this plan, as the UK are at risk of having their oppression rating downgraded to an AA+.

Hyperbole (5, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103856)

The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was [zeropaid.com]

Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

Re:Hyperbole (5, Insightful)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103968)

If enacted, those provisions would be used against dissenters just like the Terrorism Act is now.

I personally know people who've were detained under the Terrorism Act for walking through Charing Cross station with placards in their bag on the day of the royal wedding. They were released hours later and I believe are planning legal action.

You're a fool if you think laws giving those kinds of powers to police to control social media won't be used against political dissenters.

Re:Hyperbole (2, Insightful)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104036)

Which is somewhat my point. What provisions? None have been proposed. None. What we have here is a comment made in a speech. Not a policy paper. Not a proposal. A comment.

That comment has in turn lead to claims of fascism, censorship et al. How can we expect rational debate and careful consideration of complicated issues if we all jump to extreme reactions even at the slighest provocation. In this specific case those claims are, as yet, unwarranted. By all means freak out when there's a law being proposed - exercise your considerable civil liberties to their utmost - but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104080)

but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.

Unwarranted? Well, some may disagree. And what he's talking about is indeed censorship (whether people agree with it is another matter, though).

Re:Hyperbole (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104302)

but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.

Unwarranted? Well, some may disagree. And what he's talking about is indeed censorship (whether people agree with it is another matter, though).

The point is that a politician mentioning the possibility of censorship is some distance removed from an actual law invoking censorship.

After the riots, you could find people, including politicians, talking about the imposition of curfews, arming all the police, bringing back p;ublic flogging and so on. It doesn't mean any of them will happen, and anyway they are far more serious than the temporary suspension of access to fucking twitter.

Re:Hyperbole (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104362)

and anyway they are far more serious than the temporary suspension of access to fucking twitter.

Whether they're more serious or not is probably subjective. However, that is probably what most people think. Other than that, I agree with you that talking doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually happen.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104376)

Well the police and citizens should be armed. Things wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as out of hand if both officers and law abiding citizens under duress were able and ready to permanently end a rioters looting spree.

Re:Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104418)

Right... I sure hope that was sarcasm.

Re:Hyperbole (3, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104448)

You do realize that means rioters would be armed too, right?

So instead of throwing rocks and burning cars, London could be the setting for a Wild West shootout. What an improvement!

Re:Hyperbole (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104518)

I agree with this 99.999%
Then there is that other part that would have loved to have seen an Apache helicopter cruise up the road and chain gun them all. If they were armed I think we'd have a better case to back that one up.

Re:Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104574)

well a step or two after that would be the riot police firing guns at rioters who only have rocks..
how is that any better?

Re:Hyperbole (3, Interesting)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104632)

So what? Rioters in the US have access to firearms, and yet you see no civil war in the street, just UK-level vandalism and looting. I should also point out that the Wild West was way tamer by violence standard than present day, shootouts were relatively rare and body count low. Today, the showdown at OK Corral would barely make news. And one last thing, some massive destruction in the UK would be considered an improvement by many.

Re:Hyperbole (1, Troll)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104356)

To be fair, I think the fact that the UK is the most intense police state / surveillance society in the "free" Western countries is what has lead to the claims of fascism (and has for some years before Mr. Cameron was ever elected).

Re:Hyperbole (3, Insightful)

fremsley471 (792813) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104542)

...the UK is the most intense police state / surveillance society in the "free" Western countries.

That's bollocks. The UK has a load of CCTV (which seems damn ineffective looking at the results from last week) and ANPR is being aggressively installed without debate (next big liberty row ahead), but there's no separate paramilitary police (France, Germany, US National Guard [?}, et al.) or a nationwide police force under direct govt control (e.g. FBI). We almost certainly have a very advanced spying of phones and t'internet (hello GCHQ and thanks IRA)- and it's more than likely that all phone calls are monitored. But read up on Echelon; it's not just the UK.

I was in a Ventura, north of LA, a few years ago and we found out about the ATF. They came into a bar below our hotel and made the drinkers overturn their pints 'cause the ratio of alcohol/food in the bar's accounts was not the same as the licencing conditions. That's an intense police state.

Re:Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104438)

It does not matter that it was only a comment, for any politician in a position of power to even think let alone actually speak such a comment is an affront to liberty and any amount of outrage is warranted.

