IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

China's Latest Media Censorship Target is a Disaster (Literally!)
(previous | next)

Those wacky Chinese officials are at it again. Apparently they've grown tired of just pestering those curious critters who type "Tiananmen Square" or "Falun Gong" into their search engines. So, they're upping the ante and going after anyone who reports on natural disasters, industrial accidents, or health and security hazards without prior state permission.

Yes, you read that right: Reporting the news will soon be a crime in China. According to this report in today's Wall Street Journal, a new bill being considered in China's Parliament would "make reports on the handling of and status of public emergencies without approval" or "issue false reports" punishable by fines of between $6,000 and $12,000.

Think about how outrageous this is for a moment. The very act of reporting and the profession of journalism are fundamentally tied up with the idea of discussing trouble. Trouble with the schools, with roads, with politics, with sports teams, and so on. And, perhaps the most important type of reporting about trouble deals with disasters.

I was reminded of this again this week because here in the Washington, DC area we are experiencing torrential rain and flooding of the sort that forced Noah to build an ark. (Indeed, I had a trip to New York cancelled yesterday because Amtrak rails were underwater. And when I tried to get to the airport to take a plane up to NYC instead, I my car almost got stuck in a lake that suddenly formed in the middle of the highway on the way to D.C. National Airport.). The reporting that local papers and TV and radio stations have been doing during this natural disaster has proven indispensable. I've been monitoring stations to get updates on road closings and emerging problems, as well as constant weather updates. And I've been planning my routes around town using the Washington Post's handy road closings map.

My point is that this is what journalism & reporting is all about: Providing basic information to the public to allow them to make important decisions. But apparently the Chinese don't like the sound of that. They want control over such things in order to avoid a repeat of the reporting about the bird flu outbreak, during which certain Chinese newspapers had the audacity to actually tell the public that there was a looming health disaster in the country they might want to pay attention to! And Chinese officials don't like those pesky reporters talking about the country's HIV / AIDS crisis either. Apparently they feel that keeping the citizenry in the dark about such matters is a sensible way to deal with a major national health crisis. What insanity.

One cringes at the thought of how the media might respond to the newly proposed Chinese law. If a Three Mile Island or Chernobyl scenario breaks, what sort of chilling effect might the new law have on journalists who want to get the word out to the masses in a timely fashion? On a different level, say I'm just and average Chinese citizen who is lucky enough to have a computer, a digital camera and an e-mail account and I snap a few photos of a crack in nearby dam that appears to now be leaking. Will I get a knock on the door from state officials after posting those photos on the Web?

As my PFF colleague Patrick Ross--a former award-winning journalist himself--notes, China is basically undertaking Perestroika without Glasnost. They like the economic freedom part, but they think the whole free speech thing is for the birds. And, amazingly, it seems to be working. Contrary to what many (including me) have argued in the past, economic reform and social freedom does not necessarily go hand-in-hand. China is proving you can have one without the other.

posted by Adam Thierer @ 12:37 PM | Free Speech

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly


Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation