Kina lukker ned for 25 videoportaler, som Danwei skriver her. Det er Statsadministrationen for Radio, Film og TV (SARFT), som jeg har skrevet om tidligere her på bloggen, der står bag kvælningen af de 25 videoportaler (og af min internetforbindelse her i Beijing).
Videoportalerne er beskyldt for at have bragt ulødigt materiale. Altså porno. Hvilket jeg ikke helt tror på, fordi virksomhedernes egne censorer er opmærksomme på, ikke at lægge videoer ud, som kunne give SARFT en undskyldning til at lukke dem.
Derudover er der en liste på 32 andre videoportaler, som kun er “lettere usunde” og som får bødestraf. Heriblandt Youtube.
For to uger siden kom SARFT med en udmelding om, at Tudou skulle lukke. Siden fortsatte med at være oppe, og er ikke på listen over lukkede videoportaler.
Jeg tror, at det er et forsøg på at lukke videoportalerne, så de ikke distribuerer videoer fra for eksempel optøjerne i Sichuan, Gansu og Tibet.
Videoportalerne har flere gange tidligere under andre og mindre optøjer vist videoer af slige demonstrationer.
Censuren arbejder altså stadig på højtryk her i Beijing og resten af Kina. De nationale medier har på ingen måde lov til at dække sagen kritisk. Samtidig er de sidste udenlandske journalister blevet smidt ud af Tibet, og udenlandske journalister i Gansu og Sichuan bliver forhindret i at komme ind i områderne. I det hele taget er lokalregeringerne og centralregeringen i Beijing ved at være ubehageligt grove, som Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC) fortæller i deres seneste udmelding:
The FCCC is receiving an increasing number of reports of foreign correspondents
being searched by Chinese authorities who in some instances have scrutinized, confiscated or deleted reporting materials. A number of cases took place during the Tibet crisis. The FCCC is continuing to collect those incident reports. Meanwhile, the FCCC also is gathering input from legal experts (and will share it with members) regarding a serious case that occurred earlier in Shenyang, which raises some important questions about a foreign correspondent’s rights in the field.
SHENYANG: POLICE SEIZE VIDEOTAPES, FOREIGN MINISTRY THREATENS
DEPORTATION OVER N. KOREAN REFUGEE REPORTING
MAR. 5, 2008– A cameraman for Czech TV says undercover police searched his room, seized four videotapes and went through his computer after he conducted interviews with North Korean refugees.
Officials at the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the journalist of funding and planning the storming of “foreign offices” in Beijing, charges he denies.
Police questioned the reporter for approximately two-and-a-half hours in a Holiday Inn hotel restaurant and in his room. The police searched the reporter’s computer and two mobile phones, despite his objections. They searched his room, opening all the drawers, going through his personal belongings and checking his bed.
The journalist unsuccessfully tried to reach someone at the Chinese Foreign Ministry. An official at the Czech Embassy asked to speak to the undercover agent, but the agent hung up. The agents did not allow the journalist to make any more phone calls or answer his phone. The police opened the safe in his room, removed four videotapes and confiscated them, and searched through an external hard drive they found in the safe.
During the search the journalist defended himself, saying that as a foreign journalist he has the right to talk with consenting interviewees under the Olympic free reporting rules. He was told that he could only interview people related to Olympics. The agents did not present a search warrant, and did not give the journalist a receipt for the videos they seized.
The following day the reporter lodged a complaint with the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing and requested the return of the tapes. Later, the Foreign Ministry summoned the reporter and claimed to have evidence he was planning and financing the storming of foreign offices in Beijing. “I was told if I had broken a law I would be deported. I would only be allowed to remain in the country if a situation like Shenyang were never repeated.'”