Personally I think that a member of government who thinks that way should be convicted and shot for treason.

Re:Hyperbole (1)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104572)

Love the irony of shooting someone for speaking freely because they're in some way against free speech.

Re:Hyperbole (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104526)

> How can we expect rational debate and careful consideration of complicated issues if we all jump to extreme reactions even at the slighest provocation.

Is the issue complicated? Who is the master and who is the servant? What do constitutions say?

If I am the master I can say: "uuugh those servants ought to be all hanged by their balls". And expect no repercussion, I simply voiced an opinion on my servants, I am not even required to be remotely correct, I am the master. If I am not allowed to say that, I am not the master. Simple.

Of course the moment I lift a finger to hurt somebody or somebody's rightfully owned property, it's right to beat the crap out of me, because I am hurting other masters.

So, why doesn't the public servants just keep an eye on violent speech and ACT when ACTS take place? How does censoring help, other than making this rightful mode of operation harder, because censored people will go underground?

The answer is simple, censoring is the objective, not the reaction.

London riots serve two purposes: they scare people into not following the arab countries route and start protests on the street (they saw what protests end up into), and they let servants come up with rules for their masters to follow.

Re:Hyperbole (5, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103988)

Of course that's alright. Censorship with qualifiers is all fine and good, right? China has plenty of qualifiers, too, you know. People who care for their freedoms shouldn't accept hollow excuses for fascism, because as history readily proves, fascists have no shortage of them. Censorship is never the right answer, no matter how many times nor how loud people argue that it is.

Further, I believe that the Prime Minister and in fact most of the House of Commons have no idea how the internet works, as the PM repeatedly talked about "media companies and social media companies that are displaying these images," as if the internet is a TV network where every site makes a conscious decision what to show. I was utterly shocked that this is the person about to (attempt to) regulate social media. Britain need to get its act together, because it is starting to look more desperate and fanatical than the US, which is a very low bar to set indeed.

Re:Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104064)

I understand this as some type of "injection".
You are using this for plotting violence, so I stop you from using facebook.
Something like the 3 strike law.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104088)

Something like the 3 strike law.

Wait, did youreally just justify one morally bankrupt idea with another?

If they're inciting violence, deal with them via other legal avenues. Free speech has never been fully respected when it comes to the excuse of "inciting violence," so there is no need to add new methods of censorship. At least if you have to charge them with something there is due process. Three strikes is just hearsay bullshit.

Re:Hyperbole (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104320)

The "three strikes law" is a declaration of (moral) bankruptcy of a legal system. Essentially, it means that the prisons where people are locked away do not make them any better. They serve no purpose other than keeping people locked up for a predetermined time. They do not even make any attempt at resocializing prisoners.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104078)

Censorship with qualifiers is good, yes. Society recognizes through the law that sometimes speech has to be restricted no matter how horrifying that concept is to you or I. The important thing is to ensure that governments censor only so much speech as is absolutely necissary, and not a syllable more.

Consider that restraining orders are government sanctioned, and enforced censorship. As are all the laws related to slander and libel. Pretty much all the fraud laws too. And anything related to trade secrets. Or laws protecting privacy. So on and so forth. My point is that there are types of speech that society has recognized as necessitating some degree of restriction. What those kinds of speech are is up for debate, as is our right. That those kinds of speech exist at all is also worth discussing. But jumping to hyperbole short-circuits that conversation, and that undermines fundamental aspects of democracy as an expression of informed decision.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104160)

Perhaps I just realize the absurdity of all forms of censorship, and thus disagree with them. Claiming my opinions are "jumping to hyperbole" does little to change the fact that many are coming to share this stance, as more and more the excuses grow for why people should be repressed.

There is no functional requirement for any speech to be restricted. Laws against slander and libel are ineffective and constantly abused. Look up the British Chiropractic Association for an example of how these harm us all. Not to mention, their existence lends credibility to those with the ability to dodge lawsuits, who should not have any. Libel and slander protect the powerful, just like all other censorship. The fact people believe incredible information is neither justification for nor solved by censorship.

Fraud has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with money. Insofar as it might be conceived as censorship, which is in my opinion quite difficult to do, it is perhaps justified as something of a necessity in capitalist society to prevent fraud. That does not, however, justify any other censorship; just like China censoring worse than Britain doesn't justify Britain.

