China Calls Out US On Internet Freedom 338
rsmiller510 writes "In an interesting case of the pot calling the kettle black, the Chinese government released a report criticizing the US government of being hypocrites where Internet freedom was concerned — criticizing others for cracking down, yet circling the wagons when it involves US internal security (WikiLeaks anyone?). And the Chinese might have a point."
Do as we say, not as we do!! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you keep saying the U.S. isn't all about freedom, we'll bomb the shit out of you!
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm. If the US bombs the UN for saying the US isn't all about freedom, and the UN is on US soil, will the US have to retaliate against the US for bombing the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if we can get a UN resolution saying it's okay.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if we can get a UN resolution saying it's okay.
The Chinese and Russians would veto any resolution authorizing force, so the US would have to take unilateral action against the US for bombing the UN in the US.
Meanwhile, Ban-ki Moon would shed many tears.
Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
China shouldn't be calling anyone a hypocrite. As furious the barking in Washington has been there's no bite, and nothing compares to China's outright abuse of its people and efforts to censor the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was my thought, as outraged as I am about the way Wikileaks has been handled, and that's quite a bit, it's a much less serious problem than what countries like China engage in.
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks is being handled the way it is, not because its an internet security or censorship issue, but because it's a military security issue with diplomatic security tacked on.
What do you think the PLA would do to a Chinese Bradley Manning who copied hundreds of thousands of documents?
Really think he'd be in pre-trial confinement still?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They would have simply just killed Manning instead of torturing him indefinitely alone in a small cage 24/7. I guess China is more humane after all!
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Bradley Manning did something that would be illegal, no matter what his justification, if it happened how it is supposed to have gone down. He didn't have the right to release any of that material. If he did that in China, he'd be in pre-execution detention right now, if they even wait that long.
I don't know what people expect the military to do if someone just goes off and decides to release material, slap them on the wrist? He knew what he was doing, it's not like it was some sort of accidental release. Even if he did it out of conscience and perhaps rates a pardon or something, he still has to go through the process and no one with a clearance does not know what the process and penalties are.
I can buy that some people might consider his actions heroic. I don't, but that's mostly because I think how he went about it was reckless. Sure, people may not have died because of the release, but he did absolutely nothing to make sure that wasn't the case first. Without care being taken with actions like these, even the best of intentions can backfire into something that no one could ever dream of. I think his point could have easily been made with less material, more carefully selected.
It's not going to be up to me what happens to him, but I don't see any reason he shouldn't be in Ft. Leavenworth for a few years, unless the trial brings up information that I am not already aware of.
More to the point, his treatment does not even come close to making the US anything like China. I can buy that the US might be held more to account because it holds higher standards, but you have to disclose the fact that you really are using two different standards. Otherwise, you are perpetuating an inaccuracy. When you compare China the to US, you are comparing apples to oranges and you can't just make blanket statements that equate them.
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Either that or the U.S. is just better at keeping secrets...
When powerful entities get mad at you (usually if they're embarrassed about something you've exposed) and the gloves come off, it really doesn't matter what country you live in. Your life is going to hell. Anything less and the constituents will think their representatives are "soft on crime".
Re:Hah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But how have they suppressed speech with respect to this issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you could ask some people at Hillary Clinton's "internet freedom" speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My29YT1T4R4 [youtube.com]
I guess the guy who got dragged out should have done his protest on the Internet rather than at the speech ;).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a clearance though, it means that VIEWING the publicly available wikileaks papers is a security breach and you could:
1) Lose your classification (and therefore job in most cases) 2) End up in Leavenworth.
I call that a fairly chilling effect.
I'd like a reference. If I remember right - this was an interpretation from a single individual emailing others that was not backed up by anything nearing an official channel.
I think it was this e.o. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31418.pdf [gpo.gov] Something about improperly declassified data may remain classified even in the face of FOIA requests.
Again - some digging would be helpful. The closest I can find is as follows:
Re: (Score:2)
That may be interesting, but you didn't answer the question.
