Eric's Beijing Diary

This is the message I get when I try to post a link to my blog on Facebook.

Censorship. I have written about it before, because it is a big issue in China. The government considers itself responsible for watching what people should be allowed to see or hear. But every government does that much, I guess. Where it becomes an issue for Americans is when the government censors political opinions. That is considered an assault on freedom of speech. So it should be of interest that even though I live in China, my experience with censorship of my opinions came, not from China, but from the United States.

That’s not quite true. Blogspot is blocked in China. But the whole website is blocked. This is the first time that my blog in particular was censored because of something I said which, although completely true (I was not censored for saying something false), was nonetheless considered unsuitable for the average Facebook user.

Now some may question how I know that this is censorship, and not merely an enforcement of the rules. Perhaps the best thing I can do is just tell you the story and you can decide for yourself.

Back in February of 2020, I wrote a blog post that featured the Moody Science film, “Red River of Life.” This is an amazing science documentary that I first saw when I was in high school fifty years ago. Amazingly, that film is not outdated at all. You can see that some of the equipment is quite out of date. But the conclusions made in that film are every bit as accurate as they were when I saw it at Hillcrest Academy.

But why would Facebook censor me because of a science film? Well, because I made a comment about one of the Democratic candidates. Pete Buttigieg is from Indiana, and he had assumed that when he ran for president, Vice President Pence (who is also from Indiana) would lash out at him because he is a homosexual. Mayor Peter kept waiting and waiting for Pence to attack him. He even wrote a response to the anticipated attack. But the attack never came. So instead of dropping the issue, Buttigieg published his response to the attack that had never been made. It was a completely dishonest thing do to, but the media played right along with it. The ABC headline says “Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vice President Mike Pence escalate feud over religion and sexuality.” Not true. Pence never said anything about it until he was asked, and his response was very professional. Read the article.

So I was irritated with Buttigieg’s creation of a false issue, responding to an attack that Pence never made. But if I wrote a blog post every time a politician said something dishonest, I wouldn’t have a life. So I found a very well written rebuttal of Mayor Pete’s dishonesty, posted it on Facebook, and let the matter go.

But later I saw something that I could not let pass. Mayor Pete said that the Bible associates life with breath, so since babies don’t breathe, it’s okay to kill them. That was simply beyond the pale and demanded a response.

His comment brought to mind a Moody science film I had seen more than fifty years ago when I was in high school. Believe it or not, I found it on YouTube. It’s called “Red River of Life.” When I was in high school, the debate at the time was not between heartbeat as an indication of life and breath as an indication of life. It was between heartbeat and brain wave. People were saying that a person should be considered dead if they had a flat brain wave, because then we could keep their heart beating, and harvest their organs. Without getting sidetracked by that debate, let me just say that the Bible is very clear on this issue. Leviticus 17:11 says, “The life of the flesh is in the blood…”

So the movie is not about abortion at all—it came out before Roe v. Wade. But it is a very good film and amazingly current even after fifty years. I used it because it directly addresses the issue of what constitutes life. But I am quite sure that the Facebook censors were not concerned about the movie. They were angered because I dared to criticize a prominent Democrat politician. But the issue I was addressing in my blog post was not his homosexuality. It was his dishonesty. If you did not know Mayor Pete, and read my article, you would not was not know he was a homosexual. I did not mention it in my blog post. I did address his lack of integrity, and I won’t back down from that. Pete Buttigieg is a deeply dishonest individual. Recently he was caught hauling his bicycle in a van to within a few blocks of his office so that he could be seen riding it to work.

But he’s a Democrat, and Facebook censors went ballistic. What happened next is the focus of today’s post. They blocked any reference to my blog from Facebook. Then they deleted all my Facebook posts that contained any link to my blog. Completely gone. No way to retrieve them. If you look above, you will see the notice I get if I try to link to my blog from Facebook. The notice says that my blog violates Facebook’s spam policy. So so let’s take a look at that policy. You can clearly see that merely linking to a different location does not constitute spam. If it did, then it would not be possible to link to other sources. In fact, years ago, Facebook had it set up so that I could have my blog posts automatically posted as a note on Facebook as soon as I submitted them.

