It's a rule in all societies. Some things can't be tolerated, because it undermines the social order. Whether you call it
lèse majestè, hate speech, heresy, or just illegal positions, the state always enforces some lines that cannot be stepped out of. There's no particular reason to believe dictatorships
have to be more restrictive about this sort of thing then democracies. What matters is:
1) How explicit are the rules (the more explicit the better IMO; easier to know what's out of line and what isn't)?
2) What are the punishments for breaking the rules (can range from "losing social status" to "tortured to death along with your family")? Personally prefer the left end of that scale. Efficiency of enforcement is part of this. How likely are you to be punished?
3) How reasonable are the rules (some rules are better then others; Singapore for instance has kicked out various newspapers for inciting race hatred, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Meanwhile, in North Korea...)?
4) How quickly do the rules change? Slower is better in my view.
From what I can tell, democracies are generally better about (2) then dictatorships, and have less variance about (3) (
but then again...), but seem worse at (1) and (4) (on average).
)
