6 ms·

If what you said is true, the communist party doesn’t need to suppress free speech of the Chinese people.

pphysch 5y ago
Call me an authoritarian, but I think it is okay to suppress "free speech" like "let's gather at this location on 9/11 to learn methods used by $VIOLENT_TERRORIST_GROUP" or "kill all $ETHNIC_GROUP". At least, I am not aware of a single government that allows such speech. Are you?
- hunterb123 5y ago
  I disagree with your premise, but that's not his point. His point was if it was the people's will, you wouldn't need authoritarianism.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    If you presume that hundreds of millions of people have a monolithic "will" i.e. they agree on pretty much every policy decision: 1) you might not need government at all and 2) you are living in a fantasy world
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      What percentage of people do you think are oppressed, censored, and forced then? The choices of the CCP are their choices by your own admission it can't be all the people. The people defending the CCP are either: 1) delusional 2) 50 cent shills
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  The US allows both of them......
  - pphysch 5y ago
    In theory, yes. In practice, no. Push too far and your "free speech" gets reclassified as something illegal. See: Jan 6 dissidents, Julian Assange, Aaron Swartz, et al.
    - lalaland1125 5y ago
      The January 6 people didn't get in trouble for speech. They disrupted the legislature during the middle of a vital transfer of power process.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        Exactly. Their free speech/protest was reclassified as something illegal.
        Manuel_D 5y ago
        No. The speech and protest was entirely legal. The overwhelming majority of people who protested on Jan 6. didn't invade the capitol building, and faced no legal repercussions. The ones that did get into trouble were the ones that broke into the Capitol building. Speech is legal, rioting is not. Put it more bluntly: it's fine to hold up a sign saying "meat is murder" and protest. It's not okay to break into abattoirs and trash them. Speech is legal, breaking and entering is not.
        pphysch 5y ago
        You realize the Chinese government makes this exact same argument about the recent Hong Kong riots, right?
        Manuel_D 5y ago
        Except in one of those, protesters weren't invading government buildings, they were assembled in an open square. And it wasn't just one rioter about to break into the house chamber that got shot, it was hundreds or even thousands of people gunned down. Drawing any sort of equivalency between these two events strikes me as extremely far fetched.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  The former is allowed as stated (learning is not prohibited, so long as it's not involving active violence) in the U.S., the latter is not as it involves a physical and imminent threat. But that's not an act of speech, that's an act of violence. Anyways, sure, you will find exceptions to any rule if you look hard enough or strain the definition hard enough. Not really particularly interesting though.

Call me an authoritarian, but I think it is okay to suppress "free speech" like "let's gather at this location on 9/11 to learn methods used by $VIOLENT_TERRORIST_GROUP" or "kill all $ETHNIC_GROUP". At least, I am not aware of a single government that allows such speech. Are you?

hunterb123 5y ago
I disagree with your premise, but that's not his point. His point was if it was the people's will, you wouldn't need authoritarianism.
- pphysch 5y ago
  If you presume that hundreds of millions of people have a monolithic "will" i.e. they agree on pretty much every policy decision: 1) you might not need government at all and 2) you are living in a fantasy world
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    What percentage of people do you think are oppressed, censored, and forced then? The choices of the CCP are their choices by your own admission it can't be all the people. The people defending the CCP are either: 1) delusional 2) 50 cent shills
tick_tock_tick 5y ago
The US allows both of them......
- pphysch 5y ago
  In theory, yes. In practice, no. Push too far and your "free speech" gets reclassified as something illegal. See: Jan 6 dissidents, Julian Assange, Aaron Swartz, et al.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    The January 6 people didn't get in trouble for speech. They disrupted the legislature during the middle of a vital transfer of power process.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      Exactly. Their free speech/protest was reclassified as something illegal.
      - Manuel_D 5y ago
        No. The speech and protest was entirely legal. The overwhelming majority of people who protested on Jan 6. didn't invade the capitol building, and faced no legal repercussions. The ones that did get into trouble were the ones that broke into the Capitol building. Speech is legal, rioting is not. Put it more bluntly: it's fine to hold up a sign saying "meat is murder" and protest. It's not okay to break into abattoirs and trash them. Speech is legal, breaking and entering is not.
        pphysch 5y ago
        You realize the Chinese government makes this exact same argument about the recent Hong Kong riots, right?
        Manuel_D 5y ago
        Except in one of those, protesters weren't invading government buildings, they were assembled in an open square. And it wasn't just one rioter about to break into the house chamber that got shot, it was hundreds or even thousands of people gunned down. Drawing any sort of equivalency between these two events strikes me as extremely far fetched.
chrisco255 5y ago
The former is allowed as stated (learning is not prohibited, so long as it's not involving active violence) in the U.S., the latter is not as it involves a physical and imminent threat. But that's not an act of speech, that's an act of violence. Anyways, sure, you will find exceptions to any rule if you look hard enough or strain the definition hard enough. Not really particularly interesting though.