Obama Talks Internet Freedom, China Censors 312
eldavojohn writes "In a town-hall-style Q&A with (hand-picked) Chinese students in Shanghai, President Obama made several statements knocking China's firewall and censorship. Quoting: 'I am a big believer in technology and I'm a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity. And so I've always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I'm a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access — is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.' The Washington Post notes that the event was broadcast only on the local level, and in fact Chinese authorities removed from view what little coverage it had gotten, after about an hour. But at least American news media are gobbling it up."
we'll see (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfortunately, in Obamas' case, words speak louder than actions.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti-censorship, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
So that's why he's opposing and releasing all of the information about the ACTA treaty as well as allowing the pictures of the "POWs" that were enhanced interrogated to be shown. It's great to know that he got rid of all those national security and state secrets defenses in the courts, too.
Re:Whitehouse.gov (Score:3, Insightful)
Streaming in Chinese? Let us say it was the other way around, and the Chinese president was speaking here, how many "curious American citizens" would even understand what was on the Chinese equivalent of whitehouse.gov?
A tradition of the United States (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:we'll see (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, in Obamas' case, words speak louder than actions.
Kinda what I was thinking. When he said:
because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.
Of course, that doesn't apply if you criticize HIS government or try to hold it accountable. Ask Fox News.
Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama. Remember, the Freedom of the Press is just as much a RIGHT as Freedom of Speech, or Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure (privacy) or any other RIGHT listed in the Bill of Rights. Just because you don't like what Fox News says, doesn't mean that they don't have a RIGHT to say it! The fact that they are being bullied by the government should scare the shit out of EVERYONE. Saying that Fox News is NOT a news station (not the press) is the same as saying what comes out of YOUR mouth is not speech.
Re:Meanwhile on Fox News (Score:5, Insightful)
True, true, but it goes both ways.
Far Left - "Obama is perpetuating cultural hegemony and displaying his intolerance toward other cultures' ways of life by forcing Western cultural norms down their throats."
Re:we'll see (Score:1, Insightful)
So who says Fox is being bullied by the government? Fox News?
Bullshit.
I'll believe that when other independent sources (say, BBC) confirm Fox is being bullied.
What's the point (Score:3, Insightful)
of talking to the Chinese if the Chinese people don't hear the message. It's certainly falling on deaf ears on the Chinese authorities.
And who cares if the American media is gobbling it up, the American people don't care.
Re:we'll see (Score:3, Insightful)
To speak of freedom on Chinese soil, even regarding a limited internet environment, is a strong action.
All LIES (Score:1, Insightful)
Talk in bold. Reality in plain.
I am a big believer in technology
American IT workers laid off, jobs outsourced.
and I'm a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information.
DMCA
I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes
Renegs on promise to release Gitmo pictures
because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.
Continue to occupy Iraq
They can begin to think for themselves.
Decimate the education system
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:we'll see (Score:1, Insightful)
Note: Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, it's obvious that they are being punished for daring to report on anything negative about Obama. Remember, the Freedom of the Press is just as much a RIGHT as Freedom of Speech, or Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure (privacy) or any other RIGHT listed in the Bill of Rights. Just because you don't like what Fox News says, doesn't mean that they don't have a RIGHT to say it! The fact that they are being bullied by the government should scare the shit out of EVERYONE. Saying that Fox News is NOT a news station (not the press) is the same as saying what comes out of YOUR mouth is not speech.
It's a sad day when the Bill of Rights is modded "Troll".
What ever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Not so fast on the creativity (Score:1, Insightful)
The Chinese are noted for their LACK of creativity due to their strict caste structure - in that a person of a lower caste cannot offer up a potential improvement in any process or technology that might embarrass a superior. This structure (or lack thereof) in the US is a big reason we develop so much new out-of-the box technology. All the Chinese know how to do is copy, right down to our architecture. The day they learn to think for themselves we are REALLY in trouble.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Your comment still being on slashdot: that is your freedom of speech.
Your comment being modded troll: that is everyone else's.
