back
21 comments
The knee-jerk reaction, for many in the west, is to condemn this censorship as an invasion of privacy, or an unnecessary restriction on free speech, or an example of the old phase "the tighter you grip, the more will slip through your fingers".

The single biggest lesson I learned from a comparative cultures & ethics class at uni is that it is exceptionally, sometimes prohibitively difficult to analyze the ethical implications of policy in a foreign country. So many of the base assumptions that we take for granted in the US - freedom of speech, press, and assembly, for example - are not only less protected in China, but for many chinese citizens, these freedoms take a backseat to more pressing concerns like national pride and patriotism.

If anything, "China's censorship is bad" is a phrase that, coming from a westerner, really doesn't carry much meaning at all.

I reject moral relativism. I have no problem saying "The government shouldn't be able to kill you and your family when you complain about them in public."

As you might imagine, I'm rather familiar with the arguments in favor of moral relativism, but I can't quite seem to forget that they are, in part, an argument that it's ok for some governments to kill people who disagree with them, merely because they disagree with them. It makes me worry that perhaps someday they'll get around to telling me that now my government is one of the privileged governments.

So, even if I'm perhaps stretching the truth about my private beliefs, in public, I'm going to stand up and say that free speech is a right of all humans without shame.

(BTW, there's a number of subsets in here. I am aware that free speech is not the sum total of morality, for instance. Moreover, you'll find that my morality is permitted to be more complicated than you might think; an absolutist can freely incorporate relativism when desirable, whereas a true relativist can't let even one absolute in or the whole thing comes down and they are back on absolutist grounds. The moral question of "how much respect should be shown for elders?" is much more flexible than "can you murder someone for arbitrary reasons?".)

I don't think he's arguing in favor of moral relativism so much as saying that we need to remember when dealing with other cultures that they don't have the same set of expectations as us. One of the reasons we are so anti-censorship is because there is a strong tradition of anti-censorship in the US. As much as we like to think we are inherently moral, the truth is that a lot of it does stem from culture. This isn't to say that anti censorship isn't objectively good. Just that we don't necessarily support it merely because it is objectively good.

So you may get weird responses when you transplant such a value to a culture that has thousands of years of history where the issue of censorship was never really important. When you say censorship is bad to another westerner you are signaling a value and you expect a certain response. Your communication is predicated on a shared set of connotations. If you forget that others might not share your connotations and forget to argue from the ground up you might run into problems.

>As much as we like to think we are inherently moral, the truth is that a lot of it does stem from culture.

These aren't exclusive. You're both right. Moral norms are influenced by culture, but that doesn't mean that some cultures can't have moral norms closer to an absolute morality.

Having lived in east Asia, I have to disagree with the idea that the government censoring news media is without harmful effect. Restriction of free speech has the effect of keeping lousy governance lasting longer than it lasts in culturally similar places with more free speech. That, in turn, effects environmental pollution, rights of the accused in criminal trials (including show trials for political prisoners), the business climate for start-up investors, and even the availability of websites like this.
Is free speech restricted in the United States?

Because we have had pretty lousy government the past 25 years or so. Culminating in the late financial system coup de grace.

My point is that the issue of free speech does not seem to be related to the probability of having poor governance. And this is coming from a person who was a pretty big believer in free speech being a guarantor of good governance.

On a related note, a story from Ningbo. This is a small place, about 2.5 million people south of Shanghai. If China has an Austin-Berkeley-Madison feel city, this is probably it. Anyway, the police chase down a guy for theft and the guy made a such a big stink about it that a crowd couldn't help but to watch. He protested, vehemently, that the police were brutalizing him. My Mandarin is good enough to understand that he also had some choice words about their collective character. Finally, he demanded to speak to his attorney. What struck me was this . . . the guy never said "there's about to be a gross miscarriage of justice!", or "You have the wrong man!", or "I didn't do it!" He said the police were brutal and he wanted his lawyer. That spoke volumes to me about the rights of the individual in China. It was my ah-hah! moment. I felt like the young Michael Corleone in the Godfather II. Realizing Fidel would win, after watching a confrontation in Havana between a group of rebels and Batista's army. The people of China will be fine. Maybe there are some wrinkles to iron out here or there, but if criminals feel free enough to cry "police brutality!" and "I want my lawyer!" when they get arrested, you're probably doing ok.