Trade secret laws should not exist. Privacy laws are entirely ineffective, feel-good laws, which have had no effect thus far in preventing breeches of privacy. There is also a question of if that might fall under contract law, considering terms of service, which is an entirely different matter.

So please, explain how I am "jumping to hyperbole" rather than making a conscious values judgement. Just because the majority of society accepts it doesn't make it right. Society has been wrong many times before.

Restriction of speech is still necessary (0)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104272)

Restriction of speech is still necessary:

  • Banning of child pornography
  • Banning of hate literature

However, some governments would very much like to extend that to banning anyone who disagrees with public policy, banning anyone who has encountered difficulties with the government, in short, banning anything they personally don't take a liking to. That, my friend, is what I consider "censorship."

Exactly what constitutes "hate" literature is open to some debate in most societies.

Both legitimate and illegitimate censorship require the same technology tools, though.

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104348)

No, it isn't necessary. I welcome a world where possession and distribution of child pornography and hate literature, and production of hate literature are entirely legal.

Are you so well trained that you cannot conceive of someone not finding this idea as horrifying as you do?

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104704)

So production of child pornography is illegal, but financing production of child pornography and profiting from it is perfectly fine?

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104358)

The definition of child porn is also open to quite a bit of debate in some societies.

The problem I have with any kind of censorship is the definition of the things that should be censored. Invariably, you'll end up in a mess. Where do you draw the line? Legal texts are rarely "kinda-sorta-maybe", things are legal or illegal, but that doesn't always apply easily to the real world

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary (4, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104428)

You do realize that "hate literature" is what is known as an "opinion", right? Are you really saying that governments should (I know many already do, but I'm talking about what the right thing to do is) have laws legislating what opinions you are allowed to have? Orwell had a term for that - thought crime.

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary (2)

Lexical_Scope (578133) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104582)

I'm not sure I agree with the concept of "legitimate censorship". I think actions should be illegal, not thoughts. I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.

I would be far less certain about (for example) hentai or other images of children which were created without any illegal act. I think being sexually attracted to children is a sickness that requires treatment, but only *acting* on it is a crime. I probably think about committing murder several times a day, but I'm not a murderer until I do it.

Similarly with Hate/Offensive speech. If I'm telling people to go and kill infidels or burn down buildings, that is incitement to commit an offence, which is (and should be) illegal. If I'm telling people that I don't like brown people and neither should they...that would be an opinion. If people agree with me and decide to go and blow up a mosque then they have committed a crime and deserve to feel the full weight of the law. But should I be charged with something? What if I said I don't like politicians and a listener shoots Andy Burnham?

Censorship is a poor replacement for enforcement of the law and until someone commits an act which is provably against the interests of the society those laws are designed to protect, they should be left the hell alone to do what they want.

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104622)

I think actions should be illegal, not thoughts.

That's sort of odd considering some of the things you said in other parts of your comment. Unless I somehow misunderstood you, of course.

I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.

What? It's censoring information/content. I'd say that it is indeed censorship (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). And the fact that someone did something illegal to make it doesn't make it not censorship to censor it.

Similarly with Hate/Offensive speech. If I'm telling people to go and kill infidels or burn down buildings, that is incitement to commit an offence, which is (and should be) illegal.

Whether or not it should be illegal is subjective, I think. However, it is still censorship to suppress such speech, even if it is illegal.

Re:Hyperbole (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104600)

Consider this hypothetical scenario, and let's be clear that I do not know you in any way - this is just for an example:

Say I call your wife a whore, and spread a rumor that she is sleeping around. Say I use facebook to spread this rumour. Then I go further and incite violence against her via twitter.

Where in this hypothetical scenario should the state step in and stop me?

You can probably step in and stop me via a lawsuit (slander?) but then anonymous or 4chan gets involved. Should the state step in there?

All freedoms have qualifiers (1)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104092)

Of course that's alright. Censorship with qualifiers is all fine and good, right?

Actually, yes. For example, the constitution of my country guarantees me freedom of expression but such a freedom is applied only to the cases where I don't hurt others. e.g., it would be expression of my political opinion to punch certain representatives in the face but it's still good that my opinions can't be used as an excuse for hurting others. Similarly, the government shouldn't suppress people's ability to express their political opinions but they can and should restrict people's communications when it comes to planning crimes that cause harm to other people, such as openly planning violent riots.

