Censorship in China

Research Questions
What are the major areas in which the Chinese government has implemented strict
censorship? To what extent has the government been able to limit freedom of expression of
the Chinese population through media censorship?

Discussion
China is among the few countries in the world which are victims of the most stringent
censorship policies. These policies cover the press as well as the internet, and it would not be
wrong to say that the Chinese governments attempts to limit freedom of expression of the
people of China are unmatched in world history.
Since a long time, the discourse of media in China has been controlled by the countrys
political elite in attempts to educate citizens about Party policies and to circulate its political
agenda (Chan and Qiu, 2002). Even today, the Chinese press is banned from reporting issues
that could be regarded as threats to national security, which could include human right
violations, severe disasters, or criticisms of political personnel (Abels, 2005). The censorship
policies also extend to the post-publication phase, whereby failure to follow any of the
restrictions previously mentioned can lead to warnings and suppression against the particular
media (Freedom of House, 2008). These policies against the freedom of press present a clear
contradiction to Chinese governments claims of putting its people and their interests above
everything else, since they deny the basic right of expression to the residents of the country
(Zhu, 2009).
Following the strict press censorship regulations placed by the Chinese government, the
countrys press has resorted to self-censorship, moulding or even hiding critical facts that
apparently go against the countrys officials or the elite class. An evidence for this could be
the reporting of Wanzhou mass incident in October 2004, as quoted by Tong (2009), whereby
the DD newsroom edited the respective journalists initial news report to exclude the real
social behind the issue (that portrayed an official in bad light). Even though the resulting
published report was politically safer than the original version, the real rationale behind the
riot was made unknown to the general public, hiding critical information. According to Tong,
the journalists original report clearly pointed out the social inequalities in the country and the
1

negative moods of general public towards officials, as well as a rift between the lower class
and the government. By eliminating these critical issues from the report, the newsroom made
sure that nothing negative about the government was published, even if it was completely
true. For journalists and media personnel who do not follow the regulations and go against
the censorship policies, consequences can be severe. Around 30 journalists and 70 bloggers,
online journalists etc. were reported to be imprisoned because of crossing over boundaries
(Xu, 2014). This shows that to some extent, the Chinese government has clearly been able to
limit freedom of expression of the media through pre-publishing censorship regulations.
Coming to internet censorship, similar incident of limited freedom of expression are found in
China. With the help of The Great Firewall of China, not only has the government blocked
social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook, but recreational websites like Youtube
are also not accessible to the Chinese population. Furthermore, the internet censorship also
takes form if keyword blocking, which prohibits people from posting text that contain the
sensitive keywords or banned phrases, for instance, the use of word Egypt during the Arab
Spring. In addition to this, the internet censorship also includes deletion strategies, whereby
any posts or comments that contain sensitive text or anti-government opinions is removed
from the internet (Bamman et al, 2012).
The government has further employed methods like bandwidth throttling, which prevent the
users from accessing certain websites or portals. Whats more, Google shut down its
operations in China around 5 years ago because of the censorship disputes with the
government (Helft and Barboza, 2010). Going against the policies of internet censorship has
its consequences too. An example could be the 10-year long imprisonment sentence of Shi
Tao, a 37-year old business reporter, who was responsible for making viral a supposedly
sensitive email (Dowell, 2006). Steps like these clearly show the extent to which the Chinese
government could go to limit the expression of its citizens and to supress any opinions or
viewpoints that conflict with its own. The question that remains here, however, is that
whether the Chinese government is really able to limit the freedom of expression of the
citizens of China as much as it wants to, or whether most of its efforts are going fruitless.
According to King and his colleagues (2012), steps like blocking websites do little to put a
limit on the Chinese peoples freedom of expression. For instance, if Facebook is blocked, the
citizens can use a similar website called RenRen to voice their opinions. Similarly, as a
substitute to Twitter, Sina Weibo is also being commonly used in the country. However, while
2

it is true that these options provide Chinese citizens with an alternative to the world famous
social networking sites, the governments strict content filtering and deletion policies are able
to limit freedom of expression to a large extent.
Even though the use of proxy servers and Virtual Private Networks is gaining popularity in
China, strict consequences like arrests and sentences have induced a fear in the Chinese
population that has silenced collective expression to a great degree.

Conclusion
Censorship in China, whether press or internet related, is unlike anything the world has ever
seen before. From clever technical restrictions to stringent legal actions against rule
breakers, the censorship policies set by the Chinese government have attempted to limit the
freedom of expression of the Chinese citizens from going against the governments policies
and practices. Through these strategies, the Chinese government has indeed been able to
control the content that is published and that goes up and that is downloaded from the
internet, ensuring that most of the Chinese population is unable to use or access content
labelled as sensitive by the government. While alternative social networking sites have
given rise to some freedom of expression, even that is limited by strict deletion policies,
showing the Chinese governments success in putting a limit on communication of the
Chinese population.

Bibliography
1. Zhu, J. (2009). Roadblock and Roadmap: Circumventing Press Censorship in China
in the New Media Dimension, University of La Verne Law Review, 30(2), pp.404466.
2. Chan, J.M. and Qui, J.L. (2002). China: Media Liberation Under Authoritarianism,
in Price, M.E., Rozumilowicz, B., and Verhulst, S.G. (eds), Media Reform:
Democratizing the Media, Democratizing the State, pp. 27-46. New York: Routledge.
3.
4. Abels, S. (2005). State vs Market: Media in Transition, IIAS Newsletter.
5. Freedom of House. (2008). Freedom of the Press. Available at
www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&country=7372&year=2008
[Retrieved Nov 07, 2015].
6. Tong, J. (2009). Press Self-Censorship in China: A Case Study in the Transformation
of Discourse, Discourse and Society, 20(5), pp. 593-612.
7. Helft, M. and Barboza, D. (2010). Google Shuts China Site in Dispute over
Censorship. Available at http://148.61.6.9/cms3/assets/A710F777-E74C-F8BDF645CFB2BE41D80C/ehr/google_shuts_china_site_in_dispute_over_censorship.pdf
[Retrieved Nov 07, 2015].
8. Bamman, D. et al. (2012). Censorship and Deletion Practices in Chinese Social
Media, First Monday, 17(3). Available at
http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3943/3169 [Retrieved Nov 07,
2015].
9. Xu, B. (2014). Media Censorship in China, Council on Foreign Relations.
10. Dowell, W.T. (2006). The Internet, Censorship, and China, 7 Georgetown Journal of
International Affairs, 111.
11. King, G. et al. (2012). How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but
Silences Collective Expression, American Political Science Review, 107(2), pp. 326343.