# Should the thread on hot to bypass the China firewall have been closed??? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 10, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911 "2006-02-10T20:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/1 "2006-02-10T20:35:49Z")
> **[Is there a program or service to bypass China's internet firewall?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=358136)** > > I’m getting sick of having BBC News, Wikipedia, Google Blogsource, etc. just outright denied. Also, not being able to search for news articles on Falun Gong, Tiananmen Square, etc. (they give you a “The document contains no data” message from... This thread was locked by **samclem** for this reason: > [@](#): > > Since this is rather a gray area, I think we’re better off not doing this. and this also added: > [@](#): > > Yep. Sounds like that sure will help a few people. But at what cost? OK I understand his sentiment, but think it goes against the reason of this board. The SDMB does not like to have posting of things that break the law inside the US, but this is not in the US, and I don’t believe it to be a violation of any US law. Additionally, it seems to me to be against the spirit of the fight against ignorance, denying information to people, and leaving them with noting but government propaganda. I think samclem made a mistake in closing it, but realize that it can also be argued that if too many break the China Firewall then China will once again shut down most search services, which will hurt the Chinese more in the long run, but that is just speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/2 "2006-02-10T20:48:01Z")
"But at what cost? " Did you even stop to think for a minute about that? “Sure, we can tell people who to foment revolution against autocratic governments, but at what cost?” “Sure, we can tell rebellious youth in Nicaragua how to break the law, but at what cost?” The SDMB is in the business, in theory, of fighting ignorance. It is not in the business of fighting foreign countries or their laws. Hell, it’s not even in the business of fighting laws in _this_ country. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/3 "2006-02-10T20:54:38Z")
Fighting ignorance since 1973.[sup]\*[/sup] [sub]\* Offer not valid in China.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/4 "2006-02-10T21:49:48Z")
**samclem** : You’re wrong. The thread in question doesn’t break any US laws by a long shot. If it breaks Chinese law, well, too bad. You guys are the ones who are constantly reminding people we’re a US-based web site. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/5 "2006-02-10T21:54:26Z")
Let me further add that I find myself disturbed by the trend of US sites bowing down to Chinese pressure to self-censor. Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and now the Straight Dope. Well, at least you guys are in stellar company. If even the juggernaught Microsoft doesn’t dare stand up to the tyrants that rule China, what hope do we have that the Chicago Reader management of the Straight Dope would dare try it? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/6 "2006-02-10T21:55:06Z")
Yes, but the greater message is, it’s a “not getting sued or otherwise making legal troubles for the Boston Reader” web site. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/7 "2006-02-10T22:02:22Z")
Just to add, I think it is bad precedent to follow foreign laws, if we take this to the logical conclusion I’m sure we would also have to close many threads. I would suspect any sex related thread might have to go assuming it would be off limits to Moslem controlled countries. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the threads about homosexuality are still technically illegal in some states (not that I know it is). ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/8 "2006-02-10T22:04:14Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Yes, but the greater message is, it’s a “not getting sued or otherwise making legal troubles for the [Chicago] Reader” web site. Hey, and I understand that. You do not want to be in a position of having to defend yourself against even frivolous lawsuits. Little frivolous crap still costs money to get thrown out of court. But this ain’t about frivolous lawsuits. Should the Chinese government actually sue the Reader, it becomes a _Freedom of Speech_ issue. I would think would be a very important issue to an alternative weekly like the Reader. And you know what? Should the Chinese actually sue, I’ll donate money to the defense fund, because it’s important to defend such an important right. However, **samclem** didn’t mention anything about lawsuits in closing that thread. His “But at what cost?” quip implies he’s worried about the safety of Chinese nationals who might take advice in this thread. Which leads to the whole self-censorship thing that I mentioned above. You really, really ought to re-open that thread **samclem**. Let adults in other countries take what risks they deem necessary to further the cause of freedom. You can just stay the fuck out of it if it worries you so much. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/9 "2006-02-10T22:05:58Z")
