You prob­ably already know about this one…

A Chinese pro­fessor has sued a blog host for per­sonal attacks against him.

Inter­est­ing ques­tions about free­dom of speech and cul­tural clashes. A ques­tion often dis­cussed in cyber­cul­ture courses is whether tech­no­lo­gical determ­in­ism is a valid approach to ana­lys­ing social impacts of tech­no­logy. Do some tech­no­lo­gies have inev­it­able social effects? In the early- to mid-1990s, it was fre­quently argued that the Inter­net has a ‘demo­crat­ising’ effect, that free speech fol­lows inev­it­ably in its path. The Chinese gov­ern­ment’s agree­ments with Yahoo! and Cisco and now Microsoft and Google show that cen­sor­ship can hap­pily live along­side the tech­no­logy (phys­ical bodies can still be put in jail and China has done this numer­ous times with regards to free­dom-of-speech Inter­net offences).

I am very inter­ested at the com­ments in the art­icle that the blog­ger didn’t real­ise anyone out­side their group would read the blog (how often do we learn that trick in the blo­go­sphere and then estab­lish private friend-groups or a secret blog-for-friends?) and that they imme­di­ately removed it (a cul­tural move to main­tain com­munity har­mony rather than a chal­len­ging defense of indi­vidual rights).

Dis­claimer: this is not a cri­ti­cism of an ima­gined dom­in­eer­ing Chinese gov­ern­ment. This is just musing on my part. Nor is it extolling the vir­tues of the free West: I’ve never been con­vinced that free market cap­it­al­ism is bene­fi­cial and I’ve been some­what sus­pi­cious of ‘pure’ elect­oral demo­cracy ever since I read Carole Pate­m­an’s Par­ti­cip­at­ory Demo­cracy back in my under­grad days.