7064468
story
Comments: 312 +- Politics: Obama Talks Internet Freedom, China Censors on Monday November 16, @11:04PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday November 16, @11:04PM
from the can't-hear-you dept.
from the can't-hear-you dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccensorship.gif); width:44px; height:55px;
censorship
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpolitics.gif); width:61px; height:43px;
politics
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."
Related Stories
leverage, n.:
Even if someone doesn't care what the world thinks
about them, they always hope their mother doesn't find out.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Whitehouse.gov (Score:4, Informative)
They're streaming this speech, and historically China has not blocked this domain. So, provided there are curious Chinese citizens who are aware of the visit they have a way to hear directly what was said.
Re: (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?
Re:Whitehouse.gov (Score:5, Interesting)
The non-rhetorical answer:
10M Fluent english speakers in China [wikipedia.org] (0.77%) vs
2M Fluent chinese speakers in the US [wikipedia.org] (0.57%)
However, an additional 300M Chinese (~23%) are learning english. That is an awful lot of young impressionable students.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
...which I actually did yesterday. I'm in Shanghai right now.
But, I guess for someone who can listen and understand live English audio streaming with no caption and such, s/he should be well aware that unrestricted Internet access is essential.
May I put it in another way...GIVE ME BACK THE DAMN FACEBOOK.
Re: (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
Re: (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.
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: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?
Parent
Re:Anti-censorship, huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Absolutely nothing? Not lighting a bonfire?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com]
The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept: 54
Compromise: 14
Promise Broken: 7
Stalled: 17
In the Works: 149
Not yet rated: 274
Feel free to read the about page [politifact.com]
The Truth-O-Meter [politifact.com] is good fun too.
Every day it tracks the veracity of statements by public figures & politicians.
Parent
Re:Score card is meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Ahem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008 [wikipedia.org]
On October 1, 2008, the Senate debated and voted on an amendment to H.R. 1424, which substituted a newly revised version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for the language of H.R. 1424. The Senate accepted the amendment and passed the entire amended bill, voting 74-25. Additional unrelated provisions added an estimated $150 billion to the cost of the package and increased the size of the bill to 451 pages. The amended version of H.R. 1424 was sent to the House for consideration, and on October 3, the House voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law. President Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its congressional enactment, creating a $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program to purchase failing bank assets.
Parent
Meanwhile on Fox News (Score:5, Funny)
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: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."
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (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
A tradition of the United States (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Parent
Re: (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.
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.
Fact check. Really removed from view? (Score:5, Informative)
Really removed from view? A quick check on the chinese newspapers, here for example todays Shanghai Daily, proves different:
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=419690&type=Opinion
"Many of the students asked questions in English about Obama's views on Internet censorship, global leadership and Taiwan....
hand-picked (Score:3, Interesting)
The Chinese fully realize that probably half or more of Americans will be very upset if something were to happen to Obama, and they're treating the problem appropriately, as would any other host country.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there really any difference?
Parent
Re: (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 F
Re:we'll see (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that five other american networks did say that, by refusing a white house press conference from which Fox News had been blocked.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fox news is destroying themselves and everyone else is laughing while they do it.
Not everyone else, a good chunk of people in the Southern States still takes the word of Fox "News" as Gospel. Well, the same people also listen to Rush Limbaugh religiously (pun intended), big supporter of Fox "News" - You can't switch radio stations in Texas any time of the day without tripping on one broadcasting Limbaugh. Enough said.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whoa, whoa. Hold on there. Nobody's saying he did it. Just... just... isn't it *interesting* that he isn't denying it? I mean, nobody thinks he really did it, but imagine a world where everyone rapes and murders young girls. I mean, is that the kind of future we want for our children? By not denying it, Glenn Beck is opening up rape and murders of young girls to be a socially acceptable practice. Friends, I don't know about you, but I find that completely unacceptable. Glenn Beck just needs to come right ou
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Interesting)
After the White House tried keeping got involved with Treasury's decision whether or not to allow Fox News in a round robin of interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg, the five networks bureau chiefs banded together until Fox was permitted in. The joint action shows one of the difficulties if the administration tries to marginalize Fox, especially when that disrupts the network pool. (Fox's own report via Johnny Dollar). UPDATE: From what I hear, the situation was more between Treasury and Fox after the networks decided to pool interviews with Feinberg that had been requested by some, but not all of the networks. The bureau chiefs agreed that all networks should be included in the pool, including Fox, which had been missing from Treasury's list of networks involved in the interviews. The White House was contacted by Treasury, but as a spokesperson points out, they did not keep Fox from interviewing Feinberg. “The fact that Major Garrett conducted an interview with Ken Feinberg at a time when all the other networks did speaks for itself," deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest told POLITICO. “This White House has demonstrated our willingness to do a round of interviews with a range of networks but not Fox," Earnest added. "Clearly, that didn’t happen yesterday.” Indeed, the White House conducted interviews recently between Obama and five Sunday show hosts without including Fox's Chris Wallace. UPDATE 2: A Treasury official tells Mediaite: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."
