×

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 Detains Internet Users For Spreading Rumors

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the we-heard-you-like-jail dept.

China 89

alphadogg writes "Chinese authorities have started to detain Internet users for allegedly spreading online rumors, in its latest measure to control the country's social media sites. China's State Internet Information Office said it determined several online Internet rumors were fabricated, and instructed relevant departments to prosecute the offenders, according to a Tuesday report from China's state-run press agency Xinhua. The so-called rumors include a case where a user spread alleged misinformation about income tax provisions by forging state documents. The user was detained for 15 days. In another case, a Chinese college student from the province of Yunnan was detained after spreading what the government called a rumor on blogs and forums, about an incident where a man killed eight officials in his village. The 'rumor' had said the man killed the officials because of pollution generated from a cement factory."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

89 comments

Finally! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37848838)

Send that chain letter and I'll send you to jail!

Re:Finally! (1, Offtopic)

cornface (900179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849112)

The punishment for not sending it is far worse. Why, one woman in Ohio failed to send the letter and was later murdered in her sleep by a ghost.

Rumor (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849768)

Be glad that you are not in China to be detained for this Rumor!

Really, there's a thin line between humor and rumor.

Re:Rumor (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852114)

Sadly as the world heats and as human attention is focused elsewhere there will reach a point at which the distinction will be irrelevant. Humans probably only have 100-300 years to do this to themselves and then their cooked.

Re:Finally! (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852098)

This would the ultimate irony if the Chinese spend the money they have made off of Americans by enslaving their citizens and paying their police and information ministers in an effort to do so. Let us hope that somewhere we can find wisdom.

Re:Finally! (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#37861686)

That's it. We'll send fortune cookies full of wisdom. Communist officials will soon recant their ways, hold hands and sing "Kum Ba Yah".

Just try to think of China as a REAL LARGE corporation, a business, with subsidiaries (Korea,N.Vietnam,etc.),stockholders( party members), management (authority figures) and flunky workers (Ten Jillion Chinese), then your perspective will make more sense every time you hear about their evil ways. It's for the profit, f**k the environment, the populace and any other country who disagrees with your very VERY lucrative business model. Just Lie! It's worked all this time. What information is good for the people can be fed to the world who doesn't dare embargo for fear of the loss of all the plastic crap exported to Wal~Mart and other outlets.

          I hope their communist balls fall off, just from the vibe of the rest of the world.

One rumor (3, Funny)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848844)

One rumor was that China would detain Internet users for spreading rumors.

Re:One rumor (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848888)

I heard that was just a rumor that it was a rumor.

Re:One rumor (1, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848972)

Hey, bro, I heard you liked rumors, so here's a rumor about rumors about rumors.

or something like that.

Re:One rumor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849248)

It's not a rumor! (arnold voice)

Re:One rumor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849552)

Shouldn't that be "Yo, Dawg!"?

Re:One rumor (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852134)

Sounds as if you now face two counts. Lets hope that as the Yuan rises and absorbs a greater and greater share of the World GDP that they won't use the money to invest in the US private prison industry. No doubt there are many on Wall Street, who are prepared to trade on the prospect of broad exchange of cultural values, to facilitate a Chinese entry into our markets. After all without rumor, you can't really run a business. One has to create a brand. Its important that we all understand what that will be..

Re:One rumor (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850724)

One rumor was that China would detain Internet users for spreading rumors.

An axiom, not a rumor, the tighter you hold onto something, the greater the chance of losing it.
It is better to hold something with an open hand.

USA soon too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37848846)

If Protect-IP or E-PARASITES as it's called now passes, it will be the same in the USA.

Great Firewall of America as techdirt calls it.

Gasp! (2, Funny)

catbertscousin (770186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848866)

Someone posted a rumor on the internet! This cannot be allowed to continue!

Re:Gasp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37852244)

how do we KNOW that someone posted a rumor? how do we KNOW that anything posted is not actually TRUE? the only rumor is that there are definitely rumors being spread.

