> Yes, this is bad. It goes against human rights, freedom of speech, globalisation and many of the principles of the free world. I find it very interesting tha

> Yes, this is bad. It goes against human rights, freedom of speech, globalisation and many of the principles of the free world. I find it very interesting that you're putting the globalization in the same group as human rights and freedom of speech. > We know this because it is what the media is telling us everyday 24/7. No. We know it goes against freedom of speech by definition. We know it goes against human rights, because suppressing freedom of speech is one of the main ways to get away with violating human rights. We know being able to get away with violating human rights is bad, because we don't want that to happen to us. You don't need to blame media on what can be explained by reasoning and empathy. Media has enough to be blamed for already. > And there is no way that intelligent and decent Chinese people support this, right? Of course there is. History is full of intelligent and decent people supporting decisions that range from distasteful to downright horrific. Being intelligent has little to do with this kind of decision. "Decent", on the other hand, is hard to define and agree on. At best, it's a really low bar to clear. > Whoever that support such censorship which clearly violates the principles that we hold so dear must be uneducated and uninformed deplorables, right? That would obviously follow if your previous statement were correct. > Oh now I see that you are being sarcastic and I am offended, let me give you a lesson on freedom of speech by downvoting you. You seem to be under a false impression that freedom of speech means freedom of consequences. Just like freedom of speech doesn't protect you from legal consequences of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it won't protect you from the court of public opinion. I consider any downvotes to your comment rightfully earned, because it oversimplifies a very complex topic without adding anything to the discussion of it. Worse, the tone of it leads me to believe that it is meant to actively discourage discussion and disagreement.