A top official with China’s Supreme People’s Court outlined yesterday a series of “forbidden areas” for China’s domestic media in reporting on legal cases in China. This latest news came as foreign media tried to make sense of a September 10 announcement that foreign newswires would not be permitted to offer news content directly to end users in China, and work out its possible impact on domestic media.
The court announcement, delivered by Supreme People’s Court vice-director Cao Jianming (曹建明), said news reports on the courts in China would have to “strictly comply” with propaganda discipline and the internal discipline rules of the courts. Cao provided a list of “forbidden areas” for news reporters, with “state secrets” and “commercial secrets” topping the list. Ending the list was an ambiguous rule that said media could not report “other information the leaders of the court determined could not be released”. [AP coverage here].

Many respondents on Internet forums saw the news as a step back in progress toward a more transparent court system in China. “In the last few years, the biggest sign of progress in law has been the opening up of trials,” wrote one respondent to the news at Sina.com, a popular Chinese Web portal. “Aside from a few cases dealing with national security and the rights of special groups, all cases should be heard openly. Open trials and verdicts allow citizens to see how the laws and constitution created and obeyed by them are being put into practice. This is an extremely important principle. For the Supreme People’s Court to put out this kind of decision which can’t even look the people eye to eye, it’s really disgusting, it’s a major step back”.
“Everyone knows about corruption in the courts. Great! Now the media can’t even look into it”, wrote another.
Domestic media have so far not commented directly on the court’s announcement, but openness of information has been a hot-button topic for media this year. When officials in June announced new regulations for coverage of emergency events which promised fines for media “making bold” to report against regulations by local authorities, Chinese newspapers and magazines attacked the move, arguing for a more direct role for the media in the handling of emergency situations The debate in the media over openness and accuracy in reporting of disasters has continued this month.
[Posted by David Bandurski, September 13, 2006, 5:35pm]

Mainstream Chinese media have not yet commented on regulations issued yesterday through Xinhua News Agency that formalize already strict limitations on cooperation between Chinese media and foreign newswires, but critical blogs and web postings (with a trickle in support) are already multiplying. The following are postings (or gentie) that appeared this morning on Netease (163.com), where there were already more than 1,000 postings on the subject:

Things are looking more and more like North Korea.

—
It’s a good idea, cutting down on those foreigners slandering, rumormongering and vilifying the people of our country!

—

We’re moving further and further backward!!

—
Xinhua News Agency’s behavior first of all can not violate the principle of “freedom of expression” as stipulated in the constitution! Xinhua is not the government and is not the law!
—
Offering no opinion is the best opinion one can offer!
—
“Xinhua News Agency, according to national laws, administrative procedures and relevant State Council regulations, formulates “Management Procedures for Foreign News Agencies Disseminating News and Information in China” (below called “procedures”), to be in effect from the day of announcement.”
Xinhua News Agency!!!!!
[Making] regulations!!!!!!!!
—
Actually things have always been done this way, they just haven’t been as flagrant as this time.
—
Don’t intrude on our right to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
—
What are they afraid people will say?? If everything’s open and aboveboard, what do we have to fear?? Where has our Party’s tradition gone????
—
Living in an information age, people’s eyes are discerning (ie. “as bright as snow”). Can we be so easily hoodwinked?
—
I firmly support Xinhua’s management procedures. If we don’t strictly control things, well then they will have no scruples, and will say anything. How is it possibly OK to let ordinary Chinese people know anything? So, I firmly support Xinhua’s management procedures.
—
Does Xinhua News Agency have this kind of power????
This is classic playing both athlete and referee …
This kind of action really treats the people like idiots…
Is this ultimately about the good of the country, or about what’s good for Xinhua???
I’m afraid it’s so that [Xinhua] doesn’t receive any competition from foreign newswires.
[See ESWN for more coverage]
[Posted by David Bandurski, September 11, 2006, 12:45pm]

More than two weeks ago, the China Media Project reported that in the aftermath of Typhoon Saomei Chinese media continued to debate the role of journalists in the handling of emergency events. That debate, which in this case centers on national versus local party media, has not relented, as China’s official Xinhua News Agency spars with Fujian’s top official, Lu Zhangong.
A wire report from Agence France Presse yesterday mostly missed the point, failing to offer the proper context and erroneously pitting Lu Zhangong’s words against a newspaper, Haixia Metropolitan Daily, that has in fact been one of his greatest advocates in the debate — and which he controls. Here is what happened, as summarized by Hong Kong’s Ming Pao on September 1:
While the powerful typhoon Saomei, which struck Zhejiang and Fujian last July, has already dissipated, the war of words between Fujian Party Secretary Lu Zhangong and Xinhua News Agency continues, again raising doubts among Internet users as to the publicized number of dead as a result of Saomei . . .
As Saomai slammed Zhejiang and Fujian provinces, the Zhejiang bureau chief of Xinhua News Agency took his team to the disaster area to cover the story. At that time Fujian’s Fuding City had reported just over 30 deaths to their superiors, but after Xinhua reporters visited the area the number of dead rose to 216. Fujian Daily, the official mouthpiece of the Fujian Party Committee [the province’s top leaders], said in a report on August 19 that Lu Zhangong, on an inspection tour of Fuding, had said: “Some media, including reporters from outside the province, wrote many false reports based on hearsay, and the news was stirred up on the web. I worry about whether the cadres of Ningde will make it through faced with social pressures like this, whether they can continue without interference and do what we need to do in serving the people . . .” Using this quote, one Website [in support of Lu Zhangong] published a piece called, “The Saomei Disaster: Tormenting the Media’s Conscience”. It pointed its lance directly at Xinhua News Agency.
On August 26, Xinhua News Agency’s Zhejiang bureau released an article, “For the Conscience of News Workers — A Front-line Account of Saomei Reports”. It recounted their experiences on leaving the Shacheng area of Fuding on August 13: “Our media vehicle was just about to set off when 40 or more people rushed around us, and we heard again their painful pleas, ‘You must tell the truth!” The implication was that the local people of Fujian did not trust the reports made by their government and wished for Xinhua News Agency to reveal the truth.
After this exchange, the volleys continued. On August 29, Haixia Metropolitan Daily issued a report defending the handling of Saomei by officials in Fujian. The article listed off the various inspection visits and other shows of action made by the likes of Lu Zhangong and governor Huang Xiaojing. Xinhua News Agency responded by gathering together reports by other Chinese media on Saomei and setting up a special online page devoted to the story.
Lu Zhangong’s next salvo came once again in Haixia Metropolitan Daily, in an editorial called “Supervision by Public Opinion [‘watchdog journalism’] Must Also Be Supervised” (August 30). The editorial was chock full of official media control buzzwords:
Correct guidance of public opinion (舆论导向正确) is for the good of the Party and the people; Incorrect guidance of public opinion is a calamity for the Party and for the people”. News media are the mouthpieces of the Party and people, charged with the important duty of leading society, influencing opinion (影响舆论), carrying forward a healthy atmosphere (正气) and creating cohesion. By upholding the basic principles of truth, comprehensiveness, objectivity and impartiality, and with positive publicity as the pillar (正面宣传为主), it must also strengthen supervision by public opinion (舆论监督), singing the dominant strain [唱响主旋律/i.e., “walk the party line”]. We see that the vast majority of news media take the high ground of responsibility to the Party, the people and history, cleaving to the ‘Three Closenesses’ and serving well as the ears and mouths of the Party and people, so that they have widespread trust among the masses. But we also see that some media reporters form subjective judgements, show favoritism or are swayed by their emotions in firing off their so-called “authoritative” reports.
And if there was any doubt about how Fujian officials felt about what role press supervision should have:
Whether or not supervision by public opinion [“watchdog journalism”] is correct or not is fundamentally decided by whether it benefits the path, direction and implementation of the policy decisions of the Party, benefits the solving of problems, benefits social stability, benefits the work of the Party and government, benefits the strengthening of the people’s trust in the Party and government.
[Posted by David Bandurski, September 5, 2006, 1:07pm]

