freedom of speech – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

China: Violations of Freedom of Expression, Speech, and Peaceful Assembly

China's flag in front of the Great Wall of China. — Image 1: China’s flag in front of the Great Wall of China. Source: Yahoo Image.

Thousands of miles away, activists for basic human rights sit in prison cells. Most await punishments that far exceed the crime. In China, heavy prison sentences weigh on the shoulders of its brightest human rights activists, scholars, and lawyers.

According to Amnesty International, freedom of expression and speech is having the right to say what you believe and to call for a better world. To express your freedom of speech is to be able to openly, and without consequences, critique those in power. The United Nations (UN) states that the right to peaceful assembly is the right to hold peaceful gatherings, sit-ins, rallies, and protests without fearing repercussions.

Who are They? And What Does the Law Say?

Image 2: Protesters in Qidong, China. Source: Yahoo Image.

Human rights lawyer, Ding Jiaxi, has been imprisoned since December 2019 for subversion of state power. Also arrested for subversion of state power was Xu Zhiyong, a legal scholar.

Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong are members of the New Citizens’ Movement, a group of activists dedicated to creating a better China. Xu and Ding co-created the movement back in 2012 in order to shed light on government corruption. After a meeting with the activist movement in December 2019 in a Chinese city called Xiamen, multiple members were arrested. As a result of their critique of the Chinese government’s handling of the coronavirus, Xue Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi were charged with “subversion of state power.” Both have been imprisoned, with sources saying that they have been subjected to various forms of torture.

By examining China’s laws regarding freedom of press and expression, a clearer understanding of the regulations that restrict the people of China is achieved. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China Article 5 states that the government must protect their citizens’ right to freedom of press so long as they do not criticize the basic principles of the constitution. Citizens must abide by certain regulations put into place of what they can and cannot publish. In support, Article 26 outlines specific regulations such as, no publication shall oppose basic principles and shall not endanger the unification, sovereignty and integrity of the State.

How then, can a people that are restricted from criticizing their own government be considered free? In 1989, Tiananmen Square became a testament to just how far the Chinese government was willing to go to suppress its citizens dissent.

Tiananmen Square History and Influence of Chinese Activist

Man standing in front of military tanks. — Image 3: A man standing in front of military tanks at Tiananmen Square. Source: Yahoo Image.

During the month of April, in 1989, a peaceful gathering to mourn Hu Yaobang, a liberal Communist Party member, took place in Beijing at Tiananmen Square. The gathering calmly turned into demonstrations that called for the abrupt end of corruption in the Chinese government. An estimated one million people joined in to peacefully protest their grievances.

In response, Martial Law was enforced and thousands of troops were released upon the protesters. They opened fire on those gathered and plowed through the crowds with military tanks. To this day, the Chinese government refuses to release any new information regarding the massacre. This event is prohibited from being spoken about or commemorated in China and Hong Kong.

The total number of deaths is unknown in China’s attempt to purge the memory of Tiananmen Square from history. The event is censored; families have been unable to mourn or acknowledge their loved ones. People are forced to forget, and the truth is neglected from the knowledge of a new generation.

Zhou Fengsuo is the Executive Director of Human Rights in China and was also a student leader at the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. What was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration turned into a horrific bloodbath. Zhou was there when his peers were shot down in front of him. His eyes are a witness to military tanks and tear gas being used as a means to end the uproar. In his testimony Zhou wrote, “The scene was that of a war zone; a war conducted by the CCP’s army against the Chinese people.” Zhou calls out on foreign governments to take a firmer stance on China’s violation of human rights.

Activists Imprisonment of Chinese and Hong Kong Human Rights Activist

Image 4: Large group of protesters at Hong Kong protest. Source: Yahoo Image.

Xu Zhiyong writes in his book, A Beautiful China -Thirteen-The Citizens Movement, about his vision for China. In his writings, he talks of a better China; one that is accomplished through peaceful protest and nonviolence. He says, “We are all Chinese, and we will build a beautiful China together in the future.” Throughout his collection of twenty-four essays he repeatedly reiterates the importance of unity.

To be a true citizen is to have basic rights. Xu writes that when they have the right to vote and to speak freely they will be true citizens. People that are free are ones that can openly and without fear criticize their governments. In A Beautiful China Xu says, “Amid the absurd, we stick to the truth; amidst evil, we hold fast to our conscience; in the darkness, we create light.” Many Chinese and Hong Kong activists are dedicated to changing their governments.

