4 ms·

It's not like the USA has ever had unlimited free speech; it's still illegal to shout 'fire' in a crowded building or make certain kinds of threats (generally t

It's not like the USA has ever had unlimited free speech; it's still illegal to shout 'fire' in a crowded building or make certain kinds of threats (generally the specific kind.) China thinks it should be illegal to say something that threatens the stability of the governing party as an institution, so they control information more heavily. But it's not yet clear what they've proven in the past 60-odd years. Remember that their centralized system did also lead to things like the 'Great Leap Forward'... People still call the 250-year-old USA an experiment, and apparently it still has some surprises up its sleeve. So what does that make the upstart PRC? Certainly not a bedrock reaching back to Neo-Confuscionism and beyond.

dalbasal 9y ago
There’s a difference between recognising a fundamental right and not recognising it at all in my opinion. China breaks from the “norm” drastically in a lot of ways. It doesn’t recognise the right of the public to elect officials, for example. There are lost of countries with flawed/fake democracies but most have democratic constitutions, officially. China is different. 20-30 years ago, liberal democracy was the only game in town. All new states formed on this basis. None of the ex-soviet states opted for official one-party constitutions, because it wasn’t one of the options. There are many one party states, in practice. They don’t make it official. For example Egypt & Syria (also Iraq & Libya, formerly) have been one-party republics for 3 generations. Officially, they’re democracies because it was considered the only legitimate way. They rely on fake elections, emergency laws or some other theatre to get around their own official norms. My point is that if arab revolutions of the 60s or post soviet revolutions of the 90s had happened today, they may have opted for the “Chinese Model” instead. But, constitutions aren’t written every day. Laws are. Regulations are written every minute. I’m trying not to be normative or negative about China. Just noting that China as an example, has an impact. It’s now a superpower and acts as a role model. A moderate position on internet censorship is now someplace between “uncensored” and “china.” Anything in between is within the “normal” range.
- gwenzek 9y ago
  > My point is that if arab revolutions of the 60s or post soviet revolutions of the 90s had happened today, they may have opted for the “Chinese Model” instead. What about Arab spring of 2011? They still tried to setup a democracy afterwards. One of the motive for those revolution where abuse of power by the governments and by the police. This things are hard to deal with if you don't recognize a number of rights to your citizens.
Stranger43 9y ago
The Brandenburg ruling was never about anybody shouting fire in a crowded building but about a left wing newspaper encouraging people to protest the draft by non-violent civil disobedience rendering the US constitution effectively one of the weakest on free speech of any western nation.
davemp 9y ago
> make certain kinds of threats (generally the specific kind.) It is very hard to prosecute someone based on threats. You have to be able to prove intent to follow through.
opo 9y ago
>...It's still illegal to shout 'fire' in a crowded building I don't think so: >..."shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own. http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...

dalbasal 9y ago

There’s a difference between recognising a fundamental right and not recognising it at all in my opinion. China breaks from the “norm” drastically in a lot of ways. It doesn’t recognise the right of the public to elect officials, for example. There are lost of countries with flawed/fake democracies but most have democratic constitutions, officially. China is different. 20-30 years ago, liberal democracy was the only game in town. All new states formed on this basis. None of the ex-soviet states opted for official one-party constitutions, because it wasn’t one of the options. There are many one party states, in practice. They don’t make it official. For example Egypt & Syria (also Iraq & Libya, formerly) have been one-party republics for 3 generations. Officially, they’re democracies because it was considered the only legitimate way. They rely on fake elections, emergency laws or some other theatre to get around their own official norms. My point is that if arab revolutions of the 60s or post soviet revolutions of the 90s had happened today, they may have opted for the “Chinese Model” instead. But, constitutions aren’t written every day. Laws are. Regulations are written every minute. I’m trying not to be normative or negative about China. Just noting that China as an example, has an impact. It’s now a superpower and acts as a role model. A moderate position on internet censorship is now someplace between “uncensored” and “china.” Anything in between is within the “normal” range.

gwenzek 9y ago
> My point is that if arab revolutions of the 60s or post soviet revolutions of the 90s had happened today, they may have opted for the “Chinese Model” instead. What about Arab spring of 2011? They still tried to setup a democracy afterwards. One of the motive for those revolution where abuse of power by the governments and by the police. This things are hard to deal with if you don't recognize a number of rights to your citizens.

Stranger43 9y ago

The Brandenburg ruling was never about anybody shouting fire in a crowded building but about a left wing newspaper encouraging people to protest the draft by non-violent civil disobedience rendering the US constitution effectively one of the weakest on free speech of any western nation.

davemp 9y ago

> make certain kinds of threats (generally the specific kind.) It is very hard to prosecute someone based on threats. You have to be able to prove intent to follow through.

opo 9y ago

>...It's still illegal to shout 'fire' in a crowded building I don't think so: >..."shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own. http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...