Angry Chinese Blogger
 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Censorship or "supervisory measures" : - Beijing blasts Washington for "double standards"
«
H E
»
News and Politics :: Sino-American :: Human rights and personal freedoms :: News and Perspectives ::
email
posted Wednesday, 15 February 2006
With a congressional committee meeting today to discuss the problem of US corporate complicity in Chinese state censorship of the internet, and its co-chair, Republican Representative Christopher Smith, preparing to role out the initial drafts for the "Global Online Freedom Act"; a set of measures aimed at ensuring that the bricks used to build the "Great Firewall of China" don't have 'Made in America' stamped on the bottom, it is not surprising to hear that Beijing has, this week, launched a series of scathing attacks. Hitting out at American efforts to reign in its corporate entities.
Arguing that its censorship of the web is both justified, and within internationally accepted parameters, China's Foreign Ministry went public, on Tuesday, to insist that American companies that that wish to operate in Chinese markets must abide by Chinese laws, just as Chinese companies operating the US must abide by US laws, including the laws that govern access to so-called 'unhealthy content'
Using the euphemism "supervisory measures", Liu also laid down a defense of China's internet censorship regime, in which he rejected US assertions that censorship in China was either 'endemic' and 'unnecessary', and described Beijing's rigid control of internet forums, and systematic blocking of sites that debunk the government line on history, politics and social issues, as being a necessary tool that was being deployed in 'only the best interests of the Chinese people'.
One Trick Pony?
As is standard practice for the Chinese government, Liu however failed to quantify the exact nature of the material being blocked; instead raising the spectre of pornography, and describing all other blocked material only as being "immoral and harmful contents".
Similarly, Liu also failed to clarify how many of the blocked topics, such as 'free elections in Hong Kong', 'elements of Tibetan culture that differ from Han culture', and 'Hepatitis prevention in rural China', might be considered to be either "immoral" or "Harmful" under the conventional definitions of these words.
Double Standards?
In addition to Liu Jianchao's address, Liu Zhongrong, the Deputy Director of China's Internet Affairs Burea, also issued a statement attacking Washington's latest moves.
Speaking through Xinhua, China's state controlled media agency, Liu accued Washington of 'harboring double standards', and voiced that it was wholly unreasonable for Congress to put in place legislation to prevent US companies from censoring their web services in China, while such censorship remained legal in the US.
In defense of his perspective, Liu cited a section from the terms and conditions of the New York Times website. He however failed to draw any dividing line between New York Times policy; an open policy that is not mandated by the state, and which is primarily used to allow the removal offensive or obscene messages, and China's practice of censorship; which is mandated by the state, based on guidelines that are not publicly available, and which is used to remove any and all perspectives that differ from the official state line.
Liu also failed to mention that Chinese message boards which do not engage in censorship can be closed down and their owners held responsible the publication of content that is not censored sufficiently. A situation that does not exist in the US.
The Global Online Freedom Act?
While far from complete, initial reports suggest that the “Global Online Freedom Act”, currently being penned by Congress in response to the censorship issue, will see the creation an "Office of Global Internet Freedom"; a body that will set the guidelines, for maintaining freedom of speech, within which all US companies seeking to enter the Chinese internet sector must work.
Such guidelines are speculated to include:
Despite having the support of numerous civil liberties and freedom of speech groups, Congress's drive against US firms who are complicit in Chinese censorship has been the subject of some sharp criticism. With businesses warning that over regulation could harm American companies ability to compete in China, by hamstringing them with regulations that do not apply to either domestic Chinese groups, or to foreign rivals.
Congressional moves have also been criticized by observer who claim that such regulations could also be used to prevent US companies from carrying out legitimate censorship activities, such as those involved in the fight against extremism and pornography, and could be evaded by companies like Yahoo, which recently spun off much of its Chinese operations under a domestic Chinese venture that would most likely fall out of the scope of any new regulations.
No Single Truth
Although the complicity of American companies in Chinese censorship has been broadly condemned, and the corporate defense of 'obeying local laws' has been dismissed by many, some observers have however been quick to point out that China is not the only country that requires US technology interests to censorship their internet services in order to enter domestic markets.
Indeed, a large number of US technology companies regularly cooperate or facilitate domestic censorship in the places like the European Union, where they frequently exclude certain sites from their search indexes, ban the discussion or promotion of certain topics over their services, and prohibit the sale of certain artifacts through their auction sites.
Free Speech, or speech about Freedom?
Although not in the same league as their complicity with Chinese censorship, many US companies willingly comply with local European censorship laws governing elements such as, but not limited to, so-called 'hate speech'; which is protected in the US under the First Amendment (ACLU V Skokie), but which receives patchy protection in Europe.
For example, US internet firms, such as Yahoo, working in Austria must censor their search engines and auction services to prevent holocaust denial or the sale of material denying the holocaust, and in France and Germany the same internet companies can be required to exclude items glorifying the Nazi from search engines, to remove Nazi memorabilia from their auction sites, and can be forced to remove pro Nazi debates from Message boards.
Much in the same way that Yahoo was 'required' to hand over the IP address of the imprisoned journalist Shi Tao in China, it can also be compelled to hand over the personal details of those involved in the sale or promotion of Nazi related material in certain EU member states. Even if their actions are not considered to be a crime under US law.
Difference of Opinion
While there is an immutable distinction between the censorship of pro Nazi websites in France, and the censorship of pro democracy websites in China, many freedom of speech atavists still put the two in the same category as far as civil liberties are concerned. Arguing that free speech, barring the direct incitement of murder or the committal of libel/slander, should be protected even if it is distasteful.
Arguing that its censorship of the web is both justified, and within internationally accepted parameters, China's Foreign Ministry went public, on Tuesday, to insist that American companies that that wish to operate in Chinese markets must abide by Chinese laws, just as Chinese companies operating the US must abide by US laws, including the laws that govern access to so-called 'unhealthy content'
| "For those foreign companies, if they are going to operate in China they have to abide by Chinese laws." Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China |
Using the euphemism "supervisory measures", Liu also laid down a defense of China's internet censorship regime, in which he rejected US assertions that censorship in China was either 'endemic' and 'unnecessary', and described Beijing's rigid control of internet forums, and systematic blocking of sites that debunk the government line on history, politics and social issues, as being a necessary tool that was being deployed in 'only the best interests of the Chinese people'.
| "the goal [of internet censorship] is to safeguard the people's interest" Liu Jianchao, Spokesperson, Foreign Ministry, China |
One Trick Pony?
As is standard practice for the Chinese government, Liu however failed to quantify the exact nature of the material being blocked; instead raising the spectre of pornography, and describing all other blocked material only as being "immoral and harmful contents".
Similarly, Liu also failed to clarify how many of the blocked topics, such as 'free elections in Hong Kong', 'elements of Tibetan culture that differ from Han culture', and 'Hepatitis prevention in rural China', might be considered to be either "immoral" or "Harmful" under the conventional definitions of these words.
Double Standards?
In addition to Liu Jianchao's address, Liu Zhongrong, the Deputy Director of China's Internet Affairs Burea, also issued a statement attacking Washington's latest moves.
Speaking through Xinhua, China's state controlled media agency, Liu accued Washington of 'harboring double standards', and voiced that it was wholly unreasonable for Congress to put in place legislation to prevent US companies from censoring their web services in China, while such censorship remained legal in the US.
| “it is unfair and smacks of double standards when [foreign bodies] criticize China for deleting illegal and harmful messages while it is legal for US websites for doing so." Liu Zhengrong, Deputy Director, Internet Affairs Bureau, State Council Information Office, China |
In defense of his perspective, Liu cited a section from the terms and conditions of the New York Times website. He however failed to draw any dividing line between New York Times policy; an open policy that is not mandated by the state, and which is primarily used to allow the removal offensive or obscene messages, and China's practice of censorship; which is mandated by the state, based on guidelines that are not publicly available, and which is used to remove any and all perspectives that differ from the official state line.
| "We reserve the right to delete, move or edit messages that we deem abusive, defamatory, obscene, in violation of copyright or trademark laws, or otherwise unacceptable We reserve the right to remove the posting privileges of users who violate these standards of Forum behaviour at any time." Terms and conditions, New York Times website (Cited) |
Liu also failed to mention that Chinese message boards which do not engage in censorship can be closed down and their owners held responsible the publication of content that is not censored sufficiently. A situation that does not exist in the US.