What can I do? Can I sue them? Well, in a civil suit, you need to show damage. Technically, there was some damage, because they deleted a bunch of my Facebook posts. But every post they deleted was mainly just a link to my blog, and my blog was not affected, just the link to my blog in Facebook. I guess I could sue them for the inconvenience they created for me, but that would be tough too. You see, it’s not really more inconvenient for me, it’s just a little more cumbersome for Facebook readers. Facebook does not block links to Twitter at all. I can link to my Twitter account all I want. And Twitter does not block my blog. So now I have to put my blog link in Twitter and the Twitter link in Facebook. So Facebook readers have an extra mouse click, because they first have to go to the Twitter post, and then they can get to the blog post. It is a little inconvenient for those who come to my blog from Facebook, but it doesn’t really affect me that much, so I don’t know if there is any way to sue them. But I do think they should be denied immunity under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Facebook is a private company, so they do have a right to restrict content that they do not agree with. They were not breaking the law when they deleted my posts. Editors do it all the time. Facebook is not required to be neutral. But then, in my opinion, they should not be entitled to the Section 230 provisions. And maybe someday nobody will be entitled to those provisions. Both Trump and Biden oppose 230 (although possibly for different reasons). What is really needed more than anything else is competition—the belief that both ideas should be allowed to be expressed, then debated, so that readers can decide for themselves which idea is most credible, and best substantiated by solid evidence and reasoning. I thought that’s what Facebook was. But recently, we have seen rogue staffers using Facebook rules falsely as a means of restricting content that does not comport with their left wing bias. If you slap an obscenity warning on something, it should be because that content actually contains obscenity, not because it contains truth that you find inconvenient. These people are not decent moral human beings. They are unprincipled scoundrels who hate anything that looks to them like holding up an absolute moral standard as a measure by which to judge society. But as Francis Schaeffer noted years ago in his ten-part series on Western civilization (How Shall We Then Live), “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, the society is absolute.”

Comments

Labels: Abortion, Censorship

This is a very old film, but it is very good. It will give you an understanding about how the blood brings oxygen to the body and then removes the carbon dioxide.

The makers of this video way back then could not have anticipated how the blood and the importance of flow of the blood to life would influence the issue of abortion. But it's important, because those who support the slaughter of the innocent are characterized by a galling lack of integrity. Here is Pete Buttigieg on abortion:

Then again, there's a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently.

Not surprised that he doesn't quote the "parts of the Bible" that he says support his crazy idea. His idea is not only unscriptural, it is unscientific. Throughout the pregnancy, the baby is getting oxygen through the mother, who is breathing. It's not like the baby is a fish and then suddenly becomes a human.

In today's America, we have become accustomed to politicians who justify the slaughter of the innocent. But when we have to listen to someone who claims that the Bible supports that idea, it is more than a little annoying.

I don't want to obsess about a small town mayor running for president who doesn't have a ghost of a chance of getting elected. But I do want to emphasize that the Bible does not address this issue in vague interpretive statements. Here is what the Bible says, and it could not be more straightforward:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)

The life of the flesh is in the blood. Abortion stops a beating heart. And when you stop a beating heart, you are taking a life, and God will surely hold you to account.

Again, the makers of this film could not have anticipated the importance of what they were saying for the purpose of addressing the modern issue of abortion. But the message in this film destroys any notion that you can view a living child with a beating heart as a mere blob of human tissue.

Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. (Ecclesiastes 11:9)

Comments       Science Night Home

Labels: Abortion, Apologetics

One story I have been following recently is the saga of a blind, self-taught lawyer who has just been sentenced to four years in prison because he was trying to help poor people in the countryside who were trying to avoid forced sterilization and/or abortion. Until now, I have hesitated to say much about this case, because I could never seem to nail down a definite set of facts. But the other day, I was reading the Wall Street Journal, and noticed a statement by Chen Guangcheng's lawyers that confirmed to me what had actually happened.

There are two sides to every story. I do not want to be counted among those who always assume that the government is bad, and that those who take a stand against the government are heroes. Many times they are trouble makers. I always want to hear both sides of the story, and I try to grant equal credibility to both sides until I have heard all the "facts." But this time the government does not deserve to be believed, because they have intimidated and harassed the accused man's lawyers and prevented him from having a fair hearing. I am certainly not among those who jump to lash out at China, and, in fact, I think that many negative stories about China are unfairly slanted. China is getting better. Tort law is improving, and the grievances of those who have been maligned by the system are being redressed more than they used to be. But I am still hearing far too many stories about lawyers being beaten, harassed, threatened, and even incarcerated for defending their clients too aggressively. This really does need to stop, and it needs to stop now. If it does not, China will be heaped with a scorn and ridicule that will far outweigh any perceived benefit the Olympics promises to provide.

I have often said that the right to aggressive defense is the key to reform in China's legal system. My friend who was a judge in the countryside told me that he was more concerned about the independence of the judiciary. That got me thinking, because that is a problem that is not always easy to see from the outside. How does anyone know whether a judges decision is based on blind justice or the arbitrary order of an intimidating party boss? So I will put the two together--the right to aggressive defense and the independence of the judiciary.

