Source: Reporters sans frontieres
Reporters Without Borders has obtained a copy of the verdict in the case of Jiang Lijun, sentenced to four years in prison in November 2003 for his online pro-democracy articles, showing that Yahoo ! helped Chinese police to identify him.
A few months ago, Yahoo helped jail a pro-democratic man for 20 years. His crime was to help organize pro-democracy rallies. He had never committed assault, stolen, or done anything illegal by Canadian standards. But expressing pro-democracy in China is illegal, and so he was jailed. Of course, all that was possible with the help of Yahoo’s cooperation with the Chinese authorities.
Then, sometime later, we learned that Google would implement a Chinese search engine. One that would, of course, filter out anything unwanted by the Chinese Government. Such as, say, pictures of a certain incident in 1989.
Now, we stand by yet another case. Yahoo, we find today, has helped jail a man for four years. His crime? Writing pro-democracy articles online. Free speech at its very undisputable essence, being thrown away and worse. For what?
Money. That’s all this is about really. Had Yahoo not cooperated, they would of risked sanctions that would of been a big financial blow to them. They would of lost footing in a critical market, while its competitors went ahead.
And of course, it isn’t a sense of morality that guides corporations – its those little bills of paper. Now it so happens that money and morality often go forcefully hand in hand, thanks to our legal system. It enforces fines to certain unethical acts, and so companies abide by them to save money.
But there are things for which our laws apply not, and then we see the true morals of these entities. Or should I say the lack thereof. But the thing is, its not the companies to blame. Investors, who are even worse than these companies, would pull out all their funds out of a corporate stock if it turned out that that corporation would sacrifice a big market and their future health for ethics. If the ethics had a return, then maybe investors would consider otherwise.
So what’s a company to do? Sacrifice their wellbeing, or have a few democratic chumps in a Communist country tortured?
No, it isn’t the company’s fault. They’re stuck in the position they’re in. Its a sad testament to today’s world. Of course, the government, the only ones that could enforce changes for the better, won’t do anything about it.
Interfering with the operations of another country is bad politics. And plus – if the USofA enforced any laws, then the companies affected would move their HQs elsewhere. That’s bad for the economy. So the government is staying out of this.
But then I remembered: everyone got upset in the US because they learned companies were selling people’s private information. That passed laws. Its the people – the people have the power. But will the people do anything about it? Nope. No one cares about a lone Chinaman.
But what kind of the world is it we live in, when we’d rather torture someone for being pro-democracy, than see a company’s stock go down.
Oh how we take our freedom for granted.