The Global Online Freedom Act?
While far from complete, initial reports suggest that the “Global Online Freedom Act”, currently being penned by Congress in response to the censorship issue, will see the creation an "Office of Global Internet Freedom"; a body that will set the guidelines, for maintaining freedom of speech, within which all US companies seeking to enter the Chinese internet sector must work.
Such guidelines are speculated to include:
- A universal deceleration of principles on the promotion and facilitation of freedom of speech over the internet
- Restrictions on filter technology and services, which will prohibit the blocking of selected religious and political terms and key words
- The requirement for all companies engaged in filtering or blocking activities to clearly lay down what they are blocking or filtering
- Limitations on the type and scope of web based systems, including email or web servers, that can be set up within areas that fall under mainland Chinese law
Despite having the support of numerous civil liberties and freedom of speech groups, Congress's drive against US firms who are complicit in Chinese censorship has been the subject of some sharp criticism. With businesses warning that over regulation could harm American companies ability to compete in China, by hamstringing them with regulations that do not apply to either domestic Chinese groups, or to foreign rivals.
Congressional moves have also been criticized by observer who claim that such regulations could also be used to prevent US companies from carrying out legitimate censorship activities, such as those involved in the fight against extremism and pornography, and could be evaded by companies like Yahoo, which recently spun off much of its Chinese operations under a domestic Chinese venture that would most likely fall out of the scope of any new regulations.
No Single Truth
Although the complicity of American companies in Chinese censorship has been broadly condemned, and the corporate defense of 'obeying local laws' has been dismissed by many, some observers have however been quick to point out that China is not the only country that requires US technology interests to censorship their internet services in order to enter domestic markets.
Indeed, a large number of US technology companies regularly cooperate or facilitate domestic censorship in the places like the European Union, where they frequently exclude certain sites from their search indexes, ban the discussion or promotion of certain topics over their services, and prohibit the sale of certain artifacts through their auction sites.
Free Speech, or speech about Freedom?
Although not in the same league as their complicity with Chinese censorship, many US companies willingly comply with local European censorship laws governing elements such as, but not limited to, so-called 'hate speech'; which is protected in the US under the First Amendment (ACLU V Skokie), but which receives patchy protection in Europe.
For example, US internet firms, such as Yahoo, working in Austria must censor their search engines and auction services to prevent holocaust denial or the sale of material denying the holocaust, and in France and Germany the same internet companies can be required to exclude items glorifying the Nazi from search engines, to remove Nazi memorabilia from their auction sites, and can be forced to remove pro Nazi debates from Message boards.
Much in the same way that Yahoo was 'required' to hand over the IP address of the imprisoned journalist Shi Tao in China, it can also be compelled to hand over the personal details of those involved in the sale or promotion of Nazi related material in certain EU member states. Even if their actions are not considered to be a crime under US law.
Difference of Opinion
While there is an immutable distinction between the censorship of pro Nazi websites in France, and the censorship of pro democracy websites in China, many freedom of speech atavists still put the two in the same category as far as civil liberties are concerned. Arguing that free speech, barring the direct incitement of murder or the committal of libel/slander, should be protected even if it is distasteful.
View Comments/Add a Comment (3)
1. tim luard left...
Thursday, 16 February 2006 9:29 pm
Good blog! I'm looking for e-mail addresses of Chinese living on the
mainland who I could quote in an article I'm writing about what people
there think of their government's policy on censorship. Thanks for any
help you can give.
2. Sarah left...
Friday, 17 February 2006 9:14 am :: http://www.journalscape.com/Tryon/
Yes, we are egregiously guilty of double standards and we should be aware
of our own hypocrisy. Those of us who feel that no man is an island, that
we are all one family, are embarrassed and angry.