Re:Gasp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37853062)

Forging state documents doesn't seem to be a trivial matter. That it was regarding income tax provisions says that this was likely not satire but a calculated action. If it was designed to stir poltiical opposition on false premises, it does not surprise me that a govt as prone to censorship as china's would take some action. I'd expect that to stir up some trouble in the US, even.

irony (1, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848932)

while in USA the more and more oppressive government managed to destroy free market, in China the free market is just maybe managing to destroy the totalitarian government.

Re:irony (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849364)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that despite the ravings of TV pundits, the US is more free than China will ever be, market included. Also, I'm pretty sure this story was about the government crushing dissent and winning, and not at all about free marking bringing down the government. Mods, put out that flame.

Re:irony (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849918)

You are wrong. You are wrong de-facto, as China attracts more and more investment capital and talent (the same way USA used to back in 19 and beginning of 20th centuries) and USA is losing it.

Most of the productive capacity added in the last decade was in China, while US was losing of its own. This speaks volumes, much more than I can say here by that fact itself.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850214)

You: Rawr, USA more oppressive, China being crushed by free market
MetalliQaZ: Uhh, this story is about China bringing down dissenters
You: Rawr, free market stuff.

Your point: you haven't made it.

Re:irony (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 2 years ago | (#37854840)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that despite the ravings of TV pundits, the US is more free than China will ever be, market included.

You are wrong. You are wrong de-facto, as China attracts more and more investment capital and talent (the same way USA used to back in 19 and beginning of 20th centuries) and USA is losing it.

Why would you correlate increased corporate activity with more freedom? It seems to me that the opposite is true. Especially in China, where corporations willingly help the government impose their totalitarian policies.

Re:irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849366)

This is the problem with the slippery slope argument.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849610)

while in USA the more and more oppressive government managed to destroy free market,

I didn't realize that I was living a post-apocalypse America where the free market has been destroyed. The average Republican seeming has much in common with Chicken Little.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850370)

Or, in the US rule breaking was so widespread that it destroyed the free market. That is what you meant

Re:irony (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850390)

In USA, big business controls the government.

In China, the government controls big business.

Neither country has free market (if you look at the big picture), but USA is definitely way closer to it than China.

To get this in perspective, in China, economic crimes such as tax evasion or fraud, and even things that we would consider far less notable than that, can (and sometimes do) result in a death sentence. One recent case [economist.com].

Re:irony (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850710)

In USA the government usurped power from the people, created all sorts of unelected offices and departments, which created tens and hundreds of thousands of various rules and government uses these to make money by selling special privileges to avoid the rules.

In China government allows free market as long as there is no political competition and all of the investment capital and businesses came there and created all of these companies, built all of these factories and various infrastructures, and now this stuff is making Chinese wealthy enough that they are questioning the legitimacy of government and gov't doesn't like it.

Neither country as free market, but China actually has the closest thing to free market, which is by de-facto the case (all of the investments and production capacity) and the government problem itself (it's now in a dilemma, all of this productivity made the Chinese too independent and difficult to control by centralized gov't system.)

USA is nowhere near free market, China is much closer to the idea of free market, similar where USA was in 19 century and before 1913.

The death sentence is all creepy and stuff, but this doesn't mean there is no free market, just the punishment for what they can catch you on is pretty severe.

Re:irony (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850940)

Are you seriously saying that China is closer to the "libertarian paradise" than USA?

similar where USA was in 19 century and before 1913.

And that sure was a great place to live in, right?

Re:irony (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852394)

similar where USA was in 19 century and before 1913.

You can tell by this number that you are talking to a Federal Reserve hater, who thinks the worst thing in the American economy is the federal reserve.

But even if he's right about that, he's still wrong compared to China, because the market manipulations the Fed makes is small compared to the manipulations the Chinese government makes. It isn't without reason that people want to label them 'currency manipulators.'

Re:irony (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852502)

Or he could be referring to income taxes. There were all kinds of government expansions during that period. Even Prohibition, the start of the war on drugs, began not too long after. Whether you believe that laissez-faire is good or bad we lost any claim to it early in the 20th century.

