Daily Archives: July 26, 2017

Under Chinas increasingly harsh control on information, a Chinese female sexologist called on Chinese citizens to fight against censorship

By Charlotte Gao for The Diplomat

July 26, 2017

Li Yinhe, 65, Chinas leading sociologist on sex and family as well as an activist for LGBT rights, has become a role model of courage and rationality for many Chinese netizens. Against Chinas increasingly harsh control on information, Li has been constantly calling on all Chinese citizens to fight against censorship with moderate and rational argument.

As The Diplomat reported, the Chinese governments clampdown on internet activities has become increasingly harsh. Particularly in recent months, a large number of online accounts have been deactivated by hidden online censors for unknown reasons. WeChat and Weibo are the two most scrutinized social media platforms.

Faced with such grim atmosphere online, most Chinese intellectuals choose to stay silent. Against the odds, Li surprisingly published a long article on her personal Weibo account on July 9 criticizing Chinas censorship and calling for its abolition.

In her nearly 2000-word article under the title of Why should we completely abolish censorship, Li argued that the censorship of books, newspapers, online contents, films and television programs is against the Chinese Constitution and is one of the most critical problems in todays society.

She continued her reasoning:

Then why are some topics are forbidden from discussion? Its for sure that [the government] must have done something wrong but refuse to admit. However, refusing to admit the truth cant change the historical fact itself. It does not work but makes people see the lack of moral courage

She further contended that freedom of speech is written into the Chinese Constitution. Yet, its the 21st century and Chinese people are still fighting for this right.

Finally, she appealed to all Chinese citizens to resist censorship, exercise freedom of speech, work for the complete abolition of censorship, and safeguard the dignity of the Chinese Constitution.

Within hours, the long and powerful article garnered thousands of thumbs-up and reposts. Unsurprisingly, the popularity also led to the articles removal. Li is now reportedly banned from posting anything on her Weibo account for three months.

However, Li didnt stop her exercise of free speech. Several days later, she published another long article on her WeChat account, commenting on her ban on Weibo. She argued that her ban has just become a new piece of evidence to show Chinas lack of freedom of speech.

Although her new article was also deleted, her constant resistance has moved numerous Chinese netizens. What moved people most is not what she said as it is common sense but her gentle tone, rational reasoning, moderate wording and, most importantly, her courage.

Consequently, many Chinese netizens have been inspired to publish long articles to praise Lis behavior and character on various online platforms, despite the fact that their articles about Li have also been deleted.

Charlotte Gao holds a MA degree in Asian Studies. Her research interests center around East Asian topics. She has worked in the past as a news editor, reporter, and writer for multiple traditional, online, and new media outlets.

Read the original:
How Does a Chinese Sex Expert Become a Free Speech Advocate ... - The Diplomat

Barack Obama had his share of poor decisions and outright failures. One of his worst moments came during his 2010 State of the Union address. With six justices seated in front of him, he upbraided the Supreme Court for a decision on campaign finance regulation.

"With all due deference to separation of powers," he said, "last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." It was a rude breach of protocol, inducing Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and mouth, "Not true."

Obama's first sin was being disrespectful to justices who were there out of respect to his office. His second was a bad prediction. The legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams has found that of the $2.76 billion raised in the 2016 presidential election, corporations and other businesses provided only $67 million 2.4 percent. Finally, Obama failed to recognize the sound principles underlying the decision.

The Citizens United decision has been portrayed by liberal critics as proof that under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has become a captive of business interests and right-wing ideologues. But Brooklyn Law School professor Joel Gora, who has served the American Civil Liberties Union as a staff attorney and longtime member of its board of directors, says they are mistaken.

That ruling, he writes, is part of a commendable but unsung pattern. Over the past decade, Gora argues, "the Roberts Supreme Court may well have been the most speech-protective court in a generation, if not in our history."

He's not alone in this conclusion. Abrams told me the Roberts court has gotten some decisions wrong, but "taken as a whole, it has rendered First Amendment-protective decisions in an extraordinarily broad range of cases, and it deserves great credit for doing so."

Geoffrey Stone, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago Law School who has fiercely criticized the campaign finance ruling, says, "The Roberts court has given more protection to free speech across a larger range of areas than any of its predecessors have although sometimes unwisely."

Citizens United, argues Gora, has been unfairly maligned. "Here you had a law which made it a crime to put out a movie criticizing a major candidate for the presidency of the United States," he says. The First Amendment, wrote Anthony Kennedy, "prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Critics say the conservative justices saw it that way because corporate spending tends to favor conservative causes (see: Koch brothers). Some other free speech rulings, says Stone, could also be ascribed to a rightward bias such as invalidating rules restricting protests at abortion clinics and overturning a law allowing doctors to keep private the medicines they prescribe.

