Let me put it this way: Speech freedom Human right and democracy are like sex orgasm. The Chinese people don't know how vital it is since they seldom,or even never experience it before. It is true that, like the chinese government may say, you won't die if you dont have an orgasm.

But if you ever give people a chance, merely once or twice, to taste that rapture, I am sure that chinese people will do whatever they can do to defend their rights and joy of orgasm, like a horny ruttish beast.

@Yohan

not entirely correct.

fact of the matter is, majority of orindary chinese are too busy with life and aren't interested in politics, so they wouldn't mind their rights being deprieved because they don't even know how to exercise them in the first place, plus they typically dare not to.

and theres a cultural factor here, chinese take extreme care not to offend anyone when they say something, this conservative value weighs more than all other factors when it comes to diminishing the sense of freedom of speech.

I get the feeling that even if the government completely stays away from interfering with speech, the people here would still keep quiet on what they used to keep quiet on.

also, freedom of speech (and other similar rights) requires a tolerant and civil society to prevent conflicts as a result of diverse opinions, and people must understand rights and responsibilities come together, this is immensely crucial, for example, a violent protest, while still called a "protest", would destroy much more than it help, and as it happens now, china fails miserably at this benchmark.

"Let me put it this way: Speech freedom Human right and democracy are like sex orgasm."

Hahaha you've never been to India have you?

"chinese take extreme care not to offend anyone when they say something, this conservative value weighs more than all other factors when it comes to diminishing the sense of freedom of speech."

http://www.danwei.org/featured_video/well_fed_foreigners.php

I think Yohan's right to a large degree. Pingke is right in that the Internet has given Chinese people freedom of speech, to a large degree. I don't think anyone would now be willing to go back to the pre-Internet days, simply reading the People's Daily and so on.

As for arguing against democracy by point out that certain conditions (civil society, culture of respect, educated populace) aren't there in full, I think that these are, and will always be, works in progress.

In many cases, such as labor protests, workers can be seen as rationale actors, as economists might predict, who understand their interests and understand that the best odds for achieving their ends, barring a system of collective bargaining with a strong independent union in their corner, is to make the workplace issues social issues, as the Party and government has been officially charged with dealing with the solutions under the current framework (ie 五位一体）. This is just one example in which the government stifles the conditions necessary for a healthy democracy (of course, this is not to say that the government doesn't also do a lot of good things). In this sort of situation, it's not easy to build the conditions needed for democracy, or even building the needed channels for peaceful interest-based dispute mechanisms. Public contestation of ideas, through the Internet, is one way to try to solve these difficult problems.

So, I think Ping Ke's also right in that netizens are now skeptical of other views, and many people also clearly recognize that extremist views and attacks on the Net aren't a good thing. For what it's worth, I think the Internet does serve an important function in building a nascent civil society, however imperfect it is.

But if you ever give people a chance, merely once or twice, to taste that rapture, I am sure that chinese people will do whatever they can do to defend their rights and joy of orgasm, like a horny ruttish beast.

But that sounds equally true with marijuana or opium.

I had a friend who was recently imprisoned for one month. He hadn't done anything wrong and as far as he was concerned, he was also just busy with his life and not bothered about politics. Unfortunately, as it turned out, he was working as a translator and intepreter for someone who had offended the wrong person and who had become the target of a police investigation, and so was caught in the cross-fire. The police took him into custody and told him they could keep him for six months without charges and without notifying any friends or family, which they would do if he didn't cooperate. In fact it was only after one to two weeks of searching and filing missing person reports, that his girlfriend finally managed to find out that he had been taken into police custody in the first place.

I won't go into the details of the interrogation and questioning techniques used, however, I will say that after my friend was released with no charges, he told me that before he never used to understand why westerners always went on about human rights problems in China, but that now, after having such things taken away from him through no fault of his own, he understands.

I think Yohan's analogy is spot on.

It's probably better for developing freedom of speech when Bullog got taken down. Bullog's brand of freedom of speech is basically a bunch of anti-government bloggers feeding diluted and simplified liberal slogans to a mass of "unsuccessfuls" who hang on the internet all day, blaming all their failures on society. What you get is a large irrational mob who feel that they are exercising "independent thinking" or freedom of speech, when all they doing is just respewing crap spewed already by others. It's probably better that such an extreme site gets taken down.

@hai

that's what I am thinking too, though I wouldn't go as far as shutting it down.

ultra-liberals here are no different than ultra-conservatives in which they are basically the same bunch of extremists and conspiracy propagandists. and it seems that no one cares about facts and reasoning.

it's the internet mob is it not?

I don't know how one could argue that freedom of speech is actually advanced by banning a website.

Also, anybody who calls himself/herself a liberal should at least defend the right of people to publish their personal views and opinions. Chinese conservatives would argue that the ends (peace, social stability, maintaining the status quo) justify the means (shutting down "extremist" websites). That's an important distinction.

In the American context, I don't like the Weekly Standard or the National Review, but that doesn't mean I think the Obama administration should shut them down because "I" think they're extreme.

You could argue that, as some imply, that Chinese are more prone to a "mob mentality". But I think that only allowing for people to sort through different points of view can a society actually decrease a knee-jerk mob mentality, and I think Ping Ke implied that this is already starting to happen in China, or has already happened.

"The Chinese people don't know how vital it is since they seldom,or even never experience it before."..."But if you ever give people a chance, merely once or twice, to taste that rapture"

On a more serious note, it seems imo your point implies people aren't actively seeking freedom because they have never experienced it or don't know it. However I would argue you don't need to know it to want and experience it. On some of the biggest bbs the talk is centered around the push for greater freedoms eg. rule of law, when it hasn't been established in China yet.

@Dnes

"Hahaha you've never been to India have you?"

True. Never and stereotypically dislike indian people.

and honestly , I don't get your point. Mind you explain to me?

@Yohan

I was amused by the contrast you paint of Chinese people seeing democracy as sex, while many Indians would love a little injection of authoritarianism into the Indian congress so things can get done.