Well, even countries with very US-like legal heritage, such as Australia and Britain, have tried to impose national-border content-filtering. So sadly, the US is still somewhat of an outlier. Turns out putting an explicit absolutist free-speech right in the written constitution was a good idea!
Yeah, but even in Britain respected publications are free to speak their mind about inappropriate government actions, like cases where freedom of speech is violated, like this one ...
Which is even debatable if it was the right thing to do, and it's not like you can't find that movie (Fitna) on the Internet with a simple Google search.
Sorry, but this article is just setting up a straw man.
And it's the same story all over ... governments try to impose more restrictions to "protect" it's citizens ... people fight back by rioting or voting against the government. That's how democracy works ... you win some, you lose some, but mostly it's a balance (I'm thinking about the state of affairs in the EU here).
What really worries me is the current situations where many people and companies are paying lip service to China's policies, even though it's not in their interest to do so.
Sooner or later other governments will adopt similar policies ... hey, if it works so wonderfully in China, why shouldn't it work for the rest of the world? Australia is apparently doing just that ... although it's not like Australia hasn't been guilty of other crimes against humanity, like genocide, so personally I don't have any expectations from them.
