8 ms·

It's a weird day when I find myself agreeing with Marco Rubio. But it's true, China is effectively attempting a global chill on free speech by gating market acc

• SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  The west employs this tactic too but calls it a sanction or embargo.
  • MBCook 7y ago
    Can you give an example of free speech being quieted? We push political issues that way, but I’m not aware of censorship being the trigger.
    • john_moscow 7y ago
      The most well-known one would be James Damore being fired from Google for criticizing the corporate diversity policies [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
      • MBCook 7y ago
        I was expecting an example of the west punishing another government (or companies in another country) for free speech. Google wasn’t censored by a government. That was a decision they decided to make (whatever you think of it, I don’t want to start a relitigation of that mess).
      • AaronFriel 7y ago
        I too remember when a member of congress and a cabinet member both urged Google to fire someone because their comments had hurt the feelings of the American people. No, actually I don't think that's a comparable situation.
      • michannne 7y ago
        While I agree that Damore's termination was an attempt to punish him for the views he had, I wouldn't put it anywhere in the same class as we are seeing with Chinese censorship. This is an entire country, a state government, deciding what people of other countries should be allowed to say, it is on par with Muslim views on comedic interpretations of Mohammed, and is likely to entice violence in much the same way.
        • celticmusic 7y ago
          The poster was asked to give an example of free speech being quieted, and gave an example of exactly that.
          • michannne 7y ago
            Damore was not quieted though. He was punished, but not quieted, as a matter of fact the controversy surrounding his termination bolstered his audience even further, and from the get go, he was never restricted on what he could or could not say by anyone.
            • celticmusic 7y ago
              And blizzard/China didn't "quiet" either, they just "punished". Because apparently it's not quieting if you've punished someone for saying something. and now let me go grab my eyeballs off the floor because they just rolled out of my head.
              • deleted 7y ago
                [deleted]
              • balls187 7y ago
                The topic thread was in response to the assertion that the "West" engages in suppressing dissent by censoring political speech in a manner that parallels what is happening with China. The example given does not come close to that, but is an example of someone being censored. In the US at least, censorship is typically brought on by pressure from sponsors and advertisers in response to public outcry. In the US, The Freedom of Speech is heavily protected against government interference.
      • balls187 7y ago
        James Damore was fired by internal pressure inside Google, not pressure from the US government. The US Sanctions and Embargos based on lawful use of economical policies as set forth by constitutional powers granted to the Executive Branch. US Legislative and Executive branches attempts to censor free speech would almost certainly be challenged in court, as the right to free speech, and peacably assemble is one of the founding principles of the US.
        • bduerst 7y ago
          Damore was fired for perpetuating gender stereotypes - even he confirmed as much with the press. Ironically enough, you can find that information and the memo through a quick Google search.
      • RangerScience 7y ago
        No, because: 1) Was not done through pressure from a government 2) Was not done to silence JD 3) Just because you have an opposing view does not mean you are being critical But, you presented your case respectfully, so I don't think this should be downvoted.
        • john_moscow 7y ago
          Ironically, my example of what gets censored in the West, including a Wikipedia link, got, well, censored on HN (as in not visible for the majority of readers). Although yes, it doesn't come from the government, it's our society that is becoming less and less tolerant to points of view outside the accepted ideology.
    • acollins1331 7y ago
      How about the president of the United States demanding that pro sports players be fired for not standing for the anthem?
      • _-david-_ 7y ago
        The president can say anything he wants and nobody will be fired or jailed for not standing. If China bans stuff they can jail people for doing watching stuff.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • falcolas 7y ago
    China is targeting individual speech, sanctions and embargos target governments and governmental policy. There's a bit of a difference there. That said, I think that China's efforts - by using companies as their proxies - are being much more effective.
    • intopieces 7y ago
      >are being much more effective Absolutely. They’re beating us at our own game and revealing that American values were never freedom and democracy - those are just ways we think are good to make money. If a better system comes along we’re the first to jump on it.
      • christophilus 7y ago
        > revealing that American values were never freedom and democracy Dunno about you, but I draw the opposite conclusion. The reaction so far has made it clear that a lot of Americans value freedom and democracy, and that they see these corporate actions as unacceptable.
