Commentary: On Freedom of Belief and Freedom of Speech; Unjust Laws Cannot Be Considered to Be Laws

On December 26, 2003, Falun Gong practitioner Liu Chengjun died at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital of Jilin University after suffering extended torture at the hands of the police.

Liu Chengjun was one of the Falun Gong practitioners who tapped into the Changchun City cable TV system. During this incident, Liu Chengjun and other Falun Gong practitioners successfully tapped into eight channels and broadcast [documentaries about Falun Gong] for an uninterrupted 40-50 minutes to an audience estimated to be more than one million. This heroic incident brought strong reactions from not only within China but also around the world. After the incident took place, the government arrested more than 5,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Changchun City. Six practitioners died during the arrest, another 15 practitioners were given prison sentences from 4 years to 20 years. Liu Chengjun was one of the Falun Gong practitioners who were given heavy jail sentences, and he died after suffering 21 months of savage torture in prison. Liu was the eighth Falun Gong practitioner who lost his life because of the TV-tapping incident.

Tapping into the TV system is one method Falun Gong practitioners expose the persecution committed against them using non-violent means through technology. It was a stunning feat of breaking through the government's information blockade. Liu not only died for his belief in the principle of "Truthfulness, Compassion, Tolerance", he died for safeguarding the right to express his opinion in a peaceful way as well. Liu Chengjun is a Falun Gong hero, and he is also a martyr in the fight for freedom of speech.

Here we must clarify one issue: Can it be considered legal to tap into the TV system. Is such an act, right, legitimate or illegal?

Regarding rule by law, there are two famous sayings. One states, "illegal laws are not laws" and the other one states "evil laws are still laws." These two appear to contradict each other, so how do we interpret and understand them?

We know that in Latin, the word "law" and the word "right" come from the same root word. The Latin word "Jus" has two meanings; one is law, the other is right. The first Amendment the US Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." If the government makes such a law, then this law would be unjustified and therefore cannot be called a law, which is what's meant by "illegal laws are not laws." Friedrich Hayek [an influential 20th-century political thinker and economist] pointed out that rule of law means limiting legislation (not original quote), which means some laws should not be enacted.

"Illegal laws are not laws" looks like it's redundant, but if we remind ourselves that "law" and "right" come from the same Latin word root, we would know that "illegal law" means a law that negates the law, and a law that negates right. Thus, "illegal laws are not laws" means that a law that negates right is not the law.

Another saying is "evil laws are still laws." It means malicious and bad laws are still laws, and we should still obey them. The principle behind this is simple. Because people have different opinions on laws, if we only follow the laws we think are "good laws" and disobey laws we think are "bad laws," then the law would lose its universal quality and coercive nature, then law would no longer be a law and it would therefore become invalid.

So does "evil laws are still laws" conflict with "illegal laws are not laws"? No. Laws that oppose our views or opinions are still laws, but laws that deprive our belief or our right to express our opinions are not laws. I should follow laws that I don't agree with, but the law should acknowledge and protect my right to express my belief and different political beliefs. No matter how bad a law is, it cannot deprive people's right to express different perspectives, or it would become not only a malicious law, but an illegal law. Why can we tolerate evil laws? Because we still have freedom of speech and we can amend the laws by publicly expressing our opinions. But if we are deprived of our right to express different opinions, we would lose our last channel to change unreasonable laws, so we absolutely cannot accept that.

Since Jiang's group controls the whole government machinery and suppresses different voices, it not only prohibits Falun Gong from practicing and sharing its belief, it also doesn't allow non-Falun Gong practitioners to speak up for Falun Gong. Therefore it's completely justified and legal for Falun Gong practitioners like Liu Chengjun to tap into the TV system using technology to expose the facts and express their belief. Freedom of speech is a universal human right. In a place where people are deprived of their freedom of speech, any non-violent means to break through the blockade to express one's belief and opinion is justified.