4 ms·

The knee-jerk reaction, for many in the west, is to condemn this censorship as an invasion of privacy, or an unnecessary restriction on free speech, or an examp

by novum 17y ago

The knee-jerk reaction, for many in the west, is to condemn this censorship as an invasion of privacy, or an unnecessary restriction on free speech, or an example of the old phase "the tighter you grip, the more will slip through your fingers". The single biggest lesson I learned from a comparative cultures & ethics class at uni is that it is exceptionally, sometimes prohibitively difficult to analyze the ethical implications of policy in a foreign country. So many of the base assumptions that we take for granted in the US - freedom of speech, press, and assembly, for example - are not only less protected in China, but for many chinese citizens, these freedoms take a backseat to more pressing concerns like national pride and patriotism. If anything, "China's censorship is bad" is a phrase that, coming from a westerner, really doesn't carry much meaning at all.

tokenadult 17y ago
Having lived in east Asia, I have to disagree with the idea that the government censoring news media is without harmful effect. Restriction of free speech has the effect of keeping lousy governance lasting longer than it lasts in culturally similar places with more free speech. That, in turn, effects environmental pollution, rights of the accused in criminal trials (including show trials for political prisoners), the business climate for start-up investors, and even the availability of websites like this.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- bilbo0s 17y ago
  Is free speech restricted in the United States? Because we have had pretty lousy government the past 25 years or so. Culminating in the late financial system coup de grace. My point is that the issue of free speech does not seem to be related to the probability of having poor governance. And this is coming from a person who was a pretty big believer in free speech being a guarantor of good governance. On a related note, a story from Ningbo. This is a small place, about 2.5 million people south of Shanghai. If China has an Austin-Berkeley-Madison feel city, this is probably it. Anyway, the police chase down a guy for theft and the guy made a such a big stink about it that a crowd couldn't help but to watch. He protested, vehemently, that the police were brutalizing him. My Mandarin is good enough to understand that he also had some choice words about their collective character. Finally, he demanded to speak to his attorney. What struck me was this . . . the guy never said "there's about to be a gross miscarriage of justice!", or "You have the wrong man!", or "I didn't do it!" He said the police were brutal and he wanted his lawyer. That spoke volumes to me about the rights of the individual in China. It was my ah-hah! moment. I felt like the young Michael Corleone in the Godfather II. Realizing Fidel would win, after watching a confrontation in Havana between a group of rebels and Batista's army. The people of China will be fine. Maybe there are some wrinkles to iron out here or there, but if criminals feel free enough to cry "police brutality!" and "I want my lawyer!" when they get arrested, you're probably doing ok.
  - Nwallins 17y ago
    > My point is that the issue of free speech does not seem to be related to the probability of having poor governance. And this is coming from a person who was a pretty big believer in free speech being a guarantor of good governance. I think it is rather that: free speech is a check against bad governance.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
If you believe in universal human rights, then it isn't very difficult to analyze the ethical implications of policy. Simply analyze based on your universal principles.
- bored 17y ago
  'No censorship' doesn't sound like a universal human right at all.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Why not? (It sounds like one to me.)
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US? Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies. Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security. Freedom of Speech would be amazing if 90% of the things coming out of peoples mouths weren't complete crap or lies.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US? Yes, I think this should be allowed, and yes, I think libel laws censor free speech. Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. Actually, that's exactly what it means. What it doesn't mean is that other people are prevented from disliking you for your speech. If you make a habit out of publishing false claims about people, eventually nobody is going to care about your claims anymore. Newspapers may stop carrying your column or publishing your letters. This isn't a restriction on the freedom of speech, it's merely editing. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. Talking to me is not a crime. Me assaulting you is. Therefore, I'm confused as to why you'd expect this outcome. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies. Or I could just write an article with my side of the story. No need to involve the courts when we are both free to communicate. Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security. The courts have upheld our right to publish the location of the secret button. Remember the MIT students that hacked the Charlie Card? The order to prevent the students from explaining their methodology was overturned. (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.html http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.htm...) Also, so what if I am a "homosexual terrorist pedophile", anyway?
jerf 17y ago
I reject moral relativism. I have no problem saying "The government shouldn't be able to kill you and your family when you complain about them in public." As you might imagine, I'm rather familiar with the arguments in favor of moral relativism, but I can't quite seem to forget that they are, in part, an argument that it's ok for some governments to kill people who disagree with them, merely because they disagree with them. It makes me worry that perhaps someday they'll get around to telling me that now my government is one of the privileged governments. So, even if I'm perhaps stretching the truth about my private beliefs, in public, I'm going to stand up and say that free speech is a right of all humans without shame. (BTW, there's a number of subsets in here. I am aware that free speech is not the sum total of morality, for instance. Moreover, you'll find that my morality is permitted to be more complicated than you might think; an absolutist can freely incorporate relativism when desirable, whereas a true relativist can't let even one absolute in or the whole thing comes down and they are back on absolutist grounds. The moral question of "how much respect should be shown for elders?" is much more flexible than "can you murder someone for arbitrary reasons?".)
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  I don't think he's arguing in favor of moral relativism so much as saying that we need to remember when dealing with other cultures that they don't have the same set of expectations as us. One of the reasons we are so anti-censorship is because there is a strong tradition of anti-censorship in the US. As much as we like to think we are inherently moral, the truth is that a lot of it does stem from culture. This isn't to say that anti censorship isn't objectively good. Just that we don't necessarily support it merely because it is objectively good. So you may get weird responses when you transplant such a value to a culture that has thousands of years of history where the issue of censorship was never really important. When you say censorship is bad to another westerner you are signaling a value and you expect a certain response. Your communication is predicated on a shared set of connotations. If you forget that others might not share your connotations and forget to argue from the ground up you might run into problems.
  - endtime 17y ago
    >As much as we like to think we are inherently moral, the truth is that a lot of it does stem from culture. These aren't exclusive. You're both right. Moral norms are influenced by culture, but that doesn't mean that some cultures can't have moral norms closer to an absolute morality.
jongraehl 17y ago
That may be what they told you at university, but censorship is in fact bad.

