NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This article provides a rare look into a society which carefully censors news. This, IMHO, provides one of the major reasons that so many people get such a distorted view of countries like the US, where there is no censorship. [ Yes, I know you're going to flame on this, but it happens to be true ]


Rape in China: A Nightmare for 26 Pupils (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/international/asia/21china.html?th&emc=th)


By JIM YARDLEY
Published: June 21, 2005

XINJI, China - The teacher always sent a girl to buy his cigarettes. He left the class unsupervised and waited in his office. When the girl returned to class with flushed cheeks and tousled hair, the other students said nothing.

For nearly three months the teacher, Li Guang, raped 26 fourth- and fifth-grade girls in this rural village, parents and court officials say. Some girls were raped more than once as Mr. Li attacked them in a daily rotation. He was found out when a 14year-old refused to go to school for fear that the next morning would be her "turn." She did not want to be raped a third time.

"School is where our children learn," said Cheng Junyin, the mother of the 14-year-old. "We thought it was the safest place for them."

It is the sort of horrific case that in many countries would be a national scandal but in China has disappeared into the muffled silence of state censorship. That silence matches the silence at the heart of the case: the fact that students considered a teacher so powerful that they did not dare speak out.

Indeed, even as the conventions of Chinese society are being shaken by the tumult of modernization, the Confucian reverence of teachers remains strong, particularly in isolated areas like this farming village in Gansu Province in western China. Parents grant teachers carte blanche, some even condoning beatings, while students are trained to honor and obey teachers, never challenge them.

"The absolute authority of teachers in schools is one of the cultural reasons that teachers are so fearless in doing what they want," said Yang Dongping, a leading expert on China's education system.

Yet modernization has helped drive many teachers away from the poorest areas like Gansu. Low pay in rural areas and better opportunities in cities have caused teacher shortages in many poor areas. One study found that 35 percent of village teachers leave within three years.

Poorer schools are left to hire cheaper teachers, many of them only marginally qualified, a trend that has coincided with a string of sexual abuse cases. Mr. Yang believes that rapes are rare, far less common than beatings, but he noted that in 2003 the Education Ministry published a list of 10 cases in which teachers had raped students.

In December 2003 a teacher in rural Shaanxi Province was executed for raping 58 girls in 15 years. Last October a teenage girl in rural central China tried to commit suicide after a teacher forced her to watch him rape her cousin.

Mr. Li, 28, may go on trial by the end of June, according to a court official in Dingxi, the city where the case will be heard. If he is convicted he will face a prison term of at least 10 years, or possibly the death penalty.

Local education officials as well as prosecutors refused to be interviewed about the case, other than to confirm that the trial would be forthcoming. China's state-controlled news media have remained silent, except for a short initial newspaper article that reported Mr. Li's arrest.

But a visit to this village found families who vented their anger at such a violation of trust. The village is nearly six hours from the provincial capital, Lanzhou, the last three hours on a dirt road through the mountains. The hilltop ruins of old fortifications are reminders that clans once ruled this remote land. .

Farming is the primary livelihood, although it provides only subsistence for some families, who often delay sending a child to school to avoid the fees. Girls are usually the first to be kept home, and some do not start school until age 9 or 10. Mr. Li's fourth-grade class had about 50 pupils, of whom about 26 were girls, with ages ranging from 10 to 14. In all, the school has more than 900 students, drawn from nearby villages.

Zhang Shengxia, at 10, was one of the youngest girls in Mr. Li's fourth-grade class and, as it happened, one of the luckiest. She said the rapes began last fall as the teacher selected girls, one after the other. The girls talked to one another about what was happening but did not dare tell anyone else.

[ this article is continued (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/international/asia/21china.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th) ]

That's just hardened my view of China even more.

No censorship in the US? ROFL

No censorship in the US? ROFL
Meh, compared to China our media is quite free....

No censorship in the US? ROFL

No censorship of the news media that I can see. If there is any censorship, it's self-censorship out of a sense that you can't sell papers that are full of stuff no one wants to read.