The power of the Internet as a tool for rallying public opinion in China has drawn increasing attention from the Western press and China watchers in recent months. At the same time the Internet has come under more intense fire within China for the often uncivil nature of the speech that appears there, on personal blogs and in online chatrooms. Citing these problems officials have intensified controls on Internet speech, most recently through bans on so-called “malicious spoofs”, or e’gao. The following editorial, which appeared originally in China Review magazine and was republished by Southern Metropolis Daily yesterday, suggests that lack of civility and reason in online speech is a direct result of government censorship:

The benefits of the Internet are apparent to all, especially insofar as many people now have a channel for expressing their own thoughts, perspectives and feelings such as they never before had. But I also believe it’s inadvisable at the moment to get one’s hopes up too high over the Internet. I’d like specifically to address the healthy development of ideas and some of the rather unwholesome characters that have lately appeared on the Web – I’m talking about [the phenomenon of] online abuse. On the slightest provocation it becomes, “Kill X”; “you’re an ass!”; “Oh, hell!”; “I’ll kill your whole family” or some more extreme form of personal attack.
Why are things this way? Perhaps it is because our politics over the past century have been marked with a tradition of such cruelty, and because our longer-standing spiritual traditions lack the sort of deeper reckoning with our darker selves that might lead us to tolerance and reason. Perhaps it is because a great many of these scorn-heapers are inhibited in their actual lives and have no other avenue of release, and so use the Internet to vent their anger and resentment. This has already become one reason why people are calling for an intensification of controls on the Internet. But of course another reason [for this type of behavior online] is the management of the Web itself [NOTE: the writer avoids directly saying “government censorship”, presumably to avoid attracting too much attention]. Managers [of the Web] do not value and cherish it, and sometimes on the contrary inhibit and diminish the development of reason on the Internet, which helps to ensure that vituperation prevails.
I support the idea that the Internet be regulated. Still, I don’t think the issue is the revilers themselves, but rather ensuring we get rid of the market and incentive for such hatefulness. On the one hand, we need to promote the idea of self-discipline among individuals and Websites, to clear up the field on their own, including the development of strong critical opinion; on the other hand, we need to make sure that voices of reason expand on the Web, which means those sites with intellectual content and a sense of learnedness should expand and receive protection. The relationship between reasoned discussion and irrational scorn is one of inverse proportions [“as one is ascendant, the other is in decline”]. If Websites of authority that approach questions with reasoned thought and earnest exploration are few and far between, then naturally they deserve to be treasured. If among these are thoughts or viewpoints that are rather vehement or “unorthodox”, this means an intensity of ideas and not that the language is unreasonable or cruel.
But we have seen these Websites suffer repeatedly, so that scorn and meaningless personal attacks can flow unobstructed in the name of a number of ideologies, or prevail under the banner of noble generalities like “morality”, “justice” or “patriotism”. Meanwhile, moderate, reasoned and constructive viewpoints need only differ in understanding from the tenets and standards of some few managers [NOTE: i.e., party leaders] to meet with trouble and lose the Web platform through which they are expressed.
This kind of brutal and arbitrary management not only interdicts the development of moderate, reasonable and constructive intellectual Websites, but by its very method provides the paradigm for the brutal and peremptory.
For any normal society, an attitude of respect for reason has importance and precedence over what particular viewpoint one holds. That is to say, how one expresses oneself and resolves differences of opinion is more important than one’s actual position.
[Posted by David Bandurski, September 3, 2006, 3:50pm]

