Why Hong Kong Is Clamping Down On Creative Writing

This post by Madeleine Thien originally appeared on The Guardian on 5/18/15.

The decision to close City University’s MFA programme is plainly intended to limit free expression – showing just how vital it is

Last month, City University of Hong Kong abruptly shut down its MFA programme in creative writing. During Occupy Central – the campaign of mass civil disobedience that disrupted Hong Kong universities and brought part of the territory to a standstill for nearly three months last year – a number of our students had published essays in support of the demonstrations.

One of the most prominent was by lawyer Keane Shum, who wrote in Atlantic of his fears for Hong Kong in the face of increasing political interference from China. He said: “I choose words of protest. Others can bet against the march of democracy, but I still go with the better odds. I am a student no longer, but a dreamer, and a Hong Konger, always.”

For many in my generation, the images of class boycotts, calls for face-to-face meetings with senior leaders, and the decision by students to put their bodies in the way of police lines, brought back memories of the Tiananmen demonstrations of 1989. For writers, literature is a carrier of history. In Chinese, the word remembrance, jì yì, is a pun that can be heard two ways, 记忆 (to recall, record) and 技艺 (art). In the aftermath of Occupy Central, a chilling effect has taken root in Hong Kong’s academic institutions, most palpably in the territory’s top institution, Hong Kong University, described two weeks ago by media as “a campus on edge”.

 

Read the full post on The Guardian.

 

Why Defend Freedom Of Icky Speech?

This post by Neil Gaiman originally appeared on his Neil Gaiman’s Journal on 12/1/08.

This is a bit long. Apologies. I’d meant to talk about other things, but I started writing a reply this morning to the letter that follows and I got a bit carried away.

– – – – –
I have questions about the Handley case. What makes lolicon something worth defending? Yaoi, as I understand it, isn’t necessarily child porn, but the lolicon stuff is all about sexualizing prepubescent girls, yes? And haven’t there been lots of credible psych studies saying that if you find a support community for a fetish, belief or behavior, you’re more likely to indulge in it? That’s why social movements are so important for oppressed or non-mainstream groups (meaning everything from the fetish community to free-market libertarianism) -and why NAMBLA is so very, very scary (they are, essentially, a support group for baby-rapists.)

The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic? It is, after all, more than possible to imply and discuss these issues (ex. if someone loses their virginity at 14, and chooses to write a comic about it) without having a big ol’ pic of 14 yr. old poon being penetrated as the graphic. I also think there’s a world of difference between the Sandman story-which depicts child rape as the horrific thing it is (and, I believe, also ends with a horrific death for the pervert, doesn’t it?) and depicting child rape as a sexy and titillating thing. I think there is also a difference between acknowledging children’s sexuality, and pornography about children that is created for adults. Where on this spectrum does something like lolicon fall? And, again, why do you, personally, think that it should be defended?

Thanks for reading my ramble, and for being accessible to us, and engaged in things like CBLDF. Mostly, they are a fantastic org., but I’m really on the fence with this case…

Jess
– – – – –

Let me see if I can push you off the fence, a little, Jess. I’m afraid it’s going to be a long, and probably a bit rambly answer — a credo, and how I arrived at that.

If you accept — and I do — that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don’t say or like or want said.

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don’t. This is how the Law is made.

People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble.

 

Read the full post on Neil Gaiman’s Journal.

 

Artists and Personal Responsibility, Or Why There's Nothing "Terrifying" Nor Even Surprising About Sony Pulling 'The Interview'

This post by Publetariat founder and Editor in Chief April L. Hamilton originally appeared on her Indie Author blog on 12/18/14 and is reprinted here in its entirety with her permission.

RE: The Interview, here’s a comment I posted in reply to Chuck Wendig’s blog post Art Held Hostage: Why Sony Not Releasing “The Interview” Is Scary. This is my response to those who say Sony’s decision to pull the Seth Rogen / James Franco comedy film The Interview, in which two hapless celebrity interviewers get an interview with Kim Jong Un and are pressed into service by the U.S. government to use their access to assassinate Un, is “terrifying”, “horrifying”, “scary” and lots of other hyperbolic adjectives:

– – – – –

Y’know, the go-to solution to this problem has always been not to name specific names. It’s one thing to make a film about a group of CIA operatives trying to take down “a Russian official” who’s made to look and sound like Putin but is given a totally different name (such that the audience knows exactly who’s being portrayed, even if it’s not explicitly stated), but it’s a horse of a different color when that same film is made and DOES have an actor portraying the REAL Putin. Naming ANY specific, real-life individual, especially the real-world leader of a sovereign nation, in a story that mocks that individual or lays out an assassination plot against that individual (that’s backed by the U.S. government) is asking for trouble. This is why the Roman A Clef has a long and celebrated history.

