Freedom of speech is protected only so much as the protection is enforced. It is not some sort of fundamental law. With weak-kneed politicians and indifferent population it inevitably erodes.
It actually is. It's a fundamental human right under the European Convention on Human Rights (to which Switzerland is a party) , Art. 10:
"ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
It is not a fundamental law in scientific sense, i.e. it is not a natural property of any kind. You want freedom of speech, fine, but you have to fight to get it and keep it alive. Otherwise it becomes just another unenforceable legalistic quirk like beheading for insulting the Queen is today.
> You want freedom of speech, fine, but you have to fight to get it and keep it alive.
This needs to be said more often… rights cannot be reduced to a “declaration” or a “bill”. They are social constructs that wither away and die without constant social reinforcement, both formal and informal.
Rights aren't "social constructs" if they're natural rights, that is, those that follow from the nature of what it means to be a human being. Those are recognized, not "constructed". These must be distinguished from those things that are merely asserted as rights and that people like to make up to suit their agendas.
But, given that, natural rights can be violated and fail to be protected from those who would do so. So just because something is natural in nature does not mean it cannot be suppressed. It is natural and proper for human beings to speak, but speech can be suppressed. So yes, a society that stops protecting rights will see more violations of them. Declarations are magic incantations. You need power and authority to back them up.
(Also, w.r.t. freedom of speech, I am here not assuming unrestricted speech and "expression"; this has never existed and cannot exist and so on. Rights are not absolute: you can forfeit even your right to life by murdering another human being, for example. Thus rights must be understood in the context of justice.)
Humanity for the longest time existed without any hint of universal inalienable rights. Calling them that is aspirational. They are not "natural" in any way except being the norm in very recent social reality of certain fortunate parts of the world.
"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."
"Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief..."
"Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable..."
"Article 49. Marriage, the family, and mother and child are protected by the state..."
Just meaningless words on a page. To be completely fair, the text does imply that the above isn't worth a wooden nickel in practice:
"Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens."
The European Convention on Human Rights has a similar clause (which you quoted) that allows the state to eliminate one's rights "for the protection of health or morals". It seems that "human rights" are mainly there to make the state seem legitimate. They "protect" humans against the state for exactly as long as the state allows.
Yes, article 51 that you quoted more or less makes any other article completely irrelevant. That's the whole point. In western countries there really isn't an equivalent to Article 51 in any meaningful sense. China's government is an oppressive dictatorship by design. It makes a big difference.
