Comment by thewholeview | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thewholeview | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think the concept of "freedom of speech" is highly subjective. If you go to China you would find very little consideration for a lack of freedom of speech aside from a few radicals whose mission is to cause turbulence to the existing regime.

In Beijing, you can walk in many taxis and hear the driver blabber on to no end regarding the state of existence in China and state defamatory words regarding the Communist, the past, or the current presidency.

In contrast, in America I often find myself in fear of coming forth and stating any merit that I thought of the potential Trump presidency, and the now presidency. In professional careers I'd fear a sense of being seen as a "demoral" person and I would fear for silent retaliation.

Propaganda and ideology come hand in hand, I certainly do not disregard Chinese propaganda, but likewise I am no different to the narrative on China's own political structure that's becoming ever stronger in the West since the uprising of China.

On the other hand, what is true "freedom of speech"? The narrative has been sounding more and more to me like a "freedom to uprise and overthrow the government". Due to my limited existence in the world, I can't claim merit or demerit to such ideal. But I am simply no fan of chaos caused due to the act of "trying to overthrow a government to seek ideal in the face of perceived oppression", especially when an entire region is almost shut down and hurt for many months.

This is a total misunderstanding of freedom of speech and the first amendment.

Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything to anyone and never face consequences for your choices. The concept of freedom is to be free from the government officially and legally restricting your right to publicly address your grievances.

China's citizens do not have this freedom. Just because taxi drivers are not afraid to express themselves in the privacy of their cab to other citizens does not mean they wouldn't fear for their livelihood to say the same thing on a stage where it would actually make a difference.

True freedom of speech is this:

In America, anyone can stand in the middle of a public square and shout whatever they want about the government and the police will do nothing. Other people are then allowed to also shout and demonstrate that that person is an idiot, or maybe right, but the government never gets involved.

In China, any demonstration like this is swiftly punished by authorities. On an exchange trip I went on about ~10 years ago an American college student decided it was good idea to shout "Free Tibet!" over and over in the middle of Tiananmen square. An unmarked white van appeared in < 5 minutes and he was gone. He was unharmed but that evening he was on the first flight back to America.

People may hate you and retaliate against you in America for what you say, but they cannot and will never arrest you.

That is freedom of speech.

Thanks for the perspective, I will openly admit that my understanding of freedom of speech is lacking/different than others' understanding.

I think what's interesting is the idea behind. Either your example or my example of freedom of speech is purely political, which we must recognize.

Let's take a step back and consider a company. The management sets up an orderly system (or so they think). If the company is progressing well, everyone is working towards a common goal, would there be a need to have people standing up to voice their opinions to influence others which they can't even claim righteousness to? Sure it's freedom, but I'm sure less would need it. When the company goes downhill however, and people want to uprise and cause a change, this is where having this freedom appears to be a necessity.

I think inherently there is a discussion hidden here somewhere between order and chaos. And with everything being a spectrum, we must recognize that the level of "freedom" people will need, and people should have will also need to vary depending on the current state of existence.

To many of those in China who do not wish to practice in politics, especially since the Communist has produced an unprecedented growth in the last decade, little are finding a need for such a level of "freedom". Sure this system will not be perpetual functional. When the economic growth slows or when China becomes a super power level entity, global clashes causes ideology shifts and needs, China may need to continually seek a structural shift in its own pace.

What's being preached often in the western world however, is a utilization of a "lack of freedom of speech" as a weaponry towards an uprising China that will threaten US's dominance. There is nothing wrong with that, it's only a bit hypocritical that's all, but thus is politics.

I think what's important is that, if HK must feel like they will need the fight, then I respect the fight and wishes them best on achieving what they can. Though I do at the same time wish for a peaceful resolution versus a degraded society after an endless fight to achieve a perceived ideal ideology. I have friends in HK and I definitely wish for them to prosper.

> To many of those in China who do not wish to practice in politics, especially since the Communist has produced an unprecedented growth in the last decade

The Communists certainly take credit for that growth, but did they cause it?

> What's being preached often in the western world however, is a utilization of a "lack of freedom of speech" as a weaponry towards an uprising China that will threaten US's dominance. There is nothing wrong with that, it's only a bit hypocritical that's all, but thus is politics.

That's a misreading. Free speech and the suppression of civil rights are genuine and very important moral issues in the western world. It's not some hypocritical political "weapon" deployed to maintain "dominance."

I think we would do well to explain to our Chinese friends what we mean by the communist party taking credit for the economic success of China. For one, the latest and most pronounced grown spurt of the last ~20 years coincides with the admission of China to the wto, under the support of the USA, with the explicit understanding that china would liberalize it's economy and in general, play fairly. Seeing this exchange as a zero sum game has benefited china even more in the short term at the detriment of others, although Western naivete has been changing.

>People may hate you and retaliate against you in America for what you say, but they cannot and will never arrest you.

Edward Snowden is in exile because of the things he had to say about America. The publishers of his book are being sued to ensure he is financially crippled and unable to support himself.

Sure, the charge is something other than speaking but the effect is the same. I'm sure in China people who are arrested for speaking out are not charged with the crime of "free speech" either but are instead charged with some other crime. The effect is similar.

I'm still happy to live in the USA over China but I still think that we can do better on this front.

> Edward Snowden is in exile because of the things he had to say about America

This is a false comparison. Edward Snowden is in exile for revealing state secrets. That’s different from freedom of speech. He is not targeted because of what he said, but revealing state secrets. It’s distinct from freedom of speech.

I don't understand why people are down voting this comment, as I think it is an accurate reflection of what many mainland Chinese would consider an honest and balanced opinion. When the primary goal of the last generation has been stability and the promotion of economic growth over personal freedoms and liberties, this is probably the opinion many non Chinese would have when placed in a similar situation. This does not exist the complete hypocrisy of the Chinese government, but I think it would be tragic to stoop to their level in drowning out the honest, good faith opinions of others.

People are downvoting it because he presented a misrepresentation of freedom of speech. Please read the adjacent comment by the other user which explains freedom of speech.

> I think the concept of "freedom of speech" is highly subjective.

What utter nonsense.

Thanks for the opinion, care to expand on it to help educate?

Freedom of speech is the prohibition of government interference in peoples' ability to express themselves. That's why the first amendment of the US constitution starts with the words, "Congress shall make no law". This is a very objective standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com