3 ms·

What is not widely appreciated is that such laws are not necessary to silence expression or round up dissidents, because due process is so weak in these repress

What is not widely appreciated is that such laws are not necessary to silence expression or round up dissidents, because due process is so weak in these repressive regimes to begin with. Rather, these laws serve more to deflect criticism from foreign governments and human rights groups. Also, the law is often a tool of last resort. There are much more effective ways to silence expression and enforce conformity in these societies, such as fostering a culture of fear and of self-censorship. If you say or do the wrong thing, you shouldn't be surprised when well-connected individuals threaten your reputation and livelihood, or when they apply pressure on your friends and relatives to correct your errant behavior.

l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
A written or documented law is not the last resort, it is ultimate justification for execution of that law or process. The tools to carry out the law are: torture, imprisonment and death. Fear, censorship, and peer-pressure are merely side-effects.
justicezyx 10y ago
I don't think you can claim that, just because the enforcement is weak, they "are not necessary to silence expression or round up dissidents". Look at China, there are similar laws. If you just random rubble online, because the enforcement is weak, no one is hurt. But once a while, someone goes to jail because some inappropriate speech, etc. That effectively serve the same purpose.
- infodroid 10y ago
  By due process I am talking about the legal protections that individuals can expect in the system, not whether the laws are selectively applied. Before cyber-crime and counter-terrorism laws were passed in China, there were many documented cases of dissidents being jailed under vague laws and unrelated charges. Yet it was no secret their real crime was "inappropriate speech". So even if the enforcement of laws is arbitrary or politically motivated, it does not change the fact that such laws are not necessary to restrict speech.
  - justicezyx 10y ago
    > it does not change the fact that such laws are not necessary to restrict speech. It does. That's my whole point. It's not rare to see HN comments about Chinese citizens self-censor themselves. Those behaviors do have a causal relationship with such laws.

l3m0ndr0p 10y ago

A written or documented law is not the last resort, it is ultimate justification for execution of that law or process. The tools to carry out the law are: torture, imprisonment and death. Fear, censorship, and peer-pressure are merely side-effects.

justicezyx 10y ago

I don't think you can claim that, just because the enforcement is weak, they "are not necessary to silence expression or round up dissidents". Look at China, there are similar laws. If you just random rubble online, because the enforcement is weak, no one is hurt. But once a while, someone goes to jail because some inappropriate speech, etc. That effectively serve the same purpose.

infodroid 10y ago
By due process I am talking about the legal protections that individuals can expect in the system, not whether the laws are selectively applied. Before cyber-crime and counter-terrorism laws were passed in China, there were many documented cases of dissidents being jailed under vague laws and unrelated charges. Yet it was no secret their real crime was "inappropriate speech". So even if the enforcement of laws is arbitrary or politically motivated, it does not change the fact that such laws are not necessary to restrict speech.
- justicezyx 10y ago
  > it does not change the fact that such laws are not necessary to restrict speech. It does. That's my whole point. It's not rare to see HN comments about Chinese citizens self-censor themselves. Those behaviors do have a causal relationship with such laws.