Discuss Free Speech in China Compared to the UK

by hello3648 (student)

International Baccalaureate Anthropology

Freedom of speech is defined as, “the right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government”, and Article 35 of the Chinese constitution promises the right to "freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." (China.org, 1982) I am going to explore this question focusing solely on how governmental censorship of the internet and media limits free speech for people in China today, and the impact that this has. Although there are many other aspects of this broad topic, namely Tibetan protests, I cannot explore them all in such a short discussion. I will then analyze freedom of speech comparatively to the United Kingdom, and show that although freedom of speech is welcomed there are still restrictions, as there are in any country, and the ramifications are frequently negative. I will argue how I believe that the degree of freedom of speech for people in China is dependent on their demographic and job. I will also argue how restricting freedom of speech is not necessarily a sinister objective. Therefore, although there are limits on freedom of speech for people in China today, these limitations are only felt by particular segments of society at a time, and have been shown to have positive consequences comparatively.

To begin, there are over 1 billion people in China, 384 million of whom were internet users by 2009 (Xiao, 2011), primarily those in urban China. Freedom of speech via the internet has many limitations, as I will explain. Censorship has been defined as, “the act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good.” The “Great Firewall of China” is a well-known, sophisticated filtration system that has been in place since 1995 when the internet first became commercially available to people in China. The rules that have been created from 1995 to the present have been implemented to control and supervise nearly all aspects of the internet. One of the first State Council regulations put forward, the PRC Regulations for the Safety Protection of Computer Information Systems, states that the Ministry for Public Security has the right to “supervise, inspect and guide the security protection work”, "investigate and prosecute illegal criminal cases" and "perform other supervising duties.” (Tai, 2006). The system that is in place has over 30,000 censors, with many key words and phrases blocked relating to democracy, Tibet, independence movements and world news. It is not only search engines, however, that are censored. Constant monitoring of the internet also extends to screening emails going in and out of China, and any posts made on forums and micro-blogs, which are state run, can be “harmonized”, deleted, or blocked all together. The laws in place also allow for substantial fines, network termination and even imprisonment, with an estimated 54 people currently detained for internet related offences (Amnesty International, 2009). For example, Wang Zhenyong was arrested in 2001 for “downloading and distributing by e-mail promotional material on the Falungong spiritual movement.” Furthermore, a very recent ruling was introduced to tackle the problem that supervisors were unable to control the sharing of posts as traffic into the sites becomes uncontrollable. The law states that any rumour that is “shared 500 times or seen 5,000 times” (China Digital Times, 2013) can lead to the perpetrator facing a possible three-year jail sentence, which sets a dangerous precedent for society, especially as another recent ruling states that users of blogs are no longer allowed to use acronyms as usernames – banishing anonymity. These censorship rulings and methods would lead one to believe that freedom of speech is limited, as Chinese “netizens” are unable to voice their opinions, particularly of the government, without facing some kind of consequences, or being accused of “subversion”.

