Interview: Inside a censored China

 
Page 1 of 2 | Single page

Chinese academic Kaiser Kuo says some censorship can be justified.

Beijing-based academic Kaiser Kuo will bravely step into a local political storm in a series of televised debates this week as one of the few voices arguing that some forms of internet censorship can be justified.

His billing on Q&A tonight, at the Intelligence Squared debate at Sydney's City Recital Hall tomorrow night and the Wheeler Centre in Melbourne on Thursday presents an opportunity to understand internet censorship from a very different world-view to our own.

Speaking to iTnews from his Sydney hotel room today, Kuo joked that he was asked to come to Australia because the St James Ethics Centre - which runs the Sydney event -  "struggled to locate anyone willing to back such an unpopular position" - that censorship can be justified.

But those expecting Kuo to argue censorship is routinely justified will be disappointed. Kuo, a consultant for Chinese video site Youku.com and a political science graduate from Berkeley, would feel more comfortable on the other side of the debate.

"In most cases, I am opposed to internet censorship," he said. "It is rarely used judiciously.

"I just need to help people understand that this isn't a black and white issue, there are many shades of grey."

Kuo argues that his home country of China has a "draconian sense of censorship.

"I have severe objections to the way it's done in China," he said. "It is entirely un-transparent and arbitrary. It is done using blunt instruments, and there are unintended casualties when they swing those blunt instruments about.

"But even in China, occasionally there are instances where lives are actually saved by internet censorship. It's rare, but it happens."

Life-saving censorship?

Kuo takes us back to July 5th, 2009, when the Chinese Government locked down the whole of the Xinjiang province in response to ethnic violence in its capital, Urimqi. In this case, a larger number of Han Chinese - the nation's predominate ethnicity - were killed in clashes with a minority group, the Uighurs.

"The security bureaucracy agreed very quickly to enact an internet blackout," Kuo said. "There were genuine fears of recriminations against the Muslim Uighur minority throughout China. Han Chinese in bigger cities were ready to incite violence against this minority.

"As heavy handed as their reasons were, the impetus for the bureaucracy to censor the internet was not unreasonable."

Kuo also uses an example from India - where the popular Google Orkut social networking tool is monitored and censored by Google against any criticisms of the Hindu Nationalist Party Shiv Sena, purely because of the violence such discussions have led to historically.

"It's a real problem for Google," Kuo says. "They believe in the right to free speech, but they also don't like people rioting and burning cars."

Read on for Page Two - The reality of Chinese internet censorship


Interview: Inside a censored China
"This is a very interesting article, well done ITNews on getting an interview with this guy, im only sorry I missed seeing the debate itself (i presume the sydney one was televised). Ignoring the ..."
By Mordd
 
 
 
Comments: 4
anonymous
May 10, 2010 5:34 PM

Kaiser Kuo sounds just like any number of other mainland Chinese/Tibetan/Mongolian officials when they are allowed to travel overseas and asked for comments about the situation in their home country.

Without delving further on what might happen to such people and their jobs if they were more open, it is clear that Senator Conroy can claim no support at all for his filter from the Chinese experience.

Even Kuo is able to say that Net censorship is not justified except in the case of a genuine national emergency. Clearly, this is not a justification that Conroy can use for the routine imposition of his secret government censorship in Australia.
Res
May 10, 2010 9:35 PM
No cencorship is justified in a western democracy.

And obtaining attempted justification from a communist rep is hardly
credible. you might as well get North Koreas pres to give his opinion or Adolph Hitler to offer his.
AkiraDoe
May 11, 2010 7:19 AM
I think it's very telling that someone who thinks that at times there is justification for the Chinese Firewall (even if he admitted to bypassing the filter using a VPN daily) was not in favour at all of the Mandatory ISP Filtering as proposed by Senator Conroy here...
Mordd
May 12, 2010 3:50 PM
This is a very interesting article, well done ITNews on getting an interview with this guy, im only sorry I missed seeing the debate itself (i presume the sydney one was televised).

Ignoring the racist comment from Res - I think this article is a good debating point for BOTH sides of the internet filtering scheme argument. I would like to highlight a couple of key comments:

"In most cases, I am opposed to internet censorship," he said. "It is rarely used judiciously.

"I just need to help people understand that this isn't a black and white issue, there are many shades of grey."

I wish Senator Conboy could appreciate that it isn't a black and white issue either, and that there are so many shades of grey that ultimately his attempt to control information to the extent he wishes to simply isnt possible, this is highlighted by his recent announcement that bypassing the filter won't be illegal, nor will instructing people to bypass the filter. It brings back the question of if there is so little control it will actually bring, is it really worth the massive expense and effort required to give us such limited control.

"But in reality, today assembly in China can have violent consequences. And its not just the Government feeling compelled to repress this assembly - I have seen crowds get ugly in China. Perhaps, and I hate to say this, some cultures aren't ready for free assembly."

This is the argument that really worries me though, the idea that free assembly and free speech is only for the progressive, the educated, the first world, however you want to phrase it. Trying to suggest that control is necessary to prevent violence is a simplistic, and very black and white attitude to censorship, and a flawed justification. I feel that he contradicts his earlier comment directly here, maybe his meaning hasn't come through properly in the quote there, but this is no different to the same shallow argument that Senator Conboy makes that censorship is necessary to prevent child porgnography.

You can insert any issue into a statement like that and twist is as justification to restrict and control the masses, but it is ultimately a futile effort and it also clouds the issue of what freedom really means. As Ice-T says in his song 'Freedom of Speech' its a tautology of of the freedom of speech argument "Freedom of speech.. yeh boy but just watch what you say". (I hope ive used tautology correctly there). Ultimately no matter what argument you try to use to censor opinion, no matter how ugly that opinion might be, its no longer freedom of speech, association, assembly, etc... its Freedom to do what you want - as long as you don't what we don't want you to, its a false argument.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
Photos: Google I/O 2013
Evolution not revolution.
 
Photos: NextDC builds S1 data centre
Prepares for September launch.
 
QLD Govt contributed to payroll project 'death spiral'
Inquiry hears from independent expert.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1613

Vote