Pages

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Baidu, Qihoo, Sina, and Tencent Silence Fang Zhouzi After He Criticizes Zhou Xiaoping - Blogger Praised by China's President

On October 17, 2014, the state-sponsored Global Times published an editorial entitled “Online Trolling Suppresses Public Opinion” (the Chinese version was entitled “The Attacks on Zhou Xiaoping Are Not a Proud Moment for Internet Big Vs” - 围攻周小平不是网络大V的光荣). Some excerpts:
Online writers Zhou Xiaoping and Hua Qianfang were invited to attend a Wednesday symposium on literature and art in Beijing, shaking hands with and getting encouragement from Chinese President Xi Jinping.
. . . .
Liberal Chinese celebrities, who have labeled Zhou as a representative of the "50 cent party," a term used to describe online commentators posting comments favorable toward Party policies, took this chance to launch attacks against Zhou again.
. . . .
Coming from the grass roots, Zhou could strike a chord with many young Chinese with his work. Nonetheless, he is not flawless. His rivals could make use of loopholes in his articles to attack him.
. . . .
Some demand perfection in Zhou out of ulterior political motivations. Zhou and Hua weren't invited to the symposium because they are perfect.
The Internet is supposed to be an open community that could accommodate different thoughts.
At 9:00 am on October 20, 2014, online commentator Fang Zhouzi (方舟子) posted an essay on his Baidu Baijia blog entitled “Zhou Xiaoping Sleepwalks Through America” (周小平梦游美利坚). In his essay Fang outlined certain facts that might be considered loopholes or imperfections in Zhou’s September 19, 2014 essay published on the website of “Party Building” magazine entitled “The Broken American Dream” (梦碎美利坚).

The following day, Fang posted the following announcement (now deleted) on his Tencent Weibo:
This Weibo was deleted by Tencent, and the long-form essay that I wrote - “‘An Online Writer’ Sleepwalks Through America,” was deleted after I published it on Baidu. 
Fang Zhouzi's essay as it appeared on Baidu before it was deleted (left).
Fang Zhouzi's post on Tencent Weibo (right).
These screenshots show that Tencent shut down Fang's Weibo hours after he posted his announcement.


These screenshots were taken on October 21, and show Fang’s essay was deleted from Sina.com.cn and China.com.cn, where it was reposted under the title “Fang Zhouzi Attacks Zhou Xiaoping: Its Easy to Complain About America When You Travel Through It In a Dream” (方舟子打假周小平:梦里游趟美国便控诉美国罪恶).



Original URLs:

These screenshots were taken on October 21, 2014, and show that Baidu and Qihoo were censoring search results for "Zhou Xiaoping."


Monday, October 13, 2014

State Media Reports Yu Yingshi's Books Banned, His Books Disappear from Online Bookstores

On October 13, 2014, the state sponsored Global Times published an editorial entitled “View Publishing Ban Within Context” (the Chinese version was entitled “Its Exagerrating to Call Publication Administration as ‘Book Burning and Burying Scholars’” (“焚书坑儒”是出版管理的夸张帽子)). Some excerpts:
Several verified Weibo accounts exposed claims during the weekend that the media regulator has released an internal notice demanding books authored by Yu Yingshi and Jiubadao (penname of Ke Jingteng) to be taken off the shelves. In addition, material by Ye Fu (penname of Zheng Shiping), Mao Yushi, Zhang Qianfan, Liang Wendao and Xu Zhiyuan will not be published. The incident was compared to "burning books and burying Confucian scholars alive" during the Qin Dynasty (221BC-206BC).
. . . .
The future prospect for publication of books by people on the list is grim. The prediction is based on the fact that some on the list are foreign nationals but active in Chinese politics, including openly supporting Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement or "Taiwan independence." Some are Chinese mainland scholars but are opposed to the country's political system. If these people are subject to some limit from authority, the signal is not unusual to Chinese society.
. . . .
If one has positioned himself at odds to the country's mainstream political path, he shouldn't expect his influence to keep on rising without disruption.
If these advocators of political dissident culture define themselves as reformers, they should take responsibility for maintaining mainstream politics, not jeopardizing the country's solidarity. If they insist on prioritizing opposing political ideas, they must prepare for pushback from society, which will be unpleasant in most cases.
These screenshots show that, within hours of the publication of the Global Times editorial, works by the scholar Yu Yingshi (余英时), including “Modern Crises and Ideological Characters” (现代危机与思想人物) and “Reviews and Prospects of Modern Confucianism” (现代儒学的回顾与展望),  began disappearing from online book sellers like DangDang and Amazon.cn.