> My point is that the issue of free speech does not seem to be related to the probability of having poor governance. And this is coming from a person who was a pretty big believer in free speech being a guarantor of good governance.

I think it is rather that: free speech is a check against bad governance.

If you believe in universal human rights, then it isn't very difficult to analyze the ethical implications of policy. Simply analyze based on your universal principles.
'No censorship' doesn't sound like a universal human right at all.
So if free speech is not a universal human right, then which humans (if any) deserve this right? Only Americans?

I'm also curious if Chinese people living in America deserve this right. Could you lay out, in broad strokes, which groups of people deserve which packages of rights?

I agree that free speech is a human right, for some definition of free speech.

I don't agree that "no censorship" is a human right. If NBC wants to start running a special on how Jews are Satan's children, then I want the FCC to censor them. You don't have the right to say whatever you want on your government granted airwave monopoly.

As for bored's comment, it is an obvious exclusion of the middle. Saying "China's censorship is bad" is not at all the same as saying "no censorship is a universal human right."

NBC is a company. Free speech is a human right.
> NBC is a company. Free speech is a human right.

I don't quite see what you're saying. For instance, free speech gives companies the right to publish books that criticize the government.

If you are saying that all individuals should be free to say whatever they want, then I assure you that your views are extreme. Do you believe that everyone has the right to put up billboards covered in child pornography?

Since when was free speech a recognized right? There's restrictions on it in every country on the planet. We in the west are lucky that we're allowed to say a lot without restriction, but we hardly have free speech.

Other peoples rights are always more important than my own, that's recognized in every country regardless of political affiliation. I can't libel or defame someone even though I have a right to freedom of speech, and I can't threaten the stability of my country as it may endanger peoples lives, which is why there's national security laws that can put strangle holds on newspapers and essentially anyone.

People respond to the Chinese banning things like its inhumane. I'm sorry, but China has a notorious history of political instability, only two times in history has it not been in Civil War. That is right now, and when it was invaded and conquered by the Mongols.

In less than 2 years China's raised the average household income by approximately 20% or $1,000, which is phenomenal. They have low unemployment for a third world country, inline with standards aimed for by western countries, usually below 11% is seen as good and China has an average of 9%.

China is managing to keep a greater percentage of its citizens above the poverty line than the US, despite it being a slightly smaller country with four times the citizens. So please, perhaps question the restrictions placed on speech in your own country, before you condemn the restrictions placed in another country, with a different culture, different circumstances and a very different history.

You question who deserves this right, however perhaps you should be questioning if we as westerners deserve this right, when people without this 'right' are treating their poor better than us.

Way to misinterpret. I'm not questioning who deserves the right to free speech, I believe all humans do. I'm simply asking those who don't believe it is a universal right to explain who deserves it and who does not.

As for one of your other (tangential and irrelevant) points, it is just so wrong I can't even begin to understand where you would get such a mistaken idea.

China is managing to keep a greater percentage of its citizens above the poverty line than the US, despite it being a slightly smaller country with four times the citizens.

That's because the chinese poverty line is lower than the american one ($1.25/day vs $28/day).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

In fact, the GDP per capita (PPP adjusted) in China is below the American poverty line ($6100 vs $10400).

Why not? (It sounds like one to me.)
Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US?

Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies.

Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security.

Freedom of Speech would be amazing if 90% of the things coming out of peoples mouths weren't complete crap or lies.

Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US?

Yes, I think this should be allowed, and yes, I think libel laws censor free speech.

Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. What it doesn't mean is that other people are prevented from disliking you for your speech. If you make a habit out of publishing false claims about people, eventually nobody is going to care about your claims anymore. Newspapers may stop carrying your column or publishing your letters. This isn't a restriction on the freedom of speech, it's merely editing.

If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up.

Talking to me is not a crime. Me assaulting you is. Therefore, I'm confused as to why you'd expect this outcome.

If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies.

Or I could just write an article with my side of the story. No need to involve the courts when we are both free to communicate.

Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security.

The courts have upheld our right to publish the location of the secret button. Remember the MIT students that hacked the Charlie Card? The order to prevent the students from explaining their methodology was overturned. (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.htm...)

Also, so what if I am a "homosexual terrorist pedophile", anyway?

That may be what they told you at university, but censorship is in fact bad.