Re:irony (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852532)

Could be. But my experience is that people who mention the year 1913 by date are invariably Federal Reserve nuts.

Re:irony (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37854052)

Everything. Federal reserve, income taxes, prohibition (because in reality income taxes and prohibition are closely related, as prior to income taxes introduction, 50% of gov't funding was coming from so called 'saloon tax' - alcohol sales.) You can thank the feminist anti-saloon movement for ensuring that gov't started with the income taxes as well, by the way.

Re:irony (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37856184)

, 50% of gov't funding was coming from so called 'saloon tax'

Wow that sounds like such a free market. :/ Come on man, crony capitalism was huge before 1913. As a starting point, think of Boss Tweed. And that's just the surface.

Re:irony (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852174)

" created all sorts of unelected offices and departments"

So the government sets out to save from destruction the environment of the planet upon which we depend for survival for and yet create and manage energy resources that the economy functioning. You think that problem is going to be so simple that it won't require lots of administrators and their staffs to actually make happen, or are we to just let that last shred of the natural world that keeps our environment healthy from pathogens and the predations of men not wise enough, too greedy, or too desperate to notice that they had stolen their own futures?

Re:irony (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37854228)

The government sets out to do what? Gov't doesn't do what you think it does, it doesn't at all do what you think it does and it doesn't at all have the ideals that you think it should.

Also no poor nation cares about its environment, when a nation is poor, the people in it are only concerned with what they will eat tomorrow, not how to make their environment more pleasant or clean, etc. It is absolutely necessary that the nation becomes very very wealth before it can ever start thinking about such secondary things as what comes tomorrow when environment is hurt.

Also gov't is in fact doing everything it can to ruin the environment as opposed to what you believe, because all the offices set all these rules to make sure that only those companies, who pay for the privilege can get access to those resources. When BP spilled the oil in Gulf of Mexico it did so because it had gov't assurances on one hand, that any liability above 70 Million USD will be covered and on the other it couldn't drill in less deep waters due to gov't regulations. This is just another case of collective schizophrenia, designed to make it look nice for the public, get it out of the eye sight, don't let it be an eye sore, who cares about the consequences.

Gov't owns all these lands, which is wrong, because gov't can't own anything, can't price anything, can't figure out what risk is. So it allows companies to do mining, like coal mining in the so called 'public' spaces, so the company doesn't have to pay for the place, it doesn't have to buy it, it doesn't have to pay rent or royalties, and even whatever royalties it does pay are not market set (so they are definitely wrong and likely to the low side.)

However because the land is 'public' and company didn't buy it and doesn't have to sell it, it just destroys it. That's what mountain strip mining is - they destroy the mountains, drop the rocks into valleys/lakes/rivers/forests, destroy those lands, don't have to sell those lands, don't have to be responsible to a real owner about any of the damage, and you think that gov't 'sets out to save .... environment of the planet'.

Which planet do you come from that you don't know simple things? Gov't is not there to help you, it exists just to occupy the power-vacuum and politicians go there to get rich, not to do anything closely related to actual 'sacrifice' (as it used to be in USA at first).

As to administrators - that's right. We don't need gov't regulations because markets regulate much better.

If you don't buy a product and many people don't buy it, the company goes bust. If you buy a product and many other individuals do, the company makes profit and you get a nice product you like.

You think gov't is full of wise man who will do something to help you and it's not full of greedy people who are just NOT smart enough to do this in private business, but ARE smart enough to figure out how to steal it without work?

How old are you?

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37854392)

You think gov't is full of wise man who will do something to help you and it's not full of greedy people who are just NOT smart enough to do this in private business, but ARE smart enough to figure out how to steal it without work?

I think the person who manages to get something without work is a lot smarter than the person who has to work to get anything.

Think of it in terms of profit. To maximize profit, you either raise revenue or reduce cost. The person getting something for free has a lower cost (of labor) than the person suckered into working. Ergo, person getting a free ride is smarter.

Re:irony (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37854482)

No, the person doesn't have to be smarter to be able to profit massively in a system that is basically designed to be corrupt.