Ever wonder why Fox News is the most popular news on television? It's not news, it's flimsily disguised entertainment masquerading as news. And it caters to people who hate liberals.

Well, there are so many people like that now in the US. Enough to put the ratings of any non-conservative news network into the toilet. A good example is the CBS Evening News, which hasn't seemed to get the hint that no one wants to watch a news network that bashes Bush.

Go figure.

NOTE: This article provides a rare look into a society which carefully censors news. This, IMHO, provides one of the major reasons that so many people get such a distorted view of countries like the US, where there is no censorship.

Because of course we all get our news from China...

*slaps head*

No wonder my views are so hopelessly anti-Bush.

No censorship in the US? ROFL
Wow, it just flew right past you.

*smacks your head*

Well I know that not everything flies past your head.

Well, at least the Chinese actualy execute their rapists as they deserve.

Censorship is one of the stupidest things ever.

Come on , there is absolutely no comparision here.

No information goes inside or outside China that is not monitored. That which are found to be inappropriate is censored.

Worse, others comply to the chinese demands in return for business.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8218602/


Microsoft under fire for censoring China blogs

SEATTLE - Microsoft Corp.'s <MSFT.O> new MSN China Internet venture is censoring words such as "freedom," "democracy" and "human rights" on its free online journals, Microsoft said on Tuesday, putting itself in the middle of a major Web controversy.

The world's largest software maker said that its "MSN Spaces" service operated out of China, which allows users to set up their own blogs, or online journals, was acting in accordance with local laws.

"MSN abides by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates," said Brooke Richardson, MSN lead product manager.

The move comes as the Chinese government attempts to tighten control over the Internet. Last week, a media watchdog group said China would close unregistered China-based domestic web sites and blogs. About three-quarters of domestic Web sites had complied with the registration orders, the group, Reporters without Borders said, citing Chinese figures.

Microsoft rivals such as Yahoo Inc. <YHOO.O>, eBay Inc. <EBAY.O>, Amazon.com Inc. <AMZN.O> and InterActiveCorp. <IACI.O>, which have made a string of acquisitions to expand their operations in China, have also been known to censor content in the country.


This tight censorship can be noted in the other news that did the rounds. A group of peasant warding off an armed attack by a militia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401542.html
Chinese Peasants Attacked in Land Dispute
At Least 6 Die as Armed Thugs Assault Villagers Opposed to Seizure of Property

By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A12

SHENGYOU, China -- Hundreds of men armed with shotguns, clubs and pipes on Saturday attacked a group of farmers who were resisting official demands to surrender land to a state-owned power plant, witnesses said. Six farmers were killed and as many as 100 others were seriously injured in one of China's deadliest incidents of rural unrest in years.

The farmers, who had pitched tents and dug foxholes and trenches on the disputed land to prevent the authorities from seizing it, said they suspected the assailants were hired by corrupt local officials. They said scores of villagers were beaten or stabbed and several were shot in the back while fleeing.

Reached by telephone, a spokesman for the provincial government said he could not confirm or discuss the incident. "So far, we've been ordered not to issue any information about it," he said.


CAD Liberation Army,
Well, at least the Chinese actualy execute their rapists as they deserve.

They harvest the organs too after the execution.

NOTE: This article provides a rare look into a society which carefully censors news. This, IMHO, provides one of the major reasons that so many people get such a distorted view of countries like the US, where there is no censorship. [ Yes, I know you're going to flame on this, but it happens to be true ]
<snip<



China has even lied about death rates due to disease and natural disasters. Earthquakes, rare flu epidimics. The stats that come out of China are nuts.

Excuse my harshness for those who absolutely is against the death penalty, but for this case a death penalty would be well deserved for this dirty scum (and I'm speaking as a overseas mainland Chinese as well).

The "no censorship in US" camp would probably be interested in this very recent news item regarding an act of censorship performed by the US government.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grazing18jun18,0,6468976,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Wow, it just flew right past you.

