The west loves to criticize China for its lack of freedom of expression. I personally think that this is a serious problem for China (though not the most serious problem facing the society which I consider problems with social justice and the environment). But the west has serious issues with freedom of expression as well.
The US has sent its own people to prison in recent years for making youtube videos, selling cable subscriptions and even assassinated without trial two citizens for nothing ostensibly more than making recruitment videos or writing articles for al Qaeda.
Despite the above violations of peoples’ freedom of expression, the US is actually rather good in protecting its citizens compared to many European nations, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Consider that in much of Europe , you can be sent to prison for a considerable amount of time for things like “holocaust denial.” Or be jailed for teaching your dog to give the Nazi salute. Yet you will rarely if ever hear human rights organizations complain about people imprisoned for expressing their views on these subjects. Many western countries have laws against “hate speech.” Many people have been sentenced to prison for making hate speech in these countries.
Additionally, many western nations have royal families and it is sometimes against their laws to publicly insult them. People have been arrested for “insults” against these bluebloods such as the recent cases of a homeless man calling Queen Beatrix a “whore” and a journalist for wearing a t-shirt with the slogan “Beatrix is a whore”.
Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to prison for things like advocating that China and the whole world ought to be colonized by the US. As much as I think he is a despicable individual, he should have the right to say those despicable things. People in the west and their human rights organizations should make the same arguments that you also have the right to be a holocaust denier or give the Nazi solute or teach one’s dog to give the salute or post racist hate messages or insult bluebloods or to offend homosexuals or make offensive youtube videos without prison time or fines. These are things they cannot do in many western nations without doing serious time. Unfortunately, the west does not see these laws as human rights abuses but does see the jailing of Liu for advocating colonization of his own country as such violations or abuses. In their minds, these violations, so long as they are committed by the west, are not worthy of attention.
Move along, nothing to see here!
Augis says
“Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to prison for things like advocating that China and the whole world ought to be colonized by the US.”
Is it possible to get a link to the source showing that this was the reason for which Liu Xiaobo was jailed?
Ray says
melektaus
You might add “Liu Xiaobo” to the tag so it would come out with the rest of the article.
https://hiddenharmonies.org/tag/liu-xiaobo/
Augis says
Thanks for the tag link.
But is it possible to provide a link to some external credible site which shows that the reasons for imprisoning of Liu Xiaobo were those mentioned by the author post?
melektaus says
@Ray
Done.
melektaus says
@Augis
I would provide one but couldn’t find one written below the 4th grade reading level… 🙂
Augis says
[delete: trolling]
Augis says
Oops, just noticed a comment that someone named “melektaus” left in the previous post answering to @Otto Kerner.
Here it is:
“I’m not saying that you never cite sources; I’m saying that I have never seen any quality sources that support what you have said from either you or anyone else.”
FOARP says
So, basically, it was not possible for Melektaus to provide a link showing that Liu Xiaobo was either “sentenced to prison for things like advocating that China and the whole world ought to be colonized by the US” or “for advocating colonization of his own country”. What wonderful standards are maintained on this blog.
melektaus says
@FOARP
I have provided links, just not ones you two clowns are able to read (written beyond the 4th grade reading level. sry). 🙂
Wahaha says
Augis and FOARP,
Can you provide a credible site that explained the financial crisis in 2008 ?
Augis says
[delete: trolling]
melektaus says
@Augis
You have failed basic reading once again.
Augis says
[deleted by YinYang]
YinYang: Please offer something constructive towards a real discussion. We generally don’t like to delete comments – it’s simply a waste of time even to do so.
Charles Liu says
One only needs to lok at the court verduct to see what political advicacy he wrote, or more to the point, what NED’s grant paid for.
AFAIK, foreign sponsorship of domestic politics is illegal in US, subject to 25 years in prison (ref. FARA).
Allen says
@melektaus #9
I think we should refrain from calling people “clowns.” It leads to nowhere…
Now I am going to make 2 quick points.
First, regarding freedom of expression, you seem to assume (I may be wrong) the more the freedom the better when that may not be necessarily so. Consider food and drug labeling. Should I have the freedom to make whatever claims I want to make about some food and drug I want to sell? If you really believe in freedom, you’d say yes. People should have the freedom to make whatever claims – even false ones. The marketplace of idea will eventually weed the false claims out. If you cringe as I say these, why? If you want to regulate so-called “economic speech” – not why “political speech”? Incendiary false claims involving race lead to the xinjiang riots a few years ago. Would more freedom for making incendiary claims really make things better?
Freedom of the press is good only when the freedom is met with responsibility. A press gone wild freely caters to the corporate bottom line and fixed constituencies without upholding any of its duties to truly inform the public. It’s like food labels gone wild and someone advocating keeping the regulators out because they believe a free market of falsehoods will supposedly bring out the truth in the end…
Insightful people have called the press the “fourth branch of government.” But without duties to serve the people, a free press is anything but an institution that serves society – only a leach – and a tool for the astute, rich, and/or powerful.
Second point. On this point that has generated much mudsling above:
I do agree with the statement in general. Liu has advocated for the replacement of the current political in Mainland China and replacing as much of China’s political institutions and ways of governing with that of the West. Liu has written that what is holding China back is Chinese cultural and civilization and that only wholesale adoption of Western culture and ideals will truly liberate China.
I don’t have time to go back and retrace every quote Liu has written that I disagree with, but a cursory search on the Internet returns the following quotes.
