https://amp.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1877753...
The simultaneity of the NBA and now Blizzard so publicly siding with Beijing may elevate this out of the realm of commercial issues (subject to boycotts) into a political one.
I work for one of the largest news publishers in the Nordics, and we were criticized for letting the CCP take out a full page ad in our largest newspaper that essentially said "no need for the Western governments to get involved, this is an internal issue that is best handled by us". Our editor in chief of that paper responded with this:
"Now we have the moral high ground. Until the Swedish government can take out a full page ad in The Global Times criticizing the CCP we can use this as one of many examples of how China does not value freedom of speech, but we do."
I must have missed something, because all the coverage I have seen is of Adam Silver publicly supporting Morey and Tsai. Additionally, the Nets cancelled a media event in Shanghai over this.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/21/gaming-the-...
Good on your paper for having the some fortitude.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kotick#Business_strategy...
I've seen this exact wording a lot recently. Is this the new propaganda line everyone parrots? I must have missed the previous administration's strong stance on ANYTHING AT ALL dealing with international relations, besides killing people from the sky. When did the previous administration lead on anything and not just bow down (literally bowing) to international leaders.
Sorry, the gaping hole in leadership was filled with someone who cares about the USA.
You probably want to use a different example than Google here. Particularly since Google doesn't have a China presence because they refused to censor search results, and relationships there still appear to be less than solid to say the least. Your statement works with most U.S. firms, but very much doesn't at all for Google in particular.
[citation needed], I wouldn't trust the guy with international business interests to actually have America's best interests at heart over his own if the two don't align.
No real dispute with your criticism of the previous leadership though.
What would we have them do? Apply pressure to Activision/Blizzard to reverse the company's own internal policy on "keep politics out of the game stuff?" That's a pretty clear violation of freedom of speech, the press, and / or association, to tell a private company who they must endorse.
It's not unprecedented, but the precedents are very tightly bound (and often tied up in a justification based on use of very finite public resources, such as broadcast airwaves).
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-f...
https://archive.fo/v5b1x (use this link)
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/comments/dez4yc/breaking...
The GOA competes with the NRA because they find the NRA more pro-Republican than pro-gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America
I'm not sure if there is a gun organization that promotes more nuanced theory of partially-limited gun rights but not just shilling for a party.
We have laws prohibiting private actors from interfering with American foreign policy. And we have safe harbours for protected speech. Combining these two, narrowly, to apply to Hong Kong and Taiwan might thread the needle.
To get around First Amendment issues, it would have to be a law saying, in effect, private actors may not punish employees, contractors or members for expressing opinions connected to Hong Kong or Taiwan’s proto-democratic and democratic systems. (This would probably also require Congress recognise Taiwan’s sovereignty, which after Hong Kong looks necessary.)
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/10/8/20904593/nba-china-co...
I don't think that carve out would be constitutional unless it was even more broad. Say "personal capacity political advocacy is protected" so you could get fired for saying "<Company> supports Free Tibet" without proper permission/authority but "I, not speaking on behalf of <Company> support Free Tibet". Even that would open itself to damn uncomfortable side effects legally for a weatherman opening every broadcast with "I support the reestablishment of Rhodesia!" being protected as well.
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights...
https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1181497808563658752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrY6bKFVD3Q&feature=youtu.be...
https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1181497808563658752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrY6bKFVD3Q&feature=youtu.be...
The Logan Act [1] has been on the books since the 19th century, though it remains Constitutionally controversial.
Broadly speaking, however, there is difference between punishing certain views and expanding public-sphere protections around free speech. The latter is done e.g. with union-promotion laws, which restrict companies' abilities to suppress certain kinds of union-organizing speech. That precedent could certainly be extended to this issue.
This should be applauded and supported, since it's pretty much what people want others like Blizzard to do as well. Google is much closer to a gold standard to follow with their approach to China than they are to being lumped in with the NBA or Blizzard.
[1] https://www.racked.com/2018/5/10/17339690/dicks-sporting-goo...
[2] https://gunstoday.com/why-is-everyone-boycotting-springfield...
Concentration camps are evil, and so is using prisoners as living organ banks. Furthermore, China is run by competent people and has a large economy growing faster than the West. They are a bigger threat than Nazi Germany or the USSR were. China has a serious chance of dominating the world over a 20-30 year timescale.
I don't want that to happen. If McCarthyism is what it takes to stop it, so be it; I would prefer that over having my organs removed while I am still conscious.