- Journal Archives
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
When China’s Olympic organizers bid for the Olympics in 2001, they assured Western media organizations that they would not filter reporters’ Internet usage at the Main Press Center and other areas where the media would be stationed. But that’s what China said; it’s not what China has done.
As of July 29th, websites such as Amnesty International could not be accessed from the Main Press Center in Beijing. Internet searches containing terms like “Tibet” were blocked too. Several journalists using the Internet at press stations have complained about slow Internet speeds. Some speculate that Chinese government officials are intentionally slowing down the Internet to stifle reporters’ Internet usage. Media organizations like NBC, which paid approximately $200 million for the rights to cover the games, as well as smaller media organizations, have complained about the red tape and constantly changing rules that have beset reporters’ efforts to cover newsworthy events in China other than the Olympics.
Seven years ago when China bid for the Olympics, it promised the International Olympic Committee that reporters would have “complete freedom to report.” Apparently, China intended this assurance to mean that reporters would have complete freedom to report on the Olympic games, but not necessarily on other aspects of life in China.
China has a self-proclaimed 253 million Internet users, and, if true, that number means that China has surpassed the United States as the nation with the most people online. But Internet censorship is business as usual for China’s citizens as the government routinely blocks Internet access to sites it considers subversive.
The International Olympic Committee should have secured a more robust assurance from Chinese officials that would have required China to grant reporters unfettered Internet access. By not securing such an promise, the International Olympic Committee missed an opportunity to nudge China toward more Internet freedom for its citizens. If the Committee had required China to grant journalists unrestricted Internet access as a precondition for obtaining the Olympics, the Chinese government would now have to work harder to justify censoring its own citizens’ Internet usage.
- Anonymous JETL member
Recent Blog Posts
- If You Build It, They Will Come: Baseball and the Reopening of Cuba
- First Circuit Aligns With Third: Actavis Extends Beyond Cash Settlements
- Current Issues in Technology Law: Dr. Asma Vranaki Analyzes Data Privacy Regulation in the Context of Facebook Advertisements
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Rises in National Law Journal Rankings
- Dancing Babies: The Ninth Circuit May Have Protected Them from Computer Algorithms
- Starbucks’ Next Top Model: It Could Be You
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution