4 ms·
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, t
by 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 agoBy 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.