Besides being so pro-West to the point of pro-colonialism / imperialism / neo-colonialism (whatever), he’s also known to have received funding from the West for his political activities.
All these added up support pretty well in my view melektaus’ insightful and articulate description of Liu.
I also re-recommend people to read Sautman and Yan’s commentary titled “Do supporters of Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo really know what he stands for?” published late 2010.
Scabies says
Why are none of you able to quote from an authoritive source where ‘“Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to prison for things like advocating that China and the whole world ought to be colonized by the US.”?
You have stated it in such a matter of fact way, so why is this so difficult?
Hey Allan, I like where you agree with the statement ‘in general’ Does this mean you don’t agree with it ‘in fact’?
raventhorn says
Define what you would consider “an authoritive source”. (Also, Spell check please).
Maybe the problem is that YOUR “authoritive source” doesn’t carry that much weight with other people.
Augis says
The question was not about what Liu Xiaobo said.
It was about the reasons for his imprisonment.
The authoritative proof would be some source quoting the court verdict in which it is explicitly explained what L.X. was incriminated with.
Scabies says
Ravernthorn, I’m not sure which comment you felt was directed at you, that you had to respond. You guys are like a pack of rabid dogs sometimes. As for an authoritative source, how about ‘not this or any other Han- supremacist blog’, and ‘not links to other blogs home pages? A half-wit or above might consider court verdicts or the like to be a bit more credible.
And spellcheck yourself if you don’t like it. You aren’t worth the time for me to do it if you cant figure your way through simple typos.
dan says
I am flabbergasted by what Liu said about modernization being wholesale westernization. Is Japan fully westernized? How about S. Korea? On the other hands, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and India had all been colonized since the 18th century by various western powers, are any of these countries any more ‘modernized’ than China? on that account, should we include Thailand in the list that ought to be colonized for centuries and why there aren’t any Thai intellectuals come up to suggest that?
raventhorn says
@Augis
That court vertdict was already discussed extensively in this forum.
You are about 1 month late. We are not going to repeat all of that in this thread. You are welcome to browse through that other thread on your own time, and raise questions there as you wish.
raventhorn says
@Scabies
“You guys are like a pack of rabid dogs sometimes. As for an authoritative source, how about ‘not this or any other Han- supremacist blog’, and ‘not links to other blogs home pages? A half-wit or above might consider court verdicts or the like to be a bit more credible.”
Well, now you are just contradicting yourself. If you think we are “pack of rabid dogs”, then what possible source can we cite would be “authoritive” or “credible” to you? (And frankly, by your characterizations, we are obviously not the ones being the “supremists” here).
I’m not taking any offense to your insults, just you are not making logical sense.
Scabies says
Oh so it was discussed here, and you guys made a decision. Sure thats good enough for me, why not? You guys sure do set the bar high…..
raventhorn says
@Scabies
What “decision” are you talking about? Did you even read the thread? Obviously not.
Well, in that case, it should be good enough for you. Why not? You don’t bother to read. What “bar” do you have? I haven’t seen it.
Scabies says
….that Liu was sentenced to prison for things like advocating that China and the whole world ought to be colonized by the US.
Why not just show us in the verdict where it says this?
I mean, either it says this explicitly in the verdict, or you have made it up yourselves. Which is it?
Scabies says
or maybe you just agree with the statement ‘in general’ like Allen
Augis says
Great!! So you have discussed the court verdict?
Does it mean that you have a link to the source quoting that verdict? 🙂
How difficult can it be to copy it from your archives and paste it here?
raventhorn says
@Scabies
Dude, I repeat, go read the other thread. Why ask a bunch of questions, when you don’t bother to read the thread?
Seriously, you are not making any sense at all.
Augis says
[delete: trolling]
raventhorn says
@Augis
Geez, some people just don’t want to do any work. How hard is it to hit the search button?
https://hiddenharmonies.org/2010/10/the-2010-nobel-peace-prize-to-liu-xiaobo-and-what-it-means-to-the-chinese/#comment-38433
above, includes legal analysis of the Chinese law relevant to Liu’s case, court verdict, translation, etc.
Again, go over to that thread to discuss the LEGAL issues, if you wish. This thread is not going to repeat all that information, just for the people who don’t want to do minimal searching.
Ray says
@raventhorn
These ignorant people are so lazy. That’s why they are so stupid, sometimes I feel sorry for you trying to give them free education.
I think we should leave all those dumb comments unanswered, it serve to show why this site is required.
Augis says
[delete: trolling]
Augis says
[delete: trolling]
Allen says
Augis, and Scabies,
Even though others may have unjustly called you names (not that you haven’t called them names), you really do ought to read other threads where your questions have been discussions in detail. Just click on the Liu Xiaobo tag above to get those threads.
If you want to know the court’s reasoning for convicting Liu, links to the court order can be found here:
https://hiddenharmonies.org/2010/10/the-2010-nobel-peace-prize-to-liu-xiaobo-and-what-it-means-to-the-chinese/#comment-38433
Allen says
@dan #20
That’s an interesting question. What is the line between modernization and westernization. That’s part of the reason China’s rise does pose “challenge” to the West. For most part of history, modernization is equated with westernization. If China succeeds in its reforms without taking the Western path, that line will have to be redefined – which seems scary to many in the West…
Ray says
@Allen
Is the western European way even a feasible way? You must realized that the wealth and fortune was mainly accumulated by many centuries of colonization and imperialism. The most educated (100% literacy rate by 1700s) and well-off group in China is the Man Chinese. It is due to the privillages they’ve enjoyed during the Qing dynasty. If you want to study current western European impact on humanity, you cannot forget the legacy they left in their colonies.