Friday, October 10, 2014

Translation: Rules Regarding the Adjudication of Civil Disputes Involving the Utilization of Information Networks to Infringe Upon Personal Rights and Interests

Rules Regarding the Adjudication of Civil Disputes Involving the Utilization of Information Networks to Infringe Upon Personal Rights and Interests

(Judicial Interpretation No. 11 [2014], Adopted at the 1,621 meeting of the Supreme People's Court Adjudication Committee on June 23, 2014)

The "Rules Regarding the Adjudication of Civil Disputes Involving the Utilization of Information Networks to Infringe Upon Personal Rights and Interests" were adopted at the 1,621 meeting of the Supreme People's Court Adjudication Committee on June 23, 2014 and are hereby promulgated and shall become effective from October 10, 2014.

Supreme People's Court

These Rules are hereby formulated in accordance with the "Civil Law," "Tort Law," "National People's Congress Standing Committee Decision Regarding Strengthening the Protection of Network Information," "Civil Procedure Law," and other laws and regulations to correctly adjudicate civil disputes involving the utilization of information networks to infringe personal rights and interests and unify trial practice.

Article 1. As used in these Rules, civil disputes involving the utilization of information networks to infringe personal rights and interests refers to disputes arising out of the utilization of information networks to infringe the rights of personhood including rights of name, reputation, honor, image, and privacy.

Article 2. People's Courts where the infringing action took place or where the defendant resides shall have jurisdiction over lawsuits arising out of the utilization of information networks to infringe personal rights and interests.

The place where the infringing action took place shall include the location of the computer or other terminal equipment used by the defendant to carry out the infringing behavior. The location where the infringing behavior's outcome occurs shall include the residence of the infringed upon party.

Article 3. People's Courts shall accept cases where the plaintiff brings an action against an Internet user or an Internet service provider under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Article 36 of the Tort Law.

If a plaintiff only sues an Internet user, and the Internet user requests that an Internet service provider suspected of infringment be added as a co-defendant or third party, the People's Court shall allow it.

If a plaintiff only sues an Internet service provider, and the Internet service provider requests that a verifiable Internet user be added as a co-defendant or third party, the People's Court shall allow it.

Article 4. When a plaintiff sues an Internet service provider, and the Internet service provider offers the defense that allegedly infringing information was published by an Internet user, the People's Court may, in accordance with the particular circumstances of the plaintiff's request and the case, order the Internet service provider to provide the People's Court the name (alias), contact information, IP address, and other information of any verifiable Internet user suspected of infringement.

If an Internet service provider does not provide the information without justifiable reason, the People's Court may impose fines or similar measures on the Internet service provider in accordance with Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law.

If a plaintiff requests to add an Internet user as a defendant based on the information provided by an Internet service provider, the People's Court shall allow it.

Article 5. In accordance with Clause 2 of Article 6 of the Tort Law, if an infringed party issues a notice including the following information to an Internet service provider either in writing or by a means publicized by an Internet service provider, the People's Court shall deem it effective:

1. Notifying party's name (alias) and contact information; and
2. The Internet address with respect to which measures must be taken or information sufficient to determine the infringing content; and
3. Relevant information regarding the reason the notifying party is demanding deletion.

If an infringed party's notice does not satisfy the foregoing conditions and an Internet service provider maintains that it is exempt from liability, the People's Court shall rule in favor of the Internet service provider.

