"Therefore, implementing monitoring according to a country's national context is what any government has to do."<p>There are two big questions:<p>1) What legitimizes a government to to define "national context" and the will of the people? Or simply, what legitimizes government?<p>2) If government is legitimate, what are the limits of its mandate where an individual's fundamental rights are concerned?<p>Western governments can claim to express the will of the people because it is the people who have elected them (directly or indirectly). The Chinese government's power is based on a military campaign many decades ago. It cannot claim to speak for the chinese people. The laws it makes are nothing but the the will of a clique of people with guns.<p>The second question is a very difficult one. Where do fundamental individual rights come from? Who defines them with any legitimacy? Does it have something to do with nature or psychology or are the relative to culture? I don't know, but I do know that I want to claim individual rights independently of any collective expression of opinion and power, and everyone else I know wants to do that as well.<p>If western governments run a system of censorship it may in many cases be a violation of fundamental individual rights. That doesn't change the fact that it may at the same time be a legitimate expression of the will of the people. It may be the will of the people to violate fundamental individual rights. That's the contradiction we in the west have to grapple with, and it's totally different from the problem the Chinese have with their clique of men with guns holding them hostage.