|
“Empirical
Analysis of Internet Filtering in China” is a topic that might not
catch most people’s attention, but most people don’t have a column
to turn in every Monday by 9 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. It’s
amazing what looks interesting when you’re staring down the cold
hard barrel of a deadline.
It’s also
remarkable how fast a subject can turn personal. Bear with the
following paragraph of techno talk; there’s a point.
“Empirical
Analysis of Internet Filtering in China” is the title of a study
aimed at determining the methods and scope of the Chinese
government’s blocking of undesirable Internet sites, published by
Harvard Law School. Between May and November of 2002, the authors
attempted to access approximately 200,000 web sites through a number
of Chinese web servers to determine which had been blocked. Before
considering a site intentionally blocked, researchers had to be
denied access on at least two occasions, through separate proxy
servers in different regions, at times when the site was available
through U.S. servers. They then determined the site’s “blocking
quotient,” a measurement of how thoroughly access to the site had
been obstructed.
A total of
19,032 sites were determined to have been blocked, and are now
listed on
Harvard’s web site. One of them was
Brentmorrison.com.
Yes, that’s
mine. I have no idea how my site, which ranks a whopping 2,255,622nd
in the Alexa.com Internet traffic ratings, might have come to the
attention of Chinese authorities. Nor am I sure why it was deemed a
threat to the nation’s social order, but it’s fun to speculate.
Maybe it’s
Google’s fault. The world’s most popular search engine pops up a
column I wrote last year at number three out of approximately 4,760
hits for the phrase “Women
of Enron.” My columns place 28th out 104,000 for “Joe
Millionaire” and 16th of 56,000 for “Abercrombie
& Fitch.” It conjures up visions of drab concrete buildings
with legions of khaki-clad functionaries huddled around cathode ray
tubes, scouring the web for icons of capitalist corruption. If I’m
right, it is probably the most sought-after job in China.
More likely,
if less exciting, I have probably been profiled. Many of the
blocked addresses are opinion sites or have a Christian orientation,
neither of which sits well with communist regimes. I take it as a
compliment.
Unfortunately some are trying their best to suppress Christian
opinion in our own country, which I find considerably less
flattering. Don’t get me wrong; there’s little comparison between
the U.S. and China. Our Bill of Rights still works after over 200
years and I’ve not lost a minute’s sleep worrying about arrest or
being ordered to stop writing. Still, the success of our freedoms
should make us that much more protective of them.
Just this
month, Secretary of Education Rod Paige drew flack over
comments pointing out what he perceives as the advantages of a
Christian education. Paige, who is on record against compulsory
prayer in public schools, has been asked by Americans United for
Separation of Church and State to apologize or resign on the
presumption that public officials have no right to base their
opinions on faith, or must forfeit the right to express them.
Also in
April, administrators at
Evansville High School in Evansville, Wisconsin permitted its
Gay Straight Alliance Club to hold a “Day of Silence” in protest of
alleged discrimination but forbade a group of Christian students
from praying and handing out Bible verses on homosexuality.
Rounding out
the month, a pro-life display at University of Massachusetts in
Amherst was repeatedly vandalized and one of its sponsors
assaulted and knocked to the ground. Police are looking for the
attacker.
None of this
makes us China, to the apparent regret of some. It should, however,
keep us vigilant. |
