justanobserver
SENIOR MEMBER
I agree.
I think the CCP is using Hong Kong as a testing ground, in order to see how an "urban population" of Chinese people are ultimately affected by the free media.
You guys sure are devious
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I agree.
I think the CCP is using Hong Kong as a testing ground, in order to see how an "urban population" of Chinese people are ultimately affected by the free media.
^^^ Taiwan also serves as a mirror in that respect. In this case you get to study multiparty and what happen when you have green-blue issues.
It does shows that education and awareness of the bigger world is important for making informed decisions.

^^^ Taiwan also serves as a mirror in that respect. In this case you get to study multiparty and what happen when you have green-blue issues.
It does shows that education and awareness of the bigger world is important for making informed decisions.
Though fighting in the parliament is quite ugly and shameful to watch. The US also had parliament fights in the early years after founding.
Unlike any other previous rising power, China has never taken any expansionist steps. We are the first power to present a peaceful doctrine, such as the Peaceful Development doctrine. Our foreign policy is the first to promise that China will develop peacefully and treat everyone equally with respect.
Then there is no reason for censorship at all. Free speech mean exactly that -- the freedom to express oneself in any way. It is up to society to decide which venues, situations, and consequences that deserve punitive responses. The more the state deem deserving of punitive responses, the more paternalistic it appears and oppressive the regime becomes. So either we have the faith that the people will sort out for themselves on what is 'yellow journalism' versus what is responsible fact reporting, or we endow the state the power to regulate this particular aspect of life.Now that the troll has been banned, thanks to our mod, shall we go back to the original discussion?
I think that free speech should be implemented in China. When I say free speech I don't mean irresponsible yellow journalism but the rights of the people to information. Acts such as blocking foreign websites and filtering sensitive words is tantamount to self-castration in the ongoing "ideological war" between the East and the West. Most Chinese people could tell whether some one truly cares about China or are just manipulating them as a part of a greater scheme.
Then there is no reason for censorship at all. Free speech mean exactly that -- the freedom to express oneself in any way. It is up to society to decide which venues, situations, and consequences that deserve punitive responses. The more the state deem deserving of punitive responses, the more paternalistic it appears and oppressive the regime becomes. So either we have the faith that the people will sort out for themselves on what is 'yellow journalism' versus what is responsible fact reporting, or we endow the state the power to regulate this particular aspect of life.
That is why I said venues, situations, and consequences. Who cares if you yell 'Fire' in a theater filled or 'crowded' with things other than people? We considered this situation to be offensive and devised a punitive response to the situation. Same for national security threats. The difference is that 'national security threats' can be widely interpretive and whose consequences can be much further down the road -- time wise. The state is responsible for national security. The reasoning therefore is that any threat to national security constitute the same threat to the state. So the state take steps to devise punitive responses to any threat to itself, from legitimate criticisms to armed insurrections.What about "shouting fire in a theater full of people" and "clear and present danger"?
That is why I said venues, situations, and consequences. Who cares if you yell 'Fire' in a theater filled or 'crowded' with things other than people? We considered this situation to be offensive and devised a punitive response to the situation. Same for national security threats. The difference is that 'national security threats' can be widely interpretive and whose consequences can be much further down the road -- time wise. The state is responsible for national security. The reasoning therefore is that any threat to national security constitute the same threat to the state. So the state take steps to devise punitive responses to any threat to itself, from legitimate criticisms to armed insurrections.
Censorship exists to some extent in all modern countries, including the U.S.A., the U.K., Germany, France, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand.
...
Censorship