Article 6. When determining whether an Internet service provider adopted measures to delete, block, or delink in a timely manner, a People's Court shall make an overall judgment based on such factors as the nature of the Internet services, the manner and degree of precision of an effective notice, and the type and degree of harm to rights by the Internet information.

Article 7. If an Internet user claims that an Internet service provider should be held liable for breach of contract when the latter has taken measures to delete, block, or delink information they had published, and the Internet service provider offers the defense of having received a notification, the People's Court shall rule in favor of the Internet service provider.

If an Internet user whose content has been the object of measures such as deletion, blockage, or delinking requests that the Internet service provider disclose the content of the notice, the People's Court shall support the request.

Article 8. Where a notice issuer's notice causes an Internet service provider to adopt measures to delete, block, or sever links in error, and the Internet user who was the object of the measures requests the notifying party bear responsibility for infringement, the People's Court shall support their request.

Where the Internet user who was the object of the measures requests the Internet service provider to take restoration measures, the People's Court shall support this request, except where technical limitations render restoration impossible.

Article 9. People's Courts shall consider the following factors when determining whether or not an Internet service provider had "knowledge" under Article 36, Clause 3 of the Tort Law:

(i) Whether the Internet service provider recommended, ranked, selected, edited, modified, revised, or otherwise processed the infringing online information using human or automatic means.
(ii) Whether the administrative functionality the Internet service provider should have implemented, as well as the nature of its service and the manner in which it was provided, increased or decreased the likelihood of infringement.
(iii) The type and degree of obviousness of the personal rights and interests the online information infringes.
(iv) The degree of social impact or the browsing volume in a given time frame of the online information.
(v)  The possibility that the Internet service provider could have adopted measures to prevent infringement and whether reasonable measures were adopted.
(vi) Whether the Internet service provider adopted reasonable measures with respect to repeated infringements by the same Internet user or the same infringing information.
(vii) Other factors relevant to the case.

Article 10. People's Courts shall consider the following factors when determining the existence and degree of fault for republication of online information by an Internet user or Internet service provider:

(i) the duty of care that the republishing party bears relative to their nature and degree of influence;
(ii) the degree of obviousness that the republished online information would infringe upon the personal rights of third parties;
(iii) whether the republished information was materially revised or whether the title of the article was added revised in such a way as to make it likely that readers would be severely misled with respect to its content.

Article 11. Where a business operator requests that an Internet user or Internet service provider bear tort liability because an Internet user or Internet service provider has engaged in libel or other forms of defamation that damages the public's trust in a business operator or decreases the public's valuation of its products or services, the People's Court shall support their request in accordance with the law.

Article 12. Where an infringed party requests that an Internet user or Internet service provider bear tort liability for using the Internet to publicize an individual's genetic information, medical history data, health examination data, criminal record, home address, personal life or other personal private or individual information resulting in harm to said party, the People's Court shall support the request except in the following circumstances:

(i) the individual has consented in writing to the disclosure and its scope;
(ii) the disclosure and its scope are in the public interest;
(iii) the disclosure is made public interest institutions such as schools and scientific research bodies with the written consent of the individual and the method of publication does not allow the identification of specific individuals;
(iv) information made available online by the individual themselves or other personal information that is made public legally;
(v) personal information obtained through legal channels;
(vi) where otherwise provided by laws or administrative regulations.

Where a rights holder requests that an Internet user or Internet service provider bear tort liability for either publicizing information set forth in Clauses 4 or 5 above in a manner that is contrary to the public interest or social mores, or publicizing information that infringes upon an individual's important interest that is worthy of protection, the People's Court shall support their request.

This clause shall not be applied to state agencies that publicize personal information pursuant to the exercise of their official powers.

Article 13. Where an Internet user or Internet service provider publishes information, the origin of which is a document produced by a government agency as part of its official duties or the official actions conducted in public, with the result being an infringement of the personal rights of an individual, the People's Court shall support the request of the infringed party that the infringing party bear tort liability if one of the following circumstances exists:

(i) the information published by the Internet user or the Internet service provider is not consistent with the original information;
(ii) the Internet user or Internet service provider adds insulting content, defamatory information, in appropriate titles, or use the addition or removal of information, alteration of the structure, or changing the order to lead people to misunderstand;
(iii) the information from whence the aforementioned information originated was publicly corrected, but the Internet user refuses to provide an update or the Internet service provider does not allow updating;
(iv) the information from whence the aforementioned information originated was publicly corrected, but the Internet user still publishes the pre-correction information.

Article 14. People's Courts shall hold invalid any agreement between an infringed upon party and an Internet user or an Internet service provider whereby one party agrees to pay compensation and the other party agrees to provide deletion, blocking, or de-linking services.

Where someone unilaterally distorts, deletes, or blocks specific online information or uses de-linking to prevent others from obtaining online information, and the Internet user or Internet service provider that published the information requests that the infringer bear tort liability, the People's Court shall support their request. Where someone acts as an agent to carry out the foregoing behavior, the agent and the principal shall bear joint liability.

Article 15. People's Courts shall support a request from an infringed party that anyone employing, organizing, abetting, or assisting others to publish or republish online information that infringes upon the personal rights of others bear joint liability.

Article 16. Where a People's Court rules that an infringing party shall undertake formal steps to make a formal apology, take counteractive measures, or restore someone's reputation, it shall correspond to the scope of the impact of the specific infringement. Where an infringing party refuses to carry it out, the People's Court may undertake reasonable measures to execute the ruling including publishing notices online and publishing the judgment document, and the fees arising therefrom shall be borne by the infringing party.

Article 17. Where an Internet user or Internet service provider infringes upon the personal rights and interests of another resulting in property damage or severe mental anguish, and the infringed requests they bear liability in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 and Article 22 of the Tort Law, the People's Court shall support their request.

Article 18. The reasonable expenses incurred by an infringed party in the course of curbing infringing activity may be deemed to be property loss under Article 20 of the Tort Law. Reasonable expenses shall include reasonable fees incurred by the infringed party or their agents in conducting investigations of infringing behavior and obtaining evidence. People's Courts may, on the basis of a request from the infringed party and the specific circumstances of the case, also include lawyer fees in the compensation calculation, provided they conform to the rules set by relevant state agencies.

If it is not possible to determine the amount of property loss suffered by an infringed party or the amount of illegal benefit obtained by the infringing party, the People's Court may, in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case, award a compensation amount of 500,000 yuan or less.

The amount of compensation for mental anguish shall be determined in accordance with Article 10 of the Supreme People's Court Explanation Regarding Certain Questions Relating to Determining Compensation Liability for in Civil Tort Cases Involving Mental Anguish."

Article 19. Following their implementation these Rules shall be utilized by the People's Courts in the adjudication of all first and second instance trials.

These Rules shall not be applied in cases where a final judgment has been rendered prior to their implementation, or where a party files a request for a retrial or a decision is issued pursuant to post-judgment supervision procedures after their implementation.

最高人民法院关于审理利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定


http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2014/08/id/147944.shtml

(法释〔2014〕11号,2014年6月23日最高人民法院审判委员会第1621次会议通过)

《最高人民法院关于审理利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》已于2014年6月23日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1621次会议通过,现予公布,自2014年10月10日起施行。

最高人民法院

2014年8月21日

为正确审理利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件,根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于加强网络信息保护的决定》《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》等法律的规定,结合审判实践,制定本规定。

第一条 本规定所称的利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件,是指利用信息网络侵害他人姓名权、名称权、名誉权、荣誉权、肖像权、隐私权等人身权益引起的纠纷案件。