However, in order to assess the impact that these restrictions have on freedom of speech, it is best to look from a national perspective. As I previously mentioned, it is only a quarter of the population who have internet access, an even smaller percentage of whom have private internet access, all others will usually go to internet cafes. Of this small percentage, there are around 4 million forum users and 600,000 micro-blog users out of an approximate 384 million web users. As the majority of web users live in urban China, it is likely that they are working individuals, which limits the number of people actively using micro-blogs and forums. This is because both are very time consuming, and keeping up with individual posts requires time that many will not have. From this, it can be questioned how many web users are tactically seeking to express their freedom of speech in a political sense. Arguably, many web users may be wholly unaware of the censorship that is in place because in their down time on the internet it is more likely that they are looking at sports, news, and finance as opposed to politically sensitive topics. In this respect, although particular posts may be “harmonised” or deleted, infringing on free speech, it must be kept in mind that there will be a much higher percentage of web users that will not see the post, and even those that do are unlikely to actively react to something just because of sensational content. Furthermore, for those arguing that censorship is a barrier to freedom of speech, there are ways to circumvent this, for example, using different Chinese characters that spell the same word but mean different things, as was the case in 2011 when hackers shared 950 characters that were not blocked or removed by workers. This is showing how “the internet may lead to the production and dissemination of more diverse information and communication, thus diminishing the symbolic power of the state” (Lei, 2011) and continue to undermine the “Great Firewall”. However, as previously mentioned, “there still lacks knowledge of how many Chinese Web surfers adopt such approaches” (Human Rights Watch, 2006). Furthermore, the question itself presupposes that there are degrees of freedom of speech. In rural China, for example, the majority of people do not have access to the internet and their main communication method is face to face interaction, and possibly mobiles. For this reason, those in rural China may argue that they have a fair amount of freedom of speech as their methods of communication cannot be censored in the same way, and voicing their opinions to others is relatively easy. In addition, there are areas at universities where open, albeit supervised, debates can take place regarding sensitive topics such as Chinese democracy in comparison to the western world. For these reasons, I would argue that despite technical and legal restrictions on the internet that do stop many from exercising freedom of speech, these barriers only impact a small minority. Many are either not aware of the scale of filtration, do not have access to the internet, or simply are not concerned with voicing such opinions. Therefore, there is only a breakdown of freedom of speech for a small segment of society.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The other major censorship implementation which impacts freedom of speech in China is the media. Article 24 of the Chinese constitution states that “Citizens may..in their publications freely express their views and opinions with respect to national affairs, economic..cultural..and social affairs..” (China.org, 1982) According to Reporters Without Borders, China ranked 174/179 in the index of free press, which is a damning statistic for China that boasts around 2,000 newspapers and 374 television networks, none of which broadcast external media. As with the internet, there are many laws in place which limit freedom of the press. These are primarily concerned with “protecting state secrets” which is something the government is very passionate about, although “the definition of state secrets remains as sweeping as the original law and still fails to comply with international human rights standards” (Human Rights in China, 2010). The laws in place to protect state secrets can be summarised in the 2000 Notice Regarding Further Strengthening the Administration of Periodicals Relating to Current Affairs and Politics, General Lifestyle, Information Tabloids and Scientific Theory:

“It is strictly prohibited for publications to include any of the following contents:

(1) gainsaying the leadership of Marxism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory;

(3) . . . jeopardizing the interests of the nation;

(4) . . . influencing social stability;

(5) . . . propagating superstition, pseudo-science or incorrect teachings.

(6) spreading rumors, producing and distributing false news, interfering in the broader work of the party or the nation;

(7) otherwise violating the propaganda discipline of the party or violating the regulations administering the nation's publishing.” (Human Rights Watch)

Furthermore, these laws limit the freedom of speech for people in China because journalists, writers and television producers must adhere to strict rules in order for their work to be published. It is compulsory to have a license, which is granted by the state, and so not adhering to these rules can lead to licenses being revoked by the Central Propaganda Department, the main regulatory body. In the same way, they can shut down media websites if they feel that the publishing is somehow damaging to China in any way, for example in 2012, Bloomberg and New York Times were blacked out because they ran stories on the personal wealth of Xi Jinping and Wenjaboo (Council on Foreign Relations, 2013). It is journalists, however, who arguably have their freedom of speech oppressed the most. For example, journalists will not be paid until their work has been checked and published which acts as a huge disincentive to not follow the “main melody” of the party. In addition, journalists can face reprisals at work, fines and imprisonment, with Reporters Without Borders estimating that in 2011 alone 27 journalists were imprisoned, one being Tan Zuoren who was “sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for drawing attention to government corruption and poor construction of schools after the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province” (Council on Foreign Relations, 2013). For the CCP, media is the “mouthpiece of the party” (Xiao, 2011) and is there to propagate positive views of the party. For example, there are often photos and videos of party officials shaking hands, and news comparing the growth of their economy with other countries, particularly the west. At the same time, the CCP selectively chooses which negative press to block or allow, so as to not create social unrest, although this too limits the news that journalists are able to cover. If we take the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, for example, media coverage and access to internet information was essentially banned, meaning that neither journalists or ordinary citizens could voice their opinions or find out more information regarding the incident. The point of free speech is being able to actualise your freedoms in regard to politics, society and economics, to name a few, and being unable to have these views represented fundamentally undermines the amount of free speech that people have in China.

