Joho the Blog
|
|
|
June 13, 2005
From Rebecca MacKinnon at GlobalVoicesOnline.com:
I understand the argument — Google's, for example — that it's better to provide limited access to Web services than no access. Of course, that argument happens to work out in favor of the companies' commercial interests, so it's tainted. But there's also a point at which the compromises turn your software into an instrument of control. I don't know where that point is but it should be making companies intensely uncomfortable. Of course, about the control-obsessed, fear-based Chinese government there can be little ambiguity. [Technorati tags: china GlobalVoices microsoft RebeccaMacKinnon] Here's Scoble's take. (And isn't it most excellent that he's out there talking for and to Microsoft?) Although he staunchly believes in free speech, he says he has "ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in." First, I agree that it's important to understand the other country's perspective. I have heard, on my few brief trips to China (I could say "Please," "Thank you" and "No, I don't want to buy a DVD," so I am obviously an expert in Chinese politics) that during this difficult period, the Chinese people can't afford to allow a few enemies of the people to spread their seductive lies. And I don't believe free speech is an absolute right: I support laws against slander, perjury and even giving away genuine trade secrets. But I have also had the privilege of meeting Chinese people who have risked death by speaking freely. So, when Scoble talks about "the Chinese," I want to know which Chinese he's talking about. Every Chinese person? Or the Chinese government? Second, if Microsoft had refused to compromise its software, it wouldn't be forcing the Chinese government to do anything. It would be refusing to enable the Chinese government to impede free speech. (On the other hand, to be honest, I'd like Microsoft to take a stand on this in order to influence China, and influence can be taken as a type of force.) Personally, I think there are times when we absolutely do not want to enable other governments to do whatever it is that they want to do. I would not have wanted my company to help enable Apartheid, and I won't even go back to enabling the legitimate government of Germany in the 1930s. My point is not that the Chinese government should be compared to this or that other regime but that I do not agree with Scoble's idea that companies have no right to take moral stances against the policies of other governments. Whether this is one of those cases is a separate point; in fact, it's point #1 above. So, I agree with Scoble that we don't want to go around thinking our values are the only values, forcing the rest of the world to act the way we think they ought. Excellent point. I even agree that there are times and places where free speech isn't the highest value. And I don't think it's totally obvious what Microsoft ought to do in cases such as this. But I disagree with Scoble's reasoning that takes the moral issue off the table. Instead, I think there needs to be vigorous, practical debate about whether this particular software compromise is acceptable. Reasonable people (like Scoble) may disagree on this question. But it is, for me, a question. Posted
by D. Weinberger at June 13, 2005 02:12 AM
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Chinese blog censorship:
» Microsoft in China: Aiding Oppression? from Mutually Inclusive PR Tracked on June 14, 2005 12:52 AM |
Comments
You can tell he is a staunch advocate for the first amendment, because he uses CAPITALS. So it must be true.
Copyright is an exception to freedom of speech. In China, piracy of MS Windows is normal. So, if Scoble likes the first amendment and feels that Microsoft should not interfere with Chinese customs.... what is his position on Microsoft's vehement interference with the Chinese custom of copying MS Windows-CDs?
Anyway, I am teasing. Seriously though: Scoble is wrong, because it is not China doing the censoring, but Microsoft.
Posted by: Branko Collin | June 13, 2005 12:37 PM
Hello David,
in East Germany, people once also had to live with all those restrictions you’re talking about. Ok, there hasn’t been an Internet at that time, and particularly not for East Germans. But they’ve found their way beneath the surface, that no restriction ever could hold back the opinions of the people. People were able to create forms of encoded communication which had been much more effective and well known all over the GDR. They were more effective than clear, plain text could ever have been. And I think, they also will in China and they already have.
So, I think, this restriction of the freedom of speech can’t have any effect on the passing of opinions over the web and other media.
In the GDR even the comedians found their way to criticize their Government very effectively and even on TV. The Government, or let’s better say the communistic Party, the SED, which had the power in this State, couldn’t do anything about it.
So, I think, David, the point is, this fight on the surface is meaningless. The war *beneath* the surface is already won for all those values and words, that are forbidden even to speak out, today. We will find out that only with a time lag.
This shows an effect that goes much deeper as only in the communication of a dictatorship. It also has an impact on our lives. Communication lives deep beneath the surface. And only deep beneath the surface are all those important points. So, what are we fighting for in this case? Shaddow fighting? I think, this is only one of those things, that Microsoft and Robert Scoble maybe have not had on their list. But maybe we should differ between what they do on the surface and what the effect of their Strategy will be!
You know, if something is forbidden very strong, it motivates people only the more to fight for it. This is a dramaturgy, which is always forgotten by dictators, who live only on the surface of their not authentic regimes.
And let me finish with another thought, which could also have been part of Microsoft’s strategy on this case. If you wanna win a fight against a dictatorship, it can be important not to let your opponent watch your cards. Which is at least the strategy with which Gorbachev must have won his fight for more democracy in the USSR, even if the Clocks have recently been turning back.
Let me say it clear. I don't think, that Microsoft wants to fight any dictatorship in the world. But at least what they did in this case, can't cause any damage on that goal.
As you've already said: people still have access over the Internet. And this is what counts.
Greetings from Germany, Carsten
Posted by: Carsten Boettjer | June 16, 2005 08:18 AM
China's own Constitution explicitly protects Democracy and Freedom of Speech -- and calls for an investigation of any organization or enterprise that violates China's Constitution. So censoring words such as "freedom" and "democracy" in China is wrong both legally and morally. Here are some excerpts from China's constitution -- with a URL to the full constitution provided below:
" Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. "
" Article 3. Democracy
The state organs of the People's Republic of China apply the principle of democratic centralism.
The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at various levels are constituted through democratic elections. They are responsible to the people and subject to their supervision.
"
"Article 5. Constitutional supremacy
...All state organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organizations and all enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and the law. All acts in violation of the Constitution and the law must be investigated.
"
A copy of China's constitution can be found at: http://www.usconstitution.net/china.html
Posted by: Matt | June 16, 2005 09:45 PM
Explicitly protects Democracy? They have free speach? Ever heard of Tiananmen Square? You can have anything you like in writing but actions speak louder then words.
Posted by: Susan | June 22, 2005 07:28 PM
I juste read the preamble of the "Constitution of the People's Republic of China". A little scary...
Posted by: Arnols | January 14, 2006 03:44 AM
Explicitly protects Democracy? They have free speach? Ever heard of Tiananmen Square? You can have anything you like in writing but actions speak louder then words.
Posted by: chineseoo | June 24, 2007 11:56 PM