FTFY (Score:2)
"the pot calling the kettle black" back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And then we have the old bugabo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
China isn't a hypocrite here, the U.S. actually is. China knows they censor, but they also don't crusade around the world telling other countries that it's bad to do. This is not the pot calling the kettle black here, this is more like the kid who got bullied finally standing up to the bully. This is China finally calling attention to the hypocrisy of the U.S., who have sat upon their high horse telling anyone else in the world that they shouldn't do bad things, all the while doing the same things themse
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
nothing compares to China's outright abuse of its people
Ironically, the United States currently imprisons more people than China, and most of those prisoners are not violent offenders. Yes, the Chinese have a record of abuses, but that does not exonerate the United States.
Incarceration rate (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, the incarceration rate is a key indicator (if not THE key indicator) of a government's overall respect for human rights in practice (not in theory which is a useless bullshit measurement).
The fact that the US government incarcerates more individuals per population than any other country in the world speaks volumes about the reality of the situation, as does the fact that the vast majority of prisoners are non-violent and were emprisoned not for crimes against other human beings, but merely crimes ag
Re:Hah! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually, the US imprisons a lot of people, relative to any other non-totalitarian country. That includes China.
Relative to their population, China does not execute anywhere close to that many people. That'd be a significant percent of their population.
Re: (Score:2)
If the U.S. would decrease their prison population to, lets say, european levels, the unemployment rate in the U.S. would reach european levels too. As it is, the U.S. currently imprisons about 2% of the potential workforce.
I was always wondering which is cheaper: Pay the unemployable some social welfare to keep them from doing stupid things to get through, or wait until they commit some crime and then pay to lock them up. As it seems, the european way is somewhat cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry dude, but the US imprisons over 2 million people. China is around 1.5 million. Even in absolute numbers the US trumps China.
That may be true if you're only looking at the "official" numbers from China. But it doesn't include "administrative detention" and the re-education and forced-labor camps, which according to Harry Wu [nysut.org] tops 8 million people.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing something doesn't make you a hyprocrite. Doing something while advocating the opposite does.
China doesn't criticize others countries for restriciting "internet freedoms" and hence that they do so themselves isn't hyprocritical.
Completely missed the point. (Score:5, Interesting)
You have missed the point completely, like a typical American politician. Before you spout off, learn what the word hypocrite means: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
The point: China doesn't act like they don't filter. China has quite clearly stated that they believe that press should be limited. China has quite clearly stated that the group has more importance than the individual. China has quite clearly stated that they want to do what's best for their economy only.
The problem is the U.S. THEY say they are for freedom of the people, and install dictators in countries. THEY say the are for freedom of the press, and limit war reporting, harass reporters, and go after people who expose government abuses. THEY are for capitalism, and then bail out the companies that should have been allowed to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
And even moreso like an ignorant American politician*, he goes straight for the ad hominem as if it somehow vindicates the US's actions.
*let's also make note to include many news anchors/mediaheads that just as easily do the same...
Re: (Score:2)
This just in - the world is not black and white. News at 11.
Don't get me wrong. I often boggle at flag-waving done in the name of actions which fundamentally undermine our very basic tenants of our Constitution. I completely agree that the US struggles over these higher ideals on a regular basis. But it is a mistake as dismissing that struggle as hypocrisy. We struggle because interpretations of these ideals vary, not because we don't believe in those ideals. And we continue to struggle because tha
Re: (Score:2)
But the difference being, China doesn't go around telling other countries how they should be doing it.
China says something to the effect of "this is what we do, it's the law, if you don't like it tough".
The US says something to the effect of "you shouldn't censor people, and that the internet is a tool fo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, or that what China does is right or even good. I definitely think they need to make some changes.
I'm saying that if the US goes around the world talking from a position of acting like they have a moral high-ground, it's all the more glaring when they're hypocrites about certain things.
In this case, the behavior of neither is necessarily good or acceptable -- but at least China isn't spouting off about how the US should be doing things. If the US is being ju
Re: (Score:2)
At risk of invoking Godwin's law, China criticising the USA for censorship today would be like Nazi Germany criticizing the UK for fascism during WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to Godwin the discussion, at least do it properly. It wouldn't be like that at all.
It'd be like Nazi Germany saying that it was hypocritical of the US to torture prisoners in Gitmo.
