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 Blocks NYT Over Critical Article

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the modern-and-progressive dept.

China 94

Taco Cowboy writes "The New York Times has become the latest target of Chinese censorship. Censors of the People's Republic of China, in an almost unheard of, truly remarkable feat of neck-breaking speed, blocked the (paywalled) website of the New York Times, all because of one news article. That particular article was about the enormous wealth of the family members of a very prominent figure in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao. The wealth in question totals some USD 2.7 billion. " (Also covered at the BBC.)

cancel ×

94 comments

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

When the Commies are blocking the NYT. (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | about 2 years ago | (#41787665)

They're gonna have a hard time.

Re:When the Commies are blocking the NYT. (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#41787737)

... in an almost unheard of, truly remarkable feat of neck-breaking speed...

Maybe these people should become slashdot editors; it would speed things up a little...
Oh, wait... whose necks did they break?

Re:When the Commies are blocking the NYT. (1)

gtall (79522) | about 2 years ago | (#41788229)

Just to aid the Chinese in reading the article, last night the NYT had a version of the article in Chinese characters, even the title was in Chinese. I presume the Chinese version can still be found on their site, it isn't on the main page now.

Re:When the Commies are blocking the NYT. (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41791941)

Commies blocking commies. It's a win win.

So what ? (1, Informative)

boorack (1345877) | about 2 years ago | (#41787667)

Iranian PressTV has been recently banned from UK. Does West really differ so much from China in this regard ?

Re:So what ? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 2 years ago | (#41787691)

We have better PR hacks.

Re:So what ? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787729)

Yes. Iranian Press TV was taken down in the EU due to sanctions on Iran due to their human rights violations. And Iranian Press TV is a state run media, meaning it is part of the same government that is committing human rights abuses.

In contrast, the New York Times is not state owned media nor have its owners been accused of human rights abuses. The banning of Iranian Press TV is ethical and justified. The censorship of the New York Times is not.

Re:So what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787799)

Yes. Iranian Press TV was taken down in the EU due to sanctions on Iran due to their human rights violations.

Really.
EU sanctions were due to human rights violations?
Where did you get that from?

The sanctions on Iran are for its disputed nuclear programme.

The banning of Iranian Press TV is ethical and justified

The only way you can believe that is if you take everything Fox news says regarding Iran as undeniable truth.

Re:So what ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787879)

Pay more attention to the news. The EU claimed that the antisemitism and other propaganda from these channels were human rights violations and hate crimes. The EU designated the person in charge to be personally sanctioned for these human rights abuses. The result was that all Iranian state owned channels were removed from European TV satellites. This is a different sanction than the sanctions for the nuclear program.

As far as questioning human rights violations by Iran, I have to wonder if you are an Iranian troll. The antisemitism on these channels was rampant. Only the abuses inside Iran (hanging gays, stoning women, torturing and murdering protesters, etc.) make it pale in comparison.

Words are words, deeds are deeds. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788705)

Speech is never a hate crime or a human right violation. What EU have done is no different than what the Chinese did, POLITICAL CENSORSHIP. Words are words not deeds. A hate crime is a deed not a description of a deed.

Hating Jews is no different than hating Chinese.

I use to think we were better than others, with free speech, free press and all. But stuff like this shows just how far we've lost our way. We can't even condemn Chinese government censorship, because we're right there doing the same!

And saying they weren't banned because their website is still available, UK has web filters for Pirate Bay. You are inches away from filtering for secondary copyright offenses which probably aren't even a crime, let along a reason to censor the web. So how long before the website is banned too?

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 2 years ago | (#41788829)

Speech intended to incite other hate crimes should be considered a hate crime.

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (2)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | about 2 years ago | (#41789037)

Speech intended to incite other hate crimes should be considered a hate crime.

Really? And who gets to draw the line, you? Somebody who thinks like you? Somebody you helped get elected? Not one of those 'other' assbags, right?

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (1)

TarPitt (217247) | about 2 years ago | (#41789765)

Really? And who gets to draw the line, you?

