3 ms·
There seems to be a hypocrisy with people upset about censorship on behalf of China, but don’t seem all that upset about censorship on behalf of the EU (eg RTBF
by cromwellian 8y ago
There seems to be a hypocrisy with people upset about censorship on behalf of China, but don’t seem all that upset about censorship on behalf of the EU (eg RTBF) or censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)
I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal respect for sovereignty.
Let’s face it, the core issue here isn’t free speech and censorship, it’s speech you like or censorship you like vs those you don’t.
- andybak 8y ago> censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech) It's not hypocrisy per se. We all agree that there are some limits to free speech (the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" springs to mind but feel free to substitute your own impossible-to-disagree-with example). Hypocrisy would imply there's an absolute principle at stake ("absolute free speech" vs "reasonable level of censorship") but nobody truly believes the former so we are all simply disagreeing about "reasonable" in the latter.
- JohnTHaller 8y agoYes, censoring hate speech and censoring any thought slightly critical of a repressive regime are exactly the same thing. /s
- cromwellian 8y agoFree speech is only valuable if it protects speech you don’t like including the worst most vile forms of it. In some societies, criticizing religion, parodying religious icons counts as bigotry and hate. American liberals used to be pretty united and in agreement with Voltaire but it seems things have changed.