Freedom of speech is the idea that everyone can say what they like without fear of censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed in international law through human rights organisations, Article 10 of The European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Anyone can be free to expression whatever opinion they wish, your choice is only to listen or not. So why then does China use a Golden Shield Project (金盾工程) to censor the internet, by blocking certain IP addresses, webfeed blocking and URL filtering? Remember: China itself is one of the 192 member states of the United Nations, an organisation whose rules for membership include:
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
The 'present charter' as mentioned above includes in Chapter 1, Article 1: "To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Does banning news and media websites such as those which belong to the Dalai Lama or the International Tibet Independence Movement, Falun Gong qigong groups, Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party government, the BBC, Yahoo! Hong Kong and The Voice of America promote and encourage respect for human rights? Does the Internet Society of China, whose 2,600 members 'supervise' the internet, making sure that no "unhealthy information" can appear on websites, contribute to fundamental freedoms for all? Any search for the 1989 Tainamen Square protests, Playboy, Amnesty International, Marxism or The Guardian newspaper will all draw blanks. Even the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' are judged to be "unhealthy" by the Internet Society of China. So is the United Nations Charter not worth the paper it's written on? It's not easy to enforce international laws, but maybe money and business have the final say when it comes to what is appropriate behaviour from member states and the money is doing all the talking it likes.
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
The 'present charter' as mentioned above includes in Chapter 1, Article 1: "To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Does banning news and media websites such as those which belong to the Dalai Lama or the International Tibet Independence Movement, Falun Gong qigong groups, Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party government, the BBC, Yahoo! Hong Kong and The Voice of America promote and encourage respect for human rights? Does the Internet Society of China, whose 2,600 members 'supervise' the internet, making sure that no "unhealthy information" can appear on websites, contribute to fundamental freedoms for all? Any search for the 1989 Tainamen Square protests, Playboy, Amnesty International, Marxism or The Guardian newspaper will all draw blanks. Even the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' are judged to be "unhealthy" by the Internet Society of China. So is the United Nations Charter not worth the paper it's written on? It's not easy to enforce international laws, but maybe money and business have the final say when it comes to what is appropriate behaviour from member states and the money is doing all the talking it likes.
Bookmark:
Shorten Url
Recommend to Front page
Comment Permissions: Allow commenting