However, once again, in order to assess how far the media really impacts freedom of speech, a wider perspective must be taken. Firstly, as my above points mention, the restrictions in the media only affect a small minority: journalists and media outlets. These make up a small percentage of the population, so it must be questioned whether censorship of the media is indicative of widespread infringement of free speech. Furthermore, for everyday citizens with access to the internet, there are ways of circumventing the firewall with many being able to access radio stations such as Free Asia and Voice of America. New Tang Dynasty Television is also able to broadcast uncensored news into China via satellite. As previously mentioned, there needs to be some consideration taken for who is concerned with the fact that there is no external media allowed, and whether the majority of Chinese citizens really care about only having Chinese media outlets. This could be answered by looking at the motive behind the censorship - stability. The CCP wants to propagate positive views and protect the public from negativity because it creates unrest in society; had there been a widespread campaign about Tiananmen Square, this would have inevitably led to further demonstrations and protests which puts a lot of pressure on the government to succumb to societies demands. Furthermore, there are media outlets, namely the Southern Weekly whose paper circulates about 1.6 million copies a week (Voice of America, 2013), that have taken a stand against the government. This paper, although being previously reprimanded, has retained the same liberal view that continues allow journalists to write about topics they are passionate about. In the past they have exposed breaking news, such as the SARS outbreak of 2003, and this year published an article calling for greater constitutional rights (Voice of America, 2013). In addition, Asia Survey will frequently publish details of political scandals that are readily accessible, showing that “communication between the Party and the masses is subject to leaks, inference, and distortion” and so the media cannot be fully censored. From this, we can see that those willing to take risks in society have done so and have actualised their freedom of speech in order to gain government attention. For these reasons, I would argue that despite the technical and legal restrictions in the media that undermine free speech, these barriers only impact a small minority because those who are uninvolved in the media will either be happy to watch the Chinese networks and read the Chinese papers, or will circumvent the censorship to find external news. Therefore, there is only a breakdown of freedom of speech for a small segment of society.

Lastly, I want to judge how much freedom of speech people in China have today compared with the United Kingdom, as it is widely acknowledged that individuals in the UK are able to exercise freedom of speech with ease. If we firstly explore the media, Reporters Without Borders has ranked the UK 29 out of 179 on the index of free press. There are a huge range of independent media outlets and newspapers that all cater for different sectors of society, for example, the Telegraph and the Guardian. These papers are essentially allowed to publish whatever their editors choose and usually aim for sensational headlines that will get reader’s attentions, as do television programs and radio channels. These media outlets also feature much debate, especially regarding politically sensitive topics, for example PM question time or Sunday Politics. Although journalists and media outlets have a much wider spectrum of topics to discuss, they still face OFCOM as their main regulatory body, where they too may face reprisals, terminations and fines, but rarely imprisonment. In this respect, it would appear the individuals in the UK, primarily journalists, enjoy much more freedom of speech than their Chinese counterparts. However, the impact of this is not always desirable. The CCP would argue that the “most important aim of censorship is to prevent large-scale distribution of information that would lead to collective action” (Xiao, 2011). Arguably, many people trust what they are reading or hearing through their chosen media outlet, and as journalists are allowed to publish almost any news, credible or not, public opinion frequently, and rapidly, turns hostile as a result. For example, when the increased university fees were proposed, the public reacted furiously and thousands collectively rioted outside Westminster, causing thousands of pounds worth of damage. In addition, propagating positive views of the CCP should not necessarily be seen as negative, as it gives the impression of unity and strength within the party, even if that is not necessarily true. In the UK, the constant “mud-slinging” by politicians and bias of particular channels and newspapers leaves many feeling disillusioned. Therefore, although UK media has fewer restrictions, the consequences of this often cause political and social unrest, something the CCP are keen to avoid.