The people who are in government are mostly massively incompetent in almost anything, but they are still competent at selling power, and in reality that's a product that's EASY TO SELL. They don't have to go and sell it :) Lobbyists come to them with the money, it's hard not to make massive amounts of money even if you are as dumb as a bush.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37854606)

I didn't say a person has to be smarter to profit from the system

I'm saying the person who choose to make use of the system is smarter than the person who didn't.

Incompetent? Sure why not, but they would be RICH and incompetent, and having it easy, while you are poor (or not so rich) and having to work hard

They are smart
You are a sucker

Re:irony (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37854838)

Politicians also have to be connected, it's not easy to be elected in the first place, so there is something there, they are not the dumbest of the dumb.

But they also don't end up building profitable companies and they don't end up with hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, so they are clearly not as smart as many businessmen, but they are much lazier.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37855186)

Actually, the fact they don't build profitable businesses makes politicians smarter

See, they realize that they don't even have to do all that work to be able to accumulate wealth and live comfortably. No, it's not hundreds of millions, but it's still more than enough

Of course, for all the money they don't have, the politicians more than make up for it in the power. Power which they can sell easily like you said if they ever want more money... and then make even more money on the threat of taking power back (making money both ways: very smart, also a basis of "copyright" law which is making money for each and every copy of the same damn thing... businessman couldn't have come up with something like that)

Oh, another thing politicians are much smarter than businessmen: shifting blame. People are protesting in Wall Street, not Washington :)

Re:irony (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37857064)

Maybe everybody should be a politician then?

People actually do things not just because of money but because they like to create something. Businesses are always innovating in some ways, trying to make the work cheaper, make the product more attractive, find a way to get more of the market and set the right price. It is a lot of creative work.

AFAIC an average businessman millionaire is NOT paid enough for all the work they do, but an average politician is definitely overpaid, so I can't argue that they are not smart about making their money that way. But top politicians can't compare to top businessman in anything.

However if the politician is a dictator, then it's a completely different story. Sure, in a dictatorship the top guy is the richest and most powerful.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37858888)

Maybe everybody should be a politician then?

Only if everybody can be equally smart, but we know that's not gonna happen, especially not with the smartest people - politicians - doing their very best to keep other people down (why do you think government has their hands all over education? ;p)

People actually do things not just because of money but because they like to create something.

Yes they do (another reason why not everybody will be politicians). Doesn't change the fact there will be people who will end up being politicians, and exploit everyone else. To politicians, there's always one born every minute.

AFAIC an average businessman millionaire is NOT paid enough for all the work they do, but an average politician is definitely overpaid,

More proof that politicians are smarter than businessmen.

so I can't argue that they are not smart about making their money that way. But top politicians can't compare to top businessman in anything.

Of course you can't, because by the time you reach the top, they're one and the same anyway. When you're powerful enough as a politician, you get to regulate businesses as if you're running the business. When you're powerful enough as a businessman, you control so much production you can bribe/influence government

Re:irony (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37860410)

Only if everybody can be equally smart

- oh, so if everybody was equally smart, then everybody would be a politician?

1. Nobody would be eating.
2. Not every smart person wants to be a politician, as I said - plenty of smart people are interested in things that they ultimately build businesses out of, but their interests may have been other than just making the most money. Maybe making the most money is only a consequence of an interesting hobby somebody has that he finds a way to monetize eventually.

More proof that politicians are smarter than businessmen.

- no it doesn't, not when you look at absolute numbers.

A businessman making 2-10 million a year is better off than a politician who is making maybe 500K-2million a year based on bribes and such, so sure, the millionaire is underpaid, but he is still making more money in dollar amounts while the government worker is overpaid (and belongs in jail likely for all the things he does), but in dollar amounts he is on a different scale.

Of course you can't, because by the time you reach the top, they're one and the same anyway.

- Steve Jobs was running his company but he wasn't running governments, though surely he was making some deals in the process of running his company, probably deals concerning things like tax breaks.

