China is world's worst jailer of the press; global tally second worst on record
cpj.org
cpj.org
Yep, if you don't control the journalists completely, you've got to jail them to cencor them.
If, on the other hand, they'll print anything the government tells them as if it was The Truth, and would hardly question much, besides some partisan BS, why bother?
Especially if the few facts that sometimes escape this self-sencorship are burried in a cloud of illogical opinions, half-informed BS and propaganda, so the population doesn't even know what to think about those either...
Besides controversies related to race, America has also seen a large number of prison scandals in the past few years including:
1: kickbacks to the judicial system to pipeline truly innocent children into juvenile detention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)
2: the forced, uninformed and/or coerced sterilization of prisoners (https://www.google.com/?q=california+forced+sterilization+of...)
3: documented overuse of solitary confinement (http://americamagazine.org/issue/solitary-scandal) in some cases for 40 straight years (http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/24/longest_serving_us_pr...)
4: a lack of legal opportunity in high density prisons for a speedy trial, even in the case of child offenders (http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/1/accused_of_stealing_a_...) and for those with mental issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_DeFriest)
5: the premeditated use of penal labor as a cheap replacement for unskilled labor (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272...)
6: the use of untested, classified and ineffective lethal injections on death row inmates (for example that of Joseph Wood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Joseph_Wood)
However, the United States is not nearly as bad to journalists. If you are a foreign journalist in the US that is not liked you will be deported (Ibrahim Jassam, Jason Rezaian and Yeganeh Salehi) and/or harassed during travel (Laura Poitras) and if you are a domestic journalistic enterprise you may be surveilled (like the Associated Press surveillance scandal this administration, or the countless others from recent times). You may be aggressively prosecuted to reveal sources (ruining your ability to keep secrecy of sources and therefore trustworthiness to confidential informants) a la Risen. You may be pressured into not running certain stories (like The Washinton Post's 2004 story about the NSA mass surveillance that was pushed under the radar). You may lose access to officials or be blocked from attending or asking questions at press releases or in the converse be given access to these things for running certain stories or positive slants on them (Judith Miller, Ken Dilanian). You may be threatened with the Espionage Act for handing national documents (Glenn Greenwald). But you will probably not be directly imprisoned.
Oh sweet irony.
Conversely, it's beyond easy to find articles written in English, hosted on US servers and social media and news sites in the US that criticize the US.
So the parent's point seems to stand.
Scathing criticism is regularly posted about the Chinese government and is not subject to any censorship. There are a few key areas that are censored: notably relations with Tibet and historical political uprisings.
Did you actually read the study? That's not what they studied. They studied whether postings were held for review more on social media sites over standard media. And they weren't held more. What they found was that the CCP on social media takes a "post first, censor later" approach. That doesn't mean they don't censor social media. On social media, posts are "Reviewed".
If you scroll down to the bottom of the study, they even give a listing of words that usually trigger a "review" flag.
From your linked study: "In total, 66 of the 100 sites in our sample (automatically) review at least some social media submissions, and 40% of all of our individual social media submissions from our 100 sites (and 52% of submissions from sites that review at least sometimes) are put into review. Of those submissions that go into review, 63% never appear on the web."
Here's the opening paragraph. You'll find plenty in the paper to support it, although this is directly supported with a citation from their previous paper (http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf): "We begin with the theoretical context. The largest previous study of the purpose of Chinese censorship (2) distinguished between the “state critique” and “collective action potential” theories of censorship and found that, with few exceptions, the first was wrong and the second was right: Criticisms of the government in social media (even vitriolic ones) are not censored, whereas any attempt to physically move people in ways not sanctioned by the government is censored. Even posts that praise the government are censored if they pertain to real-world collective action events (2)."
Critique of the state is not censored. The paper goes on to show that even discussion about having a multiparty American-style Constitutional system is not subject to censorship.
There are very select things that are censored, and these things that are censored (calls for direct collective action and specific topics related to these) see both:
1.) foreign propaganda attempts, which is a strong reason for the Chinese government to be interested in disruption (this is also true in America)
2.) parity with movement disquieting behavior of Western states (the US disquiets movements through mechanisms other than direct censorship including direct organizational infiltration, Fusion Centers, IRS harassment, JTRIG type 'warnings', character assassination, bribery, etc)
Well, I don't speak Chinese, so I wouldn't know.
