Yahoo News reports:
In light of the fact that there is no such entity as a "public," let alone a soi-disant "public interest" the true aim of the above policies shouldn't be hard to decipher: the promotion of the survival of a despotic regime. The use of such ambiguous language is often, merely a cloak for the institution of measures that allow some men to survive at the expense of others. Who is to define what such fraudulent terms as "public interest," "social progress," and "healthy and civilized news" mean anyway?! The Omnipotent State -- of course.
The Bristish Guardian elaborates:
Once again I ask: who is to define what the genuine "public interest" is, and what "correct ... public opinion" ought to be? Clearly, the Chinese dictators have no intention of resolving disagreements through reason and let Reality be the ultimate judge -- what they intend is to beat others into submission instead, as all irrationalism ultimtely must.
Hence you have the following:
China's system of news and information filtration is so extensive that it is often referred to as "The Great Firewall" [think Great Wall of China]. And apparently some banned words and phrases on the net are "independence, democracy [and] freedom." Yet it is to these kind of totalitarian demagogues that the moral cowards at the U.N wish to hand over control of the internet -- so they can make a mockerie of that great enterprise just as they make a joke out of the concept of Human Rights by allowing such slave-countries as Cuba, not only to become members of UN Commission on Human Rights, but to becomes the heads of said Commision. But that is rant for another day.
For the moment, I will contain myself to reminding all those who like to initiate physical violence to promote their ideas, of the timeless words of a wise man:
That was Ludwig von Mises speaking.
| Quote: |
| BEIJING (AP) -- China said Sunday it is imposing new regulations to control content on its news Web sites and will allow the posting of only "healthy and civilized" news.
The move is part of China's ongoing efforts to police the country's 100-million Internet population. Only the United States, with 135 million users, has more. The new rules take effect immediately and will "standardize the management of news and information" in the country, the official Xinhua News Agency said Sunday. Sites should only post news on current events and politics, according to the new regulations issued by the Ministry of Information Industry and China's cabinet, the State Council. The subjects that would be acceptable under those categories was not clear. Only "healthy and civilized news and information that is beneficial to the improvement of the quality of the nation, beneficial to its economic development and conducive to social progress" will be allowed, Xinhua said. "The sites are prohibited from spreading news and information that goes against state security and public interest," it added. |
In light of the fact that there is no such entity as a "public," let alone a soi-disant "public interest" the true aim of the above policies shouldn't be hard to decipher: the promotion of the survival of a despotic regime. The use of such ambiguous language is often, merely a cloak for the institution of measures that allow some men to survive at the expense of others. Who is to define what such fraudulent terms as "public interest," "social progress," and "healthy and civilized news" mean anyway?! The Omnipotent State -- of course.
The Bristish Guardian elaborates:
| Quote: |
| China announced a fresh crackdown yesterday on the internet amid further revelations of a plan by Hu Jintao, the president, to suppress dissent.
"The state bans the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest," said a statement from Xinhua, the official news agency. The announcement called for blogs and personal web pages to "be directed towards serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests". |
Once again I ask: who is to define what the genuine "public interest" is, and what "correct ... public opinion" ought to be? Clearly, the Chinese dictators have no intention of resolving disagreements through reason and let Reality be the ultimate judge -- what they intend is to beat others into submission instead, as all irrationalism ultimtely must.
Hence you have the following:
| Quote: |
| On Thursday a Chinese journalist and former professor was given a seven-year sentence for "inciting subversion" by writing hundreds of articles for banned overseas news websites.
Last month the government tried to implement a scheme to pay journalists according to how much Communist party officials liked, or disliked, their articles. In July a political activist was given five years for posting a punk song on the internet deemed to be subversive, and in April a journalist was sentenced to 10 years for sending an email overseas about restrictions on freedom of speech. Providing further evidence of an organised national crackdown, the New York Times reported yesterday that Mr Hu called for a "smokeless war" against "liberal elements" in China during a secret leadership meeting in May. The government employs a cyberspace police rumoured to number 30,000 and has spent lavishly on internet filters. Journalists and human rights organisations say the "smokeless war" amounts to a transformation of the government's tactics from violence, open harassment and the closing of newspapers to more covert methods of maintaining control. Journalists who try write on forbidden topics are rarely attacked directly, but are discredited by charges such as corruption, sexual harassment and extramarital affairs. |
China's system of news and information filtration is so extensive that it is often referred to as "The Great Firewall" [think Great Wall of China]. And apparently some banned words and phrases on the net are "independence, democracy [and] freedom." Yet it is to these kind of totalitarian demagogues that the moral cowards at the U.N wish to hand over control of the internet -- so they can make a mockerie of that great enterprise just as they make a joke out of the concept of Human Rights by allowing such slave-countries as Cuba, not only to become members of UN Commission on Human Rights, but to becomes the heads of said Commision. But that is rant for another day.
For the moment, I will contain myself to reminding all those who like to initiate physical violence to promote their ideas, of the timeless words of a wise man:
| Quote: |
| The very fact that there are intolerant governments and political parties intent upon outlawing and exterminating dissenters, is a proof of the excellence of reason. It is not a conclusive proof of a doctrine's correctness that its adversaries use the police, the hangman, and violent mobs to fight it. But it is a proof of the fact that those taking recourse to violent oppression are in their subconsciousness convinced of the untenability of their own doctrines. |
That was Ludwig von Mises speaking.