The survivors of the resulting genocide [leeds.ac.uk] have a valid claim here, as might those who conduct the war crimes trial in the aftermath of the genocide [wikipedia.org]

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789863)

You fail to provide a standard. This sort of subjective 'weak logic' is used all the time to suppress freedom of speech. Most of the time it is under the guise of some weasel-word like 'reasonable'. All too often unpopular opinions are stifled because they're not politically correct or they offend a certain group. Just try to criticize Israel's actions here in the US and watch how AIPAC [salon.com] reacts.

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41793359)

Exactly. At the very least you'd require an exception for facts. But really : how about we set the standard as such "if someone makes a statement INTENDED to incite SPECIFIC violence against SPECIFIC persons, that can make him an accomplice at worst. The guilty party is ALWAYS the ones who implement the actual violence, and that someone non-violently 'incited' a crime can never even be even factor in the punishment. Burning a store is arson or murder, if someone died, with zero consideration given to how many bombs any disgusting prophet was wearing".

What, by the way, about facts ?

E.g. "islam, both sunni and shi'a, and some subsects even more, pushes paedophilic rape. The prophet was a paedophilic rapist (had sex with a 6-9 year old girl against her will), and worse, she (while not technically a slave) was bought from her parents for exactly this purpose. For years before the actual rape, he molested the girl"

Is that forbidden to be stated ? It's very likely to meet a violent response, but it's also the truth.

This is a well-established historical fact, and has resulted in a trade in young children to be raped that still exists today (in Iran [blogspot.com.au] , and as usual, Iran is really quite progressive, as compared to US "allies" [youtube.com] ).

Stating that if you see a moslem, even in America, he is very likely to be in favour of this child rape, is sadly not an exaggeration. If you see a non-American moslem, he'll either be in favour of it, or be afraid of the personal consequences of not being in favour of child rape.

And please before you state that the catholic church also "raped children", keep in mind that we're probably talking more children being raped daily by moslims with the cover of islam, than in the entire history of the west, all by criminals. And frankly, the church is about as pro-paedophilia as the BBC [bbc.co.uk] is (the BBC, by the way, also saw fit to hide the crime and to coverup reporting of it, as did the dutch government when it involved public school teachers, as did the UK government when it was reported that >90% of paedophilia was by public school employees, as did Spain ..., and needless to say, neither the BBC nor any of the governments involved saw fit to provide the victims with any kind of reimbursement at all).

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (1)

TarPitt (217247) | about 2 years ago | (#41793819)

I hope the dead who were tortured and killed during genocide encouraged by media propaganda haunt your nightmares.

I think mass murder is a perfectly good standard. It worked at Nuremberg.

Appeal to Emotion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794725)

Logical fallacy bingo! And also Goodwins.

The Nazi's censored opposing views, thus their propaganda couldn't be cut down by reason. There is a very similar thing happening in Israel now, where to decent, is to be labelled a self hating jew, which in turn is to have your views blocked as anti-Semitic.

If they had permitted opposing views then the bogus claims would quickly be cut down by logic. Likewise after the invasion of Lebanon, Israel's started denouncing its critics as antisemitic with the purpose of shutting down criticism. Yet if the comments were truely light weight anti-antisemitism they would quickly be cut down by opposing logic.

Your appeal to emotion is rejected.

Re:Appeal to Emotion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41800903)

Semite [sem-ahyt or, esp. British, see-mahyt]
noun
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
2. a Jew.
3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

Hell, I don't even know what/where half those races & names come from!

I personally object to Jews getting a special anti term of their own. If I want to be anti-Jewish, Goddam it, I will be!!! <G>

I wasn't aware that arabs are lumped into the 'Semite' collective noun until just then when I looked it up. Food for thought...?

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41800727)

Bullshit, I suppose we should ban Germany too whilst we are at it.

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (4, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 2 years ago | (#41790385)

IANAL, but in the US, speech, on its own, is protected. Let us suppose that John is an antisemite.

John paints a swastica on a synagogue. That's vandalism, and a particularly nasty form of it. In some jurisdictions it's treated as something eligible for enhanced vandalism.