When we look at the positive aspect of western civilization, we also have to look at the genocide in the Americas, Australias and slavery in Africa. WWI and WWII are also the most destructive wars fought by mankind. When we marvel at some Europen invention in science and technology, we must also remember that it comes with inventions such as concentration camps, gas chamber, nerve gas, fascism, nazism etc.
Ray says
Augis just took my bait of admitting he is ignorant, stupid and lazy. LOL
raventhorn says
@Augis
Court Charges do not have to include EVERY quote that LX have made. I don’t believe anyone has said that the “charges” included specific quotes of LX any one mentioned here.
I think you are confusing 2 different issues.
raventhorn says
@Allen
further interesting question, if Modernization does equal to Westernization, then by logic, 3rd world nations have to colonize 1st world nations as a part of their “industrialization” modernization, ie. to exploit the West for labor, resources, etc. 🙂
The West should be happy that China didn’t follow “Westernization”. (But hey, maybe China should do EXACTLY what the West did to achieve “modernization”).
melektaus says
First of all, I take very seriously some of the arguments that support the banning of certain kinds of political speech. I think there’s good reason to ban some kinds of hate speech. But I do believe that in Liu’s case and in much of the European cases (especially the holocaust denial cases) it is not justifiable to send people to prison for that kind of speech. There should be toleration for even abhorrent forms of speech. I’m inclined to say that there should be a middle ground and some forms of speech that the US allows should not be allowed and other forms that China and Europe bans should be allowed. Where that middle ground should be, its justifications, should be debated and China and Chinese scholars should be in the midst of that debate offering an alternative to the American neo-liberal and Continental European models on freedom of expression rights.
There’s many other examples of course, where speech should be banned such as defamation and yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater but I don’t believe that in Liu’s case, it is analogous to these kinds of cases. There should be some toleration for even abhorrent speech so long as there is no immediate harm stemming from it and others are able to have roughly equal opportunities to respond and criticize it.
Be that as it may be, my main reason for writing the post was to show a kind of contradiction in the western mindset, a kind of lack of sincerity.
Charles Liu says
@melektaus
“I don’t believe that in Liu’s case”
Agree not the same – I would say it’s more sinister. Liu Xiaobo took money from US government to influence China’s domestic politics. Inflammatory political speech is not protected speech, not when it’s underwritten by foreign power. Even in US such action is illegal (ref. FARA, John Huang vs DoJ).
melektaus says
@Charles Liu
It is certainly not as bad as yelling fire in a theater or defamation. I don’t see what his taking money from the west has to do with the legality of what he said though it may have a bearing to the level of sincerity we may want to attribute to his words.
Charles Liu says
@melektaus
“legality of what he said”
Well, IMHO domestic political activity relates to state’s right to sovereign independence. If Liu Xiaobo was American taking Chinese money to advocate abolition of US constitution, he’d be subject to 25 years in jail per FARA. Here’s a recent case as illustration:
http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2011/two-charged-with-conspiring-to-act-as-unregistered-agents-of-pakistani-government
YinYang says
On Liu Xiaobo, the verdict pronounced him guilty for inciting subversion of state power. Based on that, I would conclude Liu Xiaobo was convicted more than just his speech.
melektaus says
@YinYang
I think the CCP considers some form of speech to be “inciting subversion of the state.” For example, making up what it considers to be false rumors about the CCP or inciting riots or for the overthrow of the state.
xian says
Hmmm. Does hate speech really equate with political censorship? “Inciting subversion” could mean all sorts of things. Half the liberals in the US could probably be jailed on those grounds. I think foreign misunderstanding about freedom of speech in China is that it is an extremely oppressive “caged” system, but in reality Chinese people can say most things, there are only a few areas you should avoid.
But all that becomes irrelevant in the face of pragmatic truth: national unity and political stability comes before freedom of speech.
melektaus says
@xian
This question is a little confused. No one is saying that “hate speech” is the same thing as “political censorship.” I’m not sure that is even coherent. Properly speaking, hate speech is not even the issue. The question is should Liu be banned from making the political remarks he made. This I consider an open question but from what I have heard, I am leaning towards it should be legal. That would foster good dialogue which I think benefitial to society even if you don’t agree with one side.
kchew says
I think it is not just a matter of making ‘hate speech’ or political censorhip’ issue. The fact is that Liu gets lots of money from foreign governments to carry out anti-government activities that led him to be prosecuted.
melektaus says
@kchew
I already replied to relevance of the foreign money charge in post #42.
xian says
@melektaus
Well personally I’ve found his colonization quote to be taken out of context, it seems more like he’s saying “that’s what it would take” as a form of rhetoric rather than actually advocating China to be colonized. It is his naive ideas about democracy that concern me. That is the sort of thing that can actually catch on with mainstream Chinese in the future. Regardless, better safe than sorry.
kchew says
@melektaus
Taking money from the West to carry out anti-government activities in cahoot with foreign government agencies are traitorous acts. Free speech / freedom of expression is just a scapegoat issue in Liu’s case to put the blame on China.
There are always limits to free speech, in every society, whether you like it or not.
