Censorship

[-Barista-]

So I've been looking into censorship (mainly in china)
and I've found out some interesting/creepy ways in
which the citizens, publications, and authors are silenced.

Not sure if my source is outdated or not seeing as to how it was last updated 2 years ago, but I read how it's done on this site:

http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/exp/

as well as a few articles written by some journalists who've spent time over there.

The government tracks the online movements of the people in China with their Firewall and any page that isn't liked, is not accessible or at least not supposed to be.

Blogging not in pro to the government is a no no and can get you thrown in jail.

Publishing anything the government doesn't like is a no no as well. You can also be fined, banned, shutdown, thrown in jail. . .

Then I thought about how some of these threads get censored because Tass doesn't like them. . .XD

In a nutshell, its gay and I haven't found any good that can come of limiting freedom of expression.

[phe0nixblade]

Re: Censorship

Yeah but they don't have all the same rights and stuff that we do which is why this is all able to happen. =\

[-Barista-]

Re: Censorship

Not only is the International Human Rights Standards for Freedom of Expression supposed to grant the citizens freedom of expression but so is Article 35 of their own constitution. Please stop me if I'm missing something but what it looks like is that they make really crappy/vague laws that practically loophole around this.

[Sullyman2007]

Re: Censorship

Nationalism. It's a good friend of something called communism. Most of the free world has been preasuring China to go Democratic, especially the US. It's not an easy process though... and this is one of the many repercussions.

On a side note, I don't see how this has anything to do with.. "censorship".

[TheRapingDragon]

I read an article in a paper a few weeks ago which talked with an exiled Chinese "rebel" called Ma Jian who has recently wrote a book called Beijing Coma, which focuses on the censorship in China.

If you're interested in learning more about how bad China's economy and government have got then I suggest you look into reading it.

I don't remember all of the details of the article and unfortunately cannot find the article online, but it was in The Daily Mail (could have been the Sunday edition, who knows).

As far as I remember he may have been exiled around 1989 during the Tiananmen Square protests. He said in the article that he cannot come back to China or Hong Kong and he one day hopes to walk in to China a free man to be with his family. Apparently even one of his daughters has been influenced by the government into believing he is a renegade libertarian.

[Zythus]

Re: Censorship

We ought to remember China is very much still a communist country, even thought their protocols and policies have diminished in recent years. It is only expected that they are still very much secretive and secular nation.

This thread is rather informative than argumentative.

[OMG its HIM]

Re: Censorship

this is why i love america ;D

[darkness1477]

Re: Censorship

censorship can be good sometimes sine it can keep people from getting offended and the chinese goverment has moe loyal people than America because they are forced to be and thier entire live are focused around that and it keeps ther goverment in power since anything against the goverment is bad so the people won't revolt out of fear and the peope won't be enticed into a poltitical mutiny because they are not exposed to that kind of thinking since the goverment censors it

[Relambrien]

Re: Censorship

Censorship can be good sometimes, since it keeps people from getting offended. The Chinese government has more people loyal to it than the American government because Chinese people are forced to be loyal; their entire lives revolve around it. This keeps the government in power, since anything going against the government is bad. The people won't revolt out of fear, and they won't be enticed into a political mutiny, because government censorship prevents exposure to things which may result in such thinking.

For anyone who has trouble reading that post.

Now, my response:

"Censorship can be good because it prevents people from being offended"? So, restricting the free flow of information just because someone might take offense to it is inherently wrong? I could say something like "The ratio of blacks to whites in jail is 2:1" (disclaimer: I have no idea whether or not that's true, this is an example), but that could offend people. Thus, it shouldn't ever be said, right? It should be censored? But then, without that knowledge, how could it be possible to fix the problem? If no one knows the problem exists, then it would be impossible to find the source of it, rectify it, and thus solve the problem. Preventing speech just because "someone might get offended" serves only to harm the ability of people to solve problems.

"The Chinese government has more loyal people than the American government, because they are forced to be." You consider this loyalty? That wouldn't be loyalty, it's forced servitude. Much like how Jews in concentration camps during the Holocaust were forced to do work for the Nazis. They weren't loyal to the Nazis at all. You cannot be "forced" to be loyal, but you can be "forced" to obey.

"Anything against the government is bad," "people won't revolt," etc. Why is it inherently a good thing that revolts don't occur? If you have 1.6 billion people being oppressed by a censoring government, how is that preferable to those 1.6 billion rising up and attempting to establish a new regime in which they can live without fear of censorship or other horrors?

I like what devonin said in another thread about the current situation in the Middle East--the American presence is artificially keeping an unstable region held together. It would be better in the long run if the people there were permitted to perform their own secessions and revolts until each individual nation doesn't have the incredible sectarian differences that Iraq is currently experiencing.

Why is it a good thing that a certain government stays in power? Why not seek to improve upon a failing or oppressive government, through open rebellion if necessary?

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Censorship

Holy crap! 4 line run-on sentence! =O

I want the lyrics to certain songs on FFR to be censored.

The idea of limiting the freedom of expression is a complex form of the inherent nature of a human being. Social darwinism to be point blank. If people don't like the limitations imposed by the government, a revolution ensues. If the will to revolt is not stronger than the fear of oppression, nothing happens. Limiting the freedom of expression is a common form of wielding power. It's not a matter of good. It's a matter of control.

Tell the population to revolt. I don't see why not either. It's what basically every other nation experienced once or twice in the history of civilization.

[Relambrien]

Re: Censorship

We already have "Kick Your A," and I'm not sure, but is "F Jason" in FFR or is it just SM?

See, censorship even exists here on FFR!

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Censorship

I was thinking more along the lines of Japanese songs with hentai that go unnoticed by the majority of FFR... lol.

[devonin]

Re: Censorship

It's not a matter of good. It's a matter of control.

I dispute your assertion that the government has any intrinsic right to oppress or supress anything in the country. Saying "Well, if people dislike it enough, they'll revolt" is all well and good but that doesn't mean it is -right- for anything that doesn't cause a revolution to occur.

A government can make tens of thousands of academics, intellectuals, socialists etc "disappear" without there being any revolution (This has happened repeatedly in the past) does that mean it's "just another form of wielding power" to -murder- percieved subversives if you're clever enough to get away with it?

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Censorship

I dispute your assertion that the government has any intrinsic right to oppress or supress anything in the country. Saying "Well, if people dislike it enough, they'll revolt" is all well and good but that doesn't mean it is -right- for anything that doesn't cause a revolution to occur.

A government can make tens of thousands of academics, intellectuals, socialists etc "disappear" without there being any revolution (This has happened repeatedly in the past) does that mean it's "just another form of wielding power" to -murder- percieved subversives if you're clever enough to get away with it?

Whether it is "right" or "wrong," those with power will wield it unless if opposed by a stronger force. Many people personally do think that this is wrong, but that doesn't matter to the government. To keep things under their control, their going to limit freedom of expression. It's a very effective way of keeping control, even if it is the "wrong" way to do it. The only method of overturning such an adamant force is to start a revolution imo. Diplomat isn't going to work, is it? <- Howard Zinn way of looking at things.

What I meant by "it's not a matter of good" was in response to Barista's "what's the good in limiting freedom of expression?" I was saying that, to the government, it doesn't matter if limiting freedom of expression does anything beneficial to the people, as long as it's beneficial in terms of control to the government.

[devonin]

Re: Censorship

To keep things under their control, their going to limit freedom of expression. It's a very effective way of keeping control, even if it is the "wrong" way to do it.

My government -protects- all freedom of expression and doesn't limit it at all, and they seem to do a perfectly good job keeping revolutionaries at bay.