*smacks your head*

Well I know that not everything flies past your head.
Dear Troll,

Stand by for a demonstration of censorship.

Wow, it just flew right past you.

*smacks your head*

Well I know that not everything flies past your head.Knock it off.
Dear Troll,

Stand by for a demonstration of censorship.You too.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Knock it off.
You too.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator
ZOMG! Cog iz Chineze!
COMMIES COMMIES COMMIES!

Seroiusly though.
This topic is way off topic. Its about some guy that rapes kids, and because of two sentences in the first post, everybody is jabbering about censorship, with about five posts saying that the guy should/nt be executed.

NS makes me laugh :P

ZOMG! Cog iz Chineze!
COMMIES COMMIES COMMIES!

Seroiusly though.
This topic is way off topic. Its about some guy that rapes kids, and because of two sentences in the first post, everybody is jabbering about censorship, with about five posts saying that the guy should/nt be executed.

NS makes me laugh :P

That's why I keep coming here. :D

Oh, and I say kill the bitch. Chinese public executions must really be something to see. But if we're really lucky, he'll die in prison after getting castrated by the guards with a hammer. Think that'll make the news? I hope so. :)

They harvest the organs too after the execution.

Can't waste good organs

The "no censorship in US" camp would probably be interested in this very recent news item regarding an act of censorship performed by the US government.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grazing18jun18,0,6468976,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Actually, the claim in question was about news media itself, not whether the Bush admin would censor a study it commisioned.

Sorry to interrupt your anti-Chinese/Communists/w'ever rants, but: crime journalism is considered sensational, cheap and "dirty" in several countries.

In here, main TV news would never report cases like this. It's not fitting for the dignity of a major TV news station, private or no. Tabloids, gossip and crime magazines can do their share in distributing the pornography of violence for the occasional € payed by the passer-by of a magazine kiosk looking for some cheap entertainment.

Sorry to interrupt your anti-Chinese/Communists/w'ever rants, but: crime journalism is considered sensational, cheap and "dirty" in several countries.

In here, main TV news would never report cases like this. It's not fitting for the dignity of a major TV news station, private or no. Tabloids, gossip and crime magazines can do their share in distributing the pornography of violence for the occasional € payed by the passer-by of a magazine kiosk looking for some cheap entertainment.

But if I'm ever in Finland, where can I get some tacos?

The "no censorship in US" camp would probably be interested in this very recent news item regarding an act of censorship performed by the US government.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grazing18jun18,0,6468976,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Hardly surprising. The Bush administration routinely tells US scientists to change or suppress reports that say thing contrary to its policies.

Long before our current administration the US government put policies in place that forbid "foreign propaganda." This has included several Canadian documentaries about the effects of acid rain.

The "no censorship in US" camp would probably be interested in this very recent news item regarding an act of censorship performed by the US government.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grazing18jun18,0,6468976,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Seriously, you need to do a little reading on what censorship is. It is not censorship for the government to alter a study they performed. It's dishonest, but it's not censorship. The government does it regularly relating to Americans eating too much, the environment, welfare, social security, etc. Both democrats and republicans do it. However, we're not talking about skewing the facts to support your causes. We're talking about censorship so feel free to explore the issue a bit and then come back ant talk to us about it when you understand the meaning of the word a bit better.

Hardly surprising. The Bush administration routinely tells US scientists to change or suppress reports that say thing contrary to its policies.

Long before our current administration the US government put policies in place that forbid "foreign propaganda." This has included several Canadian documentaries about the effects of acid rain.

Both Bush administrations, the Clinton Administration, etc. It's common place for politicians to skew facts. Hell, it's commonplace for tobacco companies, Microsoft, PETA, and just about anyone who doesn't want messy facts to get in the way of a good cause to skew studies to make it appear that they are right.

But if I'm ever in Finland, where can I get some tacos?
Mmm... tacos...