Charles Liu says
@kchew
“There are always limits to free speech”
Especially political speech.
Evidence of Liu Xiaobo’s foreign underwriting is not a secret. The Chinese prosecutor collected banking evidence on foreign remittances, and NED’s grant payments to organizations Liu headed are matter of public record.
Whether Liu will be in jail if he didn’t take Uncle Sam’s money is debatable, but other Charter 08 co-authors and signatories are not subjected to the same prosecution is a fact.
Allen says
Hate speech is relevant to this discussion.
Why should hate speech be outlawed? Because it creates riots, civil instability, public mayhem.
Lu is outlawed for similar reasons: he meant to incite riots, civil instability, public mayhem.
Now I do believe that today China is stable enough that Lu’s speech will not cause that. But I think reasonable people can disagree on this. Once you give an inch, others ask for a yard. And I think the Chinese gov’t definitely is in a position to draw such a line…
raventhorn says
@melektaus
While I agree with Allen on the point that some “hate speech” should be outlawed, because they would be considered “incitement” even under Western standards, I have to make the finer point of law here.
US Supreme Court have made the point to differentiate what are considered “pure advocacy speech” vs. others.
That is “pure advocacy speech” is protected by 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech, because and when the speech is ONLY design to affect thoughts, and do not advocate a course of concrete actions.
The distinction is very subtle, but here are some examples:
(1) Flag burning is considered protected speech, because one is at least burning one’s own flag, not someone else’s flag, thus, the action still amounted to a symbolic speech made in one’s own domain and property.
(2) Military DRAFT card burning, NOT protected, because the card is Government issued for use in Government administration of military draft process. Thus, burning the Draft card was considered criminal conduct because it directly interfered with government administrative process, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O'Brien.
The distinction is in the “non-speech” conduct portion that were being prohibited.
By comparison, Liu’s case draws upon his “non-speech” conducts, which were documented as evidence in his verdict, IE. his transfer of money from abroad, his use of computer systems and resources directly related to foreign organizations.
While some have said these conducts were unrelated to his conviction, I disagree. They are part of the overall evidence to demonstrate and prove Liu’s overall motives, as well as evidence for his “conspiracy” charge.
Liu was shown, and he does not dispute, that he conspired/instigated with other people, to imitate his methods of using foreign money and resources, to attempt to avoid government detection.
That conduct alone, is sufficient as “conspiracy to incite” under Article 105, that is, Liu urged and provided incentive for others to ACT illegally as he did.
*Now, as far as whether his speech was itself sufficiently “hateful” or “incitement”, I make no purist theory about it.
At the very least, his “speech” was not entirely his own, as he was paid for them by foreign organizations. As such, at the very least, Liu was merely a “messenger” agent for foreign hostile organizations.
China, has a very dim view of foreign “lobbying” speech in China, disguised as “personal speech”. (See Chinese criminal code article 106).
Some have also said, if Liu was guilty of “lobbying” for foreign organizations, then why was he not convicted under Article 106?
I have already addressed that question, and the answer is, Article 106 merely provides a sentencing guideline for Article 105, and is not considered as a main criminal code that could stand on itself. (It merely stated that those guilty of accepting foreign funds, to conduct incitement, will be given a heavier sentence).
melektaus says
@xian
I find the “taken out of context” standard reply deficient for the reasons Sautman outlined in his paper.
melektaus says
@Allen
Some forms of hate speech should be outlawed but I just don’t see that for Liu’s case. take for example, yelling racial slurs at people on the street. That should be wholly outlawed because there is no other motive than to insult, promote hatred, and incite violence. People are not provided opportunity to respond to slurs yelled at them from strangers. TV and radio should also censor hate speech, IMO. If there is racism on TV or on radio, people normally don’t have the opportunity to respond in an adequate way to address that speech because TV and radio is controlled by the rich and powerful. But in Liu’s case and in the cases of holocaust denial, these are academic claims made in a more public forum and there is provided adequate opportunity to respond to his charges and suggestions. There should be some level of freedom so that these claims, as atrocious as we all agree they are, can be discharged through public discourse rather than censorship. I know I am not giving any precise principles to demarcate where that line is, just case examples, but I think that the spirit of my criticisms are valid and a working legal principle should be actively sought and I think legal scholars from a Chinese perspective should try to define this principle and apply it to China.
melektaus says
@raventhorn
I’m still not convinced that his activities of taking foreign money should be illegal. I think people should be free to take foreign money and express views motivated by that even when they are atrocious views. The proper forum of dispose of those views, to demonstrate their falsity and moral depravity is through public discourse and not censorship. If this was done I think most Chinese would realize what a horrible person Liu is and dismiss his views. Unfortunately many Chinese don’t realize what Liu is all about. The Chinese people are not stupid, they can recognize silly beliefs and moral depravity. I have faith that they are truly different from Americans in this regard. It’s not just faith but from my own experience with dealing with Chinese vs Americans, the Chinese are more amenable to rational debate, can see evidence and reason and respond appropriately to reasons. I attribute this to our cultural resources. in short, I think us Chinese are pretty awesome as this forum has shown.
YinYang says
Ha ha, melektaus. Looking at how fast FLG took root in China and their adherents becaming a political force tells me all humans are equal in susceptibility to brain washing. The difference for now may be the Chinese have less propaganda pumped up their rear end in the last few decades compared to Americans. I think they have less ideological zealotry and thus more amenable to debate.