Sure, in a perfect world any artist should be able to make whatever art he or she wants so long as it doesn’t break actual laws or harm actual people. But there’s ‘a perfect world’ and the world we actually live in, which is populated by plenty of crazy and heavily-armed people, and when there’s a very simple alternative that can accomplish the same artistic ends *without* putting anyone’s data or lives at risk, why not just go with the alternative? Would you rather compromise a little and still get your art and message out there, or dig in your heels and see your art wielded as a tool to do gross injury to innocent people?

— END COMMENT —
–BEGIN COMMENTARY–

Whither the artist’s personal responsibility and common sense? Does the right to make a statement of some sort trump all other concerns, including the safety and security of innocent people?

A photo-realistic painting of hundreds of actual rape victims’ hospital ID bands would make a powerful statement about the numbers of girls and women who are victimized in such a way, but it would also be an irresponsible thing to put on display because it would make the victims’ identities public. And the artist should know that.

A performance art piece in which someone dressed as a police officer pretends to choke a black child to death in the middle of a town square, in plain view of passersby, while others dressed as police stand with their backs turned, would make a powerful statement about the de-facto police state that exists in many parts of this country. But it would also put everyone who’s participating at risk from people who don’t know it’s a performance art piece, and might step in to try and assist the “victim”. In this age of cell phones everywhere, it would also likely become an internet sensation of false reporting by well-meaning people who’d post their images and videos online with statements about ongoing police brutality, which in turn would foment more anger and hostility toward police in general. And the artist should know that.

My point is this: art is not “being held hostage” in this case. This is a case about a breathtaking lack of judgment on the part of Sony execs who greenlit this project without a thought about the entirely predictable fallout. It would’ve been a simple matter to tell Rogen and Franco their script could only be produced if the “dear leader” character were given a different name and and were put in charge of a fictional regime in a fictional country.

Before anyone cries, “CENSORSHIP!” stop and think it through. Would the substance of the film be altered to any significant degree? Would the jokes still work? Would the central message still be there for any who cared to hear it?

Now ask yourself: if that were the film Sony made, would thousands of innocent Sony employees still have their social security numbers and medical records leaked to the public? Would Sony’s servers still be wiped? Would we be hearing threats of terrorist acts against innocent moviegoers? I think not.

This is the juncture at which the Stand On Principle types usually chime in to say that forcing artists to consider the possible threats of hackers and terrorists when art is created effectively stifles the statements those artists want to make. But it doesn’t, as centuries of Roman A Clef novels have proven over and again: you can make your point and get your statement across without putting any innocents in harm’s way.

If you feel so strongly about whatever it is you want to say as an artist that you’re willing to be martyred for it, by all means go right ahead. If your statement puts others in harm’s way however, you better think pretty damned long and hard before making it. Who are you to decide for everyone else that your precious artistic integrity is worth the potential harm to others?

If there’s a way to make that same statement without bringing harm to other people and you still choose the route that makes sacrificial lambs of others—people you don’t even know—, I don’t care if you’re an artist or not, and I don’t care how important your statement may be: in my opinion, you’re just being selfish and irresponsible, and any harm that comes to others as a result of reactions to your art is your fault.

 

Is Digital Technology Advancing or Limiting Freedom of the Press?

This post by Rebecca MacKinnon originally appeared on Big Questions Online on 3/10/14.

The Internet is a powerful vehicle for expanding freedom of the press. Whether this vehicle is driven successfully in the right direction, however, is not inevitable. Even in the age of high-speed Internet and always-on mobile devices, the expansion and protection of press freedom requires specific political, economic, and regulatory conditions.

Invented 25 years ago by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the World Wide Web is the common interactive “language” upon which revolutionary applications and interactive platforms have been built: first personal website-hosting services in the 90s, then blogging software in the early 00s, followed by social media like Facebook and Twitter. The Web has democratized and decentralized the function of “press:” One no longer needs substantial economic resources in order to share information or perspectives that have at least a small audience, somewhere.

When I joined CNN in 1992, if a person living in Kenya or Tunisia or Cambodia wanted the world to pay attention her story, she had to capture the interest of journalists working for a major news outlets like CNN or the New York Times or Newsweek magazine, whose editors would then decide whether and how they wanted to tell it. By the time I left CNN in 2004, that same person could create her own blog without needing specialized technical training. She could report her story directly onto the World Wide Web where it could be shared globally without relying on powerful media gatekeepers.

During the 2013 protest movement in Turkey which started in Istanbul’s Gezi Park before expanding nationwide, sociologist Zeynep Tufekci documented how demonstrators relied on Twitter as their main news source. Turkish mainstream news outlets were kept too tightly under the thumb of Prime Minister Erdogan to report on a movement that was directly critical of his government’s policies. “I knew there was censorship on TV,” she quoted one demonstrator in a recent article for Matter, an online magazine of science and technology. “But it wasn’t until Twitter came along I realized how bad it was.”

Digitally networked technologies certainly make it harder for governments to perpetuate blatant lies for very long. That is not the same thing, however, as having a free press.

 

Click here to read the full post on Big Questions Online.