        • vernie 7y ago
          I'm going to give it another week before drawing any conclusions. Chances are people will just move on to the next outrage of the moment.
        • SomeOldThrow 7y ago
          The media is doing all the reacting. Where are you getting this pulse from?
      • michannne 7y ago
        How does censorship reveal that our values were never freedom and democracy? If anything, it shows just how well freedom and democracy works in America despite how many conflicting ideologies exist in our nation, compared to any other country.
      • jknoepfler 7y ago
  • jknoepfler 7y ago
    No, it doesn't. Let's take an actual country rather than something vacuous like "The West". To start a company in the United States (for example), you do not need "an American business partner" controlled by the federal government of the United States. The fate of your company is not tied 100% to the approval or disapproval of that business partner's actions, which in the case of China are vigorously and actively policed. Whatever your political views, and in particular whatever you twit, or facebork, or say on camera, you will not be denied the right to do business in the United States of America. If you could get an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal suggesting that Western Capitalism is corrupt, Marx was the one true prophet, Emperor Norton was the legitimate sovereign ruler of the United States, and frankly you think the ideal government is a blend of Iran and North Korea (two countries which the United States does embargo), you might have to deal with some weird fallout from public reaction, but you'd still be in business. Furthermore the editor of the Wall Street Journal who published your editorial might suffer some backlash for the utterly weird thing they chose to publish, but they would not be fined or imprisoned or tortured or executed by any state-run apparatus (as they would in China). Embargoes are the exception, not the rule, and they are not used as a means to enforce political speech. It'll be a cold day in hell before I try to defend the foreign policy tactics of the United States, but to pretend that a business embargo on a select few countries constitutes something on the order of the Chinese stranglehold on business in their country is just false.
    • NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      > suggesting that Western Capitalism is corrupt, Marx was the one true prophet ... but you'd still be in business. I wonder how that would have gone at the height of McCarthyism.
      • nobodyandproud 7y ago
        I wonder how long McCarthyism lasted. I also wonder how long the CCP has been in power for.
      • jknoepfler 7y ago
        Make an argument, don't be intellectually lazy. How do you think it would have gone? Spitballing some historical fiction for the admittedly bizarre editorial? There would have been a public hue and cry. The editor who published the opinion piece would have lost their job, heads would have rolled (figuratively, not literally) in the WSJ editorial board. The person who wrote the editorial would have had a bad time in the public sphere (they still would). The author of the editorial would almost certainly not have gone to jail or been arrested, tortured, or executed, nor would they have lost their property or business, nor would their family. Nor would the editor who published the editorial. If the author had been a government employee, they probably would have lost their job. If they were a high-profile public persona (an actor, for example), they probably would have been blacklisted. But to be clear, that would be the worst of it - even during an extraordinary period of paranoia and fear. If you believe otherwise, dig up some historical precedent to support the argument. For the record: I do not think the United States of America is a just country in many regards, but if you're going to complain about injustice, at least get the facts straight. (Edit: I'm just so puzzled by the bizarre false equivalence on this issue. It's like suggesting that Norway and the United States have the same track record on public healthcare because the Norwegian state health plan stopped covering acupuncture from 1985-1990 (imaginary example). They don't have the same track record, it's not close, slapping some words together on the internet doesn't make it so.)
• yellow_lead 7y ago
  Noticing this a lot more recently with the NBA controversy too.
  • Analemma_ 7y ago
    The NBA at least seems to be walking back their initial condemnation of Morey's comments, China be damned: [0]. We should give them credit for that. Conversely, there's been radio silence from Blizzard so far. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/sports/adam-silver-nba-china-hong-kong.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/sports/adam-silver-nba-ch...
    • f-securus 7y ago
      But they ejected fans that had HK posters?
      • sp332 7y ago
        Things are moving pretty fast. Silver came out on the side of free speech, as far as I can see, just a few hours before the fan was ejected for yelling "Free Hong Kong". It's possible that the Philadelphia officials thought they were following the league's lead even if the NBA's official stance had changed.
        • jessaustin 7y ago
          Someone else should probably try it. Then again, NBA tickets are expensive... maybe something to try in the fourth quarter?