John goes out and kills someone wearing a yarmulke. That's homicide, and evidence of his deranged beliefs may go a long way towards roving premeditation.

John attempts to distract everyone from the real problems of society by blaming it all on the Jews. That's protected speech. There's no underlying crime which is aggravated by his inanity.

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 2 years ago | (#41790473)

Er, that should be "something eligible for enhanced penalties."

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788919)

Posting AC because the original commentor is AC.. Speech is a hate crime. If a prominent political figure for any country was promoting hate crimes(IE. most of the anti-gay marriage political speak in America), would the actions of the people resulting from said speech be considered hate crimes? ATM in America the answer is, for the most part, no. The difference here is that anti-gay marriage and other anti-gay mentionings are considered 'right' due to the way these people talk about it. Being anti-gay, or anti-blacks, or anti-Chinese, or anti-semitisim, and speaking publicly about it is a hate crime. I don't have to beat up a black man(or woman) to be tried and convicted of a hate crime. All I have to do is speak about it and promote the abuse of these people. You have obviously never had a situation where a comment you made regarding a persons race/gender/religion/etc has a police officer attempt to arrest you on the basis of what you supposedly said. Using another analogy, was Hitler a bad man? Because from most of the documentation regarding him, he didn't actually kill any Jews.. but still caused and supported the slaughter of more people than you can truly count. According to your statement, Mr. Hitler did nothing wrong. All he did was talk shit about the Jews, and issue orders to have tons of them murdered in the most disturbing of ways. He didn't actually do any deed of killing them. To wrap up: speech is a hate crime. Your words affect others actions, and if your words are promoting hate crimes, than you are committing a hate crime yourself.

Re:Words are words, deeds are deeds. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789881)

To wrap up: speech is a hate crime. Your words affect others actions, and if your words are promoting hate crimes, than you are committing a hate crime yourself.

Unless of course, it is uttered by a minority, in which case it is not. Fuck you.

Re:So what ? (3, Insightful)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 2 years ago | (#41787927)

The banning of Iranian Press TV is ethical and justified

The only way you can believe that is if you think banning Fox News is ethical and justified.
Like peas in a pod, both equally hilarious.

Re:So what ? (4, Interesting)

tylikcat (1578365) | about 2 years ago | (#41788355)

Oh come now, if Fox news were an organ of the state, you would expect its reporting to reflect the policies of the current administration rather than the past one. One could, I imagine, make a case for it being a tool of the republican party, but that probably overdramatizes the arrangement.

Re:So what ? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41788425)

One could, I imagine, make a case for it being a tool of the republican party, but that probably overdramatizes the arrangement.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Re:So what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787899)

Ah, so censorship is okay if you don't like the material. Good to know.

Re:So what ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787991)

A state owned media isn't media--it is propaganda. Any country has a right to censor propaganda from another state.

Think of it this way, corporate speech is not the same as an individual's speech, nor is state owned media the same as independent media. They are completely different concepts and they serve completely different purposes. One is designed for political and corporate power and the other is designed to disseminate information.

And no state has to allow another state to broadcast hate speech within their borders. Among the other things Iranian Press TV have broadcast include the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion [presstv.ir] . You know, the book that Hitler used as a 'warrant' to commit mass murder. So yes, vile hate speech by another state broadcast into different state's borders for propaganda purposes should by suppressed. And it is completely ethical to do so.

Anyone who doesn't realize the difference between an antisemitic hate speech propagandizer and a free press is a mental midget and does not deserve to be debated.

PBS? BBC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788025)

Yah.

Re:PBS? BBC? (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about 2 years ago | (#41789983)

PBS isn't state owned. I don't know how so many Americans don't actually understand that. It gets a modest amount of state funding. Most of its funding is from viewers/listeners.

Re:PBS? BBC? (1)

AbominousSalad (1774194) | about 2 years ago | (#41798695)

Like you!

Re:So what ? (4, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41788015)

The banning of Iranian Press TV is ethical and justified.

