Illustration by Ellie Strayer
“Tank Man”—the photo of a man defiantly standing in front of four advancing tanks during the Tiananmen Square massacre 30 years ago—is one of the most iconic photographs of the twentieth century. Search for it in the United States and Google returns millions of hits. Search for it on the Chinese internet . . . nothing.
Censorship is common in China, where the right to speech extends to as far as the government allows it. Freedom House, an NGO dedicated to documenting and scoring countries based on their political rights and civil liberties, gave China an 11/100 Aggregate Freedom Score, including a negative one out of forty possible points in political rights. The report stated that the Communist Party’s authoritarian regime is “increasingly repressive,” citing its tightening state control over “state bureaucracy, the media, online speech, religious groups, universities, businesses, and civil society associations.”
Some of the more ridiculous examples of censorship have become famous in the West. Winnie the Pooh was banned from Chinese media after bloggers compared his appearance to President Xi Jinping, juxtaposing photos of the most powerful man in the state with the honey-loving bear. More seriously, after protests broke out in Hong Kong this summer over a proposed law that would allow the extradition of Hongkongers to mainland China, where there is no due process, the Communist Party began carefully curating the news to support its false narrative—that the protestors are radical, violent separatists.
To preserve the government’s narrative, China maintains that business entities, foreign governments, and any individuals who wish to interact with the government or economy must also submit themselves to censorship. This means abiding by all Chinese speech laws and respecting the international relations positions of the Communist Party. Google—in an attempt to appease the Chinese government and expand its reach—secretly blueprinted a censored search engine called Dragonfly, which was terminated after the project was leaked to the public. If completed, Dragonfly would have contradicted Google’s typical opposition towards censorship.
Google is not the only major technology company to adjust their software to Chinese standards. Because of a longstanding conflict between China and Taiwan, Apple removed the Taiwanese flag emoji from iPhones in China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Major airlines changed their booking systems to list Taiwan as part of China. After Mercedes-Benz’s parent company, Daimler, quoted the Dalai Lama in promotional material, Daimler was forced to apologize to China, because China considers the Dalai Lama a separatist for protesting the annexation of his former home, Tibet.
Films that do not conform to Chinese standards lose out on billions in potential revenue. Mission Impossible III removed a scene where Tom Cruise walks by undergarments drying on a clothesline in Shanghai, because “censors felt it did not portray Shanghai in a positive light.” The 2012 James Bond movie Skyfall cut a scene where a foreign assassin kills a Chinese security guard, because censors worried it made the Chinese look weak. Movies have also inserted material to appease censors. In Marvel’s recent blockbuster, Doctor Strange, censors planned to remove an old Tibetan monk character, “The Ancient One.” The film changed the character into a Celtic woman.
All of these examples demonstrate censorship of easily removable sections of media. But what happens when uncensorable content expresses a censorable sentiment?
On October 4, Daryl Morey, general manager of the NBA’s Houston Rockets, tweeted: “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.” Until that point, the Rockets were China’s favorite American basketball team because it was the former team of Yao Ming, the greatest Chinese basketball player in history, and a current Ambassador of the Game for the Chinese Government.
Ming (7’6”), with former Secretary of State John Kerry (6’4”)
China didn’t broadcast or stream any of the NBA’s preseason games. Chinese officials canceled all NBA promotional events in the country. This is financially dangerous to the NBA, which receives around ten percent of its revenue from China, a figure sports business expert David Carter projected to grow to twenty percent by 2030. However, China’s new policy hampers this potential. A drop in revenue would hurt the owners’ bottom lines and salary cap growth, decreasing player salaries. The damage also hit the NBA’s partnerships with Chinese businesses. Li-Ning, an athleticwear brand which sponsors a handful of NBA players, announced that it would suspend business ties with the league. Tencent, the NBA’s exclusive digital partner in China, suspended business relations with the Rockets.
Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta quickly tried to backtrack from his general manager’s statement, saying that Morey did not speak for the organization and that the team was apolitical. However, anything short of firing Morey—who has been incredibly successful in his role—would likely not go far enough to placate the Chinese.
On October 6, NBA commissioner Adam Silver released this statement in English:
We recognize that the views expressed by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey have deeply offended many of our friends and fans in China, which is regrettable. While Daryl has made it clear that his tweet does not represent the Rockets or the NBA, the values of the league support individuals’ educating themselves and sharing their views on matters important to them . . .