After being handed over to China in 1997, Hong Kong was promised fifty years with their independent government. Halfway through their allotted time, Beijing implemented a law that gave them further influence in Hong Kong. As of 2020, the new law in Hong Kong, known as the National Security Law (NSL), was passed. This law has since then increased prison sentences and allowed for extreme censorship.

Chow Hang-tung and Jimmy Lai are both Hong Kong activists. Jimmy Lai was arrested for “colluding with foreign forces” and sedition. His newspaper, Apple Daily, which advocated for human rights such as freedom of expression and speech, was later closed down in June 2021. He has been held in solitary confinement awaiting his trial to resume in November 2024. Lai is 76 years old and only gets around 50 minutes of time outside a day. Chow Hang-tung was arrested after attending a vigil for the Tiananmen Square Massacre. She was imprisoned for 22 months and faces possible imprisonment again for 10 years or more. The new National Security Law states that she was “inciting subversion.” She has also been subjected to solitary confinement.

Chow Hang-tung, Ding Jiaxi, and Jimmy Lai have been considered by Amnesty International to be prisoners of conscience. A prisoner of conscience is someone imprisoned because of political, social, religious, or other personal beliefs.

Conclusion: What is China’s Response? What is the Global Reaction?

The United Nation Human Rights Council accepted China’s report on their Human Rights achievement for the 56th Universal Periodic Review (UPR). While multiple activists remain imprisoned in solitary confinement, Chinese Daily flaunts the approval given to them for their advanced improvements in Human Rights by countries like Russia, Algeria, and Venezuela. Chinese Daily said, “China welcomes and remains open to all constructive suggestions that are proposed in good faith to help it improve its human rights conditions.” This seems to be the case so long as the criticism and call for improvements, recognition, and change do not come from Chinese or Hong Kong citizens.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, continue to call for the release of activists Jimmy Lai, Chow Hang-tung, Ding Jiaxi, and Xu Zhiyong. Activists like Zhou Fengsuo, who has been advocating for change in China for many years, will continue the fight for human rights. It is through them that freedom will be achieved.

The Battle of NGOs in Nicaragua: A Human Rights Crisis

Arbitrarily detained, beaten in prison, exiled, and stripped of their nationality has become a common experience for activists in Nicaragua. This is the case of Kevin Solís, who was arbitrarily detained twice; in 2018 for allegedly obstructing public services and carrying a firearm, and later in 2020 for alleged robbery and assault. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined there had been irregularities in the legal procedures of Kevin’s case, a violation of his legal rights, and a concerning threat to his rights to life and integrity. Along with Solís, another two hundred political prisoners were released in 2023, some of whose citizenship was later revoked. Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega’s war against NGOs is rooted in his plan to crush opposition to his leadership and avoid responsibility for human rights violations.

But how did Nicaragua get to this point?

2018 was the start of a large and violent retaliation of the government against protestors. However, 5 years prior, discontent was already blooming in the Nicaraguan people’s hearts. The Nicaraguan Congress passed, on June 13, 2013, a law that affects the future livelihood of many communities, Law 840. The law deals with the development of infrastructure and free trade zones. As a result of this legal advancement, communities would be pushed out of their homes to accommodate ‘new and improved’ facilities. According to an Amnesty International report, Law 840 allows the government to authorize the construction of projects without consulting the communities that would be affected. Among those is Francisca Ramirez, whose community learned about a new project approved through Law 840 in a televised announcement by President Ortega. To their surprise, the president had sold the land they lived on to foreign investors for canal construction and subsequent amenities. Francisca and her community, along with other human rights activists, took their concerns to the streets to advocate for their rights and oppose the Canal. Yet, they were met with threats, harassment, and arrest.

Protests of 2018

Localized demonstrations in response to President Ortega’s actions continued until 2018 when large-scale protests exploded in the streets of Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan people responded negatively to the new changes the Ortega administration implemented to the social security and pension system. However, it wasn’t all about social security. Previously, widely censored media was combined with excessive use of force by police officers who were firing tear gas and rubber bullets at protestors. Hence, years of corruption and repression of peaceful protest made the population join the rally against the new social security measures. Human Rights Watch reported on the injured and death toll after initial protests, in which the Nicaraguan Red Cross claimed to have helped 435 injured people between April 18th and 25th, while the CIDH listed 212 people dead between April 19th and June 19th, 2018. In this same report, it is stated that Nicaraguan newspapers that spoke about the protests and the death toll were later impacted by the government’s agenda against media outlets that didn’t back up President Ortega. Independent and critical newspapers like El Nuevo Diario had been unable to access paper and supplies due to a blockade on imports imposed by the Ortega administration, said Carlos Fernando Chamorro, an exiled journalist and director of El Nuevo Diario. Chamorros’ exile follows the trend of journalists and communicators who have been imprisoned and forced to leave the country to speak against Ortega.