*shakes head* Care to explain why this is not a non sequitur?

Mmm... tacos...

*shakes head* Care to explain why this is not a non sequitur?

If I have to explain, an explanation probably won't help. Either because you're on a different wavelength, or because I missed the target by that much. Either way, I think it's better if I just smile and hand you a taco.

:) *hands you a taco*

Well, at least the Chinese actualy execute their rapists as they deserve.

No they only might execute him. He could just get 10 years in prison.

Seriously, you need to do a little reading on what censorship is. It is not censorship for the government to alter a study they performed. It's dishonest, but it's not censorship. The government does it regularly relating to Americans eating too much, the environment, welfare, social security, etc. Both democrats and republicans do it. However, we're not talking about skewing the facts to support your causes. We're talking about censorship so feel free to explore the issue a bit and then come back ant talk to us about it when you understand the meaning of the word a bit better.

I would be very interested to know how deleting uncomfortable information and then changing it to say precisely the opposite does not constitute censorship, but is merely a bit dishonest. Because deleting uncomfortable information is the very definition of censorship. By all means, enlighten me.

Hardly surprising. The Bush administration routinely tells US scientists to change or suppress reports that say thing contrary to its policies.

Or just fires the scientists and then hires ill-qualified yes-men in their place.

I would be very interested to know how deleting uncomfortable information and then changing it to say precisely the opposite does not constitute censorship, but is merely a bit dishonest. Because deleting uncomfortable information is the very definition of censorship. By all means, enlighten me.

If you'll notice in the article the guy gave a comment to reporters, which indicates that he still has his right to free speech. It IS dishonest, and it IS censorship of a kind, but I think the definition of censorship as the original guy meant it was the prevention or punishment of publishing a certain viewpoint that a person wants to make. If the guy wants to publish his report separately, in the private sector, I think he still has the right to do it (although the report may not specifically belong to him, and he may have agreed not to publish it separately).

Long before our current administration the US government put policies in place that forbid "foreign propaganda." This has included several Canadian documentaries about the effects of acid rain.

I highly doubt this would hold up in court if a "foreign person" could get a U.S. citizen or company to publish it. And, just like you wouldn't want us to come to your country to tell you how much your country sucks, we don't like it either. It's just common courtesy.

NOTE: This article provides a rare look into a society which carefully censors news. This, IMHO, provides one of the major reasons that so many people get such a distorted view of countries like the US, where there is no censorship. [ Yes, I know you're going to flame on this, but it happens to be true ]


Rape in China: A Nightmare for 26 Pupils (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/international/asia/21china.html?th&emc=th)


By JIM YARDLEY
Published: June 21, 2005

It's highly publicized incidents like this that make me fear being a teacher.

(although the report may not specifically belong to him, and he may have agreed not to publish it separately).

Exactly!

The US government has all sorts of restrictions on what can and cannot be published using government money. For instance, under the USDA, all research into nuclear cell transfer must be specifically approved before being published. Sounds like someone doesn't want everyone (including the general public) well-informed on this issue...

No censorship in the US? ROFL
Man in the USA publishes a newsletter advocating white supremacy and insulting non-whites.
Government respects his right to his stupid opinion.

Man in Germany, Italy, etc. publishes a newsletter advocating white supremacy and insulting non-whites.
Government prosecutes him, fines him, possibly imprisons him.

I rest my case.

I would be very interested to know how deleting uncomfortable information and then changing it to say precisely the opposite does not constitute censorship, but is merely a bit dishonest. Because deleting uncomfortable information is the very definition of censorship. By all means, enlighten me.

If I write an autobiography and then take out a chapter because I decided it made me look bad, is that censorship? The government wrote the study and commissioned the study. It's dishonest but it's not censorship. Not in the context we are referring to. Used here people are talking about repressing freedom of speech. Dishonesty and skewing facts has nothing to do with freedom of speech. In this context, it is no such repression.

Man in the USA publishes a newsletter advocating white supremacy and insulting non-whites.
Government respects his right to his stupid opinion.

