China is targeting individual speech, sanctions and embargos target governments and governmental policy. There's a bit of a difference there.

That said, I think that China's efforts - by using companies as their proxies - are being much more effective.

>are being much more effective

Absolutely. They’re beating us at our own game and revealing that American values were never freedom and democracy - those are just ways we think are good to make money. If a better system comes along we’re the first to jump on it.

This is laughably false. The press in the United States is and remains free to publish (virtually) whatever it wants about federal, state, and local government. We're free even to suggest that the electoral college is a terrible way to implement democratic election of representatives, to suggest that the current voting system undermines the legitimacy of the government, to propose and debate alternatives in the open air, to stage protests at the capitol if we care to.

What in the heck are you talking about? No one is jumping ship on these values anytime soon.

The actions of corporations trying to make money in countries that don't share those values are subject to open criticism in the press and wherever one cares to air them. If you want to punish companies that seem to be undermining those values (such as Activision/Blizzard in this case), you remain free to do that.

The backlash against Blizzard is an example of that happening.

So, I don't think it's as big a leap as it may seem. Bear with me a moment:

Modern communication between individuals relies on the internet. Even the government has acknowledged this, insisting that all of their services are available online.

All spaces for communication on the internet (including elements as low as DNS and hosting) rely on private companies.

Private companies can and do take censorious actions based on values that, at best, are layered upon the values of the country that the company operates in. However, at worst, the company's values need not have any relation to those of the countries they operate in.

Thus, the individual's freedom to express their thoughts relies on their thoughts not being censored by private companies. If one of the many companies that you depend upon for communication decides to not let you express that thought, you are unable to express that thought.

Of course, this applies to the internet and not government-owned meat-space, but government-managed meat-space is not where this communication is occurring. Particularly around the incident in Hong Kong.

The "private property" argument was always a bit iffy outside urban areas with ample centrally-located parkland or large public buildings with plenty of sidewalk space. Anywhere else, if you're protesting, you're protesting on somebody's property. Sure you can stand and march in the street, but there are issues with that too.

Ideally 1A protections would be seen as something of a bare minimum, rather than the highest level of protection people could ever dream of enjoying.

> The press in the United States is and remains free to publish (virtually) whatever it wants about federal, state, and local government.

This doesn’t mean much if they don’t use this power and instead publish random bullshit. The western way has never been censorship, it’s been straight up lying.

How does censorship reveal that our values were never freedom and democracy?

If anything, it shows just how well freedom and democracy works in America despite how many conflicting ideologies exist in our nation, compared to any other country.

> revealing that American values were never freedom and democracy

Dunno about you, but I draw the opposite conclusion. The reaction so far has made it clear that a lot of Americans value freedom and democracy, and that they see these corporate actions as unacceptable.

I'm going to give it another week before drawing any conclusions. Chances are people will just move on to the next outrage of the moment.

The media is doing all the reacting. Where are you getting this pulse from?

Can you give an example of free speech being quieted? We push political issues that way, but I’m not aware of censorship being the trigger.

How about the president of the United States demanding that pro sports players be fired for not standing for the anthem?

The president can say anything he wants and nobody will be fired or jailed for not standing. If China bans stuff they can jail people for doing watching stuff.

I too remember when a member of congress and a cabinet member both urged Google to fire someone because their comments had hurt the feelings of the American people.

No, actually I don't think that's a comparable situation.

I was expecting an example of the west punishing another government (or companies in another country) for free speech.

Google wasn’t censored by a government. That was a decision they decided to make (whatever you think of it, I don’t want to start a relitigation of that mess).

James Damore was fired by internal pressure inside Google, not pressure from the US government.

The US Sanctions and Embargos based on lawful use of economical policies as set forth by constitutional powers granted to the Executive Branch.

US Legislative and Executive branches attempts to censor free speech would almost certainly be challenged in court, as the right to free speech, and peacably assemble is one of the founding principles of the US.

Damore was fired for perpetuating gender stereotypes - even he confirmed as much with the press. Ironically enough, you can find that information and the memo through a quick Google search.

No, because: 1) Was not done through pressure from a government 2) Was not done to silence JD 3) Just because you have an opposing view does not mean you are being critical

But, you presented your case respectfully, so I don't think this should be downvoted.

Ironically, my example of what gets censored in the West, including a Wikipedia link, got, well, censored on HN (as in not visible for the majority of readers). Although yes, it doesn't come from the government, it's our society that is becoming less and less tolerant to points of view outside the accepted ideology.