In addition, in the UK the internet is the people’s largest free speech arena, with approximately 80% of the population being web users or having some access to the internet (Official National Statistics, 2013), and no restrictions on websites and search engines unless implemented personally. Individuals are able to voice their opinions on any forum or blog and many social networking sites, including twitter and MySpace, which China do not allow. Individuals also do not have to use their own names. I would argue, however, that although members of society can openly critique the government, and comment about democracy and world news, this does not lead to direct changes. This leads us to wonder whether this vast amount of free speech is largely wasted, as even when political protests and riots break out the government does not have to react to demands, for example, the Iraq war protest. The CCP would also argue that Facebook, Twitter and MySpace are sites which have been seen to incite hatred against others and openly create riots and terrorist organizations that are not beneficial for society in any way. This point is outlined by Hilary Clinton who said of the internet, “it is the same networks that help organize movements for freedom that also enable [terrorists] to incite hatred and violence.” (Freeman, 2010). To compensate for the lack of social networks, which is paired with the lack of ability to criticize the government, there have been blogs set up specifically by the CCP in order for Chinese people to voice any opinions they may have, albeit filtered. The point I am making is that in countries where there is largely unrestricted freedom of speech, there is also a vast amount of dissent and unhappiness in the population, and a much higher rate of political and social unrest, something the CCP is keen to control. For these reasons, I believe that the controls and measures put in place by the CCP to minimize freedom of speech work in favour of both the people and themselves. It is also true that this increased freedom of speech does not necessarily lead to greater democracy or unrestricted human rights; therefore, even though Western society may enjoy greater freedom of speech, the CCP’s implementation of such restrictions has so far been successful in creating political and social stability. When considering how much freedom of speech people in China have, it is clear that they have less freedoms than those in the UK, but it begs the question whether even political activists in China would opt for a system where society is unstable and frequently hostile.

To conclude, the aforementioned points outline the degree to which I believe people in China have freedom of speech. I believe that the internet and the media are the greatest limitations to the free speech of Chinese people, and comparatively to the UK, Chinese people have far less freedom of speech. However, as I have also outlined, the impact that this has on freedom of speech is not as great as it may appear; the affects are mainly felt by metropolitan people. There are still many people in China that do not have access to the internet, media legislation only affects a small, working minority, and comparatively other countries have not seen political or social stability through executing their freedom of speech. In any case, freedom of speech is limited in all countries, but in a much more subtle way. The Chinese Communist Party are trying to stabilize their country and keep the citizens happy which, I believe, has taken place. For these reasons I have spoken about in my short discussion, I believe that the breakdown of freedom of speech, although existing, only impacts particular segments of society at a time and overall consequences have been positive; it would be false to say that people in China today have no freedom of speech.

Bibliography.

Works Cited:

Amnesty International. 2009. Amnesty International Report 2009. [Online]. [Accessed: 6th November 2013]. Available from:
China Digital Times. 2013. Lawyers Criticize “Straitjacket” for Online Rumors. [Online]. [Accessed: 2nd November 2013]. Available from:
China.org.cn. 1982. Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. [Online]. [Accessed: 8th November 2013]. Available from:
Congressional-Executive Commission on China. International Agreements and Domestic Legislation Affecting Freedom of Expression. [Online]. [Accessed: 8th November 2013]. Available from:
Council on Foreign Relations. 2013. Media Censorship in China. [Online]. [Accessed: 6th November 2013]. Available from:
Freeman, D. 2010. Google for freedom? The Chinese, internet and free speech. BICCS Asia Paper. 5(3).
Human Rights in China. 2010. China Sharpens Legal Weapons for Information Control. [Online]. [Accessed: 2nd November 2013]. Available from:
Human Rights Watch. Freedom of Expression and the Internet in China. [Online]. [Accessed: 6th November 2013]. Available from:
Lei, Y. 2011. ‘The political consequences of the rise of the Internet: political beliefs and practices of Chinese netizens’ 28(3): 291–322.
Liang, B & Hong, L. 2010. 'Internet development, censorship, and cyber crimes in China'. 26(1): 103–120.
Official National Statistics. 2013. UK Internet use by people aged 16 years and over. [Online]. [Accessed: 8th November 2013]. Available from:
Press Reference. China. [Online]. [Accessed: 4th November 2013]. Available from:
Tai, Z. 2006. The Internet in China: Cyberspace and civil society. New York: Routledge
Voice of America. 2013. Chinese Paper Has Long History of Challenging Authorities. [Online]. [Accessed: 6th November 2013]. Available from:
Xiao, Q. 2011. ‘The rise of online public opinion and its political impact’. Chapter 9 in Susan L. Shirk (ed.) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.