Re: Soft censorship laws - realigning with China
Actually, all democracies felt the need to keep the freedom of expression inside civility - because if the public discourse degenerates into a fight of who shouts and barks louder, usually democracy dies, as authoritarian people are the best at shouting and barking. The events of 100 years ago should have taught something, but that lesson looks now lost.
Authoritarian state, on the other hand, have no problem with propaganda, inflammatory and harmful contents, as long as they control them, because they are very effective when unleashed against the "enemy of the people" - and lead to terrible tragedies.
Would you like your boss at work, if you have one, being able to harass, insult and bully you, in name of his or her "freedom of speech?" Or would you demand "civility"? Would you like your neighbors inciting to harm you and your family, in the name of their "freedom of speech"? Or do you believe if that behaviour is "nameless" is more acceptable?
A line must be drawn about what is acceptable and what is not. It's a very, very difficult thing to do, and "check and balances" to ensure that power is not abused are extremely needed - just like the power to jail people, for example.
The difference between an authoritarian state and a democracy is exactly in those check and balances.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