Um, no. Because see, it's not Iranian Press TV that got banned. It's me, and every other citizen of the EU. We got banned by our government from accessing information that neither belongs to our government nor is illegal to possess (as eg. child pornography would be), and that it therefore has no authority to withhold from us. Whether the information is false, or produced by people who kick puppies, does not enter into it. Withholding it is neither ethical nor justifiable.

Re:So what ? (5, Informative)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#41788353)

Nonsense. It's freely available here: http://www.presstv.ir/ [presstv.ir] (works for me, I'm in the UK). What they've done is restrict companies who want to re-broadcast it. The original is still there and still accessible.

Re:So what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41803943)

I'm in France and I can watch it right off my Freebox [wikipedia.org] . Just checked it. Still working. Channel 659. I'm not sure whether this is because Free refused to comply, it was just banned on satellite, or what, but it still works perfectly.

Re:So what ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788409)

The Times isn't state owned, but the state isn't state owned in the US either... its all corporate influence. The US is no better than any of the countries it calls enemies.

Re:So what ? (1)

Clsid (564627) | about 2 years ago | (#41792469)

But those kind of abuses don't happen in Saudi Arabia or other regional allies, right? I don't believe in freedom of the press in the US any more than I believe freedom of the press in China. All of them have a thing in common, find something that will truly hurt the system and they will find a way to block it. For the US that means zero coverage on other presidential candidates (yes, there are a couple of them), always rewriting news from foreign "hostile" sources from a very biased perspective, etc, etc. For China it is kind of funny, it is as if nothing ever happens in the world except the Daiyu islands issue and the rest is peace and love. So media have their uses, but you really have to step down from that moral high ground when you talk about something that is controlled by 5 or 6 media conglomerates.

Re:So what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795761)

Do many Americans read Chinesse or Iranian news sites? The best block is inside our brains.

Re:So what ? (5, Informative)

will_die (586523) | about 2 years ago | (#41787735)

Lets get the facts right on Press TV, there were not banned their right to broadcast was pulled. No site was blocked or anything of that nature just no broadcasting.
As for the reason of their right to broadcast being pulled was because they company in the UK did not have decision or editorial rights. The company was told if they wanted to broadcast as a UK company they had to have editorial decisions made in the UK, otherwise it was foreign company wanting to broadcast in the UK and had to get other permissions and pay other fees.

Also this is the UK they have a long and current history of blocking thoughts and discussions that made people upset.

UK carries out secret trials and imprisonment (0)

lkcl (517947) | about 2 years ago | (#41788003)

yes. for example: roger hayes was arrested, tried and imprisoned in true nazi-style *without* the right to representation or even the right to speak. the "judge" merely spelled out his "crimes" and then passed "sentence". i'm amazed that his case hasn't been taken up by human rights activists and made headline news. http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/roger-hayes-arrested-tried-secret-court-imprisoned [ukcolumn.org]

actually, i'm not surprised it hasn't made headline news.

Re:UK carries out secret trials and imprisonment (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788093)

Hayes failed to attend court for refusing to pay his taxes and a warrent was issued for his arrest. He was arrested and tried in a Magistrates Court (in public), not a 'secret court without a Jury'.

There is no story here. By all accounts he is a bit of a nutcase.

Re:UK carries out secret trials and imprisonment (-1, Troll)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#41788379)

Looks like the white washing has worked well on you.

Re:UK carries out secret trials and imprisonment (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788133)

Nice fairy tale. He was committed to prison for 21 days for refusing to pay his council tax (or more likely for ignoring a court order to pay his tax). There was no judge or jury because it was a magistrate's court. And it ignores the lengthy process that leads up to imprisonment:

Can I be sent to prison for not paying my Council Tax?

In very rare cases your local Council may apply to the Magistrates' Court for a warrant committing you to prison in the event of non payment of Council Tax. The Council will only ever take this step when all other efforts have failed. This would include failed bailiff visits.

Before issuing a warrant of commitment the court must hold a 'means enquiry' and you must be present. You will be sent a Summons to appear. If you fail to answer to the Summons the Council will, in most cases, request that a warrant for arrest be granted. Depending on the circumstances this will be with or without bail. When you attend a 'means enquiry' you will be required to complete a very simple Income & Expenditure Calculation so that the Magistrate is able to agree an affordable level of re-payment.