(oh an yea Cecil’s plane taking off on that treadmill violates the law of physics too :p) ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/10 "2006-02-10T22:07:31Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Just to add, I think it is bad precedent to follow foreign laws, if we take this to the logical conclusion I’m sure we would also have to close many threads. Do you see a difference between a GD thread, “Should China limit Google searches?” and a GQ thread, “How do I circumvent China’s limit on Google searches?” ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/11 "2006-02-10T22:09:20Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Do you see a difference between a GD thread, “Should China limit Google searches?” and a GQ thread, “How do I circumvent China’s limit on Google searches?” And that’s related to **kanicbird** ’s statement how? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/12 "2006-02-10T22:17:55Z")
> [@Ponder Stibbons](#): > > And that’s related to **kanicbird** ’s statement how? Kind of not, upon rereading. They’ve got free coffee at work today and I’m having trouble focussing. I read kanicbird’s statement as, “we shouldn’t observe other nation’s [attempts to enforce] laws” the way the Reader observes our government’s laws, i.e., it’s okay to discuss whether or not something is legal, or why, or how, but it’s not okay to openly discuss how to break the law. Whoa. Still not making much sense. Sorry about that. However, I still think it’s probably not a good idea, whether it’s an official board policy or not, Reader policy, U.S. Law or even Chinese law, for us to have a discussion on how people can commit crimes. Just doesn’t sit right, for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/13 "2006-02-10T22:49:38Z")
**Ethilrist** , I gotta disagree with you. The Reader’s stance has _got_ to be in regard to US law, as that’s the only jurisdiction it is beholden to. There are 191 countries on this planet\*. Is it even _possible_ to act in accordance with all of those laws, let alone practicable, let alone desirable? - - Well, at least according to the official UN count. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/14 "2006-02-11T00:59:55Z")
> [@Ponder Stibbons](#): > > **Ethilrist** , I gotta disagree with you. The Reader’s stance has _got_ to be in regard to US law, as that’s the only jurisdiction it is beholden to. Well, my opinion is that the Reader can damn well decide what they want to do for themselves. They don’t have to decide _shit_ as regards US law. They can intimate to me that they don’t want threads about homosexuals, and if I get the feeling that’s what they want, I’ll close 'em down as quick as I find them. I just have this gut feeling that my lord and masters(praise be their names) just might have a queasy feeling in their collective guts about a thread advocating breaking laws in other countries, and telling people how to do it. You, of course, may not agree. I’m more liberal than perhaps 80% of this board. Censorship is NOT my bag. But this ain’t my website, and if it were, I’d still have shut that one down. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/15 "2006-02-11T01:10:37Z")
Well, **samclem** maybe you should take a gander over at the posted rules which state: > [@](#): > > You agree not to post material that in our opinion fosters or promotes activity that is illegal in the U.S. Its clear that they care about, and only about, U.S. law. The thread in question does not violate US law, you were mistaken in closing it and it should be reopened. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/16 "2006-02-11T01:14:04Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > They don’t have to decide _shit_ as regards US law. They already have: > [@](#): > > You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or **violative of U.S. law**. You agree not to post material that in our opinion fosters or promotes activity that is **illegal in the U.S.** Bolding added > [@samclem](#): > > I just have this gut feeling that my lord and masters(praise be their names) just might have a queasy feeling in their collective guts about a thread advocating breaking laws in other countries, and telling people how to do it. Then the rules should explicity say so, IMO. Since they don’t, I say you’re full of shit. If they want to change the rules, that’s fine by me, but until they do I can’t agree with this action of yours. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/17 "2006-02-11T01:18:27Z")
Ahhh someone was 4 minutes too slow! ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/18 "2006-02-11T01:20:19Z")
> [@Ponder Stibbons](#): > > If it breaks Chinese law, well, too bad. I wonder if you’d have this sentiment if a board based outside the US were teaching people how to circumvent US law. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/19 "2006-02-11T01:20:27Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Ahhh someone was 4 minutes too slow! Yeah, but I bolded and shit. So there! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911/20 "2006-02-11T01:28:21Z")
> [@SmackFu](#): > > Fighting ignorance since 1973.[sup]\*[/sup] > > [sub]\* Offer not valid in China.[/sub] Wow. Well, they’ll fight ignorance, not oppression. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-thread-on-hot-to-bypass-the-china-firewall-have-been-closed/343911.md?page=2)