The question is where to draw the line but I don't think it's that difficult: If you openly plan action that in itself is illegal, government can restrict that. If you don't, they can't.

Re:All freedoms have qualifiers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104148)

Nope, punching people is not speech, it's violence.

Next time try to be more creative while constructing your straw men...

Re:All freedoms have qualifiers (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104182)

How about we draw the line at none. I'm usually more creative than to quote, but I think this is the most relevant reply to your post:

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. -- Captain Picard

Re:All freedoms have qualifiers (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104440)

Similarly, the government shouldn't suppress people's ability to express their political opinions but they can and should restrict people's communications when it comes to planning crimes that cause harm to other people, such as openly planning violent riots.

Ah, I see you've spent too much time watching Minority Report. Planning is irrelevant - only the act of doing matters. Just like I can plan to go ask out the hot blonde at the bar for months but it doesn't mean jack if I don't actually DO it.

There isn't really a question of where to draw the line - you wait until someone actually commits a crime, then you either A) stop them in progress or B) punish / kill them after the fact. You cannot arrest someone for something that hasn't happened yet.

Re:Hyperbole (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104446)

In warfare, preventing your enemies from communicating amongst themselves is desirable for a winning strategy. Imagine if it was impossible for al-qaeda to communicate with each other all throughout the 90's. 9/11 would never have happened.

A crude example, I know, but it goes to demonstrate that there is some legitimacy in preventing hostile communication.

Re:Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104474)

Hostile communication? Are you suggesting that the government is at war with the British people?

Re:Hyperbole (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104664)

Hostile communication? Are you suggesting that the government is at war with the British people?

Yes. As, these days. almost any government with the citizens of their state.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104020)

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right.

It's like assurances that your teacher wears a condom at all times when they teach. The mere presence of the "qualifier" indicates something has gone wrong. The government of England has no business spending more than 30 seconds considering these actions.

Re:Hyperbole (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104366)

And even those 30 seconds can be spent a lot better.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104134)

The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was [zeropaid.com]

Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior. We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

Jesus was tried and crucified as a criminal, too. The definition of a "criminal" varies from country to country. Don't you think the protesters in Iran weren't labeled as "criminal", too? Or the people who toppled the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia? The guys in China's KP probably can't stop laughing - with talk like this, Western political "leaders" reveal their calls for human rights in China and elsewhere as what they really are: soapbox speeches. Granted, the riots in UK didn't have a political dimension. It was "just" people who wanted to own a large plasma or LCD TV, and iPad or designer-clothes but couldn't afford any of these. But it's a slippery road and no one who actually believes in democracy and the right to protest should ever feel compared to go down that road!

Re:Hyperbole (1)

John Allsup (987) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104414)

In the European Convention, as I read it, rights to not extend to the extent that they seriously impinge upon the rights of others. I am just asking JustAnswer about my rights. What we need in the decision process is accountability: everybody who makes a decision or interpretation of weight should write down their decision or interpretation and sign it and the trail of authority should be available for inspection under Freedom of Information laws.

Re:Hyperbole (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104432)

... to look at whether it would be righ ... t

translates to: exploring possibilities to bend the current legal system in order to implement what is seen fit

violence, disorder and criminality

translates to: any situation that (seriously) endangers the steadily growing flow of (financial) resources from top to bottom

Or would you (publicly, here, on slashdot) state that you believe what a politician says? (Remeber: How do you realize that a politician is lying ? -- His/her lips are moving).

CC.

Re:Hyperbole (2)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104668)

Translation for the political speech impaired:

They're looking at whether it would be right.

Meaning: we've decided to do it and are looking at a way to have the bill pass; trust us we're good at that. If all else fail there's always the good ol' and very effective "think of the children" card to play.

They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

Meaning: we'll spy on and block each and every communication we don't like and throw you in jail for it, preventively. Then you'll enjoy working your way through the courts to challenge the administrative decision.

Re:+1 (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104162)

You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.

That would be succeeding in communism not fascism.

The 'Standard & Poors of Fascism' would probably be the USA; A fascist state can be democratic, its defining feature is putting the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of its people. I think that describes modern America, yes?

China is COMMUNIST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104188)

You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.