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:we'll see (Score:2, Insightful)
I especially object to the forced shutdown of the Fox News network by the military, revocation of the Fox News broadcasting licenses by the FCC, the lawsuits against Fox News by the Justice Dept., seizure of Fox News studios by Federal Marshals, and the imprisonment of Roger Ailes.
It's much worse than that! The White House actually accused them of BIAS. Can you imagine?! When we all know they're fair and balanced.
What give Nobama the right to say such a thing about Fox?
Re:Meanwhile on Fox News (Score:1, Insightful)
So is it complete coincidence that Fox News began "doing it's job" meaning being completely critical of the actions of the President only once George Bush left office?
That same Bill of Rights also grants the government the right to criticize a news organization that seems to relish making the news as well as covering it.
Re:we'll see (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh hell, accusing a conservative of bias ALWAYS shuts them up. I once accused a conservative of bias, and he couldn't speak for FIVE YEARS!
I can see why they think this is a restraint against Fox's speech.
Re:Meanwhile on Fox News (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile some liberal somewhere makes up:
On Fox News The main headline : Obama SELLS American Freedom to Chinese
Bill O'Reilly - Obama is betraying all Americans by giving away the secrets of freedom to the Chinese
Glenn Beck - Obama is raising a Chinese Army to take over the United States
Re:Anti-censorship, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
And putting legislation online at least five days before it's voted on.
And allowing congressmen enough time to read legislation rather than ramming it down their throats at 2am.
And ending backroom politics.
And get rid of the lobbyists - though perhaps I misheard him on that one and he actually said "I promise to hire as many lobbyists and absolute freaks and weirdos into my administration as I possibly can".
And and and.
He's done absolutely nothing that he said he would do, and in fact has been even *worse* than Bushco regarding midnight bills, etc. So why is the media not lighting a bonfire under his feet? When I watch your media (MSNBC, CNN, etc) it would appear that they're absolutely infatuated with him. He's a political figure not a monarch or religious icon fer the gods sake.
(And not much of an "orator" when he's just got to wing it either I notice)
And before the lefty mods come down on me like a tonne of bricks, I'm no right winger and actually believed he would be different and better. Stupid me ay?
Re:A tradition of the United States (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not one to post quotes willy-nilly, but this one is particularly relevant to the free internet:
Re:we'll see (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians (Score:3, Insightful)
For starters, you're off-topic.
When you've got the numbers working for you, you should stop playing stupid games. Is there a reason that you use Obama's middle name and not McCain's (it's Sidney) other than Obama's middle name being Hussein? It dilutes your point. I'd be curious to see the votes by race for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton (x2) in the last few presidential elections. That would probably make a better baseline.
If you claim that normal support would be closer to 65%, then it's only 30% who voted based solely on race. Still a non-trivial number though.
Re:we'll see (Score:2, Insightful)
So, are you saying that there is nothing between complete freedom and total shutdown?
I'm saying that you're a big baby, and Fox News is still on the air. What are you crying about?
The First Amendment never guaranteed that other people won't make fun of you, or call you names, or disagree loudly with your crap.
So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews?
Yes. I don't invite child molesters to my house either. And that's my right of association.
Re:Whitehouse.gov (Score:2, Insightful)
Which would be fine, if Chinese students were allowed to have political opinions.
Re:we'll see (Score:1, Insightful)
you can be an asshat...but other people can be an asshat to you RIGHT BACK IN YOUR FACE.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because refusing to give an interview is [i]"deciding what is truth and what is not"[/i]. Riiiiight. Let's face it, the whole Fox News thing is just Fox overdramatizing for the purposes of creating a controversy, as is usual for US TV stations.
Oh, and yeah, lying (See CBS and their fake GWB NG documents) and being a bunch of asshats is protected by the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.
If it were so, libel wouldn't be a crime.
Re:A tradition of the United States (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm getting mighty tired of these quite frankly disgusting comparisons between China and western liberal democracies (mostly the US) on sites like this by western middleclass individuals living lavish lifestyles in soft liberal democracies whenever China comes up.
