CNN Sued by Chinese Idiots

[Wolfman]

1. Poisoned pet food
2. Poisoned toothpaste
3. Lead paint used on children's toys

None of these things turned America against China, but you think this will do it?? No it will not turn us against China.

To balance this out...since the U.S. resumed diplomatic and economic relations with China...

1. Standard of living for Chinese has increased phenomenally
2. Human rights have improved significantly
3. Access to information has increased hugely
4. Ability to travel to other countries has become commonplace
5. State-run companies have been converted to privately owned
6. A communist economic system has been replaced with a (mostly) capitalist system

Before anybody calls me an apologist (again), there are definitely still abuses and serious problems in China. It is far from being paradise. But my point is this:

* consider the period when China was closed to the rest of the world, when the U.S. refused to have diplomatic relations, and placed severe economic constraints on doing business with China

* then consider the period since China has opened up, and the U.S. has engaged in open and (mostly) positive diplomatic and economic policies in China

Now, compare the development of human rights, freedom, prosperity, access to information, etc., during the former period, and the latter period. At least from the Chinese perspective, these policies have benefited the Chinese in numerous ways. And, I believe, will continue to benefit the Chinese, as human rights, freedoms, etc., will continue to move in the same direction (albeit in fits and starts, and with occasional backsliding).

Looking at it from a purely American point of view (ie. what is best for the U.S., if we ignore the needs of the rest of the world), I can understand calls for much stricter policies. But looking at it from a more international viewpoint of seeking to improve human rights and freedom for everyone (and not just Americans), I think that current policies are by far the best option.

That doesn't mean we ignore abuses. If faulty or dangerous products are made in China, they should face the same criticism and consequences that an American company would face for doing the same thing (as should any American companies who do business with companies they know to be unreliable, simply so that they can save a buck). But such punishments and policies should apply specifically those those people involved in that crime; not to the entire nation. Refusing to do business with companies that have proven unreliable is just common sense; refusing to do business with companies just because they are Chinese (even though many Chinese companies have also proven reliable and safe) is reactionary and illogical.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

1. Poisoned pet food
   
2. Poisoned toothpaste
   
3. Lead paint used on children's toys

None of these things turned America against China, but you think this will do it?? No it will not turn us against China.

Sorry - it was a joke with Wolfman, not a serious comment.

 

[Tony]

Tony, would you mind elaborating on the thread title--what is it about the folks suing that you find idiotic?

The fact that they're suing because CNN, in their opinion, insulted the Chinese people and that the comments "violated the dignity and reputation of the Chinese people".

 

[mrbaracuda]

To balance this out...since the U.S. resumed diplomatic and economic relations with China...

Let me summarize!

 

[Beerina]

Ok, everybody just stop.

The point of freedom of speech isn't so you can discuss what happened last night on Lost or Survivor: Tycho Crater. It's so you can modify other people's behavior.

This includes making them feel like a worthless piece of **** precisely because of who they are and how they act.


All right? We, The People, reserve this right unto ourselves, and do not grant the government power over this.

 

[Architect]

You only need the bolded part to annoy or offend a Scotsman.

Heh heh heh.

Says the country making off with our oil revenues......

 

[NoZed Avenger]

http://www.reuters.com/article/dome...Type=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true



I assume this is only news because it's happening, but can a lawyer please tell me this completely frivolous and will go no where.

If it is as reported, it is completely frivolous and will go no where.




But I also note that suit was brought in China simultaneously. I have no idea whether they might have a chance there. THAT is the one I'd be worried about.

 

[skeptical]

If it is as reported, it is completely frivolous and will go no where.




But I also note that suit was brought in China simultaneously. I have no idea whether they might have a chance there. THAT is the one I'd be worried about.

Good point. I have no idea what the laws are in China, but I would not be surprised if they provide for a cause of action for insulting China or its people. The judgment would not likely be enforced in the US for public policy reasons, but CNN should start moving any assets it has in China.

 

[jimtron]

The fact that they're suing because CNN, in their opinion, insulted the Chinese people and that the comments "violated the dignity and reputation of the Chinese people".

Why is that idiotic? Because it's unlikely they'll win, or because they stupid to be offended by that, or something else?

 

[Tony]

Why is that idiotic? Because it's unlikely they'll win, or because they stupid to be offended by that, or something else?

I dont understand your line of questioning. Do you think their actions are reasonable? I don't. I think their actions show their hypersensitivity and stupidity. How does someone harshly criticizing Chinese policy translate to violating the dignity and reputation of the Chinese people? Its extremely childish and small minded if you ask me. Furthermore, it shows an infantile and ignorant understanding of freespeech to think that such a suit should be filed or that such a suit would be taken seriously. It reveals these people for what they really are; small minded and ignorant dictators that think their country is above criticism. In this country, we call them right-winger talk radio hosts, I don't know what they're called in China.