The step right behind taking foreign money for political aims is to take foreign weapons just like in Libya’s rebels case. China in fact accepts a lot of foreign money in non-political NGO’s, and they do real good for society. That’s allowed and should be encouraged.
You said:
Chinese media spent a decent amount of coverage on him and the Peace Prize I believe. In a land of 1.4 billion, I think giving Liu Xiaobo free reign in China would meant he could build a sizable political opposition. Where China is now, I believe nipping this kind of stuff at the bud is worthwhile for stability.
melektaus says
@YinYang
I could be wrong but FLG doesn’t seem to have large following in China. Many of its followers are elderly especially elderly women who are very poorly educated. I don’t see China ever being a society of lunatics like western society where 80% of the population believe in the Bible e.g. It’s really a relative comparison. The Chinese are susceptible to nonsense, just no where near the level of the west IMO. Also, I wish the Chinese media would have outlined what he said instead of who he is. I think the Chinese would clearly see the ridiculousness and depravity of what he is saying and he would have been discredited. It would also have given an opportunity for Chinese to see the degree at which the west is trying to brainwash Chinese by enlisting Chinese mouthpieces. That would have brought awareness to the society at large of western cunning which much of the Chinese public remain naive and ignorant.
YinYang says
@melektaus
I think the FLG doesn’t have a large following now. But in the 90’s, they had a good run until their politics got them into trouble. So I do think political movements are easy to foment especially given China’s population size.
Completely agree with your point below:
Charles Liu says
@melektaus “I’m still not convinced that his activities of taking foreign money should be illegal.”
Do states have the right to sovereign independence? It is illegal in US to accept money to conduct domestic political activity (ref. FARA).
According the verdict Liu also collaborated with overseas Falun Gong groups who are clearly antagonistic towards the Chinese government. At that time Falun Gong took in over 6 million dollars from US government via the NED for their anti-China activities.
Speaking of Falun Gong, you should read this article on what really happened in China:
http://falungongpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/05/wall-street-journals-pulitzer-winning.html
melektaus says
@Charles Liu
I’m just not seeing why contributions from the US are even relevant to what ought to be legal in this case. Like I said, that is an issue with the credibility and sincerity of his words, not whether or he should be imprisoned for those words. That is an important distinction.
Charles Liu says
@melektaus “contributions from the US are even relevant to what ought to be legal in this case”
It’s an illustration of state’s right to sovereign independence being an universally accepted right.
But I will concede that China’s subversive activity law isn’t all that different than US, as in they all contain political elements. Apparently there are complaints that prosecution of muslin group cited in comment 43 was not equally applied towards AIPAC.
Given this I do not feel for a second, that Nobel committee will ever consider someone on China’s payroll. That, is double standard.
Joe says
The west suffers from the self-righteousness sickness.
melektaus says
@Charles Liu
I’m not saying it isn’t China’s “right”. I’m saying I see no good reason to exercise it. Besides that I’m actually not sure it is even China’s right.
Allen says
@melektaus #59
Even if FLG doesn’t have a large following, as long as it gains a small hardnut core, they could be sufficient trouble. Suppose they gain 5% following on the Mainland – that’s 65 million fanatics – which is 3 times the population of Taiwan…
Allen says
@melektaus #65,
Of course it’s “China’s right.” There is no such thing as “absolute freedom” – only “relative freedom” – and that relativity is defined by the state – a right of every sovereign state.
Yes we can always say Chinese gov’t didn’t get it right. Allowing more “freedom” here actually would lead to a more stable society in the long run… But that’s another issue.
melektaus says
@Allen
If Falun Gong causes immediate harm to society then that should be taken into consideration but why ban the whole cult based on little evidence? I think Christianity, Islam and even Tibetan Buddhism is just as dangerous but do you suggest banning those as well?
Like I said, there needs to be more nuance in the legal thinking of Chinese people. If Falun Gong has elements that should be criminalized such as elements that cause people to be of immediate harm to themselves or others than so be it; ban the specific elements that cause the harms. But it should be based on a case by case thing. Of course, I don’t want to see China be religious. I don’t want to see millions of Chinese be indoctrinated by Christianity, Islam, FLG or any dogmatic religion. But is harsh banning those religion the best way to do that? Or maybe it is public discussion and understanding of the obvious weakness of those religion? The Chinese people are not stupid.
melektaus says
@Allen
I don’t know what you mean by “absolute” and “relative freedom.” I’m also not sure what these nebulous concepts have to do with Liu’s imprisonment. I say that the government was wrong to sentence him to jail for his speech, as atrocious as it was. What “relative” and “absolute” freedom has to do with it is unclear.
melektaus says
Here’s one proposal I’m advancing that China should adopt with regard to freedom of expression. It is what I shall call, a two-tiered” approach.
Things like defamation, either individual or for groups, should be a civil matter but decisions are merely declaratory unless there is proved “actual malice”. This means that decisions have no punitive or civil awards without actual malice but merely a declaration from the court that one group had been slandered or libeled. This itself ought to provide the desired social effects. Many people who sue for slander or libel sue as a matter of “principle”, to restore their good name and so forth and not to receive a monetary award or even to punish those who had defamed them.
It is important the the courts then make the reasons given for its decision public so that the public can see that there is evidence and reason that supports the court’s decision. Proof that one side had indeed been unjustly defamed is important to the wronged party to restore his or her good name.