We're the ones who say it's bad, and yet we're doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, the author even has it wrong; it's not the pot calling the kettle black at all. That specifically only applies when one criticizes another for doing something that he himself does. In this case, China is calling the US a hypocrite when it comes to freedom, while China has never purported to be freedom-embracing to begin with. Like someone else said, US == hypocrite, China != hypocrite, an
"there hasnt been any bite" ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OH NO! Not account information! Oh wait, isn't withholding that kinda like censorship? So if that information got "leaked" by accident its alright, but if a court demands it in the due and proper course of a criminal investigation it's bad? Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It's not the pot calling the kettle black. It's the pot accusing the kettle of disrupting the peace and endangering national security, spiriting them away in the night, and then arresting the teacup, saucer, and spoon for being associated with the dissident kettle.
Everything I need to know about China and the Internet was said when they arrested Ai Weiwei [wikipedia.org]. Even if they release him, still - nobody currently knows where he is, they've had 50 police thoroughly comb through his house. All of this basica
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but is the US any better really? In China they can't vote, all communications are monitored and censored, they're inundated with government propaganda, and everyone goes along with it. In the US your vote changes nothing, all communications are monitored, you're inundated with Western ideas via the media, and everyone goes along with it.
The only difference is the US has figured out a way to do the same thing while convincing people that they are free and actually choosing their own destinies. On a day
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not they're worse than the US is irrelevant to their point. I think they're right, even if I think they need to change drastically as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
China isn't claiming that they dont censor, just that the US does it too.
At least they do it in an effort (however wrong and immoral) to protect their citizens. The US does it over greed.
This is one of those cases where the devil is in the details. The DOJ / ICE would claim that seizing those sites protect US business, economics, workers, etc. It's easy to toss around those generalities to fit any situation.
Re: (Score:2)
"to protect their citizens"
Do they? Or is your bias so great that you can't possibly extend the same distrust you have for the US government to the Chinese government as well? Face it, if you blindly believe the official narrative of one country and not the other, you have no place in intelligent conversation.
I think both sides should call each other out. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some keep saying:
"China should look at their own track record before criticizing the US on freedom an human rights"
and others keep saying:
"The US should look at their own track record before criticizing the China on freedom an human rights",
IMHO it's good any time *either* country points out abuses in the other and they should each aggressively push each other to improve.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless aggressively pushing means using bombs to push, then it's not such a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's good any time either country actually does something about its human rights record. When it's simply pointing out other abuses to distract attention from its own failures, it's a waste of time.
In this case, I think it's clearly the latter. The US record is far from perfect, but the Chinese record is abominable. There will always be a conflict between national security and free speech; there will always be an opportunity to point out when the US has veered too far towards the former. But it's a hell
Ding! We have a winnah! (Score:2)
Is this really a pot/kettle thing? (Score:3)
One country criminalizes speech. The other country criminalizes theft. Forgive me if I see enough of a difference as to not only rule out hypocrisy, but make China's argument look ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
But which is which?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Senior government official gives a talk about oppression of free speech
2. Elderly man stands up and turns his back in silent protest
3. Plain-clothes officers beat the old man to the ground and drag him out and throw him in jail
Guess which country I'm talking about.
Re:Is this really a pot/kettle thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the same country which has "designated free speech zones" so they can keep dissenting opinions in fenced off areas away from everyone else?
Or the one that allows your laptop to be arbitrarily seized at the border?
Or how about keeping prisoners without trial or recourese in a foreign country using a ginned up judicial system so they can get around their own laws and procedures?
How about one whose Attorney General posited that things like Habeus Corpus don't apply to people who aren't citizens?
Sadly, over the last bunch of years, there have been a fair few instances of America having a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, the US government has been known to selectively apply obscure or overly broad laws to persecute minority groups, including black people and Muslims, and to harass adherents to certain social movements (hippies, hackers, socialists, anarchists, populists, etc.).
Well, yes and no. (Score:2)
Yes in that if the US can't (and won't) live up to the standards it claims to set, then other governments are entitled to ask if those standards are achievable or even desirable.
No in that if the front-runner drops out of the race, you still won't win by joining them.
Woah woah waoh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
China is doing with the Soviets did (Score:4, Insightful)
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union pointed to the civil rights issues, the freedom rides, the riots, excess of authority to argue that the US had no place in criticizing the Soviet Union for invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia or pushing the crack down on Poland.
Because racial tensions are equal to invading other countries.
China is just pointing at the US to justify it's own censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smoke and mirrors, point out someone else's flaw to get them to overlook your own. It's how people with fragile egos act.
Sounds like my ex-wife actually... "Do you remember what you said last time?" "Four years ago, seriously?"
The appropriate response (Score:5, Insightful)
And the appropriate response to the Soviet Union would be "You're right, we have civil rights issues. Racism is terrible, and we'll try to fix these issues." And to our credit, we have come a long way. In addition, we should respond "Hey guys, quit invading other countries!" (never mind the fact that the US continues to invade countries to this day...)
In this case, again, we should take a good look at the criticisms and not ignore them because of the messenger. Maybe we are doing a bad job of preserving internet freedoms, and should work to fix them. Maybe China is also doing a bad job.
Re: (Score:3)
China is just pointing at the US to justify it's own censorship.
I'm no fan of the U.S. foreign policy or recent regressions in civil rights but China is comparing apples with oranges here. The very idea that you can compare a country that imprisons or dissapears anyone who actually speaks out against repression with the U.S. is shameful.
That doesn't mean the U.S. can't do better... putting Bush and Cheney up on warcrimes charges would be a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't like singling out Bush and Cheney when other Presidents (Clinton, Bush 41, Nixon, LBJ) are just as guilty, I think Presidents should go on trial after their term is over, just like how the Athenians did it to Tyrants after their one year term was over.
No kidding (Score:2)
I mean let's not give the US a free pass, they are not perfect. However it is not even the same kind of shit China is pulling. Just because the US should be better does not mean they can't point out people who are much, much, worse.
The US has some problems balancing the right to free speech against other needs (you find that rights can almost never be unlimited, as it'll lead to trampling on the rights of others) and some problems with corporations using their influence with government to their own ends. Ch
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe, but if what they report is true, then - surprise - it is true.
Whatever their agenda is, if they point out stuff that needs changing, then it needs changing. In fact, I would judge the maturity of a country on their response - if it is self-defense or counter-attack, it is childish. If it checks the facts and takes steps to improve those that are rightly pointed out, then it is mature.
So, what are you, USA? A kid with dangerous weapons or an adult?
Link to original sources (Score:2)
To the Chinese report: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2011-04/11/content_12303177.htm [chinadaily.com.cn]
Might? (Score:2)
There's no "might" about it. They do have a point and they are correct to point it out.
Read the whole report. (Score:5, Informative)
The entire report, "Full Text of Human Rights Record of the United States in 2010" [xinhuanet.com], is worth reading. Most of the items on the list are well known, and have even come up on Slashdot.
These are problems the US has that aren't being fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Now some of them are systemic to the US, but most of them are not unique. They are facets of a flawed, human endeavor. Even with those (the "strict on cyberspace" is a bit of a stretch... it's not law yet... it just passed committee), I choose the US over China in terms of a "good place to live" any day of the week. I'm sure people love to live in China, but if we compare the balance sheets... I rather like the US side better.
China's unemployment rate (or rather underemployment rate) would make our numbers
Meanwhile in Workers Paradise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many more treaties that the USA refuse to ratify. For example the USA is not a member of the International Criminal Court, I think as the only western country, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court [wikipedia.org]
The Kyoto Protocol, I think the USA is the only country world wide not signed it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The prison population can and should be drastically reduced with the elimination of jail time for many non-violent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of them have a point, others not so much.
"The United States reports the world's highest incidence of violent crimes"
- More than Mexico where thousands are dying in drug gang violence? Besides, US has a large population, if you use violent crimes per capita as a measure, you should find US quite low in the table, although not as good as most other developed countries.
Out of the 64 countries listed in this list [nationmaster.com], the first I bothered to look at when I searched "violent crime per capita", the US is #24, and the highest 'first-world' country. The violent crime rate is 3 times higher than in Canada and the UK, and 4 times higher than Germany. But you may stop worrying, Mexico is 3 times higher than the US. And maybe that's why the rest of the world thinks of the US the way the US thinks of Mexico, when it comes to violent crime.
"The U.S. regards itself as "the beacon of democracy. However, its democracy is largely based on money. "
- Not that I like the big spending on elections, but is fund raising not part of the democracy? I highly doubt if fund raising for a political party is allowed in China.