第二条 利用信息网络侵害人身权益提起的诉讼,由侵权行为地或者被告住所地人民法院管辖。

侵权行为实施地包括实施被诉侵权行为的计算机等终端设备所在地,侵权结果发生地包括被侵权人住所地。

第三条 原告依据侵权责任法第三十六条第二款、第三款的规定起诉网络用户或者网络服务提供者的,人民法院应予受理。

原告仅起诉网络用户,网络用户请求追加涉嫌侵权的网络服务提供者为共同被告或者第三人的,人民法院应予准许。

原告仅起诉网络服务提供者,网络服务提供者请求追加可以确定的网络用户为共同被告或者第三人的,人民法院应予准许。

第四条 原告起诉网络服务提供者,网络服务提供者以涉嫌侵权的信息系网络用户发布为由抗辩的,人民法院可以根据原告的请求及案件的具体情况,责令网络服务提供者向人民法院提供能够确定涉嫌侵权的网络用户的姓名(名称)、联系方式、网络地址等信息。

网络服务提供者无正当理由拒不提供的,人民法院可以依据民事诉讼法第一百一十四条的规定对网络服务提供者采取处罚等措施。

原告根据网络服务提供者提供的信息请求追加网络用户为被告的,人民法院应予准许。

第五条 依据侵权责任法第三十六条第二款的规定,被侵权人以书面形式或者网络服务提供者公示的方式向网络服务提供者发出的通知,包含下列内容的,人民法院应当认定有效:

(一)通知人的姓名(名称)和联系方式;

(二)要求采取必要措施的网络地址或者足以准确定位侵权内容的相关信息;

(三)通知人要求删除相关信息的理由。

被侵权人发送的通知未满足上述条件,网络服务提供者主张免除责任的,人民法院应予支持。

第六条 人民法院适用侵权责任法第三十六条第二款的规定,认定网络服务提供者采取的删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施是否及时,应当根据网络服务的性质、有效通知的形式和准确程度,网络信息侵害权益的类型和程度等因素综合判断。

第七条 其发布的信息被采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等措施的网络用户,主张网络服务提供者承担违约责任或者侵权责任,网络服务提供者以收到通知为由抗辩的,人民法院应予支持。

被采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等措施的网络用户,请求网络服务提供者提供通知内容的,人民法院应予支持。

第八条 因通知人的通知导致网络服务提供者错误采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等措施,被采取措施的网络用户请求通知人承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持。

被错误采取措施的网络用户请求网络服务提供者采取相应恢复措施的,人民法院应予支持,但受技术条件限制无法恢复的除外。

第九条 人民法院依据侵权责任法第三十六条第三款认定网络服务提供者是否“知道”,应当综合考虑下列因素:

(一)网络服务提供者是否以人工或者自动方式对侵权网络信息以推荐、排名、选择、编辑、整理、修改等方式作出处理;

(二)网络服务提供者应当具备的管理信息的能力,以及所提供服务的性质、方式及其引发侵权的可能性大小;

(三)该网络信息侵害人身权益的类型及明显程度;

(四)该网络信息的社会影响程度或者一定时间内的浏览量;

(五)网络服务提供者采取预防侵权措施的技术可能性及其是否采取了相应的合理措施;

(六)网络服务提供者是否针对同一网络用户的重复侵权行为或者同一侵权信息采取了相应的合理措施;

(七)与本案相关的其他因素。

第十条 人民法院认定网络用户或者网络服务提供者转载网络信息行为的过错及其程度,应当综合以下因素:

(一)转载主体所承担的与其性质、影响范围相适应的注意义务;

(二)所转载信息侵害他人人身权益的明显程度;

(三)对所转载信息是否作出实质性修改,是否添加或者修改文章标题,导致其与内容严重不符以及误导公众的可能性。

第十一条 网络用户或者网络服务提供者采取诽谤、诋毁等手段,损害公众对经营主体的信赖,降低其产品或者服务的社会评价,经营主体请求网络用户或者网络服务提供者承担侵权责任的,人民法院应依法予以支持。