The post the association made on Chinese social media platform Weibo was much harsher towards Morey, using language like “extremely disappointed” and “inappropriate” to classify Morey’s comment. The NBA received further backlash for seemingly betraying its history of supporting social justice issues. The NBA has allowed its players to speak on a number of topics, including Black Lives Matter and LGBT issues.
The media and general public accused the NBA of putting profits ahead of values. The Washington Post ran the headline: “The NBA doesn’t care about China. Or being ‘woke.’ It only cares about money.” Texas politicians, including Republican senator Ted Cruz, former Demcoratic Congressman Beto O’Rourke, and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro, decried the NBA’s retractions.
Commissioner Silver then released a second statement, more in line with the NBA’s previous politics:
It is inevitable that people around the world—including from America and China—will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences. However, the NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues. We simply could not operate that way.
China’s national television broadcaster expressed its disappointment with Silver’s second statement and offered its own definition of freedom of speech:
We express our strong dissatisfaction and opposition to Silver’s stated support of Morey’s right to free speech. We believe any remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social stability do not belong to the category of free speech.
The two sides appear to be at an impasse. The NBA stated its opinions on the matter and is at the mercy of the Chinese government. Neither appear ready to shift their stances. If an NBA megastar such as Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, or Stephen Curry had made the statement, the Chinese government would have a lot more trouble removing these beloved athletes from the public discourse. Jerseys and posters have already been purchased, and memories have already been made. Games could be blacked out, but there would be diminishing returns on a suddenly inferior product if broadcasters stopped showing crucial games like the playoffs and fan favorites like the All-Star Game. A general manager—even a successful one like Morey—may have trouble making the case that they are worth more to a team than a lucrative business dealing in China. But during this time of unprecedented player movement, no owner would risk angering a passionately pro-freedom superstar player to kowtow to China.
If the NBA wins, China will not seek any further consequences for Morey’s comments. In this scenario, China would stop trying to control individuals affiliated with the league. The popularity of the sport with the Chinese people—if they are ever able to exert public pressure—and the NBA’s lucrative associated business dealings will have convinced the government that this fight is not worth it. The Chinese league does not match the NBA’s talent, skill, and star power and both sides know this; it is the NBA’s trump card that still may not be enough in this political game. If China wins, the NBA will add rules limiting speech for players and executives. This would occur if NBA leadership (mainly the team owners and the NBA Players Association) will convince outspoken members that money is worth more than social justice issues.
If China doubles down by refusing to air Rockets games until Morey is fired, the NBA community could also double down. NBA players and coaches are willing to speak out on a number of social issues and have had no problem calling out political figures with whom they disagree. LeBron James went so far as to defend Stephen Curry—who had just beaten him in the NBA Finals—against Donald Trump, by calling the president a bum. If President Xi and the Chinese Government target individual members of the NBA, they should expect a similar response from the community.
U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up!
— LeBron James (@KingJames) September 23, 2017
The emerging uneasy equilibrium seems to be the most likely outcome. This equilibrium will presumably see both China and the NBA sacrifice for profitable outcomes: one limits its speech, the other limits its controls on others’ speech. After the initial eruption of this conflict, NBA players and managers learned how costly it is to push China on human rights issues. When the initial outrage died down, it was revealed that China pushed NBA leadership to force the firing of Morey, and considered not showing opening regular season games. Although the NBA declared that it will not suppress players’ speech, the players understand that supporting causes that go against the interests of the Chinese government is an unwise financial decision.
In his first public comments since the Chinese cancellations of his team’s events in China, Los Angeles Lakers superstar Lebron James made a vague, vacuous statement about freedoms, condemning Morey’s comments as unaware of the situation as a whole. This statement reflects many NBA players’ similar desires to retain their status in China without compromising too much on their values of freedom of speech. This led to a quick response from Boston Celtics center Enes Kanter, who has often criticized Turkish President Erdogan on topics of democracy and freedom. This prevents him from leaving the United States or speaking to his Turkish family out of fear of harassment, arrest, or assassination.
In a short statement, Kanter fired back at James, “Freedom is not free.”
As China globalizes, the issues regarding the censorship of foreign private entities over domestic political matters will only increase. How China and the NBA handle each other will be a roadmap for future business interactions and market expansion. More and more, businesses will have to determine the moral cost of doing business in China. If the NBA is any indication, to a great extent, profits will come first.