Do you? I mean, are you speaking from personal knowledge of Chinese social media?
I also lived in China for about 2.5 years (and not surrounded by foreigners) and in Taiwan for close to the same length of time. The classes I took at Tsinghua were taught in Chinese and I was usually the only or one of two non-Chinese citizens.
I've been to Chinese NGOs, on the set for the filming of CCTV news programs, and spoken to Government officials in China. For about a year I only had access to the Chinese web (国内).
So yes, I'm speaking from personal experience.
Do you speak chinese?
This claim is actually a much more complicated one than the parent suggests. While it is true that a number of search terms are going to raise eyebrows in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blacklisted_keywords_i...) the 'blacklisting' is a much more complicated algorithm than post-and-you-are-disappeared - for the most part there are filters for how large an audience certain messages can reach although on some platforms 'errors' will prevent certain words from being posted. (Anecdotally, I have encountered such 'errors' in America on Facebook while posting news about Occupy, leaked Trans Pacific Partnership documents, Snowden Documents, Wikileaks links, Manning documents and others. Facebook assures me that it's the spam filter - this never made logical sense to me but alas a tangent). Another complication is that much of the blocked content in China is foreign propaganda - if you look at the dissident news section of the Wiki article and follow up on them you will see that they are not grassroots news organizations but set up by Western states and notably America. This is a well known favorite tactic of the United States (see the use of militarized media in the invasion of Iraq, the Lincohn group infiltrations, Radio Free Iraq, Voice of America, the compelled press released by Iraqi bloggers detained while passing American checkpoints, etc - or look at the Cuban Twitter effort to overthrow Cuba this year - or look at the DARPA programs to use Twitter to 'deradicalize the Middle East', where they go so far as to use brain scans of people reading Twitter messages to predict which propaganda items will have the most positive US political impacts in Jordan, Egypt, Syria and others). A further complication is that America is under some of the same propagandizing efforts today and has asked a number of ways for authorization to interfere (it is not really known what is currently done without explicit authorization to combat these messages). Also, as mentioned in the 'sister comment', highly critical commentary is regularly and freely posted about the Chinese government. This is confirmed by both speaking with Chinese citizens and by Western studies of Chinese media.
Finally, I encounter this criticism fairly often. I actually agree in moderate doses with it. There are certainly states which a person would not get away with any sort of criticism of the government and there are states where all records of history are destroyed and rewritten as favored by whichever administration (both historically and today) - I do think to the degree that the United States allows most select information to become public and to the degree that the United States minimally alters records it should be commended.
Yet these freedoms are not worth anything if they are not practiced - it is important not to buy into the myths of our nation (well, my nation, I don't know where the reader resides) and to demand ever more of it and of ourselves.
And we must be careful here of the comparison - we do not want to suggest that the United States is somehow in every way more free than China. China is landing very softly into a modern Republican Capitalism, it's civil rights have been steadily increasing, and the China censorship bit is drastically overemphasized. As a last thought, the point the parent makes is tangential to the discussion at large, which is about Fourth Estate and penal system.
I don't think your comparison of Falun Gong to Yoga and Communism to Christianity is one that is aligned with the facts.
When the state persecutes Muslim people in America where are the American activists?
If by 'activists' you meant a group of lawyers willing to represent civil rights causes, I suppose you've never heard of the Weiquan?
No, I don't agree with your view of Falun gong; the line that you take is that of the CCP. There may be some truth to these allegations, but I wouldn't believe it, given that it is the CCP.
I did not mean to portray China as some "evil" machine, but I do think China has some way to go still, when it come to civil liberty.
Frankly, I think that Maoism befell China is a tragic mistake, even if the outcome has lately been positive. In that I also give away my colours.
It's not that most journalists are that hard core investigative and questioning deeper truths, though.
Or that the public has the education and capacity to pay any attention to those who do.
>But you will probably not be directly imprisoned.
The classic Orwell vs Huxley thing.
Where you have newsrooms who are so desperate for inclusion they will not criticize any government official and are quick to back off when warned off.
Go read the other stories out there where the Whitehouse manages the press, where if you don't obey you will be excluded from press gatherings. Tell me there is press freedom when the White House can forbid attendance.