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."
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: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.
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:Hah! (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:Read the whole report. (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 an educated public, not a marketing exercise. Maybe being required to spend less would get things away from rhetoric and vitriol, and on to reasoned debate on the relative merits of the various positions. More money certainly hasn't achieved that...
"While advocating Internet freedom, the U.S. in fact imposes fairly strict restriction on cyberspace. On June 24, 2010, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which will give the federal government "absolute power" to shut down the Internet under a declared national emergency. Handing government the power to control the Internet will only be the first step towards a greatly restricted Internet system, whereby individual IDs and government permission would be required to operate a website."
- Power to shut down the internet is just granting legal power for government to stop a serious cyber war. It's hard to see the US government getting away with shutting down the internet for stopping protests like the dictators do in Middle East. The last sentence is merely China assuming US will follow its footsteps. It has not happened and will not happen in near future.
The first steps toward tyranny are always reasonably painless. Many tyrants gained power by having popular ideas. If you can't see the risk in reducing freedom, or the value in taking the risks that freedom entails, just stop using the phrase "land of the free, home of the brave".
"Unemployment rate in the United States has been stubbornly high. From December 2007 to October 2010, a total of 7.5 million jobs were lost in the country " ...
- What does a severe financial meltdown has to do with human rights? Oh right, in China human rights mean having rice to eat.
One of the last steps towards governmental collapse is when the average person can't afford to eat. People will put up with a lot of crap, but going hungry starts riots. Fast. So yes, the ability to support one's self is an indicator of the health of a country.
And finally, if your standard for your country being good is that it's better than some of the worst countries out there, I think it's time to give those standards a close examination.