by novum 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago

Having lived in east Asia, I have to disagree with the idea that the government censoring news media is without harmful effect. Restriction of free speech has the effect of keeping lousy governance lasting longer than it lasts in culturally similar places with more free speech. That, in turn, effects environmental pollution, rights of the accused in criminal trials (including show trials for political prisoners), the business climate for start-up investors, and even the availability of websites like this.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
bilbo0s 17y ago
Is free speech restricted in the United States? Because we have had pretty lousy government the past 25 years or so. Culminating in the late financial system coup de grace. My point is that the issue of free speech does not seem to be related to the probability of having poor governance. And this is coming from a person who was a pretty big believer in free speech being a guarantor of good governance. On a related note, a story from Ningbo. This is a small place, about 2.5 million people south of Shanghai. If China has an Austin-Berkeley-Madison feel city, this is probably it. Anyway, the police chase down a guy for theft and the guy made a such a big stink about it that a crowd couldn't help but to watch. He protested, vehemently, that the police were brutalizing him. My Mandarin is good enough to understand that he also had some choice words about their collective character. Finally, he demanded to speak to his attorney. What struck me was this . . . the guy never said "there's about to be a gross miscarriage of justice!", or "You have the wrong man!", or "I didn't do it!" He said the police were brutal and he wanted his lawyer. That spoke volumes to me about the rights of the individual in China. It was my ah-hah! moment. I felt like the young Michael Corleone in the Godfather II. Realizing Fidel would win, after watching a confrontation in Havana between a group of rebels and Batista's army. The people of China will be fine. Maybe there are some wrinkles to iron out here or there, but if criminals feel free enough to cry "police brutality!" and "I want my lawyer!" when they get arrested, you're probably doing ok.
- Nwallins 17y ago
  > My point is that the issue of free speech does not seem to be related to the probability of having poor governance. And this is coming from a person who was a pretty big believer in free speech being a guarantor of good governance. I think it is rather that: free speech is a check against bad governance.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