You might want to look up the differences b/w Communism & Fascism. China's been Communist since 1949, and that's never changed. Just because they introduced government sanctioned slave labor for foreign companies wanting to make a quick buck doesn't make them Fascistic - the Communist Party still runs things everywhere.

I know that the bulk of /. posters are Leftists, and a good number of them Communists as well, but just because they disagree w/ China doesn't make the Chinese government something other than Communist. Also, as others pointed out in this thread, they are probably using the British example to use as a tu quoque argument the next time the subject of human rights in China is raised, particularly if raised by the Brits.

It's also noteworthy that what the British government is actually doing doesn't come even close to what the pro-anarchists on /. are alleging. Also, as cappp pointed out, the PM did specify into looking @ whether such restrictions should be imposed when it's known that they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

Yeah, regimes like China and Syria too use similar language to rationalize their crackdown on the internet. Only that while Britain is considering such moves to prevent actual thugs from running amuck, China uses it to suppress people who want freedom of expression, or freedom for Tibet, while Syria uses it to crack down on their Sunni Muslim majority and prevent them from massacring their Alawite and other non-Sunni population by massacring them instead. Only retards like those on /. would draw a moral equivalence b/w a Western democracy on one hand, and a Communist or quasi-Islamic dictatorship on the other.

Re:China is COMMUNIST (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104382)

China has called itself Communist since 1949, but like most "Communist" countries, it hasn't really BEEN communist for most of that time.

Re:China is COMMUNIST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104392)

What?
China is hardly communist in this day and age. China has picked the worst part of totalitarian communism and combined it with the worst parts of capitalism.

I agree though how the word "fascism" is most often wrongly used as a substitute for "authoritarian", "totalitarian", "oppressive" and "absence of individualism", even though these words are more accurate and not as specific/wide as fascism.

However, I'd never call either China, Cuba, Soviet Union, Nort Korea or any other "fascist" state "communist".

Anonymous Coward for two reasons, one is I'm at work, the other is the same reason why I'm wearing a tin-foil hat :)

Re:+1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104580)

Just because a bunch of assholes do something, doesn't make anyone doing that also an asshole.

But. Yes. In this situation yes. Not always though! Don't fall into that trap!

now you know (2)

Jasoman (1974176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103796)

Now the UK should know there doing something wrong when China Praises you for anything.

Re:now you know (1)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103948)

I think Syria said they approved of Cameron's plans to place controls on social media too.

There was this great dream that somehow opening up closed, dictatorial societies like China and the countries in the Middle East to free flows of capital would inevitably lead to the spread of democracy. What's actually happened is that rather than freedom flowing to them, corruption and authoritarianism is flowing from them.

Re:now you know (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104410)

You have to admit, corruption has been here before already, it's not like we had to learn anything there. What changed maybe is that nobody bothers to hide it anymore. What for, people don't really care anymore anyway.

Well, not like they had a choice.

Re:now you know (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104464)

Just like when multiple dictators (such as Chavez) praised the US when Obama was elected. When murdering tyrants support your decisions, you're doing it wrong.

Like slavery... (5, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103798)

Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.

Re:Like slavery... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37103860)

Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.

That's a true position according to the laws of discussion. But the main point, IMHO, is that UK government was humiliated by this comparison, and frankly, they deserved it.

Re:Like slavery... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104102)

But it does prevent others from criticizing you. Which, sadly, seems to be good enough for a lot of people.

Re:Like slavery... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104144)

I don't think anything prevents them from criticizing them (even if they are "hypocrites).

Re:Like slavery... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104184)

How on earth could you get the idea that it would do that?
Did you even realize that what we are doing *right now*, is criticizing it, and hence your very own comment invalidates your argument?
*facepalm*. Seriously.

Re:Like slavery... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104286)

That's exactly what it does. What's "legit" and what isn't is defined by how many people don't accept it.

Slavery is a good example - others include religion, vegetarianism, abortion, circumcision, pistol duels, sex orgies, dogging, human hunting.. these are all frowned upon/accepted/ liked by their respective parties with an interest.

If not enough people get into a group to appose then it becomes legit - no matter what it is.

Soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37103808)

...they're going to be making looters in the UK pay for their own bullet.

