Liu's reactionary remarks posted on the Internet, which many others supported and signed, are beyond the scope of freedom of speech. Liu was sentenced for his repeated violations of the country's criminal laws, and not, unlike what some Western media say, only for offending the government by publishing some "critical opinions".
The United States code says that people who advocate revolts and violence against federal or local authorities will be subjected to criminal punishment. In the United Kingdom, dissemination of remarks or intentions aimed at overthrowing the Queen is regarded as violation of the law. In Italy, any attack against the country's administrative and judicial organs is considered a crime. Germany, Canada, Australia and Singapore have similar regulations or stipulations.
Facts show that the so-called freedom of speech that the US guarantees its citizens is based on the precondition that their remarks do not constitute a threat to the country's political system and/or social stability.
Because of different cultural backgrounds, social conditions and legal systems, each country has adopted standards of freedom of speech that are different from others but conform to its judicial practices.
In the US and the UK, for instance, "the clear and present danger test" is taken as a standard for judges to pass a verdict on suspected violators of freedom of speech. Neither the US nor any other country grants freedom to its people to say and do whatever they want to because that would lead to anarchy. And anarchy is the last thing China, or any country, wants.
Nobel Peace Prize not international community voice
By Guo Jisi, China Daily , 11/1/10
Historically, the Committee has awarded the Peace Prize to Andrey Dmitriyevich Sakharov, Mikhail Gorbachev and even the Dalai Lama, the logic behind the selection of recipients is clear: those who try hard to split or oppose a Communist country or cater to the West's agenda will be selected.
Nobel decision motivated by Cold War thinking
By Ji Shiping, China Daily
Updated: 2010-10-30 07:01
Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland recently published a signed article entitled "Why We Gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel" in the New York Times.
Jagland said, "China should be proud that it has become powerful enough to be the subject of debate and criticism."
Prize as political tool
Since Jagland took the chairmanship, the Nobel Committee has selected two controversial winners for the peace prize in two consecutive years.
Last year, the Nobel Committee decided to award the peace prize to the president of the United States, a country that was fighting two wars at the time. After the decision was announced, the opposition parties within the Norwegian parliament asked Jagland to resign from the Nobel Committee because he was also serving as secretary-general of the Council of Europe.
Nobel prize has nothing to do with peace
China Daily , 10/24/10
According to Sir Alfred Nobel's will the Peace Prize is to be granted to the person "who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congress". What contributions along those line Liu has made to deserve the prize? Many Chinese still remember his remarks that"China needs to be colonized for 300 years." ...
The Democratic China magazine sponsored by NET "coincidentally" chaired by Liu Xiaobo. Until now, Liu can get 13,000 yuan in prison for his job in that magazine. His boss is really kind to him!
Liu Xiaobo and some other guys like him thought since they are backed up by their western boss, so they can swagger around in China. Those so called intellectuals with a strong political speculative thought are not rare cases in China. However, more and more Chinese have felt disgusted about those guys for their ugly moves of flattering their western bosses to get money.