| ▲ | colejohnson66 13 hours ago |
| China doesn't have a constitution like America's. Edit: Obviously, China has a constitution, but the freedoms enumerated there are not the same as those in America's. And those that are enumerated are pointless (like North Korea's constitution). My point is that there's an inherent hypocrisy in saying we're more free than them, but then doing a tit-for-tat retaliatory measure. How can we be more free when we're doing the same things the other side is? |
|
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| China has a constitution mostly like America’s, freedom of speech, religion, press are enshrined even more strongly than in the American constitution. What China lacks is judicial review and an independent judiciary, so the constitution has no enforcement mechanism, and so is meaningless. The Chinese government as formed has no interest in rule of law. |
| |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not exactly. The Chinese constitution, in addition to endowing rights, also endows obligations. So while you have things like:
> Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. You also have things like:
> Article 54 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not behave in any way that endangers the motherland’s security, honor or interests. | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't matter because the law is completely at the mercy of officials to interpret and enforce. A Chinese court was once asked to clarify contradicting interpretation from officials, and they got seriously beat down for it because it isn't the job of the judiciary to tell the officials how to interpret law. The only way an officials ruling is overturned is if their boss (or someone up the hierarchy) disagrees. Compare this to the Supreme court, which is supposedly in Trump's hands, ruling against Trump twice on this tiktok ban alone (the first to kill his executive order, and the second to not pause the law to wait for him to take office). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | RobotToaster 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It does, actually https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20... |
| |
|
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So what? If you believe in liberal values (with a small l), like freedom of speech, you lead by example. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you believe in liberal values (with a small l), like freedom of speech, you lead by example America is ridiculously pro free speech. That doesn’t mean we must then tolerate libel, slander, fraud, false advertising, breach of contract, et cetera because someone screams free speech. The Bill of Rights exists in balances, and the First Amendment is balanced, among other the things, with the nation’s requirement to exist. That doesn’t mean the Congress can ban speech. But it can certainly regulate media properties, including by mandating maximum foreign ownership fractions. | | |
| ▲ | greenavocado 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > America is ridiculously pro free speech Except for one group of people which have made any criticism of them carry legal consequences | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > one group of people which have made any criticism of them carry legal consequences Jews? You know we have other federally-protected classes, correct? If you’re referring to Israel, no, there aren’t legal consequences for criticising Israel. Half of the vocal minority of the internet is constantly up in arms about Israel. | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 30+ states have anti-BDS statutes that make it a crime to criticize Israel. | | |
| |
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes. They made it illegal even to stop buying their products! | |
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh, which group did you have in mind? | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | The ones you can't boycott, divest, or sanction and hold a public sector job in many states. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The "example" being banning things for nebulous reasons? If anything this is the US following China's lead in restricting what software their citizens can access. |
|
|
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | salviati 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Are you aware of this Wikipedia page? [0]
I think you should motivate why you believe that what is described in that page should not be called "constitution". Or articulate why you believe that thing does not exist. Or at least motivate your statement. Where does it come from? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China |
