[at bay]

Sickening that it had to come to this. "The chair recognizes Mr. Congressman..." Mr. Congressman: So Mr. Byrne, what part of the word "evil" did you not understand?

[Sidebar Moderator]

do you have a better link?

[at bay]

This is the single greatest affront to our way of life I have ever endured in my lifetime.

[joesnuffy]

Why wouldn't they? ...they looked 'askance' at presidents who sold them defense secrets...secrets they will one day sell to Iran (if they haven't already) and other terror states that will use them against our own troops...

Unless,of course, they don't use them against us first.

imo

[ndt]

"After hearing reports that American tech giants like Microsoft and Yahoo are abiding by Chinese law mandating Internet censorship, some irritated U.S. politicians are threatening to pass laws restricting such cooperation."

Yes, lets pass a law that says that U.S. corporations do not have to abide by local laws when working in foreign nations. That will fly. Not...

[zeugma]

Getting congress involved in this is a bad idea IMO. Come to think of it, getting congress involved in much of anything is a bad idea. I'd like to think that if we can keep the heat up on all these companies kowtowing to the chinese, they might rethink their need to be in the chinese censorship business.

[T.L.Sink]

I think it's outrageous that Microsoft and Yahoo - in the name of profit - should cave to Communist China. This would be analagous to private broadcasters saying during the Cold War that they wouldn't transmit Radio Free Europe because it violated Soviet "law". The internet can be a marvelous way of communicating the vitality and free exchange of democratic ideas and values to people who are deprived of any information outside their closed society. The ChiComs have their name on 80% of our merchandise already - are we going to also let them control the transmission of international free thought?

[ponder life]

I think a free media is always healthy for a society. It holds those in positions of power accountable and allows a society to prosper. However, I tend to be suspicious about the motive of legislation that directly target companies that do business specifically in China. I'm sure US corporations in places like the Middle East have to abide by laws that placate the leadership there as well. But we don't question those business dealings. We only question companies doing business in China. China is not the only non-democratic country that US corporations do business with.

If the legislation, like the one descibed in the article, is to simply prevent tech companies from expanding their prescence into China, then I don't support it. But if the goal is to help China build a freer society and thereby a more prosperous society, then I'm all for it.

A freer society is a more prosperous society. One where people are able to think freely and develop new ideas. New ideas and innovation strengthens a country and increases wealth.

Those with the wrong motive for pushing through this type of legislation may end up getting what they want in the short term (a China that is more transparent and abides by the rules of a free media), but in the long run getting what they don't want (a more tech saavy China).