However, I do disagree that free speech should be the end-all-be-all, ultimate supreme virtue to strive towards. That's such a naive and childish notion and I don't understand why it has become such a meme. Yes it's up there, yes it should be implemented in due time and is suitable for economically and politically stable nations but how can any rational person advocate it for all nations in all states of development?
I'm sure the vast majority of citizens in those states where freedom of speech is most advocated for would prefer censorship over living in a destabilised nation mired in endless conflict and divisive free speech.
The US seemed to be just fine with free speech as a tenant.
If you want a great example of a nation that has eliminated conflict by suppressing all of that pesky free speech, look no further than North Korea.
You've presented a silly false dichotomy between free speech and a stable nation when it's government censorship and oppression that eventually leads to a breaking point and genocides/revolutions.
There are hundreds of other countries around the world. People call you out for whataboutism for complaining about the US on articles about China because the article is not about the US. Why don't you say "what about Somalia" or "what about Russia"? Is it because that would seem like an distraction from the topic under discussion?
This article is not comparing China to the US, Somalia, Russia, etc.
I was actually referring to China in that sentence. Freedom of speech is taken for granted in the US and rarely needs to be advocated for.
> You've presented a silly false dichotomy between free speech and a stable nation when it's government censorship and oppression that eventually leads to a breaking point and genocides/revolutions.
In my opinion it is neither silly nor a false dichotomy. As much as censorship and oppression has contributed to genocides/revolutions in history, so has factious and reckless speech leading to the rise of populist demagogues and cults of personality.
Freedom of speech and the right to express all of one's most basest thoughts and impulses has never gone down well in nations where the populace is too ill educated to fully comprehend what is being said. The same goes for the infallible and shining doctrine of democracy -appropriate for an informed populace that actually knows what it is they are voting for. Inappropriate for places two decades removed from abject poverty and 3rd world status.
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" is a cornerstone of democracies - though of course most fall short of the ideal, but it is still an ideal to strive for.
Those who prefer censorship usually prefer it for other people, not themselves.