China Bans 120 Tunes as Harmful to “Public Morality” and Social Stability

130px-Mao_Zedong_portraitChina remains one of the world’s most repressive regimes in the denial of free speech, association, and other basic rights in the “People’s Paradise.” The latest target of the government is music. The regime has posted a list of 120 tunes that can no longer be played in the country as harmful to “public morality.” Obviously, even the censors manning “Great Firewall of China” may have a hard time keeping music from the masses.

The Provisional Regulations on Administration of Internet Culture list such songs as “I Love Taiwanese Girls” as threatening the stability of the nation. Clearly, you cannot love Taiwanese girls without loving Taiwan. Taiwanese songs are particularly prominent on the list. There is Chang Csun Yuk’s song entitled “Fart”, featuring the line: “There are some people in the world who like farting while doing nothing.” That may have come to close to the role of Chinese censors.

Then there is the song “Shaking Your Head for Fun” which was put on the list because the name sounds the same as “head shaking pill” which is slang for ecstasy.

In a speech last year, the president, Xi Jinping, said that artists should present socialist values and not carry the “stench of money.” It is an almost comical statement. One of the first things that you see in flying into Beijing are massive homes of the ruling elite, who live like Red Aristocracy in the People’s Paradise.

It will be fascinating to watch how successful the country will be in banning these songs. The United States went through a period of such comical efforts to ban rock and roll, including prosecution of some artists for indecency. That was only a few decades ago. It failed miserably. Indeed, the forbidden nature of some music only fueled the interest among young people. China would be far better to seek to eliminate the “stench of money” in the rampant corruption of its officials and the evasion of work and environmental safety laws.

58 thoughts on “China Bans 120 Tunes as Harmful to “Public Morality” and Social Stability”

  1. Paul Schulte:

    The government officials that violate the law, violate the U.S. Constitution and violate their own oath of office are the ones that cost taxpayers – not the ACLU.

    It would be like blaming the police for spending taxpayer dollars to arrest real criminals. In constitutional cases the ACLU is like the constitutional police going after constitutional crimes.

    For example: the Freedom of Information Act is a “statute” – a law passed by a state legislature or a law passed by Congress – it’s the law. If a law enforcement agency intentionally violates that statute and the constitutional police, the ACLU, sues those officials in court – those government officials cost the taxpayers money for violating that law – not the ACLU making them follow the law. In some FOIA cases, the ACLU makes the government official pay all court expenses out of their “personal” funds (not taxpayer funds).

    Nobody is above the law – not even government officials – they have laws to follow also.

  2. Paul:

    The ACLU almost always wins eventually because they are on the right side of the U.S. Constitution. I once heard an ACLU leader say that it only took 20 years to win this right for Americans, they have a longer term view.

    I said “many” not all cases are pro bono. For example: if you have an executive branch agency that can intentionally break the law, then stamp that law breaking “secret”, then use an army of TAXPAYER FUNDED government attorneys with nearly unlimited resources – all done under color law.

    The ACLU, a non-profit funded primarily by it’s members, can’t fight such a Goliath (with nearly unlimited taxpayer resources) without private attorneys. When some (not all) government agencies break the laws, fraudulently abuse secrecy and abuse their authority – it is extremely expensive to uncover that taxpayer funded fraud by some government agencies.

    Call it what you want but the ACLU is “David” not “Goliath” in these lawsuits. The ACLU brings these corrupt officials and corrupt practices to justice without a dime of taxpayer money – they do what all the taxpayer funded government watchdogs do, but the ACLU is free to taxpayers!

    1. Ross – the ACLU cannot be free to taxpayers. That is called barritry (sp?) or something and is illegal in every state. They get a percentage of the damages and the costs are paid by the plaintiff.

  3. Paul:

    If government officials operate within laws and U.S. Constitution, they don’t get sued by ACLU attorneys.

    In most cases ACLU attorneys try to avoid lawsuits by sending a letter to government attorneys informing them they are breaking the law. Lawsuits usually result when the government attorneys or bureaucrats ignore that warning and continue breaking the law. When you have serial law-breakers in some government agencies or entire local governments abusing citizens under “color of law” (Ex: Ferguson, Missouri) there must be a strong “deterrent” for those law breakers – you can criminally prosecute government officials or you can sue them for personal assets – these types of government officials won’t change their federal law breaking until that happens. This is exactly what the DOJ is doing right now in Ferguson.