I don't agree that politicians are smarter than businessmen in general, I agree that there are some very smart politicians, but then there are some very smart businessmen.

But my point is that I would rather see smart people in private sector using their intelligence and productivity improving everybody's quality of life by building good products at attractive prices to compete and make money rather than having all these lawyers (most politicians are), come up with more laws so they can sell more privileges, sell more access and make money basically by stealing from all sides and destroying the economy in the process.

However politicians are definitely good at shifting the blame (until they are killed by the crowds, like what we just saw in Libya.)

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37867590)

- oh, so if everybody was equally smart, then everybody would be a politician?

1. Nobody would be eating.

Yes, everybody would be a politician, but they won't necessarily starve. For example, we may reach a point of developing machines that can do all the work (literally ALL the work, so there's nothing left for humans to do), then everybody could become politicians while still having food to eat. Politics will involve who gets to "own" or control the machines and direct the machine's output

Of course, such a scenario is highly improbable, as is the scenario where everybody becoming equally smart.

2. Not every smart person wants to be a politician, as I said - plenty of smart people are interested in things that they ultimately build businesses out of, but their interests may have been other than just making the most money. Maybe making the most money is only a consequence of an interesting hobby somebody has that he finds a way to monetize eventually.

And as I said, that's more reason that the current situation (where a good number of smart people become politicians instead of businessmen) will continue on

As long as there are smart people who want to work, there are smart people who don't want to work, and instead use their smarts towards getting the most out of other people's work

- no it doesn't, not when you look at absolute numbers.

Actually, it's still true even if you look at absolute numbers, because there's more than one number to look at.

Think of it this way: you make widgets as a businessman. It costs you $10 to make them and many work hours, and in the end you make $10 million profit

I'm a politician making NOTHING. My cost is $0, I have 0 "work" hours because I'm not producing anything (I'm not "working"), but I'm still making $1 million profit

If you look at just profit you can claim you did better.

But if you look at profit over cost or work hours? You're back down to my $1 million, while I would be dividing by zero

- Steve Jobs was running his company but he wasn't running governments, though surely he was making some deals in the process of running his company, probably deals concerning things like tax breaks.

Sure Jobs doesn't run government, but I said top businessman could bribe and influence government, not that they have to run the government themselves. A few lobbyists here, a few bribes there, some campaign contributions... and voila! US government.

But my point is that I would rather see smart people in private sector ... rather than having all these lawyers (most politicians are)

And my point is as much as you'd like that to happen, it's not gonna happen any time soon, as it is the smarter thing to be a lawyer/politician than a businessman.

However politicians are definitely good at shifting the blame (until they are killed by the crowds, like what we just saw in Libya.)

Yea, AFTER Gaddafi spent a good 30 of his life living in relative prosperity. 69 isn't the oldest age, but still better than a lot of people (i.e. better than the poor people who starved under his rule). Ditto with other overthrown dictators: they may meet horrible ends, but before that end they got to live as kings, usually for far longer than the time they had to endure suffering.

Meanwhile, US politicians will probably not meet similar ends anytime soon... not when they're so successful at turning the American people against each other (the whole left vs right, rich vs poor, "Wall Street" vs "lazy students who won't find a job)

Re:irony (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852382)

This is a misconception. If you are in a Chinese Special Economic Zone, you might be right, but even there you are limited by the focus on attracting foreign capital. China still has cities that are fully communist, after all.

They call it rumors... (1, Offtopic)

ericloewe (2129490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848942)

...but how do people know they're just rumors? Even is they *are* rumors, they're just giving them credibility and worsening their image. That said, forging state documents should be punished, at least to scare him and keep him from doing it again.

Re:They call it rumors... (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849478)

Indeed. At what point do interesting stories and allegory turn into rumor?

Re:They call it rumors... (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852202)

When everyone is too fearful to say anything ever. At that point a stable equilibrium is reached given the total absence of communication of any kind. Civilization as we have known it will cease.

Retaliation is called for (0)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848944)

The USA should declare all Chinese outbound internet traffic to be a "rumor" and ban it immediately.