Re:Soon (2)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104056)

And why shouldn't they? My dry cleaners son got the hell beaten out of him because some looters wanted to steal their commercial sewing machine. What, did the looter want to be considerate and grab something for his mum? We had an incident right on our doorstep that didn't make the news here in London where a middle aged gent didn't want his wheelie bin stolen to be used by the looters to transport their ill gotten goods, so he went out and told them not to take it. Their response? They stabbed him. He's in hospital in intensive care right now and may not live.

So make the bastards pay for their own bullet? Absolutely.

Incidently, Looter != Protester

2 days of Looting happened before the government was confident to make the decision that it was Looting, rather than a protest against the police shooting a guy who pulled a gun on them. Tottenham burned on the Saturday, and the police thought it was an unfortunate situation where a protest got out of hand.

I have lived in several countries, and I can definitely say that even with all the cameras etc, the UK is more considerate of human rights and people's freedom than the good ol' US of A.

If anything, the police here are hamstrung by the law, and it should be loosened somewhat to let them do their job.

Re:Soon (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104496)

Sorry to hear about your friends - hopefully they recover. That is exactly why it pains me to see the anti-gun mentality of the UK - so much of this could've easily been prevented (or rapidly stopped) if citizens and shop owners could have used guns to deter or fight back against the thieves.

Re:Soon (1)

errhuman (2226852) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104734)

You're argument is deeply flawed. Guns could've quite easily made things worse by the same people being stupid enough to loot also being stupid enough to shoot people without good reason. How many people were injured/killed in the New Orleans flooding during the looting?

You are not helping! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37103818)

In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!

Seriously, how far down the road are you when you get that kind of support from China.
Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.

From Australia (3, Insightful)

GoochOwnsYou (1343661) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103882)

In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!

Oh the Nazi's would have loved our immigration politics over the last decade or so.

Re:You are not helping! (3, Insightful)

jbernardo (1014507) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103884)

Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.

More likely, North Korea praises your criminal retributions law, expelling families from their homes because one of their members is accused (not convicted) of participating in the riots - http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/13/england-riots-coalition-response?cat=politics&type=article [guardian.co.uk] .

Future management of the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37103832)

Manage the future internet all you want, if it gets so bad as to become entirely useless, a replacement will come along.

Either that or we'll pester the EFF to hire terrorist cells to dismantle the government. Hey there's an idea...

Thats not good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37103864)

I hear the approval of Chinese officials like the wheeze of Darth Sidious: yeeeeesssssss

Re:Thats not good (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104436)

I can actually hear Palpatine: Good! Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take North Korea's place at my side!

thank you Mr. Cameron (2, Insightful)

buglista (1967502) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103892)

Just like the War against Terror allowed everyone to justify punitive actions against their own "internal terrorists", like in Chechnya, and more recently Syria. Great - thanks a bunch Mr. Cameron. Next time, think before you open your mouth, please.

Re:thank you Mr. Cameron (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104606)

Terrorists, dissidents... the names and countries change, the effect is pretty similar.

The Onion? (5, Funny)

Ironix (165274) | more than 3 years ago | (#37103954)

When I first read this headline I could have sworn it was an Onion article.

Re:The Onion? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104322)

The whole riot can be summed up with a page from "Our Dumb Century" describing the Rodney King riots in LA, "Rioters demand justice, tape decks"

this is just the begining... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37103986)

london was a joke.. kids stealing consumer-bullshit they couldn't afford...

i am still waiting for the germans to really lose it... for example over the eurobonds they're forcing on them right now... that is like a treaty of versailles that forces them to burn their german euro's... there is 60+ years of anger in the german mind over living in a parliamental dictatorship that claims it has to be that way because they still have so many nazi-genes in them that even something like a referendum on the federal level is verboten... xD

you might like that political experiment called europe... having a single currency... buying things in the US for small money...

but when the germans, finally, get angry.. europe will be over...

i tell you.. the germans.. they're 90 million in a small country... and they're already fucking angry... when they lose it.. it will be the beginning of the end.. or else they will have to pay for everything their and other european goverments have done wrong...

lets hope they go for peaceful protests instead of voting nazis and let them do the cleanup...

Re:this is just the begining... (2, Insightful)

samjam (256347) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104114)

The single currency is a german experiment, no-one else has an inherent desire for it, only a partial inclination as they are sold the benefits by the german financial controllers.

