Is the link to a Danwei admin log-in page a hint you're going to provide all us whack-job commenters the freedom to express our oddball views blessed with an official Danwei imprint? If so, my first post will be on how the blocking of YouTube is undoubtedly the single worst violation of human freedom in all history and the only subject worth discussing in China today.

Sorry. Apparently our deal to host co-branded Xinhua commentary fell through. I've replaced the link with a working one.

This Q and A is exactly why Danwei is the best website in China....

It just means that state power shall not retaliate against one's speech, but he or she still has to face social consequences, for example if I abuse my boss and he fires me I can't go the the court and use my speech right against my boss's decision.

Seems similiar, write unofficial Danwei sanctioned words and get moderated. Talk about unofficial CCP sanctioned topics and get silenced.

I apologize in advance for sounding like a pedantic scold.

The thing is, we in the U.S. (and Europe, etc.) CAN'T say anything we want, Jeremy. The CCP enjoys characterizing free speech in Western democracies in such black-and-white terms precisely because it discredits us - makes us look like raving mad lunatics. In fact, it would do the Chinese people good to hear about the kinds of limits placed on freedom of speech in places like the U.S. For example, there are all sorts of laws limiting so-called "hate speech." Similarly, there is no law protecting my right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater" or sing the Chinese national anthem at the top of my lungs in my neighbor's home at 3 am whenever I want. Finally, there are laws against slander and defamation as well, and my boss can fire me for wearing an offensive t-shirt. In short, someone much better informed than I should explain to the Chinese exactly how free speech works in the West.

The Chinese might also benefit from hearing that there been a great deal of debate in the U.S. regarding the meaning of "free speech," and that our right to freedom of speech has meant different things at different times. In fact, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt both passed laws during times of war curbing our free speech rights. And they weren't the only two presidents to do so.

Last but not least - There is a theory that suggests that freedom of speech actually raises the quality of a people. That is, aside from allowing for the exchange of ideas that is required in a democracy in which people must cast informed votes, freedom of speech also - over time - promotes tolerance and a relative willingness to countenance constructive dissent.

I'm through. Stinky out.

The funny thing is that it is not a bad article to teach people in China about American sensitivities about race. It is just that the title/first paragraph are totally irrelevant. No one is saying these guys weren't allowed to distribute/print these things; there are just consequences if don't think first.

Thanks, Xinhua, for clearing that one up.

Let's not beat about the bush, Stinky. Forget hate speech etc. The bit the Chinese govt is really concerned about is direct criticism in the media of political leaders. That would also include the right to know what leaders earn, where their family work etc. It is this shift of power that scares the shit out of Hu and Wen.

semi-seconding Stinky.

anti-democratic regimes such as China's often seek to scuttle domestic arguments in favor of "free speech" with the straw man canard that (1) the U.S. lacks any restrictions whatsoever on speech (just look how obnoxious those fat Americans are!) and (2) unrestricted speech imperils social stability (just look how dangerous America is!).

the reality, as Stinky says, is that there are a good many more restrictions on speech in the U.S. than most people--in or out of the U.S.--realize.

very roughly speaking:

private restrictions are everywhere and are generally acceptable (in some case mandatory, as with certain hate speech in the work place) provided the speech is not tortious.

governmental and quasi-governmental restrictions, as well as restrictions on speech in a public place are, in general, strictly scrutinized and are usually (though not necessarily) prohibited as to speech content but not so much as to the time, place or manner of speech provided the restriction is not overly broad.

lotsa room in there to shut people up. even fat, obnoxious, Yankee dogs.

YES!

Just YES!

"Finally, there are laws against slander and defamation as well, and my boss can fire me for wearing an offensive t-shirt."---STINKY

STINKY is correct. By the way did you get that name from Ben Seaver's friend on "GROWING PAINS" or from the synonym for poop? Either way, brilliant!

Also, to be clear in the U.S. a boss can fire an employee for no reason whatsoever. If an employee was fat, ugly, smelled, or simply irritated the boss they have the right to give that employee the heeve-ho. Is sad in some cases but that is the way it is.

There's also libel laws that S'pore uses to shut up dissidents; you publish bad news, we make you pay big fine.

Not even Danwei supports free speech, as you can notice from the disclaimer telling trolls and flamers to go elsewhere.

slowboat claims the Chinese government is using a strawman argument, but I have to agree with the Chinese government on one issue; in no country is "free speech" literally free speech, there are always legal and societal limitations on free speech. So why call it free speech? Can we just call it the right to criticize the government?

Go in the US, and shout out that Ben Laden is great. You'll have the feds coming to your house and take you for interrogation. If you are lucky, you'll avoid Guantanamo and maybe have the right to a fair trial... or maybe not.

Freedom of speech is easy to apply when countries are stable, but as soon as a national security risk arise, it disappears. Democratic or authoritarian country, the rule is the same when it comes to freedom of speech to maintain national unity and security. Get real guys and open your eyes.

Well...maybe someone would like to explain to me the cases of David Irving and Geert Wilders?

I'm confused as to why there isn't more explanation to the watermelon image. Is there a Chinese version that spells it out more. As an American, the connection to racial stereotypes is patently obvious, but I was under the assumption that the stereotype of black people liking watermelon was pretty much limited to the US.

Ji Feng Jing Cao

I see what you mean about Geert Wilders and David Irving, but you miss the point. You know about these individuals because the media has been able to discuss them openly, the public has been able to discuss them openly on TV political debate shows. And in the court of public opinion, certainly on Wilders, the government has lost. It's another black mark against Labour at the next election.

Now, how many Chinese know about their (not moral) equivalents in China ie Hu Jia, Liu Xiaobo etc? There is no debate about whether these guys are right or wrong. That is the issue. And Geert Wilders' film has not been censored, like Hu Jia's wife's blog.

If the answer is yes, then why does Danwei moderate the comments?

Stinky has got the point. Some speeches one see/hear on Chinese BBS are really scary.

@GAC
"I was under the assumption that the stereotype of black people liking watermelon was pretty much limited to the US."

Yeah, I think you are defninitely right there. So much of what Americans see as potentially racist goes over the head of anyone else. As an Australian, that article would have left me totally baffled without the explanations here.

GAC- I thought the same thing. Without knowing that the idea the blacks were portrayed as coming from chimps (as a Social Darwinian argument used in the 1870's and onward to perpetuate racist policies under Jim Crow) and that these sorts of blacks ate watermelon (no offense to the fruit), then the supposed backlash against "racist" comments seems fairly arbitrary and ridiculous, instead of being historically rooted in a fairly violent and offense tradition. I can't say for certain, but I felt that was maybe the intent of the article: to make American public's response to free speech seem slightly arbitrary and random. If you make any system seem random, arbitrary or absurd, you can basically discredit it, kind of how Stinky pointed out.

Amazing. Simple question, simple answer - "No."

"Freedom of Speech" in the US means, at a bare minimum, no licensing of print media. After that it gets more complicated, but we really don't need to go beyond this fundamental point when comparing China with most other countries.

Most other countries do not have licensing requirements for print media. China does.

I am a lawyer. Citations available upon request.