So if free speech is not a universal human right, then which humans (if any) deserve this right? Only Americans?
I'm also curious if Chinese people living in America deserve this right. Could you lay out, in broad strokes, which groups of people deserve which packages of rights?
I agree that free speech is a human right, for some definition of free speech.
I don't agree that "no censorship" is a human right. If NBC wants to start running a special on how Jews are Satan's children, then I want the FCC to censor them. You don't have the right to say whatever you want on your government granted airwave monopoly.
As for bored's comment, it is an obvious exclusion of the middle. Saying "China's censorship is bad" is not at all the same as saying "no censorship is a universal human right."
I don't quite see what you're saying. For instance, free speech gives companies the right to publish books that criticize the government.
If you are saying that all individuals should be free to say whatever they want, then I assure you that your views are extreme. Do you believe that everyone has the right to put up billboards covered in child pornography?
"Saying what you want" is not a right that supersedes other laws. No one can put up billboards (or even possess) child pornography because it is a heinous crime. Similarly, there are other limitations on free speech like shouting "Bomb" in a crowded theater.
It is actually legal (though obviously immoral) for a human being to say bigoted things about any religion. NBC cannot run a special saying the same thing because there are (quite likely, IANAL) laws against broadcasting hate speech on T.V. and the market itself also acts as a censor in NBC's case.
Saying "free speech should be a Universal right of individuals" is not equivalent to saying "NBC should be able to broadcast a special propagating hate speech". You are claiming it is.
So Janet Jackson can say fuck on CBS and she can't be punished for it but CBS can. I am pretty sure there is no law preventing a random person from spouting hate speech on TV (eg those people who shouted gays are the children of satan and other insults at military funerals) although there are quite likely laws requiring TV stations to take all measures to avoid giving such guys a platform.
> Saying "free speech should be a Universal right of individuals" is not equivalent to saying "NBC should be able to broadcast a special propagating hate speech". You are claiming it is.
Quoting myself:
"I agree that free speech is a human right, for some definition of free speech.
I don't agree that 'no censorship' is a human right."
I think we are just arguing semantics at this point.
Since when was free speech a recognized right? There's restrictions on it in every country on the planet. We in the west are lucky that we're allowed to say a lot without restriction, but we hardly have free speech.
Other peoples rights are always more important than my own, that's recognized in every country regardless of political affiliation. I can't libel or defame someone even though I have a right to freedom of speech, and I can't threaten the stability of my country as it may endanger peoples lives, which is why there's national security laws that can put strangle holds on newspapers and essentially anyone.
People respond to the Chinese banning things like its inhumane. I'm sorry, but China has a notorious history of political instability, only two times in history has it not been in Civil War. That is right now, and when it was invaded and conquered by the Mongols.
In less than 2 years China's raised the average household income by approximately 20% or $1,000, which is phenomenal. They have low unemployment for a third world country, inline with standards aimed for by western countries, usually below 11% is seen as good and China has an average of 9%.
China is managing to keep a greater percentage of its citizens above the poverty line than the US, despite it being a slightly smaller country with four times the citizens. So please, perhaps question the restrictions placed on speech in your own country, before you condemn the restrictions placed in another country, with a different culture, different circumstances and a very different history.
You question who deserves this right, however perhaps you should be questioning if we as westerners deserve this right, when people without this 'right' are treating their poor better than us.
Way to misinterpret. I'm not questioning who deserves the right to free speech, I believe all humans do. I'm simply asking those who don't believe it is a universal right to explain who deserves it and who does not.
As for one of your other (tangential and irrelevant) points, it is just so wrong I can't even begin to understand where you would get such a mistaken idea.
China is managing to keep a greater percentage of its citizens above the poverty line than the US, despite it being a slightly smaller country with four times the citizens.
That's because the chinese poverty line is lower than the american one ($1.25/day vs $28/day).
I'm also curious if Chinese people living in America deserve this right. Could you lay out, in broad strokes, which groups of people deserve which packages of rights?