Tyler Trosper

English 335
Textual Contribution

Equality of Freedom of Speech Using the U.S. and China

Freedom of speech is taken for granted here in the United States of America. When we

speak of censorship, people usually make a big deal out of it, like with the censorship of certain

books or movies to fit specific audiences. We say that it goes against our right of freedom of

speech, a right given to us in our country’s original constitution. However, not all countries can

be as free as the United States of America, especially not China. In China, as with the United

States, an individual is free to do as they please so long as it is in accordance with the law,

which, when you put that into account, really leaves little room to be as free as you desire. In my

paper, I shall analyze what it means to have the freedom to express yourself as you please, be it

in China or in our own country. Also, I will briefly discuss how rhetoric fits into all the talk

surrounding censorship and freedom of speech. In the United States and China, the extent of an

individual’s freedoms differ, but ultimately no one is truly free.

In comparison of the United States of America and China, the freedom to express

whatever one wishes is vague, depending entirely on each country’s definition of the word

“freedom”. On one hand, the United States was founded on the belief that citizens have the right

to freedom of speech, but, on the other hand, that often relies upon the context of the situation.

Similarly, China also follows set laws of freedom of speech through The Universal Declaration

of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. (Article 19)
The declaration, created by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, is set as an

example for all members of the United Nations to follow and also “to cause it to be disseminated,

displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without

distinction based on the political status of countries or territories”. However, the extent China

uses The Universal Declaration of Human Rights depends on the context of the situation, most

notably if the speech is speaking out against the government or the Communist Party (James and

Xinhua). The level of censorship differs between the two countries, but the parallel between

them is quite evident. However, it’s the level of censorship that completely sets the two apart. A

Pew Research Center survey, as reported by Time, discovered that “80% of Chinese think the

Internet should be managed or controlled, and 85% of that think the government should be

responsible for doing it” (James). The research mentioned implies a majority of China’s people

have fallen into the rut of censorship that they have grown comfortable with the “freedom” they

have, or at least that is how I see it. The point that the people are lulled into delusion is

reminiscent of The Matrix, leaving some people ignorant of what freedom of expression really

means and those few who speak up as enemies of the Chinese government. In contrast, the

United States government allows hateful speech, such as the protests at funerals by the Westboro

Baptist Church, but at the same time becomes aggravated by the leaks of Wikileaks. In the end,

it is Bitzer’s rhetorical situation that determines what can and cannot be said in a nation with

“freedom of speech”, as absolute freedom of speech does not exist in the world of today.

In the United States of America, the rhetorical perspectives surrounding freedom of

expression varies depending on the specific group that is talking. For example, in February of

this year, an anti-abortion billboard had been placed in New York City only to be torn down a

short time later. The advertisement portrayed “a black girl with these words above her head:
‘The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb’” (Haberman). Though

censorship in those regards may be against something extreme and may not fall under popular

opinion of a certain area (anti-abortion in New York), but the fact of the matter is that a group’s

voice had been silenced. Censorship in New York was not relegated to just anti-abortion, but

also in advertisements promoting homophobic behavior, promotion of safe homosexual sex,

denouncement of Wal-Mart have also been torn down due to unpopularity (Haberman). From

the example of New York, the rhetoric that goes along with censorship appears to be of Plato’s

view, that the advertisements are used as a way to deceive the populace and must be removed.

The homophobic advertisements, using verses from the Bible without clearly labeling the stance,

used a subtle attack against homosexuality, meant to manipulate those who read the sign to agree

with them or think deeply on the subject (Haberman). However, if both homophobic and pro-

homosexuality advertisements can be taken down due to unpopularity, that is squashing freedom

of speech, one of the most important articles of the United States Constitution. As Plato said,

rhetoric is immoral and only meant to deceive, so any argument, no matter if is from the

Democrats, Republicans, or any other side, is up to be blocked from manipulating the populace.

But this should not come at the cost of our own freedom.

However, United States citizens can say whatever they want, as guaranteed by the first

article of the Constitution, unlike the country China, despite the censorship of the advertisements

in New York. According to China, the people of its country follow the rules and guidelines set

forth in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document established by the U.N. on

December 10th, 1948. Along with that, Chinese ideology of rights transcends beyond just an

individual to apply also to groups of people. Furthermore, people should be considered equal,

but that is not the case based on social standing, amount of income, and so forth (Xinhua).
However, many instances show that China does not allow for freedom of speech when it comes

to outcries against the government’s oppressive nature. With the protests in Egypt inciting

similar battles around the world, China made sure that its people could not rally in the same way

people of those countries have done by censoring the internet severely. As reported by the New

York Times, words like “protest”, when spoken over the phone or through text message, will

lead to your phone getting shut off, a sign of close surveillance on every phone call (Barboza and

LaFraniere). Censorship is used as a crowd suppressant, keeping citizens at bay when they

should have the right to speak out and change the government as they please.