    While there are staff ACLU attorneys that receive relatively low pay compared to the private sector, many ACLU cases are pro bono by practicing attorneys in private law firms.

    1. Ross – the ACLU does not win all the time so the governments are doing it correctly. Prove to me that the private attorneys are doing it pro bono.

  4. Paul C. Shulte:

    The citizen-plaintiff harmed receives free legal service from the ACLU. If your constitutional rights were violated, you pay nothing.

    Government officials or their contractors that betray their supreme loyalty oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution (as a condition of both employment and authority) – those disloyal officials many times have to pay for legal fees using their own personal assets (not taxpayer funded).

    The U.S. court system is not free to ACLU attorneys!

    1. Ross – we all know what it costs to copy a document and then we all know what an attorney charges to copy that document. That is a cost. Cost to file, etc. Actually, in most states the plaintiff has to pay these costs in advance. I think there is some law against having attorneys do it. Still, don’t think of the ACLU out there like Superman doing good for no pay. Those attorneys get paid, if they win. I am not sure they don’t get paid if they lose. And we pick up the tab. They are ambulance chasers, just a different ambulance.

  5. Paul C. Schulte:

    The ACLU is primarily a law firm that specializes in constitutional issues. If a student or any person (right or left) wants to become a plaintiff in court and has a valid constitutional challenge the ACLU will and has represented Americans on the right also. They will represent that plaintiff or another plaintiff with a similar legal argument.

    ACLU attorneys represented the late reverend Jerry Falwell in a lawsuit against Lynchburg, Virginia over a property dispute. The ACLU also represented students’ right to post the Ten Commandments on their school lockers and other religious displays by students. ACLU attorneys also kept Rush Limbaugh from being criminally prosecuted for the felony crime of doctor shopping. ACLU attorneys sued the City of Philadelphia for infringing on gun rights with a concealed carry permit.

    They represent any issue with a legitimate constitutional case but the citizen harmed has to intiate the lawsuit and ask the ACLU for assistance.

    1. Ross – how many times has FIRE been called on to help students when the ACLU won’t? ACLU is dropping the ball lately. As I said, there has been change.

      BTW, ACLU does not work for free. When they win a case, they get the percentage of the damages, plus costs. Costs come off the top. So when you are all excited that they won a case against city x, just remember they are getting paid the percent of damages plus costs. All of that is being paid for by the taxpayers of city x.

    1. There isn’t an embargo burying Muslims in cemeteries in China. Maybe the Chinese aren’t as backward as has been suggested?

      I can’t wait for comments and justification of this piece of news.

      And I would like to bet this subject does not appear in any civics tests 😕

      1. ninian – I will tell you if something happens to be on the test. Hope you have been swotting. You have a lot to learn. Would you give us a cite proving what you have said?

        1. Paul C. Schulte: I want to know what you think. Not what you think you know.

          So let’s have some reaction from you about the music censorship in China and how this compares to music censorship in the US in the 1960s and the reported US “tolerance” towards muslim rights to bury their dead on land they own.

          I can’t wait…..

          It’s about time your superiority complex was cut down to size….

            1. Paul C. Shulte: the purpose of the blog is to discuss the topic not to try to hijack it. If you can’t do this you need to stop making postings. So please answer the question. I’m not interested in anything else.

  6. Almost all societies in todays world are fascist oligarchies in one way or the another and China can actually fall under this title as well. Let me explain. Fascism is most often defined as having a large military and military industrial complex and the laws necessary such as an enhanced police state to pay for and enforce it. This requires high levels of taxation and the unethical/oppressive enforcement of these laws. It also requires many prohibitions, as other means of additional confiscation of money from the Citizens. This should sound quite familiar to many Americans a well. The various governmental branches all use various means to fund their activities. The voluminous amounts of traffic violations, ticketing and their large fines are a good example for the Judicial Branch, as a number of Lawyers specialize in just DUI cases.

