One person in a nation of 300 million was jailed for speech. And it was notable enough to drive a very sympathetic story in a comparatively high traffic (if cheesy) news outlet.
That doesn't make it acceptable, but it's hardly the kind of systematic suppression of free expression you seem to be invoking.
>One person in a nation of 300 million was jailed for speech.
More accurately, this article is about one person in a nation of 300 million who was jailed for speech, which gives us no grounds for assuming that either a large or small number of people are being prosecuted for things like this, other than the number is greater than one. It's a systematic problem that portions of the system feel free to jail for pretty innocuous speech.
How about Cameron D'Ambrosio last month, or the unknown number that were not "notable enough"? D'Ambrosio only got out of jail because the grand jury refused to indict, not because prosecutors weren't willing to prosecute.
This article talks about one person, there is others...
Beside whistleblowers, there is also that dude that defended Al Quaeda (he only spoke in favour of Al Quaeda), and some others I don't particularly remember now...
There's also this first act from the "Right to Remain Silent" from This American Life [0] and this story [1] that pmorici posted. So that's 3 now without actually looking hard at all.
I think we have to wait for this to play out to see how it actually reflects on our culture. If he is released and the people who broke his right to free speech are punished then we don't have a problem. But even one case like this can be the foundation for hundreds more.
That doesn't make it acceptable, but it's hardly the kind of systematic suppression of free expression you seem to be invoking.
Context is important.