How does one hope to implement needed reforms? It really comes down to an examination of values. The Chinese need to ask, "Do we really believe in the presumption of innocence, and encourage a system that protects the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, or do we tolerate a system where an individual the 'system' believes to be guilty is coerced into providing the testimony that the government needs to convict him?" China has made many changes, and is to be commended for this. But now it is time to make the changes that are needed to construct a legal system whereby those who are maligned by a corrupt system have lawful redress.

I would issue one caution when examining this case. Remember, this is a local court decision and the case is on appeal. Some in the West are inclined to conclude too quickly that everything bad that happens in China is personally ordered from Beijing. This is far from true. China is a huge country, and very difficult to govern. We must be patient. We can hope that the higher court will do justice and emphatically repudiate the unconscionable actions of the lower court. Here, then, is the full text of the statement of Chen Guangcheng's five Beijing lawyers as it appeared in the Asia Wall Street Journal:

Chen Guangcheng, a blind advocate for the rights of Chinese villagers, recently made headlines around the world when he was sentenced to four years and three months in prison. But, as his chosen lawyers, we were prevented from presenting a fair defense by obstacles erected by Chinese authorities. A local court imposed unacceptable terms on us defending our client at his Aug. 18 trial. Before the trial, we had been detained by the police, intimidated, and one lawyer was not freed until the trial was over. Except for Mr. Chen's three brothers, no other member of the public--not even his wife and mother--were allowed to attend the two-hour hearing.

That's why we are using these columns to outline the defense that was never presented in court, and explain how our client was convicted of crimes he did not commit. In those closed-door proceedings, Chinese officials punished Mr. Chen for exposing their own criminal activities--forcing villagers to undergo sterilizations and forced abortions, even though these are officially illegal under Chinese law.

Had we not been barred from the courtroom, we would have argued that the trial was unlawful. The two government-appointed lawyers, whom Mr. Chen refused to accept, had never met him before the trial nor read any of the files on his case. They did not offer any defense during the hearing, but merely repeated everything the prosecutors said.

The pretrial process also violated Chinese law and infringed basic human-rights principles. A self-taught lawyer, Mr. Chen has long helped the disabled and peasants fight illegal taxes and environmental pollution. In June 2005, he filed a class-action lawsuit accusing local officials in Yinan County, in northeastern Shandong province, of forcing peasants to undergo abortions or sterilizations in order to meet birth control quotas. Two officials placed Mr. Chen under house arrest. Then in March this year he was taken away by the police. When we were finally allowed to meet Mr. Chen in June, he told us that police had verbally abused him, threatened his life, and once deprived him of sleep for three days.

Ever since the first of us took on Chen's case in September last year, we have been pressured by local authorities to drop it. When we refused to do so, we were beaten and intercepted by government officials as we tried to carry out investigations and collect evidence.

Both of the charges on which Mr. Chen was convicted are groundless. The first, "intentional destruction of property," is based on a clash on Feb. 15 this year between villagers and police, who had beaten another villager protesting Mr. Chen's illegal house arrest. But it was local officials, rather than Mr. Chen, who were responsible for inciting this incident by carrying out that beating. People we interviewed said the villagers did no more than push police vehicles into a roadside ditch, and that they only acted in this way because police refused to take the victim’s grandmother to hospital after she passed out upon hearing of the beating.

As for the second charge of "gathering crowds to obstruct traffic," once again it was the police, not Mr. Chen, who were responsible for this. On March 11, guards used by the local authorities to enforce the house arrest beat up another villager trying to meet Mr. Chen. Angry villagers then clashed with the guards and succeeded in getting Mr. Chen out of his house so that he could accompany them to the local government office to protest. As they tried to get rides into town, police and guards surrounded them and temporarily stopped traffic until they could wrestle Mr. Chen and two other villagers into police cars and take them into custody.

The prosecutors introduced testimony from other detained villagers, accusing Mr. Chen of inciting property destruction. But lawyers representing these villagers were similarly never allowed to meet with them. Nor were they allowed to cross-examine these "witnesses." Family members of these villagers, who were detained for supporting Mr. Chen, said that they were mistreated in jail and forced to testify against Mr. Chen.

The real criminal suspects in this case are the officials responsible for obstructing justice and undermining the country’s legal reform. These local officials could hardly have acted with such contempt and disregard for the law unless they had been given the green light by authorities higher up in the government. Nonetheless, in appealing Mr. Chen’s case to a higher court, we will act on the assumption that the country's legal system can, without official interference, deliver a fair verdict and remedy wrongs. This may prove to be too optimistic. But we can only find out by fighting for justice, case by case, one client at a time.

Li Jinsong
Zhang Lihui
Li Fangping
Teng Biao
Xu Ziyong

Labels: Abortion, Chen Guangcheng, Human Rights