>Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China
And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today.
>And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right.
Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others (something that's based on one's own culture and, when intervened and enforced, is often interpreted by their own national interests -- like "bringing democracy").
Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for example have totally different laws than the US, and you can land in jail or be hit with a hefty fine for stuff that's considered as protected by "free speech" in the US, and they consider it totally fine.
>There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today.
Well, until China rejects their traditions, it's not for other countries to dictate it to them.
> Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others
If you accept the concept of "fundamental human rights", then it seems to me that they are rights that are derived from the simple fact of being a human, regardless of what your culture or rulers currently impose on you, and which you accept axiomatically. That is what makes them "fundamental", rather than just the (larger) set of normal rights afforded to you by your state.
I could easily see things like having the right to not be held as a slave as belonging to such a fundamental set.
> Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for example have totally different laws than the US
I think the issue is more about how much trespassing on the freedom of speech is allowed by different jurisdictions. Even in Europe very few argue that holocaust denial laws, or blasphemy laws are not a trespass on freedom of speech. It is just that many accept them. And many, including myself, do not, because it has had a chilling effect of public discourse on many important issues.
And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today.