It's not clever, it's not rational in fact it's offensive to the people who are suffering under the boot of whatever the hell China is these days (some sort of techo communist/fascist/authoritarian hybrid that we haven't seen before) simply for being so "evil" as to be pro-democratic or to have an opinion contrary to the local party official and/or state apparatus. Or pehaps even wanting to work in the city rather than being a peasant sorry to bad, no permit for you to leave your district.
Truly the white collar middle class have become like petulant children in the west. That you find yourself having to advocate for the free flow of images and video of babies and children being sexually molested in an attempt to find something to criticize about the US is pretty damn telling about A) How damned wonderful it is to live in our respective western countries and B) How absolutely morally and intellectually bankrupt you are that you cannot see that but rather prefer to believe that your freedom is somehow impuned to even within 0.1% of the average Chinese persons day to day existence is to be honest rather disgusting.
Educate your self a little you ignorant hick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China [wikipedia.org]
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the article linked to at The Guardian, and A) it's not the publication but a post on a blog, and B) it doesn't say what you seem to think it's saying.
It doesn't say that Fox is a news network that is being bullied.
I haven't read the other link, but I suspect I'll find something similar...
Political Stunt (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems too convenient that the one moment where Obama was openly critical of Chinese leadership occurred during the only public venue which was not broadcast on live television. Those admonishments of Chinese censorship were intended more for us back home than the repressed Chinese people; a political stunt to appear as if he cared about human rights abuses without paying the associated political price of taking such a stand. If you doubt this, ask yourself this: why didn't he make such statements during his two earlier live broadcasts just days earlier?
So continues the Obama Administration's strategy of trying to have its cake and eat it too. It's almost as if a PR firm was elected President instead of a leader. ("Now with more Change(TM)!") On every major policy issue he has tried to split the difference until what remains is an unrecognizable mess, like cooperating with the Chinese to censor his criticism of their... censorship...
He is fast becoming a joke, a self-parodying symbol of a broken political system. Some examples:
The list could go on and on including: comprehensive Healthcare Reform (i.e. Medicare for All with Prescription drug price negotiations), limiting lobbyist influence (in his own administration, even!), repealing Don't ask, Don't tell, etc.
All of this, of course, is textbook post-Clintonian Democratic political strategy. The only problem is: this isn't the 90's. The public winds have changed. The information sources have changed. The problems are too big to be swept under the rug. I don't think even Barack Obama understood just how much his talk of transformative change and real progress resonated through the hearts of a disillu
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:we'll see (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no violation of their free speech to not invite them. Fox is still perfectly free to publish/broadcast what they want, to pursue whatever stories they want, and to express whatever negative criticism they want out there.
There's a difference between preventing someone from expressing themselves, and not facilitating it. Your right to free speech does not entail an obligation on my part to listen, or let you borrow my megaphone, or invite you to my press conference.
Re:we'll see (Score:2, Insightful)
We the people already held all the rights. We only consented to surrender SOME of them to form a limited social contract to secure life, liberty, and property. We don't have free speech because the government said we could....we have freedom of speech because we never gave it up.
This. Until "progressives", socialists, and the marxist democrat party decided that a dependent voter base was a key to power.
Re:A tradition of the United States (Score:3, Insightful)
Well said. I find the lack of decency expressed by the 'child porn market = free speech' crowd to be staggering. As if the opportunity to sadistically destroy children, or leer from a safe distance while other people do it for you, is a human right.
Re:we'll see (Score:2, Insightful)
You just totally lost me. I don't watch Fox News, but comparing them to child molesters is a very far stretch. Yes, I said very.
I did not compare them to child molestors. I included child molestors as another random category that I do not invite to my house, to illustrate that the right of association is an important right.
The Obama administration's attempt to exclude Fox News, arguably the most viewed news source on cable TV, was politically incorrect any way you look at it.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The President's job is to accomplish his agenda that he was elected to accomplish. To do that he needs to explain his program and counter the objections of his opponents.
Fox News is clearly the voice of his opposition. They can speak, but Obama doesn't have to help his opposition in any way. He would be a fool to do so.
Again, I have no use for Fox News, but I respect their right to cover news events.
