Wu Guangqiang

    CHINESE, like people everywhere, seem to be spending more time in the virtual world than in the real one. Besides using the Internet at work, many spend their free time rambling in the virtual world.

    With its instantaneity and omnipresence, the Internet has enabled the Chinese to access endless information and to express their ideas in a freer way. The virtual world is reshaping the real one.

    China’s 500 million Internet users and 300 million microbloggers use the world’s largest supervision net to scrutinize official wrongdoings or other evildoers and bad deeds. Many corrupt officials, who otherwise could have gone uncaught, have been exposed for their dirty practice thanks to online whistleblowing and muckraking. Doubtlessly, when used judiciously, both blogging and microblogging are good for society.

    When abused, however, they can be damaging. According to the State Internet watchdog, numerous rumors that have spread on the Internet have been found to be groundless and some rumormongers have been dealt with according to the law.

    Such fabrications include: AIDS patients in Xinjiang spread virus by contaminating food with infectious blood; a female college student was robbed of her kidney while attending a job interview; a couple of female students offering volunteer teaching at a Hainan middle school were raped after being coerced into getting drunk. These rumors instantly caused public panic.

    Crackdowns on wanton abuse of social media are justified. But foreign China critics will inevitably attack the move, protesting the government’s interference with freedom of speech. Some native netizens are also furious. “The Constitution stipulates freedom of speech, but there is none in reality,” said one posting on line.

    Fallacies about freedom of speech are alive and well in China. Some believe it should be absolute and free of any restriction. Here is a fresh example.

    A major portal site in China is notorious for its “openness” over its tolerance of extreme ideas and comments. There is nothing wrong with carrying different ideas. But this site does not have any restrictions on user-created content, leaving anyone free to say anything. As a result, its comment space is full of trash: insulting or threatening remarks between opponents, personal attacks, racial and regional discriminations and prejudice. The only thing missing is rational discussion.

    While debating with a proponent of this site’s practice, I pointed out that almost all Western Web sites have a set of specific rules to manage users’ messages. In denial, the man insisted there is absolute freedom of speech in the West. When I showed him the rules made by The Economist, a noted British magazine, he was speechless.     

    The following are standard terms available at any Western Web site. Just a few items as shown below:

    “It (The Economist) reserves the right to delete, move or edit the Messages and to terminate your access to and use of the Forums.

    “You may not post, link to or otherwise publish any messages containing material that is obscene, racist, homophobic or sexist or that contains any form of hate speech, messages that infringe copyright, messages that are illegal, libelous, defamatory or may prejudice ongoing legal proceedings or breach a court injunction or other order…”

    I don’t see similar rules at Chinese Web sites. There seems to be a pendulum between two extremes: either a high-handed control of speech or an unchecked utterance. In my opinion, neither has anything to do with democracy. Efforts must be made to maintain free expression of vox populi while preventing this freedom from being abused.

    Freedom works only when it goes hand in hand with rule of law and civility.

    (The author is an English tutor and a freelance writer. He can be reached at jw368@163.com.)