In cases where actual malice is proved (see New York Times v. Sullivan) criminal punitive measures may be justified and perhaps punitive awards awarded if there is proved damage done (to the defamed person or group).
This “two-tiered” approach should allow for substantial amounts of free speech. When a court decides in a declarative decision that some person or group has been defamed, that decision will have weight in future criminal cases if the same defamatory material is used in the future against victims. So if others or the defendant continues to use the same defamation against the victim(s) of the defamation and this is coupled with the motive of actual malice (which includes either “knowledge the information was false” or “reckless disregard for its truth or falsity”) then there may be criminal or civil prosecution with actual punitive measures or monetary awards awarded to the defendant.
Now this would allow many forms of free speech even demonstrably false speech and even some cases of “hate speech.” Liu e.g., was sentenced to prison for slandering the state and inciting the overthrow of the state. I think that his imprisonment is harsh. I don’t agree with the Chinese laws.
Under my proposal, the government, if they feel they have been slandered, may sue Liu (in an impartial court of law) for a declarative statement that they were slandered. If the courts judge that the evidence suggests that they have been slandered by Liu and they win, such a declaration is “in effect”. Now if others or Liu continue to defame the state using the same claims or similar claims and moreover, do so with actual malice (which is now much easier to prove with the declarative judgment), the government may proceed with criminal proceedings.
Now actual malice, as shown by the NYT v. Sullivan decision is often in practice difficult to prove and many may continue to use false speech if they do so without malice (in complete ignorance of the facts and the declarative judgment e.g.) but it will be far more difficult to do this with the courts declarative ruling made public. This difficulty in practice to prove malice will give substantial freedom for speech which I think is desirable. One may also add an immediate harm criterion to the above malice criterion. that is, the state will also have to prove that the slander causes the state immediate harm. This criterion will add further legal hurdles to protect freedom of expression while allowing for the banning of some forms of hate speech or defamation.
Some forms of hate speech may thus be completely criminally outlawed but only done so after considerable legal hurdles are cleared (to prevent abuse of the system and to protect some degree of freedom of expression).
For example, consider, say, that some Tibetans or pro-Tibet groups inside Tibet continue to slander and libel the Hans inside China using the rhetoric of genocide or colonization and so forth. Hans, under some kind of class action suit may sue the organizations or individuals responsible for spreading that defamation. If the courts are convinced based on evidence presented by the Han legal representatives that such claims are false and defamatory, then a declarative judgment is ordered in support of the Hans. If these Tibetan individuals or groups continue to spread such defamation against the Hans, in clear-eyed knowledge of the declarative judgment in favor of the Hans, the state may then seek to prosecute the groups or individuals responsible for maliciously spreading hate speech. It would then be a criminal matter and punitive judgments may be meted.
What do you think of this proposal? I’m looking forward to any comments and criticisms especially from our lawyers (Allen, Perspectival, Raventhorn).
Allen says
@melektaus #69,
On absolute and relative freedom: why should certain (actually all) freedoms be restricted? Because there are other freedoms (collective or fundamental / individual) to consider.
Here is a good summary of American notions of freedom (which has strongly impacted European notions of freedom since WWII). http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/fundamental_freedoms.htm
I am a lawyer, and I read through lots of cases – and whatever terminology you use, as you read them in context of history, you will see freedom is always a fine balance.
That’s what I mean by relative freedom. No rights are absolute. The rights are always balanced against some other rights. U.S. might appear “freer” than others – but only because its geography, political and economic situation, etc. allow it to be. Their balance is a reflection of their culture and history – nothing more…
Allen says
@melektaus #70
It’s a good approach.
In the U.S., it used to be something like what you suggested. You can say anything you want – i.e. gov’t can’t “pre-censor” anything you say, but you may be civilly liable or criminally responsible for you acts.
That changed when Holmes changed his ideas about free speech in Abrams v United States and then Gitlow v New York – leading to the modern notion that speech – including false speech that mislead – should be “protected” – to give breathing room to the democratic process.
Your standard has been rejected in the U.S. because it’s deemed to “chill speech.” But I still like it as a middle ground between what is happening in China today and what is happen in the U.S. The “problem” with China’s approach is that gov’t officials can become too trigger happy to strike down speech. The “problem” with U.S.’ approach is that it doesn’t really make sense (falsehood confuses and does not inform the democratic process, in my opinion) and has worked only because it has an ignorant and detached populace (see http://www.amazon.com/Unconscious-Civilization-John-Ralston-Saul/dp/0684871084) that can be easily manipulated.
But even with this, I still think the gov’t (including Chinese gov’t) has a role to censor. Think about the rule against war. Presumptively, nations have a right to self defense but not to war. But what is self defense? Must a nation wait for a column of tanks to actually enter its territory? Can it strike down approaching forces? Can it strike down aggressor’s nuclear capabilities first (if the consequences of not doing so is certain defeat)? Can you pre-emptively attack an aggressive nation before it has beefed up its forces?
Same thing with censorship? Must you wait for damage to occur before you can do something about it? I like your idea. But I think ultimately, a nation still has the right to censor even if gov’t officials often get things wrong.
I know one can go off the deepend being too pre-emptive? But why must one get smacked in the face – with riots brewing, people dieing, and cities burning – before the gov’t can do something about it?