As mainland Chinese media continue to throw their support behind two Chinese journalists facing a costly libel suit from a Taiwanese manufacturing company in a Shenzhen court [wrap-up of coverage at ESWN] [Summary of contrarian positions at Danwei.org], a term generally cold-shouldered in Chinese media, press freedom (新闻自由), is emerging discreetly in the debate.
While proxy terms like “freedom of expression” (言论自由) and “watchdog journalism” (舆论监督) appear more frequently in China’s officially controlled media, press freedom (lit. “news freedom”) remains politically sensitive and is typically reserved for pejorative uses, like “so-called press freedom” or “bourgeois press freedom”, or for references to media outside China (such as the current controversy over the Gillian Chung photos in Hong Kong, see ESWN).
In an online essay in 2004, Beijing University professor Jiao Guobiao blasted the Central Propaganda Department for clamping down on the use of the term [more at ESWN]: “Everyone knows that China’s doesn’t have too much press freedom, but rather too little press freedom. I ask, who is it that takes what pitifully little press freedom we have and gives it yet shorter weight? It is the Central Propaganda Department. Press freedom is a measure of a society’s degree of sophistication. Sages in the West have said, we can do without government, but we can not do without press freedom.
The Central Propaganda Department, which sees press freedom as its enemy, won’t even allow the words ‘press freedom’ to be used at will
. This is clearly a brazen trampling on the most basic principles of civilization.” [Chinese text available here]. Jiao was later removed from his university position for this criticism, which propaganda officials saw as a supreme act of brazenness.
News of the recent lawsuit against mainland journalists, brought by Foxconn against a reporter and editor at China Business News, was first spread through online forums on August 24 then taken national by The Beijing News on August 26.
The lawsuit alleges that a June 15 story written by Wang You (王佑), in which the reporter detailed a range of alleged labor violations by at a Foxconn facility in Shenzhen, was libelous. The suit also names China Business News editor Weng Bao (翁宝) as a defendant. Foxconn is demanding a public apology and seeking 10 million yuan in damages from Weng Bao and 20 million yuan from Wang You, and the court has reportedly complied with the company’s request that the assets of the defendants be frozen pending a decision.
The Beijing News yesterday said a petition was circulating on the Internet called “Opposing Foxconn’s Use of Corporate Resources to Attack Journalists and Intrude on Press Freedom”.
In a page four report on the case today, Nanfang Daily, the official mouthpiece of the Guangdong Party Committee, quoted Yu Guoming, a well-known media expert from Renmin University, as saying that the case involved a company “using loopholes in our nation’s laws to limit press freedom”. Shanghai Securities Daily also paraphrased Yu Guoming as saying the case was a “violation of press freedom”.
A number of Chinese media referred to a December 2004 case in which the Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ) launched a petition supporting reporter Kuang Wen-chi, who was being sued by the chairman of Hon Hai Precision Industry, the TSE-listed company that owns Foxconn. The 2004 petition urged international brands like Apple Computer against choosing manufacturing partners that “ignore human rights and impinge on press freedom” [English coverage here].
According to Article 35 of China’s constitution, citizens of the People’s Republic of China nominally “enjoy freedom of speech, of the press [出版自由/lit. “publishing freedom”], of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” But the term “press freedom”, regarded as part of “publishing freedom” [出版自由], continues to be politically charged.
Media censors in China — the very same ones Jiao Guobiao criticized — likely view use of the term as less objectionable in the Foxconn case because it involves a claim of rights against a private company from Taiwan rather than against the Communist Party or Chinese leadership.
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 30, 2006, 2:15pm]

August 24 — The debate over the media’s role in supervising the handling of emergency events continues to brew just under the surface more than a month after Chinese media raised their hackles over China’s draft emergency management law, which proposed fining news media that “made bold” to report on emergency incidents in violation of administrative bans. The latest row centers around official Chinese news reports of the recent Typhoon Saomai, which struck China’s southeastern coastal region earlier this month. [IMAGE: A screenshot of Sina.com coverage of Fujian Party Secretary Lu Zhangong’s criticism of domestic media/See pdf_sina-coverage-of-saomai.pdf for larger image]

The debate over Saomai coverage highlights the complicated factors at play in media coverage of emergency events — conflicts between local governments and the central government, the rise of journalistic professionalism (within party media structures), traditional top-down party media supervision, etcetera.
According to reports from media outside Fujian province, an estimated 1,000 people died in Fujian’s Shacheng Harbor when the typhoon struck. By August 16 media and local residents took issue with official reports on the number of dead made by local officials who said just several hundred had died [ESWN wrap-up here].
On August 17, an official from the Ministry of Civil Affairs said publicly that “there is no need to cover up the number of deaths caused by natural disasters, and it’s impossible to cover it up”. “There are now various institutional restraints, there is media supervision, there is supervision by the public and the family members of the dead, and whatever the situation it can quickly be made clear to everyone”, said the official, quoted in Southern Metropolis Daily. This, then, was the central government’s position on the issue, although CMP sources have indicated that there were national bans on media coverage of cover-up attempts by local officials in areas hit by storms and floods in July this year.
But on August 18, Fujian’s top leader, Party Secretary Lu Zhangong (卢展工) expressed anger over the handling of Saomai news reports by regional media. “Some media, including reporters from outside the province, wrote many false reports based on hearsay, and the news was stirred up on the web. I worry about whether the cadres of Ningde will make it through faced with social pressures like this, whether they can continue without interference and do what we need to do in serving the people”. Lu’s comments appeared in the official Fujian Daily on August 19 and by the following day had drawn comments from media outside the province. A news report about Lu’s criticism was featured at the top of the news section of Sina.com, one of China’s most popular web portals, on August 20 [Image above].
The next day Southern Metropolis Daily wrote: “What are these false reports? According to relevant media, when Saomai came through, there were about 12,000 fishing boats seeking shelter in the harbor at Shacheng to escape the typhoon, and when the typhoon arrived the winds in Shacheng Harbor reached level 15, resulting in the destruction of close to a thousand boats and causing damage to about 1,100. An estimated 1,000 people died. But according to the latest reports from the local government as of 12 noon on August 17, in the Ningde area … the number of dead as a result of Saomai was 128, with 157 missing — these two [figures] are radically different.”
A letter in Southern Metropolis Daily on August 22 remarked pointedly that if you “looked only at one kind of report from major local media in Zhejiang and Fujian, you would certainly think that those now suffering most [from Saomai] are the cadres”. Without mentioning the official by name, it unambiguously recalled Fujian Party Secretary Lu Zhangong’s remark that he worried “about whether the cadres of Ningde will make it through faced with social pressures like this …” [Translation of letter by ESWN].
The row between Lu Zhangong, who as Fujian’s top official controls the party-run Fujian Daily that first reported his criticism of media, and regional commercial papers like Southern Metropolis Daily, illustrates the growing rift between party media in China and the comparatively freewheeling media they have launched to grab shares in the media marketplace. The tension between local and national, glimpsed in the comment from the Ministry of Civil Affairs official on August 17, could also be seen in national media coverage. As the letter to Southern Metropolis Daily remarked on August 22, coverage of Saomai by China Central Television’s Business Half-Hour (经济半小时) was dramatically different from local media coverage: “Looking at the two news items you see that Business Half-hour is offering specific and clear-cut reports, and local media are saying nothing but stereotyped expressions, empty words”.
The draft emergency management law, which was made public in late June, brought a firestorm of criticism from domestic media who said the law would effectively subject national and regional media to the whims of local leaders and put an official imprimatur on government cover-ups. Beijing lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was quoted by Hong Kong’s Ming Pao Daily as saying the law not only violated China’s constitution but trampled on the public’s right to know. A Chinese cabinet official stepped forward on July 3 to “clarify” the government’s position, saying the law would not give local government license to cover-up the true scale of emergencies. The announcement seemed to suggest that media would not be fined under the law if exposing attempts by local governments to cover-up the true scale of emergency events. Entrenched local leaders, however, regard intrusions by outside media as challenges to their authority.
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 24, 2006, 11:31am]