      • Rebelgecko 7y ago
        It'll be interesting to see what happens at the next Laker home game. Someone raised like $40k on GoFundMe to hand out pro-HK shirts
      • 556343throwaway 7y ago
        Because those fans were causing a disruption, not because of their message.
• SilasX 7y ago
  Where are the usual geniuses that feel obligated to explain to us that this doesn't violate the First Amendment, with the subtle implication that we therefore shouldn't care about it?
  • sixstringtheory 7y ago
    I'm not sure the Venn diagram overlaps in the way you think it does. If someone points out to you that someone getting fired from their company for something they said is not a government infringement of free speech, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't think it's an important event. Just that the government didn't and maybe can't have anything to do with it. You have to know what direction you're pointed in to start talking about making a difference. In this particular situation, I'd say: - China is wrong to suppress free expression of HKers, and furthermore I believe it's incumbent upon HKers to assert their, as I see it through the lens of my culture, natural born right to that expression. - Blizzard and the NBA are wrong to discourage the expression of its employees or associates on this particular matter (supporting another culture asserting values like our own), but those harmed do not have the same recourse as a citizen would against their government (with the obvious exceptions of protected classes, which I'm not sure applies here, IANAL). There is only market recourse, aka boycott⁎, or potentially government regulation to protect political speech in the workplace (not sure if that already exists, but it sounds like a dangerous path to me as all kinds of wacky shit could be claimed to be political). ⁎ It strikes me that an embargo or sanction is a kind of political boycott, is that what you'd like to see? Because I'm not outright opposed to a government curtailing business with other governments that refuse to share foundational values. But this is a tricky road too because it basically leads to the kinds of debates like those made to refuse service to PoC or LGBT communities. In the US we have the SCOTUS to help decide those questions, what is the global analogue?
  • COGlory 7y ago
    I appreciate the sentiment, but surely there's a less inflammatory way to make this point?
• tempsy 7y ago
  Something tells me this will end with Apple in the middle. Can't think of a company more exposed to both China and the US.
  • ciabattabread 7y ago
    Apple’s rainy day fund will come in real handy.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • briffle 7y ago
    You mean that company that is all about privacy, and refuses to help the US government access phones of domestic terrorism incidents, but moves all china iCloud storage (and keys) to another company based in China? Apple has tried very hard to appease both sides, and if they suffer for it, it's their own fault.
• point78 7y ago
  Almost all Americans can agree on freedom of speech.
  • rayiner 7y ago
    Not recently.
    • enraged_camel 7y ago
      That's because most people don't understand that "freedom of speech" and "free speech", while related concepts, are actually different. Freedom of speech is what the US Constitution guarantees. It says the government cannot limit people's ability to speak their mind, and cannot punish people for speaking their mind. Note that it says nothing about what private entities can do, especially on platforms they own and operate. "Free speech", as exercised nowadays (mostly) by conservatives who complain about being "silenced", is the (in my opinion ridiculous) idea that one should be able to say anything they want without any consequences whatsoever, and that they are entitled to any platform they choose to spread that message. These are the same people who advocate for a "marketplace of ideas", but get bent out of shape when that marketplace reacts negatively to their opinions. In my opinion, we need to rid ourselves of the idea that all ideas are equally valid and deserve equal amounts of airtime and consideration. Furthermore, it is okay to completely dismiss certain ideas on their total lack of merit, and furthermore take (private) action to prevent their spread. For example if I post on this site that "all people of <insert ethnicity> need to be exterminated" it would be completely okay for others here to downvote/flag my post (i.e. "censorship") and for HN to ban me (i.e. "de-platforming").
      • rayiner 7y ago
        I’m not referring to the concept that there shouldn’t be social repercussions for speech people find distasteful. Of course there should be—shaming and ostracism are powerful tools for enforcing morality, deeper and more fundamental than law. I’m talking about folks using “speech is violence” as a pretext for regulating speech through the government. (This tends to come to a head in the campus context, because when public colleges “deplatform” people, that is government action subject to the first amendment.) Conservatives tried this too, recruiting the aid of the government to fight against obscenity, Communism, etc. And they lost that battle in the end.
• ycombonator 7y ago
  It’s not weird to agree on individual policies and disagree where you don’t. Thank God for America where this still can happen.