A Warrant of Commitment will only be issued if the court is satisfied that the failure to pay is the result of wilful refusal or culpable neglect. This would not be the case if you cannot afford the debt. The maximum period of imprisonment is three months.

A recent Human Rights Case from the European Court that confirms that local authorities must look at all other available options before considering imprisonment.

Re:So what ? (1)

havana9 (101033) | about 2 years ago | (#41791183)

Actually Press TV is perfectly visible on satellite television, not on BSkyB channels. http://en.kingofsat.net/find.php?question=press+tv&Submit=Zap [kingofsat.net] There are a bunch of satellites that are transmitting now Press TV, including Hot Bird 13, so It's simply a matter to point a dish to the desired bird and enjoy some of their programs.

Re:So what ? (1)

Stalks (802193) | about 2 years ago | (#41787827)

It is only banned from the big 5 ISPs. Move away from the crowd to a smaller ISP and nothing is blocked.

Re:So what ? (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#41787907)

Iranian PressTV has been recently banned from UK. Does West really differ so much from China in this regard ?

Nope. You finish up being similar to what you combat.

Re:So what ? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787971)

Yes, it does. How incredibly stupid are you?

The New York Times is not paywalled, by the way. You don't even have to clean your cookies, only remove a parameter from the query string. It's a paywall for grandmas.

Re:So what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788175)

Um, No it hasn't.

How would that even happen - do they host child porn ?

Re:So what ? (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#41788285)

Irrelevant. The UK is not known for freedom of speech.

Re:So what ? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#41788499)

They have had their broadcast licence revoked. [wikipedia.org] . This was not for being critical of the UK though. It was for violating the rights of privacy and fairness.

It only applied to the broadcast licence. Press TV's website is not blocked.

Re:So what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788823)

The so what is that it backfired; now the whole world knows about it. Haha

Re:So what ? (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#41788909)

There's a difference: Press TV is ugly, pro-Muslim, anti-Western state-sponsored propaganda. Very ugly, vulgar, blatant propaganda.

It was so in-your-face, their banning was only a matter of time. You can only pull the tiger's tail so much before the animal turns around and claws your face off.

2.7 billion (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787761)

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

-Animal Farm

Re:2.7 billion (3, Insightful)

trout007 (975317) | about 2 years ago | (#41788039)

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Re:2.7 billion (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41788971)

Orwell was brilliant.

Re:2.7 billion (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41789099)

Which is more than you can say for the moderators.

Animal Farm in not funny.

Re:2.7 billion (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#41788969)

Truly this is the reason for the failure of communism. People are just people, no matter what political system you have there will be corruption because people are greedy. Communism assumes people will not be greedy and is doomed for this reason. Capitalism assumes people are greedy and tries to channel and focus this greed. Capitalism often fails as well because greed is an enormous thing and very difficult to control but at least the understanding of the problem is there. Ultimately even the leaders of Communist nations don't believe in Communism but just use it to their own benefit.

Re:2.7 billion (1)

fferreres (525414) | about 2 years ago | (#41791029)

I've reached this conclusion a few year ago. People always ask me how the people from Brasil, Argentina, Mexico or the USA differ. They are all the same, although values do vary, this is basically unrelated to political system and more related to the justice and tolerance of their society. I'd live in any regime where there's empathy, good will and tolerance. I found a lot of that In Mexico, and if you read happiness surveys you'll see that factored in.

China's response (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41787765)

When pressed for an answer by Australian news reporters, a Communist Party spokesman responded,

"We can try to understand the New York Times' effect on man. Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother, you're stayin alive. Stayin alive. Ah ah ah ah stayin alive. Stayin alive."

Re:China's response(in song) (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#41787807)

"If you post an article we don't like,

We will, we will, Block you! Block you!"