The rest of europe knows that german government has not given up on the idea of german control of europe, but since they lost the war they have to resort to other means.

It's still not working. Jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war but europeans don't actually want to be that unified.

I've no beef against germans or germany - if they want to unify europe, they are going the right way about it this time, but it won't work I think - but they are allowed to try, and good luck with the idea - but I don't support it, never did, and it isn't working.

Its probably the best idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104578)

If you think about it, Germans would run the continent better than most of the continent runs themselves.

Re:Its probably the best idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104656)

Better is subjective. Can you imagine the Germans really controlling Ireland/Scotland? Germanics are pretty much helpless in the face of Celtic utter disrespect and scorn for rules, I've seen it first-hand. Show a German a sign saying "keep off the grass", and they'll probably keep off the grass. Show an Irish person the sign, and they'll set fire to your beard because it's tuesday. Don't have a beard? Don't worry, your girlfriend probably likes marshmallows anyway.

Re:this is just the begining... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104646)

Europe has too much of a history to be easily united. Too many centuries old animosities, too many things happened and are still happening to overcome them easily. The worst part is that in the EU parliament, everyone's trying to grab the biggest piece of the cake for his or her country instead of trying to find out what they could accomplish united, against the rest of the world (economically, not militarily). Europe could have a very, very strong economy, there are some of the strongest economies of the planet in the EU.

The rest of the world should probably be happy that they're too busy bickering with each other than to find out what market to take over together.

Re:this is just the begining... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104630)

You ARE aware that Germany is one of the big proponents of the Euro and the whole "European Union" thing, yes? And that they are relying to a very major portion of their foreign trade on the rest of Europe? The very last thing Germany would do right now is to sever ties with the rest of the continent, that would probably be economic suicide.

Germany is one of the big payers right now, that much is correct. Odd, it seems, that Merkel was one of the biggest proponents when the question arose whether Greece should be propped up. It MIGHT have to do with Greece being one of the biggest customers for their submarines, amongst other things. Frankly, the very last thing Germany could possibly use right now is a failing Euro and/or a separation from the rest of Europe.

What's true, though, is that the population of Germany is quite unhappy with the general situation. Unemployment is rising, especially in some areas of the former GDR. But barring a forceful change, nothing will move Germany out of the EU.

prom dresses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104012)

Most people would agree that short dresses 2011 represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old short prom dresses stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic plus size prom dresses so that contemporary needs can be served."

If quinceanera dresses [promdresse...sale.co.uk] , which represent a valuable record of the society's past, stand on ground that can be better used for modern purposes, whether will you give precedence to modern development over the preservation of historic building short prom dresses in order to serve the contemporary needs or preserve the historic short red prom dresses rather than destroy them? In my view, we should not decide to preserve those historic prom dresses 2011 in some way or not until we really realize the significance of those short dresses 2011 and those modern purposes!In some countries, for example, China, some Quinceanera dresses [promdresse...sale.co.uk] are very important either in its histoty or in its culture, such as the famous Forbidden City. Although the Forbidden City occupy a lot of space in the central of Beijing, where the price of land is far more expensive than any other places in China, the government will not sell it for contemporary needs such as the shortage of the state's income, because the Forbidden City's special place in Chinese history and culture! Another example is the Liberty Statues, which is viewed as the symbol of America! If somebody want to buy it when America fall in a condition like the great depression, I think the majority of American disagree with the dealing! The reason why the majority does like this is that unique place of Liberty Statues in American history, culture and their heart!However, we will not preserve the historic prom dresses uk [promdresse...sale.co.uk] at some occasions such as in the wartime! In the Second World War, many old historic castles in England is occupied as office, hospital, arsenal and so forth! Because of this, some castles were damaged and can not be restored! Compared with the damage of those castles, the success of the war and the survival of those people were much more significant! Therefore, nobody was reluctant to use the old historic castle for those contemporary needs. San Xia Dam in China is another instance to support this. Though the construction of San Xia Dam will destroy many famous old prom dressess [promdresse...sale.co.uk] in China, Chinese government approved it at last some years ago! It is because if the dam is completely built, it can help to protect many provinces beside YangtzRiver from the flood! Sometimes, the contemporary needs seem very important and urgent but in fact it's not or is important and urgent just at that time. And at some time, the need is so important and urgent that we have to meet it, but it doesn't mean that we have to damage the historic building. We can move the building to another place!In sum, whether we should give precedence to modern development over historic building is conditionally! We should make sure that which is more important, the contemporary needs or the historic building before we make the decision!