Platforms that were a big factor in bringing together crowds, like Facebook and Twitter,

have been completely blocked by the Chinese government, providing government-run

replacements (Barboza and LaFraniere). Microblogging has become incredibly popular in

China, the most popular microblogging websites having around 60 million users (Siow). Along

with talking about mundane things, something Twitter and Facebook users see all the time,

microblogging users in China also speak about social injustices that may not be covered in a

newspaper (Siow). But, with China’s strict policy on government slander, the freedom to speak

on such touchy subjects is quite limited. With an estimated internet usage rate at 253 million

customers, the Chinese government has to act on their toes to prevent such a massive amount of

people from coming together to circumvent the government’s control (James).

However, having the government over your shoulder might make you more than a little

scared over what to write on such websites. Take Liu Xianbin, for example. On March 25th,

2011, Xianbin was arrested for the second time because of his activism against the government,

incarcerating him for a staggering 10 years (Jacobs). He had previously served nine years for his

activism, making an example of him in front of anyone else that intended to speak out against the
government (Jacobs). Xianbin is not alone, as many others, cited to be from somewhere between

100 to 200 individuals by The Australian, have been subjected to punishment from the

government. The level at which the government tries to save face is staggering when it involves

imprisoning people for up to a decade.

Beyond Facebook and Twitter, Google has had a hit and miss relationship with the

government of China. Originally, Google could not abide by China’s oppressive censorship of

the internet, leading to the search engine’s removal from the country for some time (Nikai).

Though it has since been renewed, issues regarding censorship are still abound. After the

protests in Egypt, the Chinese government has been accused of blocking Google’s Gmail service

in order to stile similar protests in China (Deccan Herald). This led to outrage by the United

States government, leading to a formal protest of the country to remove the issue (BBC News).

However, despite the involvement of the United States government and a U.S. company, the

issues of censorship and freedom of speech are problems only the people within the country

should settle.

The rhetoric generated by China’s freedom of expression leaves much to be desired on

the government’s part. News, for example, is said to be written in the interest of the masses, as

the group is valued over the individual (James). However, this must not conflict with the

perception of the government. The conflicting points make it difficult to know exactly what to

say and how to say it without government backlash (James). In a way, this ties back to Plato’s

view of rhetoric as a means of deception, manipulating what is heard and what is not heard.

“Freedom of speech” is a vague and illusive term that applies not only to the First

Amendment, but the 19th Article of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United

States of America was founded on many principles, one of which being freedom of speech.
China as well follows a type of freedom of expression, as written out in The Universal

Declaration of Human Rights. However, both countries differ on how far an individual or group

can go with their freedoms. In America, “freedom of speech” depends on the context of the

situation, such as if the speech goes against popular opinion or not. Likewise, China’s freedom

of expression also depends on the context, mainly if the speech conflicts with the government or

not, even if it supposedly follows The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Xinhua).

Censorship and freedom of expression are on equal terms for both the United States of America

and China, as neither one is exactly free.

 Citations

Haberman, Clyde. "Where Freedom of Expression Runs Headlong Into the Impulse to Censor."

New York Times 28 Feb 2011: Web.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/nyregion/01nyc.html?

scp=4&sq=censorship&st=cse>.

"Human Rights Can Be Manifested Differently." Xinhua. Xinhua, 12 Dec 2005. Web.

<http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/12/content_3908887.htm>.

James, Randy. "A Brief History of: Chinese Internet Censorship ." Time. Time Magazine, 18

Mar 2009. Web. < http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1885961,00.html>.

Jacobs, Andrew. " Chinese Democracy Activist Is Given 10-Year Sentence" The New York

Times. The New York Times, 25 Mar 2011. Web. <

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/world/asia/26china.html?src=me>.

LaFraniere, Sharon, and David Barboza. "China Tightens Censorship of Electronic

Communications." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Mar 2011. Web.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/asia/22china.html?

_r=3&ref=internetcensorship>.

"New Targets in China’s Crackdown on Critics ." The Australian. The Australian, 5 Apr 2011.

Web. < http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/new-targets-in-chinas-crackdown-

on-critics/story-e6frg6so-1226033589488>.

Nikai, Sonia. "Google Tests Mapping Service Chances in China." Financial Feed. Financial

Feed, 31 Mar 2011. Web. < http://www.financialfeed.net/google-tests-mapping-service-

chances-in-china/852700/>.
Siow, Maria. "Microblogging a hit in China ." Channel News Asia. Channel News Asia, 30 Mar

2011. Web. <http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119671/1/.html>.

“U.S. to Protest Formally to China Over Google ‘Attacks’”. BBC News. BBC, 16 Jan 2010.

Web. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8462889.stm>.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome to the United Nations. The United

Nations, n.d. Web. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.