Is the U.S. Bridge Federation pandering to Beijing censors?

A story in yesterday's New York Times about the U.S. Bridge Federation's proposed sanctions against members of the U.S. women's team deserves attention. These women are being punished for holding up a small hand-written sign that says "We did not vote for Bush" at the world bridge championships in Shanghai. The USBF justifies itself by saying that a private organization can "control the speech of people who represent them." Various bridge players quoted in the article found the sign offensive, but the motives of the USBF are not presented in this article. Certainly, partisan Bush supporters can be extremely defensive these days, but the sanctions imposed are very serious to the people involved, while the protest itself seems a bit mild (even Bush must know that many people voted against him). I think that something else is going on here.

The sort of thing that these women did demonstrates more clearly than just about anything else they could have done that they are people who are accustomed to freedom of speech. That is perceived as very dangerous in China, where the government is struggling to maintain censorship in a country with increasing ties to the rest of the world. Next August, thousands of people from all over the world will be coming to Beijing for the Olympics, and events like this one could erode the Chinese people's acceptance of government censorship. Furthermore, the USBF will be going back to China for the World Bridge Olympiad, and the sanctions proposed involve barring these players from that event.

I think that the USBF is motivated by the desire to maintain good relations with Beijing so that everything goes smoothly next year. While I consider it unlikely that they are responding to direct requests from the Chinese, I do think that they are trying to be good guests in a way that the Chinese understand. It's certainly clear to me which side of this debate is supportive of freedom and American values, and which side is working for the interests of government censorship worldwide. The article mentions a hearing to be held in San Francisco at the Fall North American Bridge Championships. The world will be watching to see just how free Americans really are. The USBF can do what is good for freedom, for America and even (by extension) George Bush, or they can do what's good for China and others all over the world who find freedom to be a dangerous idea.

Adam Liptak of the New York Times is off to a mixed start with his legal column.

Today's New York Times introduced "Sidebar," a new column on legal issues with "Fair Housing, Free Speech and Choosy Roommates." I'm impressed by the choice of this topic, which is at the confluence of several critical legal issues, and the author, Adam Liptak, does a very good job of explaining that. I suspect that I will become a regular reader of this column. However, his tone in one spot annoyed me because of its apparent lack of appreciation for the importance of one of those issues.

"To compound matters, Congress created a second kind of mischief in 1996 when it enacted the Communications Decency Act. Almost in passing, that law made online companies immune from lawsuits over information they transmit but do not create." (the emphasis is mine)

The internet cannot function as a means of free communication if web sites are held responsible for the content of speech that they facilitate. The alternative would turn every internet company into a censor. Imagine if the telephone company had to review every phone call for offensive speech! What Congress did in 1996 was in no way mischief. It established a principle that is fundamental to the way the internet should work.

Republicans hope to gain by attacking the Constitution and American values!

In response to a recent Supreme Court decision, the Republican's are seeking political advantage by attacking the U.S. Constitution and American values directly. You can't make this stuff up! My source is the Washington Post but it's easy to find examples (Ronald A. Cass on Yahoo!, Slate). The decision is available online at the Supreme Court site (Go to opinions/latest slip opinions for the PDF) and there are objective summaries on wikipedia and NPR. The common theme of right-wing commentary seems to be that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have greater wisdom than the founding fