RESPONSE: ABOUT SELF-Censorship

Self-censorship is considered a spontaneous act out of fear or stress. Individuals and media organizations are compelled by job opportunities, income, personal safety or reputation to correct and delete the views and content they wish to express in advance to avoid causing trouble. However, unlike overt, explicit censorship, self-censorship reveals speculation about standards and, with it, an indescribable, diffuse fear that you don't know if there really is an effective The rules tell you what you can say, what you can't say, or the consequences of saying what you shouldn't say.

Authoritarian governments initially use a variety of means to intimidate and harass individuals and media organizations to point out areas where public expression is not allowed. After that, a series of possible rules can be summarized based on existing experience and cases. This summary can either be promulgated by public power or bottom-up.

However, the more vague the censorship rules, the wider the scope they may cover, and the greater the sense of fear they create. Ideally, there would be no other voice outside of political propaganda. For example, according to the information published on the website of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the National Development and Reform Commission pointed out in the officially released “Market Access Negative List (2022 Edition)” that “non-public capital shall not engage in news editing and distribution”, and live broadcast activities must not involve “political, economy, military affairs, diplomacy, major society, culture, science and technology, health, education, sports" and other fields, "and other business related to political direction, public opinion orientation and value orientation" [1] .

To a large extent, harsh censorship is the "cause" of self-censorship. Traditional liberals see censorship as a form of top-down repression, enforced by a powerful institution (usually the state). Since the 1990s, scholars' attention has turned to how censorship affects society in a "permeable" way. In this way, one cannot easily identify a top-down, powerful censor. In fact, censorship has never been fully and clearly presented at the legal level—almost all constitutions protect the freedom of the press. Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China states that "citizens have the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, association, procession and demonstration" [2] . But this does not affect the actual control of public power over the public expression of individuals and media organizations.

A "panoramic" infrastructure construction allows the government to demonstrate its powerful surveillance capabilities. When people are told that everything they do is no longer anonymous, and recognize that the government has the ability to access every citizen's private information, it will force them to choose to be cautious until the real "iron fist" arrives. Next, a kind of political propaganda to spread fear, coupled with the strong connection ability of the Internet, is enough to strengthen citizens' "suspicious sentiments" - from institutions, platforms to supervisors, and then from supervisors to employees and specific users and audiences.

Fuzzy and broad rules will inevitably lead to a series of preparatory actions for content producers to "protect themselves". This means that public power can avoid a series of direct violent methods such as repression and deletion of posts, and control the public narrative at a small cost-what information the public hears and which version of the story they see are in their hands down — and declare to the outside world that they still have a free press.

It needs to be emphasized that whether the right of free expression can be fully exercised is not a question that the exerciser of the right can answer with "yes" and "no" in a "vacuum" condition - it is deeply influenced by the external environment. influences. The richness of public content and the quality of expression affect the degree of freedom of public debate and exchange of ideas. When individuals exercise freedom of expression as a fundamental human right, they are also helping others to enjoy their rights - facilitating the flow of public information and enriching the understanding of public knowledge. In other words, it's not just an institutional level, a question of whether rights are "granted or not." The environment for free speech is constructed by individuals who can actively exercise the right to free expression.

Allowing the truth to be revealed is a fundamental pillar of a healthy civil society, and the collision of diverse viewpoints also plays a role that cannot be ignored. Citizens need to hear the debate between different voices to help them generate opinions and make various decisions, and self-censorship acts as a strong disincentive - individuals and media organizations produce homogeneous content, or spontaneously hide it , Changed important information that is beneficial to public speech. In everyday life, people choose to self-censor to conform to social norms because of unpopular views. However, when this "filtering" slowly expands to cover more and more issues, it helps the censorship system to achieve its full effect.

When journalists and media organizations feel pressure from public power to self-censor, it can have a serious impact on public perception. On many major public issues, the content produced by journalists and media organizations almost determines how a "collective memory" is recorded and presented. Only when journalists are free to ask targeted questions of relevant authorities, and to synthesize and report key information, can stakeholders be compelled to express their views on events, and citizens can have the opportunity to express their concerns and understand the truth behind the events.

However, the division of responsibilities involved in this negative impact does not only include the existence of a system design for freedom of speech, but also includes individual responsibilities. The importance of freedom of expression to content production often sparks debates about whether producers have an obligation to strike a balance between respecting and challenging social norms and censorship. For content creators who can have a certain influence, how do they need to articulate and defend their perception of free speech?