Re:China's response (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about 2 years ago | (#41788767)

Yeah, but we don't have revolutions in our recent past like they do ... the Chinese rich are growing scared, they don't want to share the pie and the natives are getting restless. The small fry is already massively busy emigrating, but if a new regime comes into power the big political figures will face corruption charges back in China if they try to flee ... and they have no real friends in the foreign countries which are nice to live in, so that's not an attractive proposition.

Chinese subscribers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787787)

There must be at least a dozen. Will they get their money back?

Re:Chinese subscribers? (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | about 2 years ago | (#41791735)

Why doesn't NYT offer them a free VPN?

Romney at $250m (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787821)

How wealthy do you think he'll be after 8 years? Take into account that he's a businessman.

Re:Romney at $250m (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41788903)

That depends whether he's actively managing his investments while he's in office. If he is, with that special position, he could multiple that money considerably.

At least as a very successful businessman, he'd be a lot more expensive to bribe.

Which way does the Copyright Brigade go on this? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#41787823)

Sounds to me like this is part of the ongoing war of doing business in China - "Play nice or we'll lock the playground."

But isn't the point of Viral Media that it blossoms into a nice fireworks display of public recognition?

So what is stopping the NY Times of *altering* the content rights and making that report something like Public Domain and then power-posting it to 100 Chinese news agencies? Would China call that an act of aggression or something?

Re:Which way does the Copyright Brigade go on this (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788185)

So what is stopping the NY Times of *altering* the content rights and making that report something like Public Domain and then power-posting it to 100 Chinese news agencies?

They've pretty much done that, more or less. They released a PDF [nytimes.com] translating the article to Chinese. This was obviously meant for people to disseminate without having to worry about getting through the Great Firewall to directly access the NYT website (even though it is easy with a VPN).

Re:Which way does the Copyright Brigade go on this (3, Interesting)

AdamWill (604569) | about 2 years ago | (#41790007)

"So what is stopping the NY Times of *altering* the content rights and making that report something like Public Domain and then power-posting it to 100 Chinese news agencies?"

The fact that there aren't 100 Chinese news agencies? China has two official news agencies. Both of which are owned by the state. You can connect the dots from there.

tick tock (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787925)

As with all dictatorships, the chinese communist party will eventually collapse. It's simply a matter of time. These repressive actions are becoming more and more desperate. It's telling.

I can just see the headlines on CNN, Sky, Al Jazeera: former communist leaders being dragged naked, bloody, through the streets of Beijing.

tick tock mother fuckers. tick tock.

Re:tick tock (1)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#41788957)

It's funny to see that usually democracy is outed a the form of government most susceptible to corruption and disparity of wealth. But then we see that the communist system in china is basically in the same situation, where there's a small group of super-rich. I think most ANY form of government is susceptible to this form of rot. It's very hard to keep the powerful citizens in check regardless of the form of government you use, especially over the long-term.

Communist governments usually get their kickoff in a flurry of the super rich getting ransacked and their money and property being turned over to the people. China is pretty far down that road again it would seem. It must just occur in cycles. Time for another communist revolution in china. China isn't communist anymore. It's something different. Something that the Chinese government desperately doesn't want their citizens to see. Censorship is no longer a tool to prevent outside influence, it's a tool to prevent the lower class from seeing that the government they are supporting now looks surprisingly similar to the one they just recently took up arms and overthrew.

Greed and corruption are like a weed that you can't kill. You can try something to suppress it, but it'll come back. Maybe the same, maybe in a different form, but it WILL return. "Liberty" doesn't mean "democracy", you can have liberty under many forms of government, including communism. And for that the same basic rule applies: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

So it'll be interesting to see where China is in 20 years. I see them in much the same position as Russia was 20 years ago. Big, menacing, dangerous, unstoppable, unlikely to change. See how that went. Eventually the greed and corruption that comes with it just became too top-heavy and the system fell over. The greed and corruption just keep growing, there's nothing that even the people at the top that are involved with it can do to prevent it even if they see it coming, and at some point it goes critical and there's a revolt. Things like that tend to break from the inside.

