Freedom of Speech, China, and the Misunderstanding of Freedom

Many people misunderstand what freedom of speech actually means. Some imagine it as an absolute right where anyone can say anything, anywhere, at any time without consequences. Others dismiss the concept entirely by pointing out its imperfections. Both views miss the point.

From the dawn of human civilization, subjugation and suppression have been part and parcel of history. Kings, emperors, religious authorities, and political regimes have all sought to control what people could say, think, and believe. The struggle for freedom of speech is therefore not a modern invention but one of humanity's oldest battles.

The modern understanding of freedom of speech was formally recognized as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. Since then, freedom of expression has become one of the most important political and philosophical debates in the world.

Yet there is a crucial point that many people fail to understand: there is no absolute freedom of speech anywhere on Earth. Every society imposes some restrictions, whether concerning defamation, incitement to violence, national security, or public order. The absence of absolute freedom, however, does not mean freedom itself is meaningless. Quite the opposite. Because freedom is never absolute, it must constantly be defended, expanded, and protected.

This is where many people misunderstand freedom rankings such as those published by Freedom House. When Norway ranks near the top of global freedom indexes, it does not mean that freedom of speech in Norway is absolute. It simply means that Norway enjoys a higher degree of freedom than most countries in the world. Freedom indexes are comparative measurements, not declarations of perfection.

The same logic applies elsewhere. Some countries are classified as "Free," others as "Partly Free," and others as "Not Free." According to Freedom House assessments, North Korea scores among the lowest countries in the world, while China also falls within the "Not Free" category. India, despite being the world's largest democracy, is categorized as "Partly Free." Whether one agrees with every aspect of these rankings is beside the point. The broader reality is that freedom exists on a spectrum rather than as a simple yes-or-no condition.

There are many countries that face criticism regarding civil liberties and freedom of expression. Yet when discussions turn to freedom of speech, China inevitably becomes one of the central subjects of debate.

Why?

One answer is geopolitical rivalry. China is now a major economic, technological, and military power. As a result, many Western governments, media outlets, and commentators devote enormous attention to China's shortcomings. Critics of the West argue that some of this criticism is selective, exaggerated, or motivated by strategic competition rather than genuine concern for human rights.

There is some truth to this observation. Great powers have always used moral arguments as political weapons against their rivals. The West is not exempt from this reality.

However, acknowledging geopolitical bias does not automatically invalidate the underlying criticism.

China's remarkable achievements in economic development, poverty reduction, infrastructure, manufacturing, and technological advancement are undeniable. Yet economic success and freedom of speech are not the same thing. A country can excel in one area while remaining restrictive in another.

The fundamental question is not whether China is successful. The question is whether Chinese citizens enjoy the same degree of freedom to criticize their government, challenge official narratives, organize politically, access unrestricted information, and publicly dissent as citizens in freer societies.

When a state heavily regulates what people can read, discuss, and criticize, it risks creating a society where conformity is rewarded and independent thought is discouraged. Citizens gradually become accustomed to repeating approved narratives rather than challenging them. Over time, intellectual curiosity gives way to political caution, and a vibrant society risks drifting toward a robotic existence—efficient, disciplined, but increasingly reluctant to think beyond the boundaries established by authority.

The issue is not whether Chinese people are intelligent or capable. Few societies in history have produced as much cultural, scientific, and civilizational achievement as China. The issue is whether any society can truly flourish when the limits of acceptable thought are defined by the state. History's greatest advances came from individuals who questioned orthodoxy, challenged authority, and dared to think differently. Progress is driven not by obedience alone, but by the freedom to question, dissent, and think independently.

When a state heavily regulates what people can read, discuss, and criticize, it risks creating a society where conformity is rewarded and independent thought is discouraged. Citizens gradually become accustomed to repeating approved narratives rather than challenging them. Over time, intellectual curiosity gives way to political caution, and a vibrant society risks drifting toward a robotic existence—efficient, disciplined, but increasingly afraid to think outside the boundaries set by authority.

The issue is not whether Chinese people are intelligent or capable. The issue is whether any society can remain intellectually alive when questioning authority becomes dangerous. History rewards those who challenge accepted wisdom, not those who merely repeat it. When obedience becomes a virtue and dissent becomes a crime, citizens may stop acting like free thinkers and start behaving like a herd—moving together, speaking together, and thinking only within the limits set by the state.

Defenders of China's political system often respond by highlighting flaws in Western societies. They point to censorship on social media, political polarization, media bias, cancel culture, and restrictions imposed in the name of security or public order. These criticisms are not entirely without merit. No society possesses a perfect record on free expression.

But exposing flaws in Western freedom does not automatically prove the existence of freedom in China. Demonstrating hypocrisy in one system does not validate another. The existence of imperfections in democracies does not erase restrictions in authoritarian systems.

Ultimately, freedom of speech should not be viewed through the lens of nationalism or geopolitical rivalry. It should not matter whether the country being discussed is China, the United States, India, Russia, or any other nation. The principle remains the same.

If freedom of speech is worth defending, then it must be defended consistently. If censorship is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of who practices it. And if citizens are denied the ability to openly question authority, challenge official narratives, and express dissenting opinions, then genuine freedom remains incomplete, no matter how impressive a nation's economic or technological achievements may be.

The debate about China is therefore not really about China alone. It is part of a larger and timeless question: How much freedom should human beings have to think, speak, question, and dissent? The answer to that question will shape not only the future of China, but the future of every society on Earth.