Although silence on public issues, rule-based "flipping" or "telling lies" may all be manifestations of self-censorship, there are still differences in the ethical scenarios presented by the three. When self-censorship begins to be practiced in individuals on a large scale, it creates and expands a void that is incapable of fighting against political propaganda and censorship to manipulate "collective memory" and "collective cognition." This practice may not only be unconscious submission and obedience, but more likely to be conscious "do evil". If self-censorship represents a certain kind of concealment and silence, then content expression that meets official censorship standards is an act of voluntary participation in alienation and elimination of collective memory—helping public power restrict media freedom, affecting people’s ability to access information, and ultimately Leads to a "tightened" public discussion space. Sometimes it's scarier than "saying nothing".

For example, in China, we-media, which was originally born to resist the monopoly of media practitioners, eventually evolved into "a conspiracy between Internet platforms and content factories." Fang Kecheng wrote in the article "Ten Years of China's "We Media" - Traffic Business, Feather in One Place", "Most of China's we-media practitioners only care about traffic and banknotes, and public care is a very important thing. Don't mention the things they bring up. They dislike the "public knowledge" of the liberals, don't like their "doing things", and even believe in the conspiracy theories of the so-called "foreign forces"; When the housing market and the stock market fall and the advertising market slumps, they will complain about the losses in their wallets, but no one will ask the logic of the policy.” [3] .

As a result, only distorted information is left to the public—on the one hand, government-friendly official media, Internet platforms, and self-media surviving speeches, and on the other, bans caused by vague and broad censorship standards. Speech and "aphasia". Moreover, even when some major public events can really arouse widespread "pain", the public's attention is often forced to be placed on the "scapegoat" sought by the public power and the media, and the dissatisfaction is attributed to one category. "Front stage" roles, such as foreign forces, capital, lower-level bureaucrats, and even the media itself.

In this year's "Eastern Airlines crash" incident, it was rare to publicly ask why reporters were not allowed to inspect the scene and interview relevant people; the press conference only made irrelevant statements without any analysis of the cause of the air crash, but made it difficult for some media to lack "" Journalism Ethics" and "Eat Man's Blood Bread", regard air crash reports as "secondary harm" to the families of the deceased. This deliberately instigated public discussion has further contributed to divisions within civil society, and citizens have become more afraid to share their views. Especially for groups that are already moderate in their positions, they are more likely to further self-censor in order to avoid criticism and confusion, making free expression increasingly costly.

One end of self-censorship is connected to dissatisfaction with bans, surveillance, and manipulation, while the other end is the "habit" of step-by-step - checking in for PCR (nucleic acid testing) every forty-eight hours; updating the health code every few days and reporting proactively My own itinerary and health status; I am accustomed to the dense surveillance cameras around, and even feel a sense of security because of the increase in the number. And a group of people at the two ends choose not to say anything, say less, or even talk nonsense even if they know something.

As a result, many people began to gradually forget what was the cause of all this in the first place, and then even accepted a new set of narrative narratives, and continued their lives in the overwhelming "happy and popular" story. Moreover, once there is a "crack" caused by several opponents, the "new human beings" refined under self-censorship can also automatically block the "crack" through the "immune system", because shouting out here is not a bad idea. Well-meaning performance.

As Kai Strittmatter said: "When people get to the point where they are 'policemen' for themselves, they don't really need to be cops" [4] .

Chi Anchao

I would like to try my best to return to the inherent complexity of people and society through a non-simplified thinking and description.

[1] Notice of the National Development and Reform Commission of China (2022) and the Ministry of Commerce of the National Development and Reform Commission on Issuing the Negative List for Market Access (2022 Version) https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/ghxwj /202203/t20220325_1320231.html?code=&state=123

[2] Chapter II of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China: Basic rights and obligations of citizens http://www.gov.cn/test/2005-06/14/content_6310_4.htm

[3] Duan Media (2022) Fang Kecheng: Ten Years of "We Media" in China - Traffic Business, Feather in One Place https://theinitium.com/article/20220526-note-opinion-ten-years-zimeiti-china /

[4] Voice of America (2021) Bao Rong: The ultimate goal of the CCP’s digital authoritarianism: cultivating a “harmonious new human being” of self-censorship https://www.voachinese.com/a/china-digital-authoritarian-20210211/5774941 .html