Obama also respects their right to cover news events too. Fox can write anything they want to write. But he has no obligation to help them write their stories.
Take Iran's president for example. Or China's administration. Or any country's leadership which protects political gain at the expense of the citizens' rights.
Not even close. You claim my post was utter ignorance, but look at yours. In the countries you mentioned, they would have shut down the opposition instantly. Fox is still on the air. And they will not be taken off the air.
Re:Meanwhile on Fox News (Score:1, Insightful)
As a product of both Western and Eastern cultural influences, I think that a remark like that is not necessarily off the mark. Freedom isn't something you can just give to a people and expect them to do great things with it. It depends greatly on the socio-cultural norms and lifestyles of a people, and how well their infrastructure can support it. Without proper education, for example, radical freedom can result in someone throwing their lives away by making poor choices.
Now you can argue that freedom means that it's their choice if they throw their lives away, and it's none of your business. And it's true, that's a great thing about freedom. But you have to keep in mind that that very viewpoint is a product of your socio-cultural upbringing. We Chinese have many sayings that refer to other Chinese as brothers or sisters, as one big family. If a member of your family suffers, the entire family suffers. To the Chinese, that's not a good thing. So with even this one facet of freedom, the freedom of others to throw their lives away and the freedom for you to ignore them, is both a strength and weakness depending on your point of view.
Now I'm not a cultural/moral relativist. I very much dislike relativism as a philosophy in general. However, that doesn't mean that we in the West can feel smug about our superior cultural values. It just means that there may be some true measure of how to live a good life, but we don't necessarily know what that measure is. Freedom is, in my view, definitely a part of that measure, but there still remains several questions. How much freedom? Which aspects of life should be subject to freedom, and which should be subject to regulation? Questions like these have not been conclusively answered, and it's up to the people of a certain culture to try to determine for themselves what those answers are. Isn't that a part of freedom? To be able to decide, as a people, what rules should govern your own society?
So yes, I think that Obama is showing at least some cultural insensitivity. Not because of some far-left cultural relativist reasons. But because a part of freedom lies in the ability to define the boundaries of freedom in your own society.
(I realize that there will inevitably be replies that will ask how the people of China are determining their own freedoms, since their system of government is not democratic. There are several responses to these replies. One of which is that the people of China are not sufficiently inclined to pursue the Western style of democracy because the Chinese government is working well enough for them. China's growth as an economic powerhouse has not been an accident. Another response is that they do have some elected regional representation, but that their power is simply not as great as their counterparts in the West. And it's not an oddity that the power structure in one government is different from another. -- In any event, regardless of whether you think each individual Chinese person has the power to change the circumstances, the fact is that it's not Obama's place, or any American's place, to decide for them whether they want to pursue freedom, how much of it to pursue, and in which aspects of life they should pursue it.)
Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians (Score:3, Insightful)
What does their primary voting pattern have to do with a general election? They had to vote for one or the other. And in fact, they were 80% for Hillary up through February of 2008. Obama didn't have the majority of their support until after it was mathematically clear that he was going to win the nomination at the end of March.
So, your claim that they voted for him based on the color of his skin (as if black people are too stupid to pick a candidate for any other reason) is simply false.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there really any difference?
Re:Whitehouse.gov (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not allowed to express political opinions. The government can't control what they think, except by controlling their access to contrary opinions.
At least they know (Score:1, Insightful)
I sometimes envy the Chinese, they at least know that they're being censored. Here in the "west", it's just getting started and people in general have no idea what's going on.
The first step to defeating censorship is public awareness of censorship. China has us beat here. By the time China stops censorship, the western countries will have become what they demonzied.