第十二条 网络用户或者网络服务提供者利用网络公开自然人基因信息、病历资料、健康检查资料、犯罪记录、家庭住址、私人活动等个人隐私和其他个人信息,造成他人损害,被侵权人请求其承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持。但下列情形除外:

(一)经自然人书面同意且在约定范围内公开;

(二)为促进社会公共利益且在必要范围内;

(三)学校、科研机构等基于公共利益为学术研究或者统计的目的,经自然人书面同意,且公开的方式不足以识别特定自然人;

(四)自然人自行在网络上公开的信息或者其他已合法公开的个人信息;

(五)以合法渠道获取的个人信息;

(六)法律或者行政法规另有规定。

网络用户或者网络服务提供者以违反社会公共利益、社会公德的方式公开前款第四项、第五项规定的个人信息,或者公开该信息侵害权利人值得保护的重大利益,权利人请求网络用户或者网络服务提供者承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持。

国家机关行使职权公开个人信息的,不适用本条规定。

第十三条 网络用户或者网络服务提供者,根据国家机关依职权制作的文书和公开实施的职权行为等信息来源所发布的信息,有下列情形之一,侵害他人人身权益,被侵权人请求侵权人承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持:

(一)网络用户或者网络服务提供者发布的信息与前述信息来源内容不符;

(二)网络用户或者网络服务提供者以添加侮辱性内容、诽谤性信息、不当标题或者通过增删信息、调整结构、改变顺序等方式致人误解;

(三)前述信息来源已被公开更正,但网络用户拒绝更正或者网络服务提供者不予更正;

(四)前述信息来源已被公开更正,网络用户或者网络服务提供者仍然发布更正之前的信息。

第十四条 被侵权人与构成侵权的网络用户或者网络服务提供者达成一方支付报酬,另一方提供删除、屏蔽、断开链接等服务的协议,人民法院应认定为无效。

擅自篡改、删除、屏蔽特定网络信息或者以断开链接的方式阻止他人获取网络信息,发布该信息的网络用户或者网络服务提供者请求侵权人承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持。接受他人委托实施该行为的,委托人与受托人承担连带责任。

第十五条 雇佣、组织、教唆或者帮助他人发布、转发网络信息侵害他人人身权益,被侵权人请求行为人承担连带责任的,人民法院应予支持。

第十六条 人民法院判决侵权人承担赔礼道歉、消除影响或者恢复名誉等责任形式的,应当与侵权的具体方式和所造成的影响范围相当。侵权人拒不履行的,人民法院可以采取在网络上发布公告或者公布裁判文书等合理的方式执行,由此产生的费用由侵权人承担。

第十七条 网络用户或者网络服务提供者侵害他人人身权益,造成财产损失或者严重精神损害,被侵权人依据侵权责任法第二十条和第二十二条的规定请求其承担赔偿责任的,人民法院应予支持。

第十八条 被侵权人为制止侵权行为所支付的合理开支,可以认定为侵权责任法第二十条规定的财产损失。合理开支包括被侵权人或者委托代理人对侵权行为进行调查、取证的合理费用。人民法院根据当事人的请求和具体案情,可以将符合国家有关部门规定的律师费用计算在赔偿范围内。

被侵权人因人身权益受侵害造成的财产损失或者侵权人因此获得的利益无法确定的,人民法院可以根据具体案情在50万元以下的范围内确定赔偿数额。

精神损害的赔偿数额,依据《最高人民法院关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》第十条的规定予以确定。

第十九条 本规定施行后人民法院正在审理的一审、二审案件适用本规定。

本规定施行前已经终审,本规定施行后当事人申请再审或者按照审判监督程序决定再审的案件,不适用本规定。

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

What Baidu Was (and Was Not) Censoring During Hong Kong's Occupy Central Protests

