The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a document written by United Nations (UN) members that sets a common standard for human rights for all peoples and all nations, states in Article 19 that “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” (un.org). While the declaration is not a legally binding document, meaning that the countries who have signed it are not legally obligated to follow the declaration, the signers agree that they value the rights listed. The countries that will be analyzed in this paper are the United States, the United Kingdom and China, and are all members of the UN. Each of these countries has laws pertaining to freedom of expression— but whether they are favorable to the people who live there or not, is up for debate.
The United States guarantees freedom of expression in the first amendment of the bill of rights in the constitution. The amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The first amendment covers a lot of ground, but to summarize the most important things, U.S. citizens have the freedom to choose their own religion and not have one forced on them, the freedom of speech and press, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government without fear of being arrested.
The first amendment of the U.S. constitution isn’t always the final word. There are exceptions when it comes to freedom of expression, such as when national security is put at risk, child pornography and violations of privacy. Law does put some limitations on freedom of expression, but overall U.S. citizens enjoy some of the most relaxed freedom of expression laws in the world. Freedom House, an organization which ranks countries by how free they are, scored the United States 86/100 (0 being the least free and 100 meaning the most free). U.S. citizens have free and fair elections (although Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election may change this), have free and independent media, the right to organize different political parties, an independent judiciary, due process, personal freedoms and more (Freedom House).
The United Kingdom (U.K.) is composed of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, and is a democratic sovereignty. The U.K. is unusual in that it doesn’t have a traditional, written constitution. The Human Rights Act of 1998 is the U.K. equivalent of the U.S. first amendment. It protects free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of protest, and the right to a fair trial (legislation.gov.uk)
The U.K. earned a score of 94/100 from Freedom House because of its strong protections of political rights and civil liberties. However, change is expected with the U.K.’s departure from the European Union, growing anti-immigration views, increased government surveillance, terrorist attacks and a divided parliament (Freedom House).
China is known for its oppressive, authoritarian government and avenues for free speech are becoming increasingly rare. The Constitution of The People’s Republic stated in Article 35 “Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”, and in Article 38 “The personal dignity of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Insult, libel, false charge or frame-up directed against citizens by any means is prohibited.” and in Article 41 “Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary… the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law…but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited…. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them.” Even though these articles supposedly promise free speech, the constitution also says that doing anything against state interest is illegal, and this includes speaking out against the government.
China is infamous for strict media control. The Chinese government uses extensive monitoring and firewalls to block anything from news stories to social media posts that authorities find harmful to the state. The “Great Chinese Firewall” affects up to 700 million Chinese internet users (Washington Post). Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and some Google services have been temporarily completely blocked out, as well as international news sites like Bloomsburg and the New York Times during times of controversy. Search terms related to social and civil unrest may also be blocked out, often relating to health scares, government corruption and religion (Council on Foreign Relations).
Freedom House states that “According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 41 people were jailed in China as of December 2017 for reporting or blogging, although the actual number of those held for exercising their right to free expression, including in more informal contexts, is much greater.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is working hard to restrain free speech. In early 2015, the government cracked down on virtual private networks (VPNs), making it more difficult to access U.S. sites like Google and Facebook, and frequently denies foreign correspondents visas (Council on Foreign Relations).
The U.S. is able to interpret the first amendment and other laws through the court system, including state and federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. The U.K. court functions in a similar manner, however it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by parliament. It may make a declaration of incompatibility (in reference to the European Convention on Human Rights) and ask parliament to amend the legislation.
The Chinese government controls all aspects of Chinese media. Domestic reporters, foreign reporters and bloggers have their publications strictly controlled. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “more than a dozen government bodies review and enforce laws related to information flow within, into, and out of China. The most powerful monitoring body is the Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department (CPD), which coordinates with General Administration of Press and Publication and State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television to ensure content promotes party doctrine.” The CCP’s reasoning is that the nation’s media outlets are essential to political stability, and that all media outlets must align with the party’s ideals (Council on Foreign Relations).
Political dissent is certainly put under wraps by the Chinese government, going as far as denying visas and jailing journalists. Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2009 for supporting democratic reforms and calling for an end to one-party rule, as well as free speech and human rights (Council on Foreign Relations).