Re:Meanwhile on Fox News (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you are thinking of Chris Mathews of MSNBC. Unless someone at CNN said the same thing.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but FoxNews? Sure, not every network can attend, so I understand if the Shelbyville Gazette doesn't get invited, but Fox has the ratings to be considered on the short list of invitees. Even the other networks are getting uncomfortable with it:
Well yes. And it's perfectly fine to be uncomfortable with it. Fox has long been known to be biased [wikipedia.org] from both left and right (e.g. Jonah Goldberg). Is it awkward and troubling for a media outlet to be singled out from an administration? Sure. At the same time though, it's not exactly that FoxNews has been on the up and up. It never was. Even when it was launched it was heavily promoted on conservative talk radio. I'm sorry, but when I hear "It's fair and balanced!" from Rush Limbaugh, I'm suspicious. Now if this endorsement was coming from the Columbia School of Journalism or the Annenberg Political Fact Check, or the Pulitzer Prize winning St Petersberg Times' Political Fact Check [politifact.com], then yes. But an unabashedly biased source, no thanks.
Re:we'll see (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
I think the GP has shot himself in the foot.
Re:we'll see (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except MSNBC? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but MSNBC?
I'd say yes. Yes, it is. And this actually happened, unlike that Fox News thing. Hopefully you were ranting about the Bush administration back when these things actually occurred in real life.
Wrong link (Re:Fact check. Really removed...) (Score:1, Insightful)
That link is wrong, the correct one should obviously be:
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=419750&type=National [shanghaidaily.com] ...
Score card is meaningless (Score:2, Insightful)
when the items in the loss category far exceed those in the win column in areas of importance or magnitude.
Its like having a city claim crime is down because jaywalker incidents are down 100% while ignoring the fact it was because someone was shooting them.
This is President Wall Street. Main Street won't matter to him until 2011. For all the anguish and hysteria over Bush and his so called allegiance to big business, at least Bush wasn't just handing money to Wall Street. Obama proved one thing about trickle down economics, its too slow and inefficient as a means to reward those who really support the campaigns, its many times faster to just send them tax payer money directly.
Re:we'll see (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>society should care about its citizens
We (i.e. virtually all americans) believe in the right to get health or sickcare.
We also believe in the right to choose smoking, drinking, or overeating as a lifestyle.
We even believe you have the right to replace your damaged lung, liver, or fatty heart.
What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft of another man's labor (he works; you take the product of his work i.e. his money). We are amazed that Europeans do not.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>>>So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews?
>>
>>Yes, it's OK.
No it isn't because it then sets the precedent for the White House to block NBC, or ABC, if they make a critical remark about the president. Pretty soon we will have a media that won't report negative facts, for fear of having their WH press pass revoked.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:speaking of bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
The MSNBC cite shows a video of MSNBC. Ignore the blog, ignore the comments and let the video speak for itself. The GGP seemed to not believe that the WH was a "war" with Fox News and asked for Non-Fox sources. The Guardian link also shows this and it is certainly NOT a Republican, conservative or Fox News site, as you clearly pointed out.
I didn't comment on the Guardian at all. I noted that the article said the opposite of what you claimed. I didn't even load the video on that Freedom Whatever blog, thank you Flashblock, because I'm already familiar with the arguments.
So, first you try to rebut by saying that my first source does not agree with Fox News, which is not what I was trying to show, and then you complain that my second link is conservative and it agrees with Fox News. The point was to show WH attacks towards Fox News, which both sites did. For more, please use Google. Search terms, "Anita Dunn" "Fox News", with quotes.
BTW, challenging the WH and reporting on the stuff they do does not make you "an arm of the Republican party". It makes you a news organization.
What Fox "News" broadcasts is not a "challenge" to the White House. It's made-up accusations, like this Anita Dunn nonsense, like the fuss about ACORN, like the association between the President and Bill Ayers, that make it an arm of the Republican party. These stories are simply specious, having no purpose beyond allowing the talking heads to call President Obama a socialist over and over on national TV.
Re:we'll see (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Interesting that only Fox claims that they were excluded from interviewing a politician.
How can you say that? No really, I'd like to know. I provided not one, not two, but THREE links to non-fox Networks about the white house decision to exclude FOX, and that they thought it was unfair, and yet you still make that ridiculous statement. How do you do that with a straight face?
Personally I'm happy FOX exists..... .....and what I'd like to see next if the Libertarian News Network, and maybe a Communist News Network, because we need ALL points of view on television, not just the pro-big-government view that has dominated since the 1950s.