But as Gora notes, many of the court's First Amendment decisions haven't followed that track. It struck down a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim to have won military medals and a California law barring the sale of violent video games to minors.

A court awarded $5 million to the parents of a Marine whose funeral drew demonstrators with signs bearing such offensive messages as "Thank God for dead soldiers." The Supreme Court said the verdict violated the protesters' freedom of speech.

It also ruled against a George W. Bush administration policy requiring overseas groups getting AIDS prevention funds to adopt "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution." None of those decisions fit the policy preferences of conservatives.

The court has sometimes gone wrong on free speech. It upheld a public high school's suspension of a student who brandished a sign saying "Bong hits 4 Jesus," which it took to be a pro-drug sentiment, at a school-supervised event. The court said public employee whistleblowers have no First Amendment protection for anything they say "pursuant to their official duties."

For the most part, though, the court has been a force for freedom of expression. Gora thinks that will be reinforced by the arrival of Neil Gorsuch, who shares the general approach of the court's conservative wing. The new justice indicated in his confirmation hearings that unlike Donald Trump, he has no desire to make it easier for public figures to win libel suits.

Liberals and others will often find fault with the court, as well as Trump. But thanks to the justices, they will have a wide berth to complain.

Download "Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century" in the free Printers Row app at http://www.printersrowapp.com.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Original post:
The John Roberts court: Champion of free speech - Chicago Tribune

Another round has begun in the battle between Google (and other internet companies) and the European Union over the misbegotten right to be forgotten. Frances supreme administrative court has just bucked the issueup to Europes top court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ). A decision, which will have far-reaching consequences for freedom of speech and the flow of accurate information on the internet, could take up to two years. But well before that, the Trump administration should intervene to make clear that the US will defend Americas leading internet companies and freedom of speech on the internet.

To review briefly, this all began in 2014 when the ECJruled that EU citizens had the right to demand that Google and other service providers expunge information that allegedly was out of date, inflammatory, or no longer relevant (although accurate). ThisforcedGoogle, which accounts for 90 percent of the EU internet search market, to bear the burden in cost and resources of removing links to search results from not only the country from which the request had come but also searches conducted in other EU domains. At this time in 2017, the company hasremovedsome 43 percent of individual privacy takedown requests, equivalent to 800,000 links to digital content.

A pedestrian walks past the Google offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., June 27, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

In September 2015, the French national data protection agency went a step further anddemandedthat offending links be removed fromallsearch results worldwide. Google balked at this extraterritorial demand and subsequently received a $115,000 fine in March 2016. Google then appealed the ruling to Frances supreme administrative court, the Council of State, which last week pushed the whole set of questions back up to the ECJ.

Although it complied with the ECJs original mandate, Google has been steadfast in challenging the rationale behind the right to be forgotten doctrine and now the more outrageous worldwide extraterritorial expansion. Itargued from the outsetthat we believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access. . . . If the [French courts] proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the internet would only be as free as the worlds least-free place.

It is impossible to predict what the ECJ will decide but one ominous precedent illustrates Europes arrogant extraterritorial ambitions. Some years ago, the EU, backed by a tortuous, even ludicrous opinion by the ECJ, attempted to extend its internal carbon tax for airplanes beyond its borders. Thus, Asian airlines including a growing number of Chinese flights would pay the tax for not only miles chalked up over the EU but also the entire flight back and forth from Beijing, Seoul, or Tokyo. The ECJ claimed preposterously that the rules were merely an extension of EU internal regulations. Others, including the US, protested, but China went further and acted. It threatened quietly to shift future airline orders heavily away from Airbus and toward archrival Boeing. The incidentculminated in a humiliating retreatfor Europes top political officials and no further attempt to tax airline emissions beyond EU borders.

It is not to argue here that the US should emulate Beijing with overt direct trade or investment threats. However, two alternate courses of action should be adopted. First, as I argued to no avail during the Obama administration, the Trump administration should intervene actively in the court appeal certainly through a public expression of support for Google and possibly with a friend of the court brief. Down the road, the EU has expressed a strong desire torevive negotiationsfor a Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to link two of the worlds strongest economies and trading powers. The Trump administration should respond affirmatively to such overtures, with the stipulation that the EUs continued demand for extraterritorial internet information removal is a deal breaker.

The bottom line is that the issues involved here clearly transcend Googles business model and competitive position in the EU. As I havewritten previously, At stake is the future of free data flows and the accessibility of accurate, public information through the entire internet.

So how about it, Mr. President? Time to finally use America First! for a good cause: free speech on the internet. It has a good ring to it.

Read more:
The right to be forgotten issue gives Trump a chance to use America First for a good cause: Freedom of speech - American Enterprise Institute