Image 1: Daniel Ortega is sworn into Nicaragua’s leadership for his 4th presidential term. Source: Yahoo images

What does the Government have to say?

The Ortega administration made several claims invoking laws that have increased monitoring, making NGOs’ work more difficult and giving the government grounds for forced dissolution. A legal framework was created to regulate organizations and individuals that receive foreign funding and utilize those funds to attempt to undermine the nation’s sovereignty and independence. Among some of the requirements, organizations need to present monthly reports of who their donors are or their source of income. For NGOs, this law means that whoever receives foreign funding or fails to report accurately would be stripped of their political personality. And this is exactly what happened. Invoking this framework, it was stated in an official release that the organizations had not complied with the law by reporting their finances, which also led to accusations based on money laundering laws.

The pro-Ortega news outlet La Nueva Radio Ya called the 2018 protest a “coup” orchestrated by NGOs associated with organized crime and international organizations like the OEA (Organization of American States) and IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) who want to push an imperialistic agenda into the Nicaraguan people. The article dismissed the reasons for the protests as well as the number of injured and dead protestors. Instead, it focuses on the number of police who were injured and killed, claiming there was never such an assault against the national police force, which in turn shows that the protests were not peaceful. Equally, it holds that the “failed coup” led to kidnappings, assaults, torture, murder, and a great impact on the jobs and the incomes of many families.

Nicaraguans protesting in 2018 after changes to the pension system. — Image 2: Nicaraguans protested in 2018 after changes to the pension system. Source: Yahoo images

NGOs have faced villainization and limitations of their funding and activities because they were thought to be too politically involved. Staying on trend with other democracies and post-soviet governments, after the events of 2018, Daniel Ortega’s administration escalated violations of free speech and freedom of assembly, starting a public crackdown on individuals and groups who spoke against his leadership. In addition to the medical associations, climate change, education, and more, one type of largely targeted NGO was religious. So far, clergy members have been imprisoned and exiled, catholic churches and universities have shut down, and the legal standing of charities has been revoked. On the last round of suspensions on August 19th, 2024, hundreds of the 1,500 NGOs were small faith groups whose property may be seized.

Ronaldo Alvarez, a Nicaraguan bishop, put a target on his back after speaking on human rights issues and the retaliation of the government against religious organizations. He was under house arrest in his home and later at his parent’s house while he was investigated for inciting violence. The priest was later accused of “conspiracy against the government, carrying out hate acts, and damaging society.” Others, such as priest Oscar Benavídez, were indicted at the prosecutor’s office on unknown charges.

Reactions of the International System and Future Implications

The United Nations General Assembly released the resolution 49/3 calling for the protection of human rights in Nicaragua. The resolution includes requests for the Government to fully cooperate with the monitoring and reporting of human rights, including the free passage of human rights groups to assess the country’s conditions. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) has also pronounced itself on the crimes against humanity perpetrated in the state and encouraged accountability for human rights violations. The press release cited the impactful reports it had filled on the closure of universities, crackdown of media outlets, and repression against Indigenous and Afro-descent who opposed the government. At the same time, the IACHR followed suit; the U.S. imposed sanctions and additional actions, such as visa restrictions on Nicaraguan officials who were involved in the imprisonment and violence against religious institutions and religious leaders. The international system is concerned with the violent developments in Nicaragua and the lack of accountability. However, the ability of international instruments to punish is limited, and without the cooperation of the rest of the international community, Nicaraguans won’t receive much outside help.

No NGOs to advocate for the rights of the people they protect means there are no organizations with enough structure and funding that can help people in a situation where the oppressor is the state. These groups were able to provide individuals with resources and programs that the government didn’t or was unable to. Now, their access to the safe spaces NGOs create is rapidly crumbling down. The persecution of NGOs should be addressed by a large number of actors in the international system to apply pressure on the Ortega Administration and support Nicaraguans. Although the fate of Nicaraguan-based NGOs is uncertain, check out other organizations that survived the last wave of suspensions, like El Porvenir (The Future).

Cancel Culture: A Societal Obligation or Infringement on Free Speech?

A large majority of people spend their time online talking to friends, sharing and obtaining news, or connecting with family. Our lives being connected to the internet has forced us to learn how to network and find our way around social media platforms. Social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, facilitated the creation of “cancel culture” as we know it today. Cancel culture is used to call out behaviors and actions of individuals and corporations that convey opinions or feelings which are objectively questionable or not appropriate from a public perspective. Engaging in cancel culture typically requires a series of hashtags that proclaim an individual is being cancelled. A hashtag followed by the word cancelled or a hashtag with a person’s name followed by the phrase “isover” are the most commonly used hashtags within the tradition of cancelling. This brings us to an interesting dilemma of whether or not cancel culture is an infringement on freedom of speech.

