Internet Filtering in China in 2004 2005 

K. Restrictions on On Line Discussion Forums 

On line chats are extremely popular in China; a spokesperson for the site sina.com.cn told 

Reporters Sans Frontieres that 4 million users employ its forums each day.

191

  A study by Reporters Sans 

Frontieres (RSF) of censorship in these on line discussion forums found that postings were filtered 

heavily, but inconsistently, and that users who persist in adding content on sensitive topics face exclusion 

from these services and, in extreme cases, even imprisonment.

192

The RSF study found evidence of a complicated, and sometimes inconsistent, filtering regime for 

online discussion forums.  The study states that most sites temporarily block all postings containing 

certain forbidden terms, but that forum Webmasters can override the automatic filter if, on review, the 

views expressed are deemed acceptable.  (Such reviews are evidently uncommon since Webmasters spend 

most of their time monitoring forums for forbidden content, not attempting to restore improperly blocked 

posts.)  Webmasters also manually remove messages with prohibited content that elude the automatic 

filters.  These Webmasters are generally unpaid volunteers who are supervised by forum administrators 

charged with ensuring that no unacceptable material appears online.   

In RSF's study, only 30% of messages containing  controversial content  were posted 

successfully.  While 55% of messages with controversial content made it into the forums initially, RSF 

found that more than half of these postings were removed by Webmasters.  The most controversial posts, 

containing  direct criticism or demands targeted at the central government,  either never appeared or 

were available only briefly.  More moderate messages, with content on sensitive political topics but 

without criticism of the state, were successfully posted over 70% of the time, though some were later taken 

down.  Almost 80% of messages containing only factual information on current topics made it into 

forums, except for xinhaunet.com, which filtered over half these posts. 

As xinhaunet.com's blocking demonstrates, the level of filtering varied by forum.  RSF found that, 

generally,  The most open Internet sites are the ones that are commercial enterprises.  Competition 

within this sector encourages those in charge to test the limits of censorship.   Thus, forums at 163.net 

and sina.com have more lenient filtering.  In contrast, quasi official sites, such as xinhuanet.com, 

censored postings critical of the government more stringently; RSF concluded that these  webmasters 

give priority to censoring messages that criticise the government.   Criticism of China's handling of the 

SARS crisis was particularly targeted for censorship. 

Users who post unacceptable material face exclusion from forums.  The RSF researcher was 

eventually blocked from using her user ID at sina.com.cn; a Sina.com company spokesperson confirmed 

that such  blacklisting  occurs.  In extreme cases, penalties can be severe: RSF described four cases of 

online dissidents who were arrested for posting  harmful messages.  

191

 Reporters Sans Frontieres,  Living dangerously on the Net : Censorship and surveillance of Internet forums, May 

12, 2003, at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6793. 

192

 Reporters Sans Frontieres,  Living dangerously on the Net : Censorship and surveillance of Internet forums. 

51