3 ms·

Most people here will tell you without hesitation the Chinese government is doing the same thing, and worse. It's common knowledge that Chinese aren't number on

Most people here will tell you without hesitation the Chinese government is doing the same thing, and worse. It's common knowledge that Chinese aren't number one when it comes to human rights. It's an interesting comment though because it reminds us we tend to be more suspicious with other governments than ours. Most americans don't see NSA activities as an issue. After all, they're the "good guys".

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- schoen 12y ago
  The PRC also has a written Constitution which includes provisions guaranteeing freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association (article 34), protection against unlawful arrest or unlawful search (articles 37 and 39), privacy of correspondence (article 40), and other many other important civil liberties. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Chapter_II._The_Fundamental_Rights_And_Duties_Of_Citizens https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27... That Constitution was adopted in 1982, over three decades ago. I see it as extraordinarily important to ponder why the rights set out in the U.S. constitution often constrain state power so much more than the rights set out in the PRC constitution. It's also worth noting that the modern understanding of much of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and especially a Supreme Court willing to use it to grant strong substantive relief against the government (and to use the fourteenth amendment to apply the same rules to state governments!) mostly came about during the 20th century. David Rabban wrote a paper ("The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years"), later expanded into a book (Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870-1920) that talks about the courts' extreme reluctance to understand the first amendment in the way we now do. There are lots of theories about why civil liberties became more substantive, more cherished, more protected, and more a part of the culture in the U.S. -- but I don't think it can be merely a matter of their having been mentioned in the Constitution.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

schoen 12y ago
The PRC also has a written Constitution which includes provisions guaranteeing freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association (article 34), protection against unlawful arrest or unlawful search (articles 37 and 39), privacy of correspondence (article 40), and other many other important civil liberties. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Chapter_II._The_Fundamental_Rights_And_Duties_Of_Citizens https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27... That Constitution was adopted in 1982, over three decades ago. I see it as extraordinarily important to ponder why the rights set out in the U.S. constitution often constrain state power so much more than the rights set out in the PRC constitution. It's also worth noting that the modern understanding of much of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and especially a Supreme Court willing to use it to grant strong substantive relief against the government (and to use the fourteenth amendment to apply the same rules to state governments!) mostly came about during the 20th century. David Rabban wrote a paper ("The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years"), later expanded into a book (Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870-1920) that talks about the courts' extreme reluctance to understand the first amendment in the way we now do. There are lots of theories about why civil liberties became more substantive, more cherished, more protected, and more a part of the culture in the U.S. -- but I don't think it can be merely a matter of their having been mentioned in the Constitution.