Re:Retaliation is called for (0)

ericloewe (2129490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849056)

But we can't because we're "politically correct" and hope that by giving the example, others will follow. So far it doesn't seem to be working.

Re:Retaliation is called for (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849494)

I already do this for my server.

Sorry, China. Your people have no need to be accessing my resources, so they won't be.

Re:Retaliation is called for (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849816)

I already do this for my server.

Sorry, China. Your people have no need to be accessing my resources, so they won't be.

No problem, Capitalist. That's what proxies are for. There's always at least one, and that's all we need.

XOXOXO, China

I'm not sure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37848946)

But I think the Chinese government is opressive and overly controlling. Allegedly.

Re:I'm not sure (2, Funny)

Hartree (191324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848962)

"But I think the Chinese government is opressive and overly controlling. Allegedly."

It's just a malicious rumor with no basis in fact. And we'll arrest anyone who says otherwise.

False rumor (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37848970)

Seriously, does anyone believe false rumors like this when the Chinese foreign ministry said that they "protect the freedom of expression of citizens in China," [itworld.com]?

Re:False rumor (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849308)

The only difference between defamation/ libel and false reporting, is that a false report doesn't really target anyone (so no 'victim' per se beyond the public trust).

IMO, news reports should be held to the same generic standard of verifiability as a direct accusation. This crap where Fox news gets Legal protection to make up any garbage they want as long as it doesn't defame anyone, and 'report' it like it's real, is a scourge on the name of the press.

The same should apply to any type of high profile blog or rumour mill.

Re:False rumor (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852398)

Reminds me of something I heard, that the Soviet Union had better freedom protections than the US. In the Soviet Union, not only did their 'Bill of Rights' protect freedom of speech, it also protected the right to protest, and condemns those who prevent protests. And yet it was only a piece of paper. We all know how well that worked.

Re:False rumor (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 2 years ago | (#37853932)

More or less like that, yes.
The second and the third Soviet constitutions (of 1936 and of 1977 respectively) indeed guarantees - among of other rights and freedoms - the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom of assembly and the right to protest. I haven't found anything about condemnations of the preventers there, but then again I only scanned quickly over the text.

I fail to see the outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849176)

detain Internet users for allegedly spreading online rumors

Doesn't sound too draconian even if true.

Here is something you too can try at work and at home: Claim that the Holocaust is over-blown to leech greater reparations for the Jews..

Re:I fail to see the outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849958)

Actually, nothing will happen (in the legal sense) if you do loudly proclaim your Holocaust denial in America. However, try it in most European countries and you'll likely get in trouble with the government.

Re:I fail to see the outrage (2)

MurukeshM (1901690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850340)

Okay, Pearl Harbour, perhaps? I'm not American, so I'm not sure which incident would do that best. But its like they say, everyone has his price. Or is it tipping point? Whatever. I prefer football transfer rumours. :P

Re:I fail to see the outrage (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37851940)

Okay, Pearl Harbour, perhaps? I'm not American, so I'm not sure which incident would do that best.

Nope.

Hell, be a member of the Nazi Party? No problem.

Ditto the Klan. Or the Communist Party.

Say what you like about whomever...

Unless you threaten them, of course. That's getting into criminal areas. Secret Service will visit if you threaten the Pres, at least till they decide you're a harmless net-troll....

Re:I fail to see the outrage (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852218)

Heck, you don't have to get that exotic. All these groups have merged into the republican party, especially the Stalnist goon agitators determined to use state authority to control the will of the American people to freely assemble and state their grievances.

Not "user" you asshole. (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849216)

We are human beings, not "Internet users."

Re:Not "user" you asshole. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849238)

I don't believe that you are a human, you are an AI troll.

That's right, you all heard me right here, on /. This is not a rumor, this is true. Please make sure everybody knows.

--
Do I win the Internets?

Re:Not "user" you asshole. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849514)

I see a problem here. Your statement implies that intelligence is compatible with troll when it clearly is not.

Re:Not "user" you asshole. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850908)

Who is number 1?!

You are number 6.