 

[jimtron]

I dont understand your line of questioning. Do you think their actions are reasonable? I don't. I think their actions show their hypersensitivity and stupidity. How does someone harshly criticizing Chinese policy translate to violating the dignity and reputation of the Chinese people? Its extremely childish and small minded if you ask me. Furthermore, it shows an infantile and ignorant understanding of freespeech to think that such a suit should be filed or that such a suit would be taken seriously. It reveals these people for what they really are; small minded and ignorant dictators that think their country is above criticism. In this country, we call them right-winger talk radio hosts, I don't know what they're called in China.

At this point I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other--I don't know a whole lot about this case and haven't given it too much thought. But idiotic isn't the first word that came to my mind--arguably oversensitive or greedy, but not idiotic.

As far as violating their dignity and reputation?

They're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years.

I think that quote is certainly not dignified, and unequivocally sullies their reputation.

It reveals these people for what they really are; small minded and ignorant dictators that think their country is above criticism.

Which people--the ones who are filing the suit, or ?

 

[Tony]

At this point I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other--I don't know a whole lot about this case and haven't given it too much thought. But idiotic isn't the first word that came to my mind--arguably oversensitive or greedy, but not idiotic.

Ok

As far as violating their dignity and reputation?
I think that quote is certainly not dignified, and unequivocally sullies their reputation.

Who are you referring to when you say "their" and how does it sully "their" reputation?

I think its valid criticism.

This is like saying criticism of GW Bush, Gitmo, the Iraq war, and US government policy in general violates the dignity and reputation of the American people.

Which people--the ones who are filing the suit, or ?

The people filing the suit.


Since I answered your questions. Could you please answer mine?

 

[jimtron]

double post

 

[jimtron]

Ok



Who are you referring to when you say "their" and how does it sully "their" reputation?

I think its valid criticism.

This is like saying criticism of GW Bush, Gitmo, the Iraq war, and US government policy in general violates the dignity and reputation of the American people.



The people filing the suit.


Since I answered your questions. Could you please answer mine?

Part of the problem here is I'm not sure who specifically Cafferty was referring to.

Here's a transcript--this is a bit more context:

CAFFERTY: Well, I don't know if China is any different, but our relationship with China is certainly different. We're in hawk to the Chinese up to our eyeballs because of the war in Iraq, for one thing. They're holding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our paper. We also are running hundred of billions of dollars worth of trade deficits with them, as we continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out the stuff that we're buying from Wal-Mart.

So I think our relationship with China has certainly changed. I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years.

It does sound like he's referring to the government, but it also sounds pretty general--look at the last two sentences. He keeps saying "China." If he meant the Chinese government were goons and thugs, I wish he would have specified that. I don't know what he meant to say, but I can see why people are pissed (and I don't just mean Chinese government officials).

ETA: It's like when people outside the U.S. criticize our country. I don't support Bush, so when someone criticizes "the U.S." when they mean Bush, I have a problem with that.

 

[Tony]

Here's a transcript--this is a bit more context: It does sound like he's referring to the government, but it also sounds pretty general--look at the last two sentences. He keeps saying "China." If he meant the Chinese government were goons and thugs, I wish he would have specified that. I don't know what he meant to say, but I can see why people are pissed (and I don't just mean Chinese government officials).

It also sounds like he is criticizing Chinese society in general. So what? People in different countries criticize social conditions and society in many other different countries. It doesn't follow that its an attack on every segment of the population. I'm sure there are many in china who would voice the same criticisms. Its telling that instead of advocating for improvement, or respecting the free exchange of ideas and debating Cafferty (and the like) in the public area, these people are behaving in the exact same way as the Chinese government. They're trying to shut him up.

 

[jimtron]

It also sounds like he is criticizing Chinese society in general. So what?

I defend his right to express himself, but personally I find it offensive to refer to Chinese society in general as "goons and thugs."

Its telling that instead of advocating for improvement, or respecting the free exchange of ideas and debating Cafferty (and the like) in the public area, these people are behaving in the exact same way as the Chinese government. They're trying to shut him up.

I'm not sure if they're trying to shut him up; they're trying to sue him.

 

[Tony]

I defend his right to express himself, but personally I find it offensive to refer to Chinese society in general as "goons and thugs."

I don't, but then again, I'm hard to offend.

I'm not sure if they're trying to shut him up; they're trying to sue him.

They both have the same effect of hindering free expression.

 

[zooterkin]

I'd hope, along with the original poster, that this is something that is dismissed out of hand, though who knows what might happen in a Chinese court. It would definitely be the thin end of a wedge if such a case were to succeed.

Says the country making off with our oil revenues......

'It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.'

 

[geni]

For there chinesee side see

http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/index.php

 

[shadow revolution]

For there chinesee side see

ww.anti-cnn.cm/forum/en/index.php

According to some boards users at another history board. They consider the anti-cnn sino chinese who are sycophants to Chinese policy and think they cant do wrong. I'm chinese btw