Russia IMHO was an interesting exception. They actually did a pretty good job of softening the fall. They couldn't stop it, but they were able to keep the inertia in check in a way that led to a slow winding-down instead of a catastrophic collapse. The "fall of the soviet union" didn't happen in a massive revolution and huge bloodshed, it was more of a controlled fall, a transition.

Maybe in 10 years we'll see a breakdown or a revolution in china. Maybe "correct, beneficial communism" will be restored. Or maybe they'll try something else. I wonder if it will be a big messy affair or a transition? who knows.

something going on here (0)

lkcl (517947) | about 2 years ago | (#41788021)

the censorship by china isn't the big story. let's look at what's going on, recently. we've had huawei blocked from sales of equipment in the U.S. citing "bugs and vulnerabilities"; ZTE just got banned from being supplied with Cisco equipment; very VERY large ISPs responded by cancelling orders and removing Cisco's routers citing "bugs and vulnerabilities" - this is just *some* of the background.

there appears to be an ongoing series of retaliations, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest bit if there's a dirty tricks unit in e.g. the CIA tasked with coming up with absolute lying-through-their-teeth shit pushed as "news", in order to discredit China's politicians. if that was the case, can you at all blame a country which has access to censorship equipment from using it to cut out such complete rubbish?

Dear China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788105)

If you have citizens (or whatever you call them) who live in shacks with dirt floors, and you have other people with the equivalent of billions of dollars, YOU DON'T GET TO CALL YOURSELVES COMMUNISTS ANYMORE Them's the rules. You don't have any species of socialism if the rich have more than about s thosand times the wealth of the poor.

Re:Dear China (1)

Elbereth (58257) | about 2 years ago | (#41788885)

Over time, most governments eventually drift toward Fascism. Fascists rarely advertise themselves as such. In fact, the word has become so diluted that it's essentially meaningless today. Orwell was particularly annoyed by this, and he was known to rant about it.

A changing world (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41788183)

The World Wide Web has changed, and continues to, change the world. Change is inevitable, those who do not adapt stagnate. This life is getting better for many of the inhabitants of spaceship Earth, and I find it constantly amazing to be able to be a witness to history in the making. These changes happen both quickly and slowly in this time of great learning.

Just 40 years ago China was a strange and mysterious foreign country, closed off from the majority of the world. Today, more and more it's leaders are gradually dragged into this free(er) modern life, being forced to grant more and more human rights to it's people, and more truth is emerging thanks to a free press in other nations. Eventually spreading to all parts of the world. It makes me wonder what life will be like for humans on Earth in one or two centuries. It looks promising, thanks to instant communication via the W.W.W. That genie cannot be forced back into it's bottle, not permanently.

Re:A changing world (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41788287)

"those who do not adapt stagnate."

Look at it from the perspective if a ruling party: If you're on top, then you *want* stagnation. The status quo is good. Even if that means completly cutting off the internet and all outside communication, North Korea style, then it must be better to rule over a low-tech country secure in your power than to risk the people revolting.

How rich, coming from Slashdot... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788247)

... where you get BANNED for telling the truth about Jews and their power over us...

www.tomato-bubble.com

Wake up, your country is being destroyed from within by unelected Jewish tyrants, who control the creation of your money, control your government, your media, your academia, everything.

Re:How rich, coming from Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789529)

Different AC.
Wow that hit a nerve.
Whether the GP assertion is valid or not, somebody modded him down a la the Chinese.
Another words, you proved his thesis of hypocrisy by the very fact that you modded him down.

Some Animals are More Equal (2)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 years ago | (#41788269)

Of course they have this great wealth as they are leaders of a great communist nation. Remember, some pigs are more equal and thus deserve more.

Re:Some Animals are More Equal (1)

mqduck (232646) | about 2 years ago | (#41794493)

I feel like everybody gets that quote wrong. It's the animals who are *less* equal that are the elites. The *more* equal animals are the lowly rabble.

Ripping off the people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788321)

"That particular article was about the enormous wealth of the family members of a very prominent figure in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao. The wealth in question totals some USD 2.7 billion."

Don't worry people! He's a communist so I'm sure he'll share it.