And here I thought democracy was founded on
Re: (Score:2)
Well, comparing it to China is only fair in that the US really only has twice as many viable parties as China does ;)
But no, the two aren't comparable in political fund raising or cost of entering politics. Compare it to the EU. T
transparency vs censorship (Score:2)
Some would say they are the same thing, but I think that is a bit of stretch. We all say crap about our families behind their backs, that isn't censorship.
China is blocking the names of the kids that died in the earthquake and then jailing those who put them out. That is a huge difference then not releasing private conversations concerning foreign relations.
Their word is less than nothing on this. (Score:2)
Re:Their word is less than nothing on this. (Score:4, Interesting)
I can still access wikileaks anytime I want to.
Can you?
213.251.145.96 is taking too long to respond on my end. (Qwest)
The fact that no publicly accessible DNS server resolves it further weakens your case.
Re: (Score:2)
Society cannot advance until perception is aligned with reality. America has become the mother of all lies. More and more it seems that our Constitution is an hurdle to those who would seek to govern us rather than the guiding principles.
At least ... (Score:2)
In either country, the people are peasants. And in both cases, we can't control our masters with the ballot box.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between our ballot boxes is that we COULD control the government with the ballot box, but we CHOOSE not to. The Chinese can't. They want to, but they can't. We are squandering an opportunity that people in China have died trying to get, yet we still send the same gimpy ass-sucking motherfuckers to Washington year in and year out and wonder why the fuck nothing changes. I mean, we have no one to blame but ourselves...
But your first comment would be wiped clean if we would only STOP listening t
proportionality (Score:2, Insightful)
scale
context
some of the mental concepts you will find missing from those in the west who draw a false equivalency between the usa's crimes concerning internet freedom and the chinese
but most importantly, you will find them, freely and openly criticising their government, without fear of reprisal. unlike in china
so if listening to mentally subpar cranks on the internet equate china and the usa in illogical ways, i accept that as a price to pay for freedom of political expression
Business as usual in US politics (Score:3)
US politicians have a rather nasty habit. (No, not chasing people around in cloak rooms or playing footsie in bathroom stalls, but they seem into that too)
Namely, they like to straddle the fence, and are very bad at doing so.
Take for instance, the media spectacle of the Egypt and subsequent middle-eastern revolts. The talking heads on capital hill squirmed and looked at each other for DAYS before finally resolving on an official position---AFTER the brave people in Egypt forced their hands. You see, they had been caught with their knickers down. On one side, you had "Heroic efforts to bring real democracy and freedom by the populace"-- which is the anodyne that they spew here in the states (Even though the body politic has rendered most of these so called freedoms that we are supposed to enjoy inert, or highly restricted with red tape and restriction) and on the other, there was Hosni Mubarak-- "Our Man" who "Helped us" with some rather "Nasty Renditions"--and more importantly, the diplomatic bargaining power he brought to the table in middle eastern affairs. (Namely, their dirty underhanded dealings) Having to pick a side and stick with it seems to have ruffled more than just a few feathers up there in washington--- the concept of lasting consequences and of having the onus of that kind of choice on them makes them squirm like worms under the light of a Fresnel lens. Back-troll through the media coverage prior to the deposal of Mubarak, with emphasis on the position from capital hill--- and you will find lots and lots of deflectionary statements.
Same kind of thing with this "Pot calling kettle black" issue with China, and censorship. The US government, like *ALL* Governments, is addicted to power; namely, the power to control its citizens-- (But the US is more aggressive, in that it likes to control OTHER nation's citizens as well. Extra-ordinary rendition, et. al.) As such, it innately LIKES the idea of a serious crackdown on free information exchange. You can go just about anyplace in government where there is "Enforcement" of any sort, be it military to as mundane as city police departments, and you will find a highly prevalent bias toward wanting to control or at least obsessively monitor/record pretty much every kind of correspondence. Constitutionally protected rights to personal papers and effects be damned.
Take for instance, the rather nasty provisions in the US patriot act, which has come up for review TWICE now, and somehow (rolls eyes) keeps getting new lease on life-- specifically, the data retention policies it enforces on public internet providers. (like internet cafes and libraries) Handing over lending histories was only ONE of the provisions; Another that was discretely added was the requirement to provide, on demand, complete packet logs of persons of interest, without oversight. If Government Man wants, it, Government Man gets it, basically.