Re:Not "user" you asshole. (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37852282)

Hey, if it's good enough for Tron (or Alan Bradley at least), It's good enough for me.. User. lol

Lies! Slander! (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849354)

The Chinese government did NOT arrest anybody, nor is there a limit on free speech in China! This is a lie and a completely unfounded rumor, and you are in violation of China's non-existent free speech laws. Please stand by for questioning; you will be collected.

On a serious, note (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849386)

1. The concept that you can attribute blog posts to an individual, since it is not merely obvious but assured that they posted it, no matter what it is, if their identity is on it, well, that's an interesting concept. And naive.

2. Since identity is so difficult to be sure on on the Internet, we'll be seeing Chinese government accusations and wondering if they just fabricated the rumor postings to justify imprisonment. Yeah, I just wrote that.

3. And since Internet in China is entirely open and unfettered by government control, we would have no reason to question their findings, Right?

4. yes, I'm, not forgetting. Even in the U.S. the government would very much like to have the same laws, for the same reasons, and with the same results.

We are in a LOT of trouble here, my friends. Time to start paying more attention to who you vote for. And to start educating them about technology and how it should be used and not abused. But I'm afraid it's already too late.

Re:On a serious, note (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849544)

Time to start paying more attention to who you vote for. And to start educating them about technology and how it should be used and not abused. But I'm afraid it's already too late.

When has it NEVER been time to do that? It's unfortunate that everyone seems to believe the time to do so is at some point in the future, excepting the few who think "now" and the even fewer who think "always."

Re:On a serious, note (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850394)

You mean I should sit on a serious (serious sam, perhaps) and note it? Sorry. :) Also on a serious note, that's what happens when those in power haven't the faintest idea what they're on about. Like the new American CIO spouting buzzwords or the judge in Britain wanting BT to block 0.0.0.0/0. I still am not sure that voting for a different candidate is going to make a difference. :(

Pamphlet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849560)

They forgot to put the disclaimer on, did they?

How long before you begin to read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849724)

"US authorities have started to detain Internet users for allegedly spreading online rumors, in its latest measure to control the country's social media sites. The USA State Internet Information Office said it determined several online Internet rumors were fabricated, and instructed relevant departments to prosecute the offenders, according to a Tuesday report from US state-run press agency "Freedom of Speech, just watch what you say". The so-called rumors include a case where a user spread alleged misinformation about income tax provisions by forging state documents. The user was detained for 15 days. In another case, a US college student from the province of Washington was detained after spreading what the government called a rumor on blogs and forums, about an incident where a man killed eight officials at his local bowling alley. The 'rumor' had said the man killed the officials because of pollution generated from all of the hot air in their heads."

There fixed that for you.

Innocence Proved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849820)

the government called a rumor on blogs and forums, about an incident where a man killed eight officials in his village. The 'rumor' had said the man killed the officials because of pollution generated from a cement factory.

Great, the government recognizes the innocence of the man near the cement factory and nothing actually happened. Now, is this man still in prison or not?

Not true! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849830)

I'm right here in China and I can say this is not true! If you wanted to have a real story to write about, my wife's co-worker overheard something the other day and... be right back, there's someone at the door...

MEXICO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850308)

What they don't say is they learned how to find these rumor spreaders in Mexico, where 2 twiterrorists were detained over a month ago for saying there was a shooting near a school (which was apparently true).

They had to let them go before they read the actual charges, which included terrorism, and public order something something something....

In Mexico we now Know.... spread a rumor, go to jail for 30 days... or maybe 20 years...

Not long before this happens in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850396)

Not long before this happens in America, as another erosion of basic rights including and freedom of speech

Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37851844)

They trample on freedoms almost as much as the UK! ;)

The Tuesday Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37852926)

What's a Tuesday report?

I heard.... (1)

Methos137 (1172787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37864802)

I heard a rumor that there really isn't any internet traffic out of china, that all they really have is government teams of people posting stuff out for them to make us think they're actually connected. Instead all the people are actually surgically connected into the world's most powerful HUMANCENTiPAD.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...