Even if they do hear about it, nationalism is all the rage in China now. Even if the people found out about the NY Times story, they wouldn't believe it.

Eben Moglen is right. (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 years ago | (#41788343)

We all need to get really serious about building citizen-controlled network infrastructure. (By 'citizen', I mean, for example, most of the people reading this - not the people who have effectively renounced their citizenship in civilized society by acting to diminish and enslave the rest of us in various ways).

Citizen-controlled networks wont't immediately solve long distance problems such as trans-oceanic data links, (and they'll still be subject to governmental and corporate interference), but they're a start. And yes, for the time being the Great Firewall and its rapidly-evolving Western equivalents still have lots of holes to be exploited in the name of freedom. But there are still a LOT of people who are unable to exploit those holes, and the power-mongers may manage to close most or all of them some day, so my point still stands.

Wumaodang Handbook: Tactic #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788385)

Please ignore this report and concentrate on something else.

Time to share a$$hole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41788449)

You wanna play communist, you gotta share with the other billion+ citizens.

Won't work (2)

puddingebola (2036796) | about 2 years ago | (#41788451)

I really doubt this will allow the Chinese government to keep this news under their hats.

Nothing New (5, Insightful)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#41788869)

The summary makes it seem like China's blocking the NY Times is a some rare spectacle. It's happened before [nytimes.com] , multiple times [wikipedia.org] . The explanation is generally, "we don't know why your site is inaccessible," or "it may be a technical error," but it can be assumed that you've said something they deemed dangerous or inflammatory, just as they would stop you at the border and seize your materials if you were a missionary blatantly trying to promote religion in their country.

The Times has been pushing the story for a few days on its home page, which is also unusual (an indication of how important they deem the story -- if you didn't catch it one day, you'll catch it the next... Or the next). The key here is that it's basically accusing the leader of the country of supporting massive corruption at a time when the reins are being handed over to a new group of people who will be selected in the next few weeks and control China for the next decade. The timing is seen as intended to influence China's politics at this very sensitive time and push people to call for reform. If China had NOT blocked it, THAT would have been a story.

Re:Nothing New (1)

hackingbear (988354) | about 2 years ago | (#41791667)

The timing is seen as intended to influence China's politics at this very sensitive time and push people to call for reform. If China had NOT blocked it, THAT would have been a story.

Probably true for the influence intend. Though Wen is considered a reformist and has pitched for political reform on many public occasions. Maybe his enemy tries to frame him? According to Hong Kong's Mingpao News, Wen's family is threatening legal actions against NYT [mingpao.com] . For sure, interesting dirty things in politics are happening that we regular mortals will never know the real truths for long time to come.

How about the Chinese Times (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41789257)

China should simply publish a series of stories outlining Obama's gain of wealth and corruption in his last four years of office. That would be an easy an fair act of revenge. China could shut down the Obama campaign with the truth. Wouldn't that be funny?

Re:How about the Chinese Times (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 2 years ago | (#41789783)

Here's a bit of truth for you. The "Chinese Times" you speak of does not actually exist.

Re:How about the Chinese Times (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 2 years ago | (#41789861)

China should simply publish a series of stories outlining Obama's gain of wealth and corruption in his last four years of office. That would be an easy an fair act of revenge. China could shut down the Obama campaign with the truth. Wouldn't that be funny?

Unleash the Chinese rhetors.

Re:How about the Chinese Times (2)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#41790037)

"China should simply publish a series of stories outlining Obama's gain of wealth and corruption in his last four years of office."

Do it yourself. Got citations to support your assertion?

If yes, post them.

If not, fuck off.

At least it is different here in the US... (0)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#41790697)

The NYT wouldn't have published the article about someone in the US in the first place.

NY Times is garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41792891)

NY Times is so biased to the far left and such shills for the government that it loses any and all of its credibility. Plus, they make you pay for internet news you can get elsewhere for free? No thanks!

more young Chinese will read it then! (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#41797783)

Nothing increases appetite for "forbidden fruit" than prohibition and the accompanying press about it.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>