While I agree that Damore's termination was an attempt to punish him for the views he had, I wouldn't put it anywhere in the same class as we are seeing with Chinese censorship. This is an entire country, a state government, deciding what people of other countries should be allowed to say, it is on par with Muslim views on comedic interpretations of Mohammed, and is likely to entice violence in much the same way.

The poster was asked to give an example of free speech being quieted, and gave an example of exactly that.

Damore was not quieted though. He was punished, but not quieted, as a matter of fact the controversy surrounding his termination bolstered his audience even further, and from the get go, he was never restricted on what he could or could not say by anyone.

And blizzard/China didn't "quiet" either, they just "punished".

Because apparently it's not quieting if you've punished someone for saying something.

and now let me go grab my eyeballs off the floor because they just rolled out of my head.

The topic thread was in response to the assertion that the "West" engages in suppressing dissent by censoring political speech in a manner that parallels what is happening with China.

The example given does not come close to that, but is an example of someone being censored.

In the US at least, censorship is typically brought on by pressure from sponsors and advertisers in response to public outcry.

In the US, The Freedom of Speech is heavily protected against government interference.

No, it doesn't. Let's take an actual country rather than something vacuous like "The West". To start a company in the United States (for example), you do not need "an American business partner" controlled by the federal government of the United States. The fate of your company is not tied 100% to the approval or disapproval of that business partner's actions, which in the case of China are vigorously and actively policed. Whatever your political views, and in particular whatever you twit, or facebork, or say on camera, you will not be denied the right to do business in the United States of America. If you could get an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal suggesting that Western Capitalism is corrupt, Marx was the one true prophet, Emperor Norton was the legitimate sovereign ruler of the United States, and frankly you think the ideal government is a blend of Iran and North Korea (two countries which the United States does embargo), you might have to deal with some weird fallout from public reaction, but you'd still be in business. Furthermore the editor of the Wall Street Journal who published your editorial might suffer some backlash for the utterly weird thing they chose to publish, but they would not be fined or imprisoned or tortured or executed by any state-run apparatus (as they would in China).

Embargoes are the exception, not the rule, and they are not used as a means to enforce political speech. It'll be a cold day in hell before I try to defend the foreign policy tactics of the United States, but to pretend that a business embargo on a select few countries constitutes something on the order of the Chinese stranglehold on business in their country is just false.

> Furthermore the editor of the Wall Street Journal who published your editorial might suffer some backlash for the utterly weird thing they chose to publish, but they would not be fined or imprisoned or tortured or executed by any state-run apparatus (as they would in China).

I recommend reading manufacturing consent. Censorship is entirely unnecessary and you hit on the core social mechanism there.

> suggesting that Western Capitalism is corrupt, Marx was the one true prophet ... but you'd still be in business.

I wonder how that would have gone at the height of McCarthyism.

Make an argument, don't be intellectually lazy. How do you think it would have gone?

Spitballing some historical fiction for the admittedly bizarre editorial? There would have been a public hue and cry. The editor who published the opinion piece would have lost their job, heads would have rolled (figuratively, not literally) in the WSJ editorial board.

The person who wrote the editorial would have had a bad time in the public sphere (they still would).

The author of the editorial would almost certainly not have gone to jail or been arrested, tortured, or executed, nor would they have lost their property or business, nor would their family. Nor would the editor who published the editorial.

If the author had been a government employee, they probably would have lost their job. If they were a high-profile public persona (an actor, for example), they probably would have been blacklisted.

But to be clear, that would be the worst of it - even during an extraordinary period of paranoia and fear.

If you believe otherwise, dig up some historical precedent to support the argument.

For the record: I do not think the United States of America is a just country in many regards, but if you're going to complain about injustice, at least get the facts straight.

(Edit: I'm just so puzzled by the bizarre false equivalence on this issue. It's like suggesting that Norway and the United States have the same track record on public healthcare because the Norwegian state health plan stopped covering acupuncture from 1985-1990 (imaginary example). They don't have the same track record, it's not close, slapping some words together on the internet doesn't make it so.)

As you confirm, the facts are straight: "The editor who published the opinion piece would have lost their job, heads would have rolled, etc"

The public pressure to adopt a particular line was comparable. The consequences for a company or personality not adopting a similar line were, and often still are "tied 100% to the approval or disapproval" which sees someone step down after a foolish quote.

Hundreds were imprisoned during the McCarthy era, so that's not an unreachable stretch either. It's not unthinkable.

To your edit: The equivalence is the equal pressure to conform (to the views of China / the prevailing views of the US), with similar consequences. The main difference is that a US corporation is conforming to an international view - because of that market, along with the speed that pressure can build via the internet.

I wonder how long McCarthyism lasted. I also wonder how long the CCP has been in power for.