China Censors HIV/AIDS Awareness Documentary

eldavojohn writes "Amnesty International is reporting an unusual case of censorship in which Chinese police questioned HIV/AIDS workers in China and instructed them to cancel an airing of a documentary made by Aizhixing Institute of Health Education on the disease. The director of that NGO recently left China after constant police harassment. The canceled documentary was about Tian Xi, a patient who contracted HIV by blood transfusion at age 9."

Health or Politics?

[Sponge Bath]

I would think the government would agree to distributing information purely about health issues. I wonder about the tone of the film. Is it wrapped up in criticism of the government? AI's site, of course, portrays it as totally innocent. I clicked on "Watch Documentary" but it stalled out.

Re:good move, USA should also ban hysteria reporti

[sarysa]

I think their greater concern is that because their healthcare system is government run, the panic you describe would make people question the government's competency, thereby undermining its authority. I'm curious to how China would react if the subject of the documentary got HIV through sex.

Re:Health or Politics?

[Marcika]

Kevin Peter Hall [imdb.com], the original actor in the Predator suit in Predator 1 and Predator 2 died that way, AIDS via incompetent blood transfusion after a car crash. He was in Misfits of Science [imdb.com] too. Such a loss :(

More importantly, Isaac Asimov [wikipedia.org] died that way as well -- and the doctors cajoled his family into hushing it up for decade (until the doctors were dead as well).

Re:mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Using force to support censorship *IS* more admirable than using due process of law.

Let me make this clear. Censorship is always, unconditionally, evil. No exceptions. Now--this is a philosophical axiom I hold. You can try to find exceptions--but for me, it is a core premise. You cannot censor evil without doing greater harm. Given censorship is unconditionally evil, then I would *rather* have the evil done by violence and force than through some orderly systematic process. People at least recognize and react to immediate violence. At least then men of courage and honor are likely to destroy their government. It's honest, it's candid--it's available for inspection by the global community.

Due process of law is just a proxy for the ultimate and final threat of violence by the legal system under the guise of democratic process. And when censorship enters the question, you can't even challenge the law. That's right--you can't challenge censorship in the US. Witness the cases being thrown out left and right. Oh, ONE case made it--and that judge was LEGALLY IN THE WRONG.

"Due process of law" is an illusion used to maintain the status quo. I can challenge any law I want--as long as I have standing. Oh wait--I can't show standing because the existence of evidence is classified. Because my own evidence would be confiscated from me. Because the judge himself is not allowed to see it. Or the jurors. Because I have no chance of success, no recourse, no evidence--by definition of legal fiction!

Fuck. that. I'd rather see nations burn out fast than witness a slow agonizing death by disingenuous ambivalence and sophistry.