(1) violating the basic principles as they are confirmed in the Constitution;
(2) jeopardizing the security of the nation, divulging state secrets, subverting of the national regime or jeopardizing the integrity of the nation’s unity;
(3) harming the honor or the interests of the nation;
(4) inciting hatred against peoples, racism against peoples, or disrupting the solidarity of peoples;
(5) disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions;
(6) spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or disrupting social stability;
(7) spreading obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, terror, or abetting the commission of a crime;
(8) insulting or defaming third parties, infringing on the legal rights and interests of third parties;
(9) inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order;
(10) conducting activities in the name of an illegal civil organization; and
(11) any other content prohibited by law or rules.

(translation at http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=24396)

(also see ONI http://opennet.net/research/profiles/china)

The question is when Google removes BBC news which one is it? It it a formal, written notification? Is there are court or venue in which such requests can be disputed? Is Google left to decide the exact content to censor based on the general guidance above? Is it the BBC generally or just some specific articles? If so, which ones? I mean, seriously, are you telling me that are article about Arsenal losing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/fa_cup/8468706.stm) is a threat to China’s national security? What specific legal order can Google post and link to on chillingeffects.org for content removed from google.cn as they do with every other country in the world?

Sorry, but a general “national security” justification without a shred of detail is insufficient for censorship just as it is for surveillance in the US http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying

http://www.miibeian.gov.cn/chaxun/flfg1.jsp?id=8
互联网信息服务管理办法

Refer specifically to paragraph 15. Of course, you can argue whether BBC content should be uniformly classified as “damaging national interests”… but as far as this blog goes, it would be a rhetorical argument, not a legal one.

If you instead want to make a legal argument, go file a case on behalf of the BBC (or Google).

In the mean time, don’t take advantage of the lack of Chinese literacy amongst your readers by suggesting that no possible legal basis exists.

But yes, while physically leaving China, they’re still sure to run a Chinese language version of Google, and continue to index in Chinese, so they’re not leaving in spirit.

Agree on the law point, as censorship is an extremely shaky concept in Chinese law. Also, the remarks Jiang Wu also included the statement that hacking is illegal in China; the CPC are not subject to Chinese law, they’re extra-judicial.

I did enjoy this recent post by Rebecca MacKinnon http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2010/01/google-china-and-the-future-of-freedom-on-the-global-internet.html