Nice post – I’d just like to add a bit of historical perspective.

The so-called Great Firewall, and all other forms of electronic censorship, were preceded by postal censorship, which works almost exactly the same by placing some form of control over the distribution, not the publication, of a specific publication. The Qing government used the modern Post Office, founded in 1896, to place postal bans on “seditious” newspapers and magazines – the first postal ban was against the China National Gazette (國民日日報), a successor to the Subao (蘇報), founded during the latter’s famous Mixed Court trial in the International Settlement. After 1903, the Qing, warlord, and Nationalist governments all used postal bans against seditious publications – both printed in Chinese and foreign languages. Some of these postal bans, especially against Communist publications, were permanent while others against commercial and foreign-language newspapers were usually temporary. Starting in 1927, during the Northern Expedition, the Nationalist Party convinced the foreign-controlled Chinese Post Office (the most powerful postal official was French), to start placing postal bans on settler newspapers (e.g. North China Daily, North China Star, Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury, Central China Post, Shanghai Nichi Nichi Shimbun, etc.). In accordance with Chinese censorship laws and regulations there was no need to notify the publishers of the reasons they were banned. The editors of these foreign-language newspapers, once they figured out they were being banned, continued to publish in the International Settlement and mobilized discourses against the Nationalist authorities emphasizing the Nationalists’ personalist and corrupt censorship practices, especially their “failure” to publically disclose why a specific publication was banned. There certainly seem to be echoes of these discourses in the way that many people talk about the Great Firewall.

Among the various purposes of temporary postal bans, the two most important were a form of economic punishment attempting to deprive the newspapers of subscription and advertising revenues and, secondly, as an attempt to forcefully persuade the editors to alter their editorial lines. For example, the National Government banned the magazine Oriental Affairs in 1934 for advocating the recognition of Manzhouguo. If the editor, H. G. W. Woodhead, wanted his postal privileges reinstated, he would have to refrain from writing such “seditious” editorials.

Suffice it to say, the Great Firewall seems to serve many of the same functions as postal bans. While it is possible the New York Times was mistakenly blocked for four days, the more likely explanation is that the Chinese government was sending the editor of the Times a message about the content of their stories on China. If the Times wants access to the China media marketplace, then they’ll have to refrain from certain forms of expression, especially criticisms of the government and Party. What seems especially confusing to foreigners is the so-called “unevenness” of Chinese censorship – some critical articles are restricted while others circulate unmolested. As in the Republican era, the purpose of Chinese censorship is not to prohibit the circulation of all criticisms, but only those at particularly sensitive moments for specific reasons, which we probably won’t understand until the archives of SARFT are opened in the distant future. It is probable that some official within the government deemed the International Herald Tribune article on China’s impeding economic problems to be cause enough for the ban. Precisely because China is having economic problems, and everyone knows it, is why the government would prefer it not be discussed within the public sphere.

As for the idea that the government makes “mistakes” in its censorship…this is a common theme in Republican era censorship as well. Foreign editors in the 1920s and 1930s, after being banned, constantly reiterated their “objectively” and “fairness” assuming that some “mistake” must have occured within the government to cause a ban against their “blameless” publications. Generally speaking, from the government’s perspective there are few such mistakes while from the editor’s perspective all bans are a mistake.