In the latest example of what China Youth Daily recently called an emerging “comment posting culture” in China, Chinese newspapers nationwide are tackling a public interest story about poor parents of first-year Tsinghua University students in Beijing who slept on the school athletic field or in doorways because they either couldn’t find or couldn’t afford accommodation in the city. The story, which was first posted anonymously on Shuimu Tsinghua, Tsinghua’s bulletin-board site (BBS), on August 19 (and included photographs of sleeping parents), has set off a debate in newspapers and in cyberspace over the shortcomings of China’s education system, how to foster self-reliance in students, and whether and how university officials callously mismanaged the situation. [PHOTO: Parents of first-year Tsinghua students sleep in a doorway on campus/Photo posted anonymously on the university’s BBS site]. [pdf_beijing-youth-daily-on-tsinghua-university-story.pdf].

According to a report in Beijing Youth Daily, more than 3,000 new undergraduate students arrived as Tsinghua university for the beginning of the term on August 17. They were accompanied by an estimated seven to eight thousand parents and relatives who wished to send them off. School officials said university accommodation and beds at nearby hotels were insufficient to meet demand.
Chinese media quoted numerous experts as saying parents should foster more independence in their children by not accompanying them to university. “Independence is an important prerequisite for a successful college student. Not doting your child is the best way to ensure their healthy development”, wrote one columnist for Youth Daily (Shanghai), saying there was no need for parents to accompany first-year students.
But others explored deeper policy issues. A columnist writing on page A4 of Beijing Youth Daily wrote: “You can say that this [situation] is not to the shame of the parents but rather a dilemma for our society. According to statistics, average university tuition for the whole country has risen from 800 yuan in 1995 to 5,000 yuan in 2004. Moreover, for those students entering new campuses, fees are around 6,000 yuan. Room and board has gone up from about 270 yuan in 1995 to 1,000-1,200 yuan in 2004. Add to this the cost of food and clothing, etcetera, and each college student requires an average of around 10,000 yuan a year, around 40,000 yuan for four years at university. Lately, the so-called ‘commercialization of education’ (教育产业化) has been as hot as fire and tea. Its marks can be seen at every level, from nurseries to universities . . . So, we need to pay great attention to this warning sign and reform the fee system of education, adjusting the system of income distribution for the whole society — only then can we solve this situation once and for all”.
Cases like the Tsinghua story, which arise from Web-generated stories that spin out into mainstream news reports and editorials, have been on the increase in recent months, and suggest the emergence of pockets of genuine public opinion tolerated by authorities on certain issues of social interest or concern.
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 22, 2006, 2:45pm]

More than a month after police officials in the municipality of Chongqing announced that all personal web users would have to register with authorities by the end of October this year, nationwide debate over the local regulations continues on the Internet and in mainstream media. A recent editorial in Caijing magazine (August 7, 2006) spoke about the Internet as an important tool for citizen participation in debates over public policy, and called apathetic citizens the “greatest enemies of freedom”. The editorial, written by an associate professor at China University for Political Science and Law, makes a rare use of the word “free speech” (言论自由) in its headline. A Chinese database search of all articles from more than 250 newspapers and magazines in the mainland since January 1, 2006, showed just nine articles using “free speech” in the headline — only three of these dealt with issues in China.
The Caijing editorial follows:
Free Speech in an Internet Society
by Fan Libo (范立波)
Since a Chongqing police regulation ordering individuals to register before they could go online went into effect there has been a fierce response in the media and on the Internet. Chongqing police officials stepped forward to explain; someone also wrote an article saying this response arose from a misunderstanding, that regulations of this kind have been around for a long time already and things have in fact been done this way all along, so there was no reason to be overly surprised. The debate seems now to have simmered down. But many key and pressing questions, such as free speech in the Internet age, demand greater reflection.
No one today denies that free speech is an important value. But where is its value most clearly shown? Indian economist Amartya Sen [autobiography here] sums it up wonderfully:
First of all, a citizen expressing his/her own views on an issue of public affairs that interests them is one of the happiest aspects of human life. Free speech is for the citizen an important value in and of itself.
Secondly, free speech can prompt the government to face its citizens and be responsible to them, helping prevent economic and social crises – because free speech not only promotes the spread of information but also spurs the government to responsible decision making. Sen’s research has shown that famine is due not to natural causes but rather to institutional causes. In countries with a definite degree of speech freedom even large-scale natural disasters have not resulted in severe famine.
Lastly, free speech is constructive, because participation in public affairs is a learning process. Many important social and political problems face deep and careful consideration only through widespread discussion, and it is only in this way that society can reach a common understanding [about them].
Unlike Sen, some scholars have criticized Western-style speech freedoms. When French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu talks about forms of censorship, he raises an issue people often overlook, media silence. If a journalist is uninterested, he says, then information will not be disseminated, and so the journalist becomes an impediment or filtration system to information.
A journalist’s preferences, moroever, are to a definite degree determined by the power of the capital supporting them. These preferences generally coalesce into a practice of interpreting or even making news for the benefit of those capital interests. News becomes a puzzle pieced together with shards of social fact selected by the journalist, full of what W. Lance Bennett has called subjective preference (主观偏好) and value pitfalls (价值陷阱). So-called free speech becomes merely a “political fantasy”, fine evening wear with which capital may dress itself up.
The appearance of the Internet deals with the inadequacies of traditional media. One of the greatest strengths of the Internet is that its entry costs are extremely low, and it renders the dissemination and accessing of information extremely convenient. In the Internet world individuals can decide for themselves what kind of information they make contact with, and using various site-building tools like blogs they can launch “my daily” and “my editorial”, expressing their own points of view. Using interactive platforms like bulletin boards they can converse with others. Society no longer relies on these middlemen we can journalists for the dissemination of information. Every person is both a reader and a journalist. There is no need to go through the silent censorship of reporters and editors at traditional media. We can directly submit our information to the online world.
As a direct result of the disappearance of the middleman information is much more diverse. If we say that diversity of information has always been the objective of free speech, then Internet technology has, at least in theory, brought us much closer to that goal. This is how the web promotes free speech. The emergence of the Internet is laying down the technical conditions necessary to realize the various values of free speech Sen outlined.
For societies in transition the various values of free speech Sen proposes should without a doubt be given attention, and everything possible should be done to ensure the Internet is used to realize these values. China’s social system grows more complicated by the day, and social structures are undergoing a process of severe adjustment. Many decisions have broad consequences and will determine and shape our future world – this means we must have information diversity and public deliberation (公共审议). Due to an insufficient system of checks and balances officials [in China] lack a sense of responsibility in policy-making and willfully distort or suppress speech for the benefit of themselves or their groups of self-interest. A lack of responsibility on the part of officials, combined with a loss of truth in information, has the potential to spawn social disaster. The episode of SARS a few years ago is one example.
The Internet obviates the need for a middleman, and its anonymous character encourages the continuous flow of various types of information onto the web. In cases where there are severe controls, a personal information dissemination system like the Internet can resolve the shortage of and twisting of information that can come with official suppression and media self-censorship. This has major implications for public debate. The interactive nature of the Internet means it has the ability to focus attention around specific topics, mobilizing the participation of broad segments of the web population and having an important monitoring function on power.
More importantly, in a society in transition, the Internet can serve to create a common understanding on key social and political questions such as the direction of society and what are priority objectives. This too requires widespread public debate. Public debate can lessen and even avoid strategic error, and discussion can also be used to adjust or change the value judgments of citizens, bringing about a coalescing of the common understandings needed for reform. The Internet provides adequate technical support for public debate.
For a government in transition free speech has a further important function, namely that it legitimizes national power. With society going through major changes in recent years, people have already accepted the fact that it is no longer possible for power to be legitimized through the charisma (个人魅力) and tradition about which Weber spoke, or by mysterious authority. We can only appeal for popular approval and constant monitoring by the people. This kind of monitoring can happen only if there is complete speech freedom. Doing the utmost to make information public (尽可能公开信息) and letting the people freely obtain information and be free to make their own judgments about it is an important path to making the people trust and accept the legality of their government.
Presupposing the absence of democratic practices, a government should recognize these changes in public feeling and, by guaranteeing speech freedoms, earn the confidence of the people. [The government] can not appeal [to the public] on the basis of its good intentions, or even look to policy achievements. Free speech is rooted in basic pessimism about the human character and mistrust of power, and this means the people must be free on principle to discuss all matters.
The rise of the Internet has provided the public with an opportunity to participate in public affairs and voice their own views. Participants find happiness in the process, and this participation lends important value, protection and support toward building a system of social cooperation. If free speech is limited this will without a doubt intrude on public happiness, making citizens apathetic and uninterested in public affairs. Apathetic citizens are the greatest enemies of freedom.
To be sure, free speech is not an absolute value, and the Internet itself has many problems that await resolution through the law. There are, for example, conflicts between web freedom and the rights to privacy and reputation, the competing needs to respect personal privacy while upholding the good of society and maintaining order on the Internet. Research from American legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein has suggested that the Internet might result in a loss of mutual communication through “personalization” and social dispersal – that it might mean people cease caring about the viewpoints of others and even admitting alternative viewpoints, which might eventually lead to a loss of interest and ability to generate common understanding through communication. [Sunstein writing on the Internet at the Boston Review]. The simple voting behavior now popular on the Internet may also risk making a mere show out of the thorough debate essential to [true] free speech, thereby losing sight of the debating function of the free speech system. Moreover, the emotional nature of web-based debate and the so-called “mass violence” (多数人的暴力) that has arisen from it is a problem also begging for solutions. These [issues] also require government involvement.
It should also be emphasized that free speech has inherent importance for systems of democratic constitutionalism (民主宪政制度). For this reason, limitations on free speech must come [only] with major justification. What those justifications are, moreover, must be a matter of public debate. Which is to say that in a democratic system, limitations on free speech must on principle by self-imposed [ie, a decision by the people, not the government]. Laws concerning Internet free speech must be made on the condition they provide certain guarantees of free speech. The emergence of the web has provided new space for free speech, and the people of the country, having gained much happiness from this unprecedented degree of free speech, treasure it. When making laws, organs of [state] power should recognize and respect [this freedom], and not impose limitations lightly. It would be best if any limitations on free speech were given over to public debate, awaiting common understanding and careful consideration. The measures taking effect in Chongqing have resulted in widespread misunderstanding and overexcitement largely because they were created in the absence of these conditions. As the limitations deal with the Internet, it is only natural that the response has been so fierce.
The writer is an assistant professor at the China University for Political Science and Law, and a research for this magazine.
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 16, 2006, 2:15pm]

As the latest public personality in China to be verbally attacked en masse by web users and become a media hot topic, sociologist Li Yinhe (李银河) is feeling the force of creeping social change in the country. She is playing an unenviable role, you might say, in the dress rehearsal for free speech in China, the revolutionary idea that all Chinese have the right to speak their own mind and make their own decisions about what is truth.
On July 21 Li Yinhe, a sociologist and well-known expert on sex and gender (who proposed for a third time this year that gay marriage be legalized in China), presented a talk in Nanjing in which she reportedly discussed everything from one-night stands to incest. Nanjing’s Jinling Evening News ran what most now agree was a news report with a negative spin on July 23, and suggested Li had said in her talk that she had a “desire for multiple romantic relationships” (Li later told Y Weekend her words had been taken out of context, that she was expressing not a personal wish but rather a hope for social diversity).
In any case, the Jinling Evening News article created a sensation online as netizens rushed to make their own views on sex and marriage known, many issuing personal attacks on Li Yinhe. Capitalizing on obvious reader interest, newspapers and magazines followed suit, printing editorials and summaries of the controversy. Li Yinhe told Y Weekly she hadn’t ruled out a lawsuit, but found the idea troublesome: “In order to clear my reputation, must I sue them [the Nanjing newspaper]? . . . I don’t want to get involved in a lawsuit, that’s too much trouble. Some people might say that by getting involved in a lawsuit over such a thing I’m just trying to build myself up?” [2005 article on Li at Xinhua in English with photograph][Li Yinhe on rural unrest at Danwei.org].
China Youth Daily called the Li Yinhe controversy and others like it examples of “comment posting culture”, in which not only web users but also other print media follow a news topic with intensity and make their views known. “Along with the development of the Internet, a kind of ‘comment posting culture’ (跟帖文化) has become popular”, the newspaper wrote on August 6. “It already exists on more than just the web, expanding to print media and with an influence not to be overlooked”.
While “free speech”, where it concerns criticism of Communist Party leaders or government policy, remains extremely sensitive, the issue is being discussed more generally in the media in cases like the recent Li Yinhe controversy. In an editorial last week, Shanghai’s Oriental Morning Post (东方早报) said that “what should be most precious in an open society is that everyone have the right to speak”. With reference to post-structuralist theory, the article suggested each person has a “right” to their own “readings” of the truth, a radically new concept to find in a major newspaper in a country where the Communist Party has traditionally claimed a monopoly on the truth, and where “guidance of public opinion” remains the cardinal principle of media policy.
The Oriental Morning Post response to the Li Yinhe controversy follows, with excerpts from the original Jinling Evening Post report and Li’s rebuttal in Y Weekly:
——————–
HEADLINE: Be Slow to Anger, please, Li Yinhe
— What should be most precious in an open society is that everyone have the right to speak. The most difficult thing about free speech is tolerating that speech we find most abhorrent. —
While I don’t share Li’s point of view, I admire her for having the courage in challenging social prejudices; and I despise those netizens who heaped their scorn on her (particularly those who tried to turn her personal life against her). Still, the report that appeared in Jinling Evening News [and launched the controversy] belongs to a different category [from these online attacks]. And judging from Li’s condemnation of the newspaper it’s difficult to find any outstanding points of untruth [in the Jinling report], much less anything constituting a violation of law. At most this newspaper wrote a negative news report on Li’s talk in which it described how some audience members broke with the use of strips of paper to submit questions [to Li Yinhe] and debated with her on the scene. As to the accuracy of these descriptions Li has offered no challenge. From the viewpoint of readers this was definitely a scene to attract one’s attention, and it’s no surprise it found its way across the Internet.
Li, who is highly-educated, understands that news reports may stray despite the best efforts at objectivity. This is particularly true with such explosive topics [as sex and family] about which people can’t help but be moved. Starting from different points of view, people will naturally see different “facts” . . . People emphasize what they want to see and that is precisely what they see. It’s hard to talk about which version is “objective”.
What most infuriated Li Yinhe was that this newspaper [Jinling Evening News] said she “desired multiple romantic relationships”. She said after the fact that by using “desired” she meant not that she desired “multiple romantic relationships” but that she desired diversity . . . But even in her rebuttal [interview with Y Weekend] Li said: “Things like multiple romantic relationships, one-night stands, I think these are simply new kinds of social relationships. As [French philosopher] Foucault has said, we already have marital relationships, family relationships, but these social relationships are far too few. Our people are capable of creating many different types of social relationship”.
Isn’t it at least an understandable error for any normal person, on hearing words like this, to assume that she “desired multiple romantic relationships”? . . .
We have all been edified by the various postmodern textual analyses of the 20th century, such as the right to [various] readings (诠释权), etcetera. Any text has independence from its maker, and others naturally have a right to their own readings. Honestly, reading Li Yinhe’s allegations after the fact I too find it hard to believe she doesn’t desire multiple romantic relationships, and believe moreover that there are contradictions in her own thought of which she is unaware. Looking at various elections in the United States we see that the candidate’s every sentence is taken and used in inflammatory ways by his opponent, garbled and taken out of context, twisted. Tell me, who has ever brought a lawsuit for such a thing? Never. The reason is simple: you can’t monopolize readings of your own texts. All you can do is exercise your own right to make a reading [or interpretation] and compete with the interpretations of others.
This is where Li Yinhe is wrong. Perhaps she only wants to say, “That’s not what I meant”, that others twisted the facts.
Actually, “Know thyself” is a much harder exhortation than most of us realize. Socrate’s greatest lesson to humanity was that in most instances we don’t know ourselves well enough, although we may believe mistakenly that we do. Jinling Evening News wrote a report she [Li Yinhe] does not approve of, making a reading of her beliefs that varies from her own. As a public personality (公共人物) Li has sufficient media resources to make express her views. All of us readers are waiting to be convinced. But if you have sufficient ability to instill reason [make your views known through the media] but resort instead to the law, does that not lead us to believe you are short on reason?
Online media have given people precious space to express their own speech freedoms. Those of us who eat by means of our words [media] have the greatest interest in preserving this kind of freedom. Regrettably, there is an unfortunate trend of late, namely the use of the law by those who want to shut up speech they don’t personally like. We have, for example, the case of Fang Zhouzi (方舟子), who was ordered by the court to apologize to those he criticized [for exposing an act of academic plagiarism]. I’m not familiar with the details of this case so can’t offer my own criticisms, but it concerns me. If Fang Zhouzi were to use his own website to launch a false and systematic campaign against me, I might regard myself as a victim. I could choose either to ignore him or respond to him, but I would have no need to take him to court. If we tie Fang Zhouzi up in legal wrangling so that he spends all his time fighting lawsuits and has no energy to do other things then we will be short one level of supervision (少了一重监督), and what good will there be for our society in that? [More on Fang Chouzi from Paul Mooney, Chronicle of Higher Education].
So I exhort public personalities, Li Yinhe included, to be more tolerant of the media, even to the point of letting people make errors. What should be most precious in an open society is that everyone have the right to speak. The most difficult thing about free speech is tolerating that speech we find most abhorrent.
——————–
Here are translated portions of the Jinling Evening News report on Li Yinhe’s talk in Nanjing:
Invited to attend an “Eastern Valentine’s Day” forum at Jiangsu Television on July 21, well-known sociologist Li Yinhe arrived at Nanjing’s Xinjiekou International Theater to give a talk “about love”. [This was for “qixi”, the Chinese Valentine’s Day, the seventh evening of the seventh month, when Herd-boy and Weaving-girl are supposed to meet].
[Article mentions that when discussion starts the viewers have many questions and opinions. Questions are submitted to Li on pieces of paper.]