No wonder then, that libraries and such were up in arms over it. [chronicle.com]
Essentially, the US wants to maintain the *illusion* that there is freedom and privacy in people's day to day correspondences, while secretly spying on, sanitizing, and orchestrating "enforcements" on "undesirable" communications. Wikileaks being just one high profile example. Philosophically, how is this any better than China's approach? If anything, the US approach to censorship is more obscene and insideous, because it promotes false senses of security in the citizens impacted--- China at least doesnt deny that it uses strongarm tactics; the US on the other hand, does gymnastics to validate why it purpetually authorizes warrantless searches, siezures, and interrogations at places like airports.
Basically, the US is JUST like China, just in a velvet glove instead of a cold steel one.
Chinese gov'ts argument: US not perfect (Score:2)
Yes, the U.S. is not perfect and I would like to see improvements. But neither is it remotely comparable to the Chinese government's ongoing campaigns of repression and censorship.
Let's just start with voting rights (i.e., self-determination): In the U.S., some groups' ballot box power is reduced by gerrymandering and polling place restrictions (IDs, etc.). In comparison, in China there is no ballot box.
The list of similarly absurd comparisons is long. I look forward to the day when the people of China cont
Re: (Score:2)
Your point? You have one more party than China does and the two you have are the same guys.
You do not live in a democracy. You live in a republic. It is right there in your pledge of allegiance.
At least China doesn't pretend to be something it is not. At least the government freely admits to these things, while in the US the government hides all the while flag fuckers like you shout, USA! USA! USA!
Welcome to irreverence.
Dear world (Score:2)
You had better do as I say, not as I do!
Yours truly,
America
Meh (Score:2)
They'd probably be better off picking on Germany, where the government is once again trying to enact censorship laws which would allow them to block access to specified sites.
Last time around they used the excuse of wanting this measure it to block access to child pornography content and this time they're hiding behind anti-terrorism doublespeak.
As Vladimir Putin puts it... (Score:2)
"Some people's cows can moo, but yours should keep quiet."
If WikiLeaks happened in China.... (Score:2)
If WikiLeaks had happened in China the Families of Manning and Assange would have already received the bill for the bullet. Just say'n.
Tho big chimpanzees (Score:2)
Throwing shit at each other in a cage called world.
And the shit, that's us.
Pot calling the kettle black? (Score:2)
The US is far from innocent when it comes to Internet freedom, but nobody should suggest that the US is in the same league as China on this issue.
China is right (Score:2)
There's a huge difference between us and not-us. (Score:2)
I see a huge difference in the criticisms given to both China and the US.
Clinton criticized China for detaining its own artists and dissidents.
China is criticizing the US for civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, for mistreating prisoners of war, and for targeting Wikileaks.
It's pretty plain that China is being accused of mistreating its own people, while the US is being accused of mistreating everybody else. Yes, there were some comments about poverty and the US prison system, but the bulk of criti
might have (Score:3)
And the Chinese might have a point.
No, they do have a point. Even if they are even worse, even if you don't like them. The serial-killer child-rapist cleptomanic is still right when he points out the guy who ran the red light. It may be any number of things, but it doesn't change the simple fact that the truth remains the truth no matter who reports it.
And sometimes, it needs an unpopular perceived enemy to speak out what all your friends don't dare to say out loud and clear.
Amen! (Score:2)
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Many Americans will not pay attention to issues until they are directly affected, or "I have nothing to hide" until it directly affects them.
They forget their history.
First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. You cannot appreciate the forced slavery, the lack of property laws, the disappearances, the forced abortions, the starvation that takes place in China unless you have been there. (And I'm not talking about Beijing or Shanghai, you lazy CNN hacks.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't change the fact that Chinese people are pressed into forced labor on bullshit offenses and made to assemble cheap plastic shit that we buy for low, low prices at big-name chains.
Re: (Score:2)
By no means am I advocating China's behavior here, but the US has a rather lengthly track record of similar nasty abuses.
Take for instance, the Tuskegee syphilis study. [wikipedia.org]
Or, if that isnt your cup of tea, and you want 1:1 correlations-- How about the US's forced sterilization procedures it enacted for awhile? [about.com]
Then you have the whole government neglect in the Monsanto chemical contamination horror-fest... [sourcewatch.org]
The real difference between the US and China, is that in the US there is government interest in keeping up a
Re: (Score:2)
in theory, this may be true.
Hilarious. You can keep it.