So either Fox didn't request the interview or the Treasury didn't add it to the list and consequently they weren't in the orig pool.
Something to watch out for if it happens again, but I'm not going to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by error. However it looks like you're misrepresenting or unaware of the facts. It was the Treasury, not the WH, who didn't have Fox Entertainment News in the orig pool and the WH approved the additional interview for Fox Entertainment News.
Interesting that this story is a month old, I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting that only Fox claims that they were excluded from interviewing a politician. The other news organizations would have had a field day if the White House actually censored Fox News from participating.
Fox News is not a newscast, it's an opinion network that they misrepresent as news. They misuse and misquote sources, they use fake footage, they instigate crowds, host fake 'tea parties', misrepresent laws etc. etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqdtZlec0s [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E [youtube.com]
I
Re: (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 Co
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As for the BBC, you trust a government owned and run network over free ones? Really? BBC is the NPR and PBS of Britain. Sorry, I think the "Bullshit" is coming from you.
I like to think a public news organization from country A can give a fairly unbiased opinion on matters of country B.
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Informative)
NPR/PBS, reliant as they are mostly on voluntary public donations, is a mere shadow of the legislatively-created and taxpayer funded BBC in the UK (or the Australian equivalent, ABC, for that matter). A poor cousin at best. You can't compare them like that, it's chalk and cheese quality-wise.
Not many people see PBS as a high quality or popular channel in the US. But, in Australia the ABC is one of the most-watched and best-quality networks (and has multiple channels in most areas). Ditto with the UK and the BBC.
Parent
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...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
I think the GP has shot himself in the foot.
Re:we'll see (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah same with the ABC in Australia. Accusations of bias occasionally get flung its way (let's face it, it's an easy target being government-funded), but any empirical study will show it's easily the most balanced and fair of all the TV/radio networks. Indeed, most accusations are usually of the "you are too biased AGAINST the current government, rather than for it" nature.
The Australian ABC/British BBC/Canadian CBC really do a top notch job of providing free, quality programming and journalism. It's a real shame the US doesn't have an equivalent (and no PBS do not count ... having seen their stations in a number of US markets, they are nowhere near as good).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's funded by the licence fee, yes. But the government has no control over the BBC's content - it operates independently, and there is a separate BBC trust to oversee it, again independent from government. Its charter requires that it be independent from both private and government influence.
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.
Parent
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Interesting)
Yea, whatever happened to it.
Because Fox News isn't broadcasting anywhere anymore. It's obvious that their rights aren't protected, and they were shut down.
Wait, What???? Oh sorry, here's Fox News on my TV right here!
I guess their rights to say whatever shit they want are indeed being defended. My bad.
So, are you saying that there is nothing between complete freedom and total shutdown?
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 [rcfp.org] with it:
Despite the administration’s pledge to play nice earlier this week, the White House tried to exclude Fox News – alone among the five White House "pool" networks – from interviewing executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg on Thursday.
After CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC balked at the plan Tuesday, ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the appropriateness of the administration's saying that Fox News, which he called "one of our sister organizations," is "not a news organization."
(From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press... but what would they know, right?)
Parent
Re: (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: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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:we'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (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: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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To speak of freedom on Chinese soil, even regarding a limited internet environment, is a strong action.
Re: (Score:2)