Infringement on Freedom of Speech

Cancel culture has proven to be an effective method to identify the actions taken by individuals and corporations to rectify mistakes. Recently, in light of social justice movements such as the Black Lives Matter Movement and #MeToo; during an election year, cancel culture has been used to take down racist statues, rename buildings named after white supremacists, call out celebrities and prominent figures in society, and address “racist, sexist, or homophobic views or ideologies.”

Cancel Culture from Two Perspectives

The first perspective is often from the people who are advocating against cancel culture. These people often have large platforms, and they are upset that their freedom of speech is being infringed upon due to the policing of cancel culture and they’re afraid of being criticized for their opinions. The first perspective against cancel culture revolves around the inability to take criticism.

The second perspective involves those that do not engage in exercising their right to free speech and expression. People are afraid of the repercussions of cancel culture so they choose to not express themselves. This second perspective of cancelling is more concerning because it involves actively suppressing the beliefs, ideologies, and perspectives of people and a true cancelling of these voices.

There is a delicate balance in defending the right to freedom of speech and holding individuals and corporations responsible for their actions. The issue with cancel culture is that there is no gradation and all missteps have the same severity of punishment. People can be fired, and student admission can be halted as a result of this. In most cases, it’s a trend to be cancelled where people jump on a bandwagon without the slightest amount of information on what they are cancelling.

On the other hand, “defending speech has become a tool to bully others into silence.” Often, proponents of free speech will quote the right to speech and expression granted by the Constitution to prevent others from criticizing them. While it can be a useful tactic in the short term to support an argument, it leaves no room for compromise. This tactic makes it impossible to find the equilibrium in a conversation, which I argue can be almost as bad as cancel culture.

A protestor holds us up a fundamental part of what defines the freedom of speech. Source: theduran.com — A protestor holds up a fundamental part of what defines the freedom of speech. Source: theduran.com

A Different Option: Call Out Culture

More often than not, free speech is not being infringed upon. It is often a case of what boundaries are being set to speak in a public setting and if those boundaries are acceptable. While it is our responsibility to be open and receptive of opposing views, these views are not always in concordance to what a majority of people might believe. This gives leeway for a new type of action where the public can participate in call out culture instead of cancel culture. But before calling out, it is still important to give the opponent a chance to respond and hear their responses to avoid regressing and participating in what can be a very toxic culture. Responses do not need to include canceling, suppressing, or removing, but can include educating, accepting, and forgiving. This gives room where we can set boundaries safely and simply say, “I do not agree with you,” but even with this it is very situational where some actions are above disagreeing and need to be addressed properly.

For example, in 2016 a Pepsi advertisement featuring model and influence Kendall Jenner was incredibly tone deaf, and downplayed the severity of protests and the Black Lives Matter movement. The outcry against the ad prompted a response from Pepsi and Jenner apologizing for the missing the mark on trying to project “unity, peace, and understanding,” and for putting Jenner is this position. The public seemed to not hold Pepsi to the same standards that Jenner was held, and to this day still is, and essentially made her accountable for the apology, when every one that participated in the situation and production should have also been held responsible. On the other hand, Larry Nassar, who was national team doctor for USA gymnastics, was charged for hundred of cases of sexual assault under the pretext medical treatment for the athletes. Him, his actions, and his behavior harmed hundreds of lives and families, and so the public outcry against the individual, his actions, and the system that supported him was warranted and justified in a situation. Did he deserve to get cancelled? I think most people would argue yes, in a situation that is very black and white both morally and legally. Then the question becomes one of gradation. Did Jenner, a decent person often on the right path, deserve to get cancelled and held to the same standards of accountability, just as Nassar, and risk facing a stagnant and declining career for a misstep? For this, I think most people would argue no, because, yes while the ad was harmful to several communities, it was no where near the severity of Nassar’s actions. Yes, her participation needed to be addressed, but did it warrant “cancelling” a targeted individual because of their background instead of education them?

How to avoid cancel culture?

Do your own research on the situation or individual – the one being called out or cancelled as well as the individual doing the calling out or cancelling.
Evaluate the gradation and the consequence of the action in question, and ask yourself if cancel culture actually works.
Try to address how toxic it can be for your mental health and identify if there is another way to help.
If you do decide to engage, make sure to call out and educate instead of cancel.