In her talk, Li Yinhe had already revealed her desire for “multiple romantic relationships” (多边恋) . . .
Many viewers expressed their doubts and asked on their strips of paper whether the idea of “multiple romantic relationships” broke with the traditional concept of the “nuclear family” and whether it would create inequality and chaos in society. Li Yinhe’s answer was a bit forced: “All things should be rich and colorful. If all families are merely one father and one mother, then that would be too bland”.
Extramarital relationships are the “cancers” standing in the way of happy families in urban life, [but] Li Yinhe spoke for them at the event. “Anyone has the right to have sexual relations with third persons other than their partners. Love affairs are wrong only because they are in violation of the Marriage Law. Concerning one-night stands, if you are single, not only do you have this right but there are no moral problems involved. So the only advice I would have for those having one-night stands is that they be safe and prevent the spread of diseases” . . .
The questions the audience members asked became more and more sensitive and Li Yinhe’s answers made people more and more surprised. When the topic of “incest” came up, Li Yinhe said: “Prohibitions on incest were originally considered from the standpoint of heredity, to prevent the congenital flaws. Incest does not touch on moral issues. I think with the promise they do not reproduce, there is no reason why cousins should not allowed to unite”.
One old woman in the audience could listen no longer. She stood up excitedly and said loudly: “I want to say a few words. I want to say a few words. I think one man and one woman is still beneficial to the development of society. It’s still better if people are more conservative!”
The old woman’s words brought a peal of applause from the audience. An old man on the back row could no longer keep his seat. He stood up, turned his body to the audience and said: ““Girls, pick up your pens for me and write down what I have to say! In love, this you must understand. You must not be to loose in your attitude.” Faced with this attack, Li Yinhe looked noticeably uncomfortable onstage.
Following are translated portions of Li Yinhe’s interview with Y Weekend, a magazine published by the China Youth Daily group. In the interview, Li Yinhe responds to the article in Jinling Evening News that sparked the online controversy over her comments:

Y Weekend: After that article, “Li Yinhe Desires ‘Multiple Relationships'”, came out I saw your claim on your personal blog that you did not say the word “desire”, is that true?
Li: I did use this word “desire”. In my talk I expressed hope for a society of cultural diversity. I don’t desire “multiple relationships”. What I desire is diversity.
Y Weekend: But why did this article want to allege that you desired multiple relationships?
Li: It’s definitely hostile! There’s also that little phrase after the headline that says I “provoked the anger of the crowd”, which is totally untrue.
When questions were asked at the time the atmosphere was charged. Later a 50 or 60 year-old woman stood up and said: ‘I think it still should be one man and one woman, everyone should raise their consciousness’. This woman came many times before to the Academy of Social Sciences looking for me. I won’t dare expose her personal situation. But one time, after we’d talked at CASS, she suddenly turned around as she was leaving and shouted back at me: ‘Let me tell you, Wang Xiaobo, he doesn’t love you!’ What was that about? You tell me. Isn’t there something a bit wrong with her nerves?
After the talk was over, people came up and wanted my signature. Later I went to the elevator. There were so many people the elevator door wouldn’t close. What kind of provoking the anger of the crowd is that?
So it’s clearly ridiculous of this one little Nanjing paper to report that I provoked the anger of the crowd.
Y Weekend: You did talk about multiple romantic relationships, one-night stands and incest at the Nanjing event. While we’re on the subject, do you yourself accept multiple romantic relationships and one-night stands?
Li: I still prefer one husband and one wife. Multiple romantic relationships refer to sexual relationships involving three or more people. This and one-night stands are too much trouble for my liking, so to say that I long for them is simply a violation of fact.
But just because I don’t like something personally doesn’t mean people don’t have a right to them. I have to respect their rights. You can’t say I like homosexuality just because I submit a resolution on same-sex marriage. If I research criminal behavior, does that mean I enjoy such behavior?
Actually, what I wish to emphasize are the sexual rights of citizens. As a citizen, anyone has the right to be master of their own body – this is a basic right. When it [that right] is infringed upon we must stand up and speak, is that not right?
Y Weekend: Why must you stand up and speak? On such a sensitive topic, aren’t you afraid people will attack you indiscriminately?
Li: This is my area of expertise. This is the type of research I do. To see that people have so many incorrect ways of thinking concerns me and I want to correct them. I only want to make correct concepts known. So what then?
Things like multiple relationships, one-night stands — I think these are simply new kinds of social relationships. As Foucault has said, we already have marital relationships, family relationships, but these social relationships are far too few. Our people are capable of creating many different types of social relationship – if you don’t like something, you can choose something else.
Y Weekend: When you emphasize the right to these things in such a way, does that give people the impression you are advocating them? Or that you are encouraging them?
Li: When you voice truths, does that always mean advocating them? During the talk I was objectively describing the situation in the West. I was just describing to everyone how the world is changing. But I was in no way suggesting that everyone should go out and do these things. I had already discussed how much your odds of getting a sexually-transmitted disease go up each time you add another partner. No one cared to report that.
Y Weekend: Some people said on the Internet that you had endorsed one-night stands and that this was sure to please those who have had on intend to have one-night stands.
Li: Endorsed? Um …… Please? Actually they already have a right. I’m only saying it out loud. What is clearly in our rights, no one dares to speak of.
What I want to say to them is that they have the right, but when they have a sexual relationship with a stranger, this is potentially dangerous.
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 15, 2006, 11:20am]

