2 August 2007
Closure or blocking of 11 websites since start of July heralds "Black Summer" for Internet users and cyber-dissidents
The closure of the civil rights website Zhonghua Shenzheng ) on the information ministry's orders since 30 July was condemned today by Reporters Without Borders as yet another case of censorship of the Internet, which is still one of the few ways Chinese can access news and information that have not been vetted by the official agency Xinhua.
"At least 11 websites have been definitively or temporarily closed or blocked since 1 July, while others have been forced to remove content that upset the authorities," the press freedom organisation said. "We are witnessing a crackdown on the Chinese Internet that could be linked to the preparation of the next Communist Party congress in October."
Reporters Without Borders added: "The cyber-police and information ministry are intervening with increasing frequence and, in one case, an Internet user was arrested because of an outspoken post about the current flooding in China. Meanwhile, cyber-dissident Zhu Yufu was sentenced to two years in prison on 16 July and online journalist Sun Lin is still being held without trial."
Zhonghua Shenzheng recently posted two articles that upset the authorities. One was about the trial of Zhu Baoliang, a former policeman turned human rights activist. The second one blamed an incident at a Shanghai auditorium on former President Jiang Zemin's nephew, Wu Zhiming, who is the city's public security chief.
"The site has been closed since yesterday afternoon because we have not stopped publishing articles about corruption in the Shanghai government," Zhonghua Shenzheng editor Shang Yan told Radio Free Asia on 31 July.
Zhonghua Shenzheng's journalists are determined to continue their work but are not very optimistic about the site's chances are reopening in the near future. "Although the site is closed, we will still defend the interests of the majority of the population by using our site's name to publish messages on the Internet," one of them said.
Chronology of online free speech violations since 1 July:
Early July: An official in the city of Xiamen announces his intention to ban anonymous comments on the Internet
4 July: An order is issued closing the China Development Brief website
9 July: Cyber-dissident Sun Lin is accused of possessing explosives. The trial of Guo Feixiong is adjourned
11 July: Closure of Lu Yang's "Forum of Contemporary Chinese Poetry" and two of his other forums. The 20,000 Chinese visitors to the Israeli website shvoong (www.shvoong.com) find their access is blocked
12 July: Closure of the chat room on the Mongolian Youth Forum (www.mglzaluus.com/bbs) website
16-22 July: The Maoist website Maoflag (www.maoflag.cn) is closed and then reopened after the withdrawal of a letter criticising the Communist Party leadership.
16 July: Cyber-dissident Zhu Yufu is sentenced to two years in prison.
18 July: Huang Qi's website, 64Tianwang (www.64tianwang.cn), is forced to close temporarily after being hacked.
26 July: Access is restored to the workers rights website Tongyipianlantianxia (www.blueseasky.cn) after being blocked for two weeks
23-29 July: A young Internet user, Li Xing, is arrested and charged with "disseminating false information and helping to create an atmosphere of panic" about the flooding in the northeast
26 July: The trial of cyber-dissident Guo Feixiong is adjourned for two and a half months for lack of evidence
30 July: Closure of the Zhonghua Shenzheng (www.shenzheng.cn) website
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)