    The Chinese, still predominantly communistic, have no comprehension of individual rights thus they have a highly controlled society through legislation such as many prohibitions and their enforcement. I don’t know the actually levels of fines and penalties, but it is easy to assume they are voluminous in number as an example for having an illegal song in ones procession.

    As China has expanded their industries throughout the world, the liberties required for this to happen have shifted their controls away from centralized government to greater free market controls. The government must allow for greater individual controls to expand to such a large degree as it has over the last two decades. The decision making and benefits must be shifted to those in the specific industries and businesses for them to be successful against international competition. The Chinese contract for the operation of the Panama canal is a good example. The leadership in Panama cannot run the canal if they had to wait for every decision to be made from Beijing. Surely the major ones do but not the day to day operations.

    Why is this so important? For any operation or business to be successful it must be properly managed and those that manage it, as in any hierarchy are generally paid more to do this. The government because of being communistic and thus having the ownership, must therefore provide incentives for the management to do a good job. Human nature has shown that pride of ownership is a valid principle and the earning of money from any enterprise is considered property. Just ask any realtor or slumlord about pride of ownership.

    Now here’s the interesting part, I hope. Ownership is not that important in the equation. As one of the American industrialist in the early 20th century stated, “it is not what I own, it is what I control”. Control is always about achieving greater income individually and obtaining future benefits or why would one be interested in taking on the responsibility of controlling any enterprise. FNMA and Freddie Mac I believed failed because it gave the benefits to those who controlled it and the ability to pass on the liabilities/responsibilities to the taxpayer. It was an organization destined for failure from it’s beginning.

    Fascism is generally regarded as having greater free markets attributes than say communism or socialism with private corporations controlling the means of production. I suggest however that the levels of taxation and government controls play an even greater role in the socio-economics of a society. Those who control the Justice department and Treasury of the government are the kings of the hill. As we all know the Treasury is directly maintained in concert with those involved with such major banks as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of New York and the other large banks, all whom are part of the Federal Reserve banking system. If they control the US Treasury, which they do, they surely must control the Department of Justice. You’ve seen just how many highly positioned banksters have gone to jail from the fraudulently induced boom and bust cycle they created; almost none. I like to call them the Oligarchs of our society, as they hide behind the curtain and pull the strings. China is run by a relatively small group of oligarchs just like the U.S. and of course even use greater means of oppression, as this article shows to control their society. It all about social and economic controls and there a several ways in which to do it. Direct ownership of the means of production, administering and regulating the industries such as parts of our medical system or heavy taxation and regulation, thus using government to extract the money and allow for it’s redistribution of wealth back into the oligarchs favored corporations and banks.

    FYI: China is a recognized nuclear weapons state and has the world’s largest standing army, with the second-largest defense budget.

    FYI: the Central banksters of the world meet in Basil, Switzerland every two months. Wouldn’t you like to get a hold of the minutes of their meeting.

    I, after studying this crap for almost four decades, have finally come to the determination that almost every society throughout the world today are operating under a fascist oligarchy, controlled primarily by the major central bankers of the world. Most very CEO, high ranking Judge and politician, if not a member of their oligarchy themselves, works directly or indirectly for them.

    Did you ever wonder why their is such emphasis in foreign aid and why so many of the major countries participate it doling out the money to other governments. The central bankers need the various governments to tax and regulate their Citizens, so that they can control the various Treasuries. Without such controls the banksters cannot keep their scams going. The wars, both on terrorism and drugs are specially created to give reasons for the continued confiscation of money through taxation. The U.S. has about 115 different forms of taxation and regulatory fees, an instrument part of the scam. China just takes what ever profits their various enterprises make. What’s the real different. Nothing!!!

    in the Watergate affair, Deep Throat said “follow the money”. I’ve done this and this is my conclusion.

  7. Paul:

    The ACLU “starts” from a constitutional perspective – not a popular vote perspective – which makes this group very unpopular at any given moment. Once time passes their positions become more popular in past history.

    For example: During World War Two the ACLU challenged the government’s authority to place U.S. citizens, at gunpoint, into detention camps for several years (destroying their life savings in the process). At the time voters had little sympathy for their fellow American citizens having their constitutional rights violated because they were of Japanese ancestry. Since the problem would never be resolved through the voting booth, the ACLU took those cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    In October of 2001, one month after 9/11, the ACLU warned the Bush Administration that they were creating the environment for blacklisting programs like CoinTelPro to be used against innocent Americans. They are also defending Guantanamo inmates if they are being held without any evidence or not given a Nuremberg style trial so they can challenge their accusers. The ACLU wants the truly guilty to be penalized but punishing the wrong people serves nobody’s interests while making us less safe.