China has Balls (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104044)

As time goes on, more and more I get the feeling China realizes the absurdity of the world and wants to exploit it to their own gain. It takes some serious gall to go and embarrass your rival by associating them with yourself, but China just managed an astounding success at it.

Re:China has Balls (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104074)

Thankfully, there's a vast disconnect between the CCP and the average Chinese citizen. The government has much more to fear from its own people than the rest of the world. That is a good thing!

We will all be held accountable. Your fellow citizens will demand it.

Re:China has Balls (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104660)

I think you're right. That's more a message to their own people rather than any western government. Kinda like "See, they do it too. And if you think the free world's so much better than our system, you should now notice that what we do is good since they do it too".

Cameron needs to go back to democracy school (2)

Kristian T. (3958) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104060)

I'm shocked that any western leader would not know by heart, that censorship is a no no. And is't barely 6 months Egypt's dictator was lamented for doing the exact same thing.

I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either. This reminds me of when Bush's war on terror gave Putin an excuse to wage his own war on terror in Chechnya.

When will our leaders learn that merely being elected doesn't make you an automatic "Good Guy" in the eyes of the world.

- in related news, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parises Cameron's commitment to uphold law and order (by any means).

Re:Cameron needs to go back to democracy school (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104072)

I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either.

I think you're wrong in assuming that wasn't their goal from the outset. This is a PR nightmare for the Conservatives, and one I have a hard time believing the Chinese didn't foresee. They're a whole lot smarter than they let on.

Re:Cameron needs to go back to democracy school (1)

Kristian T. (3958) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104156)

Maybe - but by doing it so early in the process, they're giving Cameron a chance to back away towards the moral high ground. A wiser cause of action would be to let him entangle himself in legeslation and then wait for the right moment to play the card.

Re:Cameron needs to go back to democracy school (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104666)

I doubt the CCP gives half a shit about Cameron. This is a self-serving statement. Domestically, it should demonstrate that the "free" world isn't better than China, there's no difference, they do the same. Externally, it should be something like "Pot? Calling me black?"

Totalitarianism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104110)

I've thought for about 15 years now that the major distinction between China and western democracies is that the China is much more overt in their totalitarianism. Western democracies seem to be getting more overt (e.g. internet filters, national security letters, the TSA) as time goes on.

Re:Totalitarianism (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104672)

They do it openly and bluntly. We do it secretly and sneakily.

I dunno, I'd prefer the former. At least people would more easily know how they're being imprisoned.

Perfect theme for Slashdot (2)

bursch-X (458146) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104168)

China welcomes our new censorship overlords!

faiLzors6.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104228)

was after a long my efforts were feel an obligation incompatibilities FrreBSD used to Win out; either the BSD has always INCLUDES WHERE YOU

Why censor social when you can censor networks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104244)

Didn't S.F. just demonstrate this?

Oh come on... (2)

radio4fan (304271) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104380)

Cameron has no intention of following through with this: he's just playing up to the hard-of-thinking Daily Mail-reading reactionaries. Any such law would be smacked down by Strasbourg immediately.

Just as he had no intention of using rubber bullets or water cannon on looters, nor any intention of bringing back hanging.

The man is a despicable mountebank of the lowest order.

I despair for UK politics: the Labour party has been eviscerated by its own class enemy, the Liberal party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, and the Tory party has nothing to offer but greenwash and moronic rabble-rousing.

Now it's just a case of voting for your lizard to stop the wrong lizard getting in.

"You know your worth..." (1)

nausicaa (461792) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104468)

"... when your enemies praise your architecture of aggression"

Groupthink (2)

fondacio (835785) | more than 3 years ago | (#37104498)

Did anyone notice the unintended irony of the word "groupthink" in the Global Times article?

The economic and social turmoil in the US, Britain and France might trigger a worldwide groupthink and introspection on the boundaries of democracy and freedom of speech.

national anthem change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104594)

instead of ohhh canada, lets start that with OHHHHH china

Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37104708)

Idiot reporter or idiotic china, they said the other day they are no doing this so yeah shut up

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?