The U.K. and the U.S. both have free and independent presses that function with little, if any government interference. The U.S. has thousands of television stations, radio stations, newspapers, and likely more than thousands of websites and bloggers unaffiliated with a media conglomerate. In fact, media groups in the U.S. may influence government policy more than the government influences media groups. Newsweb Corp donated $12,194,600 to Democratic candidates and leaders in the 2018 election cycle, and owns several radio stations in the Chicago, Illinois area. Comcast donated $6,140,556 to various campaigns in the 2018 election cycle, and is the largest cable and internet provider in the U.S. (OpenSecrets.org).
The Trump Administration pushes a sentiment and agenda that undermines the U.S. free press, often calling legitimate, reputable news sources “fake news”, and is relying on the media illiteracy of many U.S. citizens to keep what dwindling credibility the administration has. President Trump has even gone as far as to suggest a state sponsored media group (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1067142820388052993) because of his dissatisfaction with CNN’s reporting. In reality, while CNN is left-leaning, their straight-news reporting is highly factual (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/).
The U.K.’s media system functions similarly to the U.S. with many television stations, radio stations and newspapers. Most notably, the BBC which is state owned, but functions independently of the state. The BBC is able to compete with other commercially owned media conglomerates. The biggest difference between U.S. and U.K. media is political differentiation, says David Hallin, a professor of communication at the University of California, San Diego. The U.S. media hasn’t always been partisan, whereas the U.K. media has always had media groups gravitate toward a political side (Hallin).
Other differences between the U.K. and the U.S. aren’t necessarily good or bad things. Public broadcasting has always had a much larger role in Europe than in the U.S., but on the other hand U.S. journalists have far stricter codes of professionalism than in Europe (Hallin).
The U.S. and U.K. are comparable in economies, governments, healthcare and global influence, so it makes sense that their media systems are on comparable levels. Neither is better or more successful than the other. The U.S. and U.K. are also different in that the U.K. does not have a written constitution like the U.S., and their freedom of expression laws are written a bit differently. The U.S. tends to focus on objective fact reporting where the U.K. focuses on a diverse analysis of political views.
Differences between the U.S. and the U.K., and China are mostly due to the style of the Chinese government. China is governed by the Chinese Communist Party in a one-party socialist republic. China has complete control over their media, and often uses articles in their constitution to defend this stance. In Chinese constitution, Article 5 states that the constitution and law are above all, and Article 53 states people must abide by the law and observe labor discipline and public order. This also means that people can’t form new political parties.
According to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, China has what is called a ‘free-speech elite’ where members of this group can express dissent of the government with lesser fear of punishment. These individuals tend to be senior government leaders, those with the patronage of such leaders, academics and journalism professionals. Ordinary citizens aren’t apart of this group.
If an ordinary citizen wants to publish their opinions, the Chinese government suggests finding a potential publisher. However, they are more than likely to be rejected. The only way for a citizen to publish their political opinions without the government’s permission is to do it illegally. For example by stamping publications as "not for external distribution," or by purchasing book numbers that licensed publishers illegally offer for sale, or by subterfuge. A person would then be at risk for arrest or punishment (CECC).
Free speech limits exist for things other than political speech in China. In 2003, two men were arrested and sentenced to prison for “unlawful operation of a business”, where they published and sold books of love poems without government permission (https://www.peopledaily.com.cn/GB/shehui/1061/2302354.html). China does have its own social media networks and search engines for people to use, however results and communications are subject to heavy censorship. Baidu is the most popular search engine, and is comparable to google as far as utility.
Ultimately, freedom of expression is reserved for those who are close to government of officials. Ordinary citizens have to jump through hoops and will almost always be shut down by the government. Citizens who wish to express their opinions will either have to do it by word of mouth, or by using a VPN to access websites that are blocked by the government. However, using a VPN is becoming riskier and riskier. In regions where dissent is intense, VPN access is difficult to obtain and using one may even land you in trouble, “using a VPN to access blocked websites can earn you a trip to the local police station in the troubled, Muslim-majority province of Xinjiang, residents say.” according to The Washington Post.
Free speech is extremely limited in China and is very restricted. It’s near impossible to express any kind of political dissent, or even have literary or artistic works published. Using the internet to interact with other individuals from other countries is especially difficult, and with new legislation even more difficult.