    These types of issues that affect unpopular groups and unpopular individuals are rarely resolved in the voting booth, James Madison termed it the “tyranny of the majority”. In the upcoming 2016 election few candidates are talking about these true tyrannies because the voters by and large don’t care about the U.S. Constitution when it affects unpopular people – those are the cases the ACLU takes and why they are not very popular at any given time – they are supporting issues that most voters aren’t currently supporting.

    Ironically those abuses that once only affected unpopular groups has now mission-creeped and today those national security agencies have turned on their own U.S. citizens punishing legal constitutional exercises like Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, gay rights groups and even environmental rights activists – the original enemy was Osama Bin Laden not Robert Redford! Essentially using “terrorism” authorities on “non-terrorism cases.

    Few politicians running for election are focused on these issues.

    1. With the ACLU, once you explain the Constitutional positions they take, some people do see the light. It is often the Christian right wing that doesn’t appreciate the ACLU because their morally based mandates are often the very usurpations the ACLU is fighting against. Gay rights is of course a good example of this. They don’t understand the basic difference between man’s law and god’s law. Abortion is my favorite issue to use as an example of this. I’m am not apposed to abortion but not for the same reasons many others are. I think abortions are wrong. However I don’t think the State, like with many things, is capable of ethically dealing with a prohibition on abortion legislatively, judicially or for determining the penalties. The Drug prohibitions are a good example of how poorly government has performed at legislating and enforcing the various drug prohibitions. The Sheriffs Department in Lake Worth Florida can even solve the bicycle theft rings in the area. These issues also help me to explain to people the differences between malum prohibitum and malum in se laws and why malum in se laws are generally the only good laws to have.

      With abortion, I end up telling people of the religious right wing that I think the enforcement of this sin should be left in God’s hands since mankind through government is incapable of justly enforcing it. Of course when they start arguing that as a God fearing society we must do God’s wishes or we will be struck down like Sodom and Gomorra, I use the following argument.

      One of the issues that turned me around on the political career and life of Abraham Lincoln was a speech that he gave right before his death. He actually stated that the tremendous number of maimed and dead in the Civil war was due to our societies embracing of slavery. Like God would kill many abolitionists because the oligarchs who controlled the government at the time, favored slavery. Of course If this really occurred, there would be no Cities left standing on this planet, especially Washington, DC.

      Do I really think God will punish those who have abortions any more than those who commit other sins? No of course not, but many Christians do not appear to be very good at such logical examinations of law and ethics and therefore you must guide them down a path using their own belief system.

    2. Ross – oddly, the ACLU will not stand up for the rights of students who are on the right. Funny, that.

  8. believe at 659……hits the nail while missing it… china there are no cousins. No uncles….just mom and dad and government (one child policy). And we wonder why the gov might be filling a void with law? Law the ie the ‘norms’ ‘culture’ might otherwise enforce culturally? By who? Who? The govt has to because there is no one else they were forcibly aborted.

    1. Comment Judge:
      Under a new policy 2014, the most significant overhaul of China’s family planning rules in 30 years, married couples in which just one parent is an only child can also have a second baby. The previous rules allowed two children for couples in which both parents are only children. The old policy also made exceptions for China’s officially recognized ethnic minorities and rural couples whose first child was a girl or disabled.

      The government estimates that the change will allow an additional 15 million to 20 million couples to expand their families, helping to stem a plummeting birthrate that experts say has left China with a dangerous demographic imbalance in both age and sex. But only about half of those couples are willing to have two children, according to research by the National Health and Family Planning Commission cited in state news media.

      Family is very important in Chinese Culture There are Aunts Uncles etc who command respect within the family.

      So I’m not sure where these ideas come from about Chinese culture. It’s just not anywhere near the truth.

