Imagethief begs --begs!-- the Chinese government to contact his firm for professional PR help before they dig themselves any deeper a hole on this Internet censorship issue. I realize, what with American Internet firms on the eve of their populist pillorying by American politicians, that this may make Imagethief appear complicit in the crimes of the regime. Get over it. I am a flak after all, and therefore exempt from your puny moral considerations.

I raise this issue today because, in the run-up to tonight's pose-a-rama in Washington, everyone's spin machines are in high gear. That includes the Chinese government, which has taken obvious care to ensure its position is aired in English language press prior to the hearings, as you can see from this article, which occupied the top spot on the China Daily website today:
'Regulation of Internet in line with world norms'
By Zhao Huanxin

Regulation of China's Internet is fully in line with international practice, and the country welcomes foreign Web businesses to provide lawful services, a top cyberspace regulator said yesterday in Beijing.

Liu Zhengrong, deputy chief of the Internet Affairs Bureau of the State Council Information Office, also said Chinese people can access the Web freely, except when are blocked from "a very few" foreign websites whose contents mostly involve pornography or terrorism.

"Regulating the Internet according to law is international practice," Liu told reporters. "After studying Internet legislation in the West, I've found we basically have identical legislative objectives and principles."

The Chinese Government has been very "positive" in supporting the Internet and has enacted only necessary legislation to support its development, he said.

Answering a China Daily question on criticism in some foreign media of Chinese websites deleting netizens' messages, Liu said it is a common practice around the world to remove "illegal and harmful" information.

Some leading US websites, including those of Yahoo and The New York Times, have explicit stipulations when it comes to posting messages in forums, he said.

For example, The New York Times website says: "We reserve the right to delete, move or edit messages that we deem abusive, defamatory, obscene, in violation of copyright or trademark laws, or otherwise unacceptable We reserve the right to remove the posting privileges of users who violate these standards of Forum behaviour at any time."

Liu said "it is unfair and smacks of double standards when (they) criticize China for deleting illegal and harmful messages while it is legal for US websites for doing so."
There's more like this, and you can go read it if you really want. It's also carried on Xinhua.

Make no mistake. This was a message intended for US legislators sharpening their rhetorical knives for tonight's symbolic sacrifice. Liu's remarks have already been carried by the New York Times and other American news outlets. That's a shame for the Chinese government, because this was a ham-fisted and indelicate set of remarks, and Imagethief, always one to run with the comfort of the crowd, wants to among the many bloggers who will no doubt be giving it the fisking it so richly deserves.

First, this:
Liu Zhengrong, deputy chief of the Internet Affairs Bureau of the State Council Information Office, also said Chinese people can access the Web freely, except when are blocked from "a very few" foreign websites whose contents mostly involve p*rnography or terrorism.
That would naturally include such filth and violence-drenched sites as the BBC, Wikipedia, Blogspot, Amnesty International, Reporters Sans Frontiers, etc. In fact, it is conceivable that Liu's statement is factually accurate. Numerically speaking, most of the sites blocked may indeed be p*rnography or terrorism related. But that doesn't make it any less disingenuous. Sometimes it is the exceptions that are most important. And, of course, China's diligence in blocking p*rn sites seems somewhat lower than its diligence in blocking obnoxious political content. Um, I hear.

Second, this:
"Regulating the Internet according to law is international practice," Liu told reporters. "After studying Internet legislation in the West, I've found we basically have identical legislative objectives and principles."
Yes, regulating the Internet according to law may very well be International practice. It may even be that China has similar legislative objectives and principles when it comes to most of that regulation, such as enforcing widespread cultural norms (e.g. no child p*rnography) and regulating online businesses such as e-commerce and gambling. However the underlying principles are obviously different, as can be seen in the drastically different ways in which Chinese and most Western governments interpret the limits of constitutional guarantees of free speech (yes, China cites a number of freedoms in chapter II of its constitution). There can also be similar broad objectives but vastly different mechanisms for policing and enforcing them. For example, two nations may enforce highway speed limits for the same reason: to increase road safety. One may then issue speeding tickets and fines to drivers who are caught breaking that law. The other may issue summary sentences of life imprisonment and, for good measure, preemptively harass and monitor people who own fast cars. Same objectives and principles, somewhat different implementation.

Finally, this:
For example, The New York Times website says: "We reserve the right to delete, move or edit messages that we deem abusive, defamatory, obscene, in violation of copyright or trademark laws, or otherwise unacceptable We reserve the right to remove the posting privileges of users who violate these standards of Forum behaviour at any time."

Liu said "it is unfair and smacks of double standards when (they) criticize China for deleting illegal and harmful messages while it is legal for US websites for doing so."
I have to give Liu credit for a ballsy rhetorical move here. He has gambled that no one reading that statement will notice the stupendous gulf between individual, commercial publications enforcing their own content standards on third party contributors (much as this blog does in its comment section) and top-down government policy that decrees on a nationwide level where the limits of acceptable discourse are, even on people's own websites. One is matter of editing, the other is a matter of basic freedom. The two should not be conflated. This may be shining example of someone believing that the bigger the whopper, the more people that will believe it. Breathtaking.

There is more, and it is equally subject to dissection, but these are the main points. Although it doesn't appear in the China Daily article, Rebecca McKinnon also notes Liu's unintentionally funny (or creepy, depending on how you look at it) invocation of America's current Internet policing regime. But that's a topic for another day.

From the black-hat PR point of view, this is a bad move, poorly timed. It serves more to remind American legislators about the differences between China's and America's legal regimes than what is similar. It would have been better for the Chinese government to take a back seat until the hearings are over. As the Chinese are fond of pointing out, no one likes another country interfering in their business. That's as true of the US as it is anywhere else.

For the record, Imagethief continues to believe that, on balance, it is better for American Internet firms to be in China than not to be, even if they have to comply with Chinese content restrictions (or, put more baldly, even if they have to comply with Chinese censorship requirements). This is much more an issue of serving the interest and feelings of American stakeholders than providing what is best for Chinese citizens. For a lucid analysis of why this is, you may wish to read this post at Silicon Hutong. This, by the way, was as true for me as it was for those who advocate taking a much sterner line with the offending companies than I do. I previously asked where the ethical horizon for US Internet companies was, and if it existed in the absence of public scrutiny. As a customer of Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, and a resident of China with Chinese friends and subject to Chinese content controls, I really wanted to know. Only now, in the glare of the spotlight, are the three companies beginning to answer that question.

As I have pointed out before, much of this fallout has been a result of poor communication by American Internet firms rather than poor business practices. They waited until it was too late to explain in clear, honest language why they were entering China, what concessions they were willing to make to do so, and where they would draw the line at compliance with China's censorship and policing regimes. They either hoped this issue would go away, or they didn't know how to address it. Now they are being forced to do so on the defensive, with potential legislative and commercial consequences looming over them. And Mr. Liu and China's State Council Information Office are not making their job any easier.

Other reading:
Asiapundit on the new Yahoo.
British online tech site The Register  on Yahoo's recent communications around this issue. And also the FT (subscription).
Peking Duck's post on protests from within China, and Joseph Kahn's IHT story here.
American government spin via CNN. More from CNN on the overall situation here.
Danwei wonders if Liu's remarks are really an Onion satire, and gloomily admits that they are not.
WaPo's pre-hearing coverage.