If you believe in universal human rights, then it isn't very difficult to analyze the ethical implications of policy. Simply analyze based on your universal principles.

bored 17y ago
'No censorship' doesn't sound like a universal human right at all.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Why not? (It sounds like one to me.)
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US? Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies. Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security. Freedom of Speech would be amazing if 90% of the things coming out of peoples mouths weren't complete crap or lies.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Okay, how about I go to a newspaper and print an article saying that you're a 'homosexual, terrorist pedophile' with a nice big picture of you next to it. Do you want this to be allowed? Or do you agree with the libel laws that censor free speech in the US? Yes, I think this should be allowed, and yes, I think libel laws censor free speech. Everyone has the freedom of speech, anywhere in the world. However, it doesn't mean you're not going to be punished for what you say. Actually, that's exactly what it means. What it doesn't mean is that other people are prevented from disliking you for your speech. If you make a habit out of publishing false claims about people, eventually nobody is going to care about your claims anymore. Newspapers may stop carrying your column or publishing your letters. This isn't a restriction on the freedom of speech, it's merely editing. If I called you a homosexual, terrorist pedophile to your face, I'd probably be expecting you to punch me in the face to shut me up. Talking to me is not a crime. Me assaulting you is. Therefore, I'm confused as to why you'd expect this outcome. If I posted it in a newspaper, I'd expect you to sue me and the newspaper to silence my outright lies. Or I could just write an article with my side of the story. No need to involve the courts when we are both free to communicate. Now I question everyone; if there was a button somewhere in the continental US that would destroy New York, do I have the right to publish its location or should the US government have the right to silence me? Because the justification that they're saving lives is why people can be silenced for national security. The courts have upheld our right to publish the location of the secret button. Remember the MIT students that hacked the Charlie Card? The order to prevent the students from explaining their methodology was overturned. (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.html http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/eff-clobbers-boston.htm...) Also, so what if I am a "homosexual terrorist pedophile", anyway?

jerf 17y ago

I reject moral relativism. I have no problem saying "The government shouldn't be able to kill you and your family when you complain about them in public." As you might imagine, I'm rather familiar with the arguments in favor of moral relativism, but I can't quite seem to forget that they are, in part, an argument that it's ok for some governments to kill people who disagree with them, merely because they disagree with them. It makes me worry that perhaps someday they'll get around to telling me that now my government is one of the privileged governments. So, even if I'm perhaps stretching the truth about my private beliefs, in public, I'm going to stand up and say that free speech is a right of all humans without shame. (BTW, there's a number of subsets in here. I am aware that free speech is not the sum total of morality, for instance. Moreover, you'll find that my morality is permitted to be more complicated than you might think; an absolutist can freely incorporate relativism when desirable, whereas a true relativist can't let even one absolute in or the whole thing comes down and they are back on absolutist grounds. The moral question of "how much respect should be shown for elders?" is much more flexible than "can you murder someone for arbitrary reasons?".)

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
I don't think he's arguing in favor of moral relativism so much as saying that we need to remember when dealing with other cultures that they don't have the same set of expectations as us. One of the reasons we are so anti-censorship is because there is a strong tradition of anti-censorship in the US. As much as we like to think we are inherently moral, the truth is that a lot of it does stem from culture. This isn't to say that anti censorship isn't objectively good. Just that we don't necessarily support it merely because it is objectively good. So you may get weird responses when you transplant such a value to a culture that has thousands of years of history where the issue of censorship was never really important. When you say censorship is bad to another westerner you are signaling a value and you expect a certain response. Your communication is predicated on a shared set of connotations. If you forget that others might not share your connotations and forget to argue from the ground up you might run into problems.
- endtime 17y ago
  >As much as we like to think we are inherently moral, the truth is that a lot of it does stem from culture. These aren't exclusive. You're both right. Moral norms are influenced by culture, but that doesn't mean that some cultures can't have moral norms closer to an absolute morality.

jongraehl 17y ago

That may be what they told you at university, but censorship is in fact bad.