      One really interesting paradox is that the Chinese Communist Government has embraced Capitalism and is now a major economic force and is projected to overtake the US. Private enterprise thrives in China and their industrial revolution over the last 20 years has been the fastest in history. The recent devaluation of the Yen illustrates a move away from investment and towards domestic consumption. This will have a global impact.

      The main difference between China and the West is one of control. It is a patriarchal society. It is entrepreneurial and traditionally respectful of authority. It also has a history of immense human suffering.

      Its people have the same ambitions as everyone else but their difference maybe is that they are prepared to work incredibly hard to survive.

  9. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that staunch anti-communists Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman and General Douglas MacArthur were strong supporters of the ACLU during the McCarthy witch hunt and awarded the ACLU for their patriotism.

    James Madison and the Founding Fathers were opposed to other forms of government and supported a constitutional “rule of law” model of government, that’s the same model promoted by the ACLU and only two presidential candidates running in 2016.

    1. Ross – I cannot speak for the others but Eisenhower went after McCarthy when McCarthy went after the Army. Eisenhower was more than a little touchy about the Army being attacked. And over the years the ACLU has changed. 40 years ago I supported the ACLU. Now I don’t. I have evolved. They have devolved.

  10. At least China admits they’re Communists. Most of our Citizens don’t even understand the difference and thus put up or do not fight back against our fascist oligarchy. Sadly, communism is generally the next step in the bell curve, excluding internal or external conflicts such as a war, military junta or civil war that could go either way, i.e. more socialistic/communistic or more free market/capitalistic.

  11. Paul:

    It’s an interesting First Amendment question because the “burden” of proof in America is on the government, not the citizen. A government agency penalized a citizen for First Amendment exercises but never “proved” intent on the part of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake.

    Not exactly a George Carlin U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

  12. Didn’t Janet Jackson get fined by a government agency and get banned from future Super Bowl revenue? Ironically, kids can see more from statues while visiting government buildings in Washington DC (ex: Library of Congress and DOJ) than they did at the Super Bowl halftime show.

    1. Ross – the kids are going to see white marble not flesh. Personally. I do not think it was a malfunction, but it did put a new term in the lexicon. It appears there was a tremendous amount of rewinding of the DVR at that point in the program just to make sure.

  13. “The Provisional Regulations on Administration of Internet Culture list such songs as “I Love Taiwanese Girls” as threatening the stability of the nation.”

    David Bowie could always contract his services to the Chinese Government.

  14. Ah, the joys of communist and socialist regimes, with power concentrated in government. It starts out as everyone should have equal conditions, and ends up with the government controlling your iTunes account.

    It is so difficult to slow the juggernaut when government starts accumulating too much power. China mandated one child per family, even forcing abortions, called the smog “fog” for decades until the US Embassy spilled the beans, and you can still be jailed, and even killed, for dissenting.

    We really should learn from other countries’ mistakes, rather than listen to those who want to keep repeating the failed socialist or communist experiments.

  15. Prof. Pickett:

    You are so right, all those things did happen in the 60’s – 70’s but it was not the norm then for every home to allow their kid to run rampant or be a member of a destructive group that steals, confronts the parents or police and take part in demonstrations against the government There was still some control over the children, and a family circle to reel them in. However, it was a beginning to what we have now. Total ciaos and anarchy. Trust me! Prior to that the slippery slide started when all our boys returned from the war and there began a slow degradation of the American culture. As the baby boomers came along and many of their parents were now divorced or widows from the wars, the women adjusted themselves to working away from home. In 2 parent homes both parents worked away from home. As for the single parent with a kid or two , it was work away from home while having to live in a boarding house while trying to raise the kids and provide an education. There was less control on children and teenagers.

    We have been in a gradual decline since the automobiles, radio, TV, telephone and movie theaters were so available to every home and in every city, town and neighborhood. It became harder for parents to have total control of their families. In the 70′ and 80’s as the rhetoric became more colorful and so did the dances, lyrics and nudity bikini’s became the norm nude beaches, Playboy magazine, Hustler, it was the ultimate beginning of the decline of marriage and true home life.. America’s gradual decline of the more moral acceptable customs.