On October 4, 2014, the People’s Daily, official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, published an editorial on its front page entitled “Earnestly Safeguard Hong Kong’s Rule of Law” (坚决维护香港的法治). An excerpt:
It is only by using democratic means to develop democracy and the rule of law to safeguard the rule of law that opinions can be expressed and rights can be exercised on a thoroughly orderly track, enabling Hong Kong democracy to follow a path of positive development. It is only in this way that citizens' welfare can be promoted, ensuring glorious stability and long-term peace for Hong Kong. As for that minority of people who want to use Hong Kong as a stepping stone for a "color revolution" on the mainland, they are just daydreaming.
用民主的方式发展民主,用法治的方式维护法治,才能使意见的表达和权利的行使始终运行在制度轨道上,使香港民主走上一条良性发展的道路。这样,也才能增进市民福祉,确保香港的繁荣稳定、长治久安。至于极少数人想通过香港进而在内地搞“颜色革命”,那就更是白日做梦了。
These screenshots were taken on October 5, 2014, and show that Baidu was censoring “Hong Kong Disobedience” (香港 抗命) but not “Hong Kong Revolution” (香港 革命)



These screenshots were taken on October 5, 2014, and show that Baidu was censoring “Umbrella Revolution” (雨伞革命) but not “Color Revolution” (颜色革命)


These screenshots were taken on October 1, 2014, and show that Baidu was censoring “Peacefully Occupy Central” (和平占中) but not “Occupy Central” (占中) - But see also:


See also Baidu Begins Censoring "Scholarism," "Hong Kong Students" and "Hong Kong Tear Gas" 

Monday, October 6, 2014

Watch: Social Media Results for "Peacefully Occupy Central" Disappear from Baidu

These screenshots show that on September 29, 2014, Baidu began censoring search results for “Peacefully Occupy Central” (和平占中). One consequence of Baidu’s censorship is that social media results are no longer displayed.


These screenshots illustrate the impact of Baidu’s censorship: before the censorship the majority of results for a search for “Peacefully Occupy Central” restricted to the Sina.com.cn domain were from Sina’s blogging platform. After the censorship, there are no blog results.


Sunday, October 5, 2014

Baidu Resumes Censorship of "Occupy Central"

The blog previously noted that, on September 29, Baidu began displaying a censorship notice for searches for "Occupy Central" (占中), but the following day the notice was gone (even though Baidu still appeared to censoring search results from many foreign news services).

These screenshots show that on October 4 Baidu was once again displaying a censorship notice for "Occupy Central," and results from social media sources such as Sina Weibo were no longer being displayed. Baidu had also stopped displaying the Chinese Wikipedia article for "Hong Kong Occupy Central Public Elections" (香港占中公投).

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Baidu Starts Censoring "Occupy Central," Then Removes Censorship Notice (But Appears To Keep Censoring)

These screenshots show that Baidu began censoring "Occupy Central" (占中) early in the morning of September 29, 2014, restricting search results to about a dozen websites operated by the central government and the Communist Party.  At 1:00 am Baidu claimed it found over 22 million search results. Five hours later a censorship notice appeared above search results, and Baidu said it could find only 13.1 million search results.

Then, within 24 hours, the censorship notice had disappeared, but Baidu said it could still only find 13.2 million search results.


As of the time of this posting, Baidu is once again saying it can find over 22 million search results.

The following screenshots, which were all taken at around 6:00 am on September 30, show that Baidu was still censoring search results for "Occupy Central" for many non-China based websites.

United States: New York Times - Baidu says it can't find any search results for "Occupy Central."


Great Britain: BBC - Search results for "Occupy Central" do not include any Chinese langauge results from September 2014.



France: Radio France International - Baidu says it can't find any search results for "Occupy Central."


Germany: Deutsche Welle - Baidu says it can't find any search results for "Occupy Central."


Taiwan: United Daily News - Baidu finds one result - from 2011.



Hong Kong: Apple Daily - Baidu says it can't find any search results for "Occupy Central."


This screenshot shows, however, that Baidu was not censoring search results from all non-mainland sources: it says it is able to find over 1,500 results from the pro-Beijing Ta Kung Pao.