In a statement yesterday former badminton champion Zhou Mi turned her fire on Chinese and foreign media, responding to speculation she planned to relinquish her Chinese nationality and play for Malaysia’s national team.
Zhou said the situation, which has been dubbed the “Zhou Mi Affair” (周蜜事件), spun out of control because foreign media “misled the public” and Chinese domestic media “blew the story out of proportion”. Zhou said in the statement, distributed through major Chinese web portals, that her “patriotism cannot so easily be denigrated”. She added that she has not yet made any firm decisions about her future plans. “When and if I do decide to make a return to badminton, I will speak and act carefully”, said Zhou, who retired from the Chinese national team in 2005 after suffering a knee injury.
The “Zhou Mi Affair” highlights growing tension between China’s increasingly commercialized and freewheeling media and public personalities like Zhou who are sources of interest to Chinese media consumers. The media’s hunt for compelling stories has led to a growing number of defamation cases in recent years. Problems are compounded by a lack of adequate channels of information about personalities, a point The Beijing News makes in its editorial on the affair today [See below].
The “Zhou Mi Incident” was fueled by reports in Malaysian media earlier this month that Zhou Mi would spend a month in Kuala Lumpur as a sparring partner for Wong Mew Choo as Wong prepared for the world championships in Spain. Malaysia’s The Star Online, an English-language online publication, said sports officials had given Zhou Mi the green light to play for Malaysia’s national team and suggested the one-month sparring arrangement was a trial run: “National chief coach Yap Kim Hock said that Zhou Mi would continue to train in Malaysia under national men’s singles coach Li Mao. And she may well represent Malaysia in the future”, the publication said.
Chinese media quickly picked up on reports in the Malaysian press and before long the storyline read that Zhou Mi planned to “relinquish her Chinese citizenship and play badminton for Malaysia“. On August 5, Beijing Youth Daily quoted an article in Malaysian media that said, “former Chinese national badminton player Zhou Mi is already playing for Malaysia”. Beijing Youth Daily said it was doubtful, though, that Zhou Mi would play for the country. In another August 5 report Chengdu Commercial Daily quoted Badminton Association of Malaysia representatives as saying it was possible Zhou Mi would serve as either a coach or a player for the Malaysian team in the future.
The following are excerpts of Zhou Mi’s statement as it appeared at Sohu.com:

News reports about my relinquishing of my Chinese nationality and becoming a Malaysian citizen have no basis in fact. First of all, I am visiting for one month on a tourist visa. During that time I will have exchanges with the Malaysian national badminton team … This is beneficial for enhancing exchange of badminton culture. For me personally, the opportunity enhances my personal life experience, allowing me to improve my knowledge of badminton players of other nationalities … Secondly, I am deeply proud of being a Chinese and looking at the daily development of our country makes me proud …
I think the media bears a large responsibility for taking an ordinary situation and turning it into such a big disturbance … As for some of the comments he made [referring to Chinese national Coach Li Yongbo], foreign media misled the public and Chinese domestic media blew the story out of proportion …
The Beijing News printed the following editorial in today’s sports section. The editorial challenges Zhou Mi’s assertion that media alone bear responsibility for the “Zhou Mi Affair”, and ends with a cheeky play on Zhou Mi’s words in her statement, in which she said her “love for her country could not be so easily denigrated”:

Yesterday former badminton world champion Zhou Mi (周蜜) issued a statement through several major Internet portals saying that her patriotism is not in question, and pointing her spearhead at the media ……
My core question is the same as that in Zhou Mi’s statement, whether the most media were seeking the truth and whether they acted professionally with respect for their readers, [but] I have no doubt [that the media did]. Just as we have never been jealous or suspicious of Zhou Mi’s feelings of patriotism, I believe that the original intention of most media was to seek the facts, and was not, as national champion Zhou said, to take the issue and blindly blow it out of proportion.
If all parties had kept clear heads and serious demeanors, the “Zhou Mi Affair” would not have evolved to the point it has. Even if there really was “untruth” as the party involved [Zhou Mi] has said, well then, National Champion Zhou and Coach Li and even the whole badminton team, and the media are all responsible in their own ways. Moreover, the media does not in this case as the party involved [Zhou Mi] has said, “have major blame” (“有很大的责任”). There are three reasons to reach this conclusion. First of all, our national team has not yet joined tracks with international practice, and if there were an effective news announcement system (新闻发言人制度) there would be no need of troubling Coach Li Yongbo for a response. Secondly, the person around which the speculation centered [Zhou Mi] did not take the first available opportunity to explain the facts in person, and without her guidance it was tough to avoid an overflow of information. Thirdly, the above two factors put the media in a very awkward situation — the pursuit of the facts does not permit the media to give up lightly, simply tossing aside information from various sources, and so responsibility for the so-called “stirring up” of the “Zhou Mi Affair” does not lie with the media, or at least not entirely with the media.
Another convincing fact is that Li Yongbo, one of the parties involved, never came forward to deny his previous comments on the “Zhou Mi Affair” … If Zhou Mi had come forward with her statement earlier things would not have played out as they did.
I end with a truism: the relationship between the media and public figures is, to put it gently, like the relationship between lips and teeth, or more harshly, one of mutual imposition. You might be a star, but the truth or inaccuracy of news is not for you to decide. As for shoving full responsibility on the media, while this is safe and diverts the attention of the public it is dishonest. We in the media can also issue our own statement: the media’s love of the truth cannot so easily be denigrated.
[Posted by David Bandurski and Brian Chan, August 10, 2006, 3:42pm]