    Now we have nudity, hip hop, vile lyrics in our songs, open marriages, same sex marriage, pregnancy before marriage, twerking, a government that pays for abortions, war on Christians, distrust between races, a President that is the great deceiver and has divided the nation. None of this was acceptable in previous decades. There is sex on TV, reality shows, anything vile that man can dream up is apparently acceptable today, no modisty, as seen by see through dresses with no underwear. No privacy and Govt spying on normal legal citizens. Children can have abortions pd for by Govt. and mom and dad never be told. Parents are afraid to discipline the kids, they could be taken to court. Big government has sped up the process. You can’t protect your own home, if you hurt someone who tries to rob you, you may get sued. Parents can’t even discipline the children and they know it. Professor, you call it social revolution, I call it the straying away from the moral ways of governing and the raising of our children. SLIPPERY SLOPE INDEED. This is a generation of total anarchy and godlessness. It appears that we have sunk to the lowest level of humanity.. The biggest mistake we can make today is to call someone a bad name or use certain words the powers that be says we are not allowed to say, or be an advocate for gun ownership to protect oneself….,,……….. Welcome to our America, we are exactly what the Chinese will be like in a few decades.

    Honestly Professor, I would go a little further since I lived through all those decades, what we are experiencing now is a culmination of all those decades combined, a total decline of our moral ethics and it is much much worse today than it was 50 years ago. …………… opinion

  16. I seem to remember that some leading figures in 1950’s America tried to ban Rock N’ Roll for its immorality and sexual overtones. A Certain Gospel Singer, turned King of Rock N’ Roll, Mr Elvis Presley, was particularly targeted for his gyrations and for a time “Elvis the Pelvis” – the King – was filmed above the waist, despite the American self declared aversion to Royalty and the desire to “see some butt”.

    US Critics from parents to religious groups, industry executives to scientists, government spokesmen to eccentric crusaders, have all attacked rock vehemently with comments such as

    “It’s the jungle strain gets ’em all worked up”;

    it’s “one step from fascism”; and,

    “These deafening, dope-ridden, degenerate mob scenes have no more place in our America than would a publicly promoted gang rape.”

    Here is: Albert Goldman, writing in the New York Times in 1968, comparing Mick Jagger to Adolf Hitler. A 1981 university study concluding that prolonged exposure to disco music “causes homosexuality in mice and deafness in pigs.”

    Dr.John, a New York physician, writing in 1977 that rock music causes “a breakdown in the synchronization of the two sides of the brain.”

    Tipper Gore, the former Vice-President’s wife, co-chair of the Parents Music Resource Center and author of Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society, commenting on heavy metal lyrics: “I’m a fairly with-it person, but this stuff is curling my hair.”

    But maybe the most surprising criticism of R N’ R comes from an unexpected source: “Rock ‘n Roll is the most brutal, ugly, desperate, vicious form of expression it has been my misfortune to hear.” Frank Sinatra.

    So it is interesting to see modern day Communist China reflect the similar reactionary fears and censorship of subversive music that were seen in the USA in the 1960’s. This is really a feature of the evolution of society. America has been free from this for only 50 years and we all tend to forget our reactionary roots.

    If we can look objectively at societies, there are surprisingly close ties with opposing cultures. But because we are insular and inward looking, these similarities are not recognised, until the passing of time. As society develops we look back in horror and embarrassment at some of the fads and the quality of sound from earlier recordings of the less talented musicians.

    So this sort of ban in China is not something unusual. It is their equivalence of the response of the reactionaries of 1950’s / 1960’s America.

    What we are witnessing is “Normal” Social Evolution – Chinese Style and we should not look down on this.

    For only 50 years ago the same sort of thing was happening in the United States.

    1. The fact that Mick Jagger is still alive is a testament to livers everywhere. BTW, Joanne Lumley (a gay icon) does a great Mick Jagger routine on Ab Fab. Mick is at least bi.

  17. Believer,

    Brave New World – Aldous Huxley

    Hitler was named Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1936…he imposed sufficient discipline to make the “trains run on time” – then discipline became mortal.

    No more Mr. Nice Guy.

    America may try Trump’s version…but its disease is terminally “progressive.”

  18. Issac,

    It’s reassuring to know that you are there to tell us all what to do.

    What is the “conservative,” “republican” (original) or “freedom” version of “re-education camp?”

    You should be issued a pass, including forced busing.

Comments are closed.