Man in Germany, Italy, etc. publishes a newsletter advocating white supremacy and insulting non-whites.
Government prosecutes him, fines him, possibly imprisons him.

I rest my case.

So there is no such thing as degrees in censorship? You have to be the worst to be accused of censorship?

If I write an autobiography and then take out a chapter because I decided it made me look bad, is that censorship? The government wrote the study and commissioned the study. It's dishonest but it's not censorship. Not in the context we are referring to. Used here people are talking about repressing freedom of speech. Dishonesty and skewing facts has nothing to do with freedom of speech. In this context, it is no such repression.

I have to do this because you are so very fond of it:

Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

The definition says nothing at all about whether or not you paid for it. And yes, by the strict definition, you leaving out a chapter in your autobiography because it might make you look bad is censorship. The difference is that it would be unlikely to really cause harm to others, whereas the government censorship of science does. This is especially true when done under the guise of "We want the scientific viewpoint on this so that we may be properly advised" and then gets changed to "We don't like the scientific viewpoint. Find us someone with a degree who is willing to say what we want to hear."

So there is no such thing as degrees in censorship? You have to be the worst to be accused of censorship?
To my thinking something is either censored or not. No degrees. If a point of view, a certain type of image, or a news story can be legally accessed or transmitted by the average adult, it's not censored.

I have to do this because you are so very fond of it:

Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

The definition says nothing at all about whether or not you paid for it. And yes, by the strict definition, you leaving out a chapter in your autobiography because it might make you look bad is censorship. The difference is that it would be unlikely to really cause harm to others, whereas the government censorship of science does. This is especially true when done under the guise of "We want the scientific viewpoint on this so that we may be properly advised" and then gets changed to "We don't like the scientific viewpoint. Find us someone with a degree who is willing to say what we want to hear."

Yes, which is why I specifically pointed out we are talking about censorship (connotation not denotation) as related to freedom of speech. Self-censorship certainly occurs but that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

As far as the government goes, I pointed out that it was dishonest and harmful and intentionally done to further a specific agenda. It's still not the censorship in the way we are talking about.

Technically, I censored myself when I didn't say bullshit to what Cabinia was arguing, but it's hardly what we're talking about here.

To my thinking something is either censored or not. No degrees. If a point of view, a certain type of image, or a news story can be legally accessed or transmitted by the average adult, it's not censored.

That's not what I meant. You seem to be suggesting that, because the US does not censor the speech of a Nazi propogandist, but Germany does, the US doesn't censor anything. This doesn't follow. The US very well may censor things, but censors less of them.

Man in the USA publishes a newsletter advocating white supremacy and insulting non-whites.
Government respects his right to his stupid opinion.

Man in Germany, Italy, etc. publishes a newsletter advocating white supremacy and insulting non-whites.
Government prosecutes him, fines him, possibly imprisons him.

I rest my case.

i prefer the one in bold.

As far as the government goes, I pointed out that it was dishonest and harmful and intentionally done to further a specific agenda. It's still not the censorship in the way we are talking about.
Then please tell us in what way we *are* talking about it, because you appear to be inventing a new definition of the word. I believe you and I have been down this road before.


Technically, I censored myself when I didn't say bullshit to what Cabinia was arguing, but it's hardly what we're talking about here.
I see you're keeping the discourse up to your usual standards.

i prefer the one in bold.
And then tomorrow they'll be comming after what you believe in. I quote a methodist preacher who lived through WWII in Germany:

First they came for the Jews and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a jew,
Next they came for the Gays and I didn't speak out because I wasn't gay,
Next they came for the gypsies and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a gypsy,
Next they came for the jehovah's witnesses and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a jehovah's witness,
then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Another way to say this is that as a Christian, I don't agree with Homosexuals but I support their rights because if I don't there might be a day when my rights are restricted because of my beliefs. The same holds for Marxists and Nazis and etc. Not everyone realizes it but it works the same anyway.