It’s not like the U.S. (or the West in general) doesn’t censor. Facebook – Google – many of their services are blocked in China, and the West makes it seem as it’s an issue of freedom, but is it? Or it is because they conform to U.S. laws and work with U.S. authorities – taking into account Western norms and interests but not Chinese ones? (Assange thinks Facebook is an appalling spy machine for U.S. gov’t: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20059247-17.html; I blogged about how funny it is that so many “free” internet companies came to attack wikileaks) Ultimately, all this talk about freedom is not about freedom – but about national security – or lack of respect for others’ security. I really do subscribe to that…
melektaus says
That’s how I understand the debates on free expression. It’s a balance between the freedom of expression with other kind of freedoms such as the freedom to not experience racism or defamation or to be safe without social unrest, etc.
The problem is where to balance those freedoms. I’m not saying that all freedoms are possible (in fact I don’t know what that means because I don’t have a complete list of all freedoms). I’m just saying that by drawing the line so as to prohibit certain speech that may not have the undesirable consequences the Chinese government thinks it may have is not the right way to go. There are other ways to buffer against the social ills the CCP attribute to Liu’s speech and by trusting the people to see his words as we see them, as nothing else than nonsense, atrocious western imperialistic brainwashing, that is one way to dismiss them without criminalizing the speech. It may even work better in building a more informed society to the ills social unrest and furtive western attempts to cause disharmonyin Chinese society.
But wouldn’t you also agree that some freedoms such as the freedom of speech ought to be protected as much as possible given other constraints? My problem is where to draw the line. I never said that I was for absolute freedom of speech. In fact, I pointed out in the “Collective Defamation” post that there may be something to the effect that such kind of speech ought to be outlawed. I always thought and still do that certain kinds of defamation and hate speech out to be illegal. I think the US draws the line towards some of these kinds of speech too permissively but I also think that China in the case of Liu and some others draws them too stringently. There must be a golden middle ground.
melektaus says
Right. As I understand it, Beauharnais v. Illinois was the last successful hate speech prosecution. But that was many decades ago. There’s only been a few criminal trials in the last 20 years (I don’t think any was successful) and most states do not have criminal defamation laws. Prosecutors are loath to try such cases because the 1st Amendment is interpreted by subsequent supreme court cases as having lots of weight and the burden of proof for any kind of expression limiting action is considerable. In fact, nearly impossible to overcome for public figures and very difficult to overcome for even everyday people in civil cases.
I think the US’s old laws were a happy medium between too permissive contemporary American laws and European or Chinese laws that tend to be quite restrictive which I think detrimental to society, especially a society that aspires to such a largely educated and rational class of people as China no doubt aspires. There needs to be some trust in that the public will know what is and is not acceptable speech and that they will have the knowledge and wisdom to not act on harmful speech on their own accord.
Agree.
In the case of war, preemtive attacks should be dealt with on a case by case basis. However the standards as to avoid mistakes and hence an unjustly waged war should be very very high as the stakes of war is so high. There needs to be overwhelming evidence that the alleged aggressor is indeed preparing for invasion/attack.
In the case of freedom of expression, I also think that the government needs lots of evidence (such as that the people will act unjustly on the speech or that it will indeed be harmful) before they can ban it or sentence people to prison for expressing it. I have my doubts that the government of China has such evidence for at least Liu’s speech. I think they have overreacted and acted too aggressively like some nations jump the gun and get into a war based not on good evidence but paranoia.
I think the Chinese public have the good senses to clearly see that Liu was a pretty shitty person and advocated very evil things. They would have lambasted him, criticized and ridiculed him. They would not have advocated and acted on his words. That ought to have been punishment enough for his words. Instead, by sending him to prison and not allowing the public to scrutinize his speech, the CCP may have done the opposite of what they wanted. many people may even see him as a cult hero (since they may not even know what he advocated because it has been banned) that stands up to authority to defend common people. Since that’s how the west portrays him, some Chinese may naively accept that narrative unknowing of his actual words which would expose him as a fraud.
Rhan says
“In the case of freedom of expression, I also think that the government needs lots of evidence (such as that the people will act unjustly on the speech or that it will indeed be harmful) before they can ban it or sentence people to prison for expressing it. I have my doubts that the government of China has such evidence for at least Liu’s speech. I think they have overreacted and acted too aggressively like some nations jump the gun and get into a war based not on good evidence but paranoia.”
Very well said, melektaus, my line of reasoning in this case is exactly same with you, the slight difference is perhaps i think the paranoia can turned out to be threat by looking at China history.
Wahaha says
I agree that arresting Liu didnt make much sense, but I dont think people understand what kind of damage a journalist can do.
An anchor can have more influence than 1 million ordinary people.
His opinion has more impact on how people think of government plan than 100 scientists do.
*******************************************
What media and journalists want is authoritarianism over information (the so-called free speech).
*******************************************
Another point I like to make is that THEY ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS too, like government officials. They are obliged to give people the whole picture, not just the part they like people to know. THEY DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MISLEAD PEOPLE.
There is no freedom of speech in West, as people there are not allowed to question the system (or they are brainwashed), just like Liu. If you exclude anti-system talks in China, I dont see how west has more freedom of speech than in China.
dan says
The Chinese old saying: ‘Know Thy Enemy…’ I believe arresting and imprisoning Liu is exactly what China’s detractors/enemies want it to do. China’s enemies know the psyche of the Chinese government and so by supporting certain dumb a$$es to incite the authority and thus as predicted, they were arrested, sentenced and imprisoned. The Chinese government took the bait and fell into the trap. The detractors score a ‘victory’ against China by declaring that the sentencing and the subsequence imprisonment are the acts of a desperate government; a government of tyrant. As much as I despite Liu’s belief as I read more about him, I don’t believe incarcerating him would deter other ‘intellectuals’ to pick up the banter and follow in his footsteps. It is better to publish his works and let the ordinary people really know him and decide his fate. With the boisterous on-line chats among the Chinese netizens, it won’t be long before people like ‘Liu’ would be an outcast among his own people.
raventhorn says
@dan
On the other hand, such taunts from the West maybe precisely continuous testing of China’s resolve to stand up to the West.
If China does not respond, it is a signal of China’s weakness to the West. West will only rachet up its interference in China by dividing Chinese public opinions and showing Chinese government’s inability to respond.
The Detractors only win a “victory” with their own people. They win no points in Chinese public sentiments.
But if China does not respond, Chinese government lose points regardless of which side, it would validate the Detractors’ position in the West.
*In a p*ssing contest, a stalemate is the best you can hope for, but in an international p*ssing contest, non-participation means you lose by default or forfeiture, because it is part of the GAME. 🙂
dan says
Hi Raventhorn,
By publishing his works is also a response, let your citizens know the real motivation of these useful idiots is by far the best way to combat this kind of ‘battle’. Let light shines brightly on the dark corner. As Melektus said in other post, when it comes to the West, most Chinese are naïve and ignorance of the motives of certain Western nations, and I agree.
raventhorn says
@dan
Publishing his work without making a counter-accusation is not much of a response. That’s almost conceding to his point.
Chinese government is not Oprah’s Book Club.
The point is, if Liu is just an idiot, no point in jailing him. But if he’s taking money from the West, there is a point in locking him up, ie. IT’S a CRIME!
Haikun says
@melektaus
Just so I understand, a Chinese academic who advocates that the government of China ought to listen to the voices of its citizens should serve 10 years in jail? Shill much?
Haikun says
These PRC shills try to do anything to rationalize their utterly reactionary ideology and blind support of policies which are anti Chinese to the core. If I said that the West asserts that 2+2=4 these reactionaries would be up in arms saying no it is not, don’t impose your western mathematical imperialism upon us! Using mathematics with Chinese characteristics we will find our own answer! >>>Yes this is how patently retarded your reactionary antics appear.
@melektaus
Haikun says
Wanna talk freedom of expression? How about state controlled media in the PRC?! Western media might have its own biases and political leanings (which are here there and everywhere not coordinated like PRC sock puppet media) but it is head and shoulders above what passes for “media” (ie state moutpieces) in the PRC. You guys expect to appear legitimate? Common this whole website is largely a reactionary joke! Thanks for trying though! If I wanna read PRC talking point verbatim I can just go to the Global Times, why bother trying to repackage the same old propaganda?! 当共产党走狗怎么样？好玩儿吗？
@melektaus
zack says
@Haikun
i’m sorry, what have you been smoking?
if you honestly believe a non state funded and directed cable news network is inherently more unbiased and credible than China’s CCTV/CNC World, i’ve got some prime time beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.
But of course, someone like you who obviously believes in the tooth fairy, santa claus and the Cheesy moon is going to have just a smidge of trouble believing that the state funded BBC, ABC and Al Jazeera English aren’t used as an extension of state policy. Or shall we explore Ted Turner’s CNN and its ties with some members on Washington? or Murdoch’s Fox and Sky news? Clearly the journalism amongst these stations were pulitzer prize worthy in the leadup to the Iraq War-that is if you consider the likes of william randolph”yellow journalism” hearst as being the epitome of true journalism.
The cognitive dissonance in you is strong.
or the stupidity. i’m leaning more towards the latter.
Haikun says
@zack I dont believe Zack, I KNOW American media is far more diverse and far FREER than PRC-CCP sock puppet media, you must have drank too much sanlu as a child not to know this. You a right wing conservative; we have media expressing that view point (ie FoX news, New Republic, WSJ), you a left winger; we got media for that (NYT, Huffington Post, Pacifica Radio etc), you a staunch communist; hey we got news for you also! Hell even neo-Nazis and Chinese fenqings have media outlets that you can read in the USA! Now dear Zack, prodigious drinker of SANLU, show me your free Chinese media!!! Who amongst your sock puppet media dares to cross the CCP?! You are full of sanlu and we all know it. I bet you failed high school debate class, jeeeeez simpletons here!
Ray says
@Haikun
Ya, right. The US system is so much “FREER” that there are 2 millions people incarcerated in prison compare to just 1.7 million of China.
Basically, you can only resort to name calling, which again is useless in debate but showed your stupidity and bigotry. The ROC territorial claim is even bigger than ROC, can you explain that to me?
Of course you can’t. And explain the following to me too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
melektaus says
@Haikun
You seem to have severe reading difficulties. Where did I say that I agreed with the jailing of Liu for ten years? Take remedial reading classes, repeat if necessary, then reread my post, fool.
melektaus says
The number of truly functionally illiterate people in the western world is unacceptable. It really is the cause of a lot of the problems. The basic education system has failed. You look at many of the detractors here posting like this moron haikun. He can’t even understand simple sentences written at the 6th grade reading level. Is it any wonder that the west can so easily manipulate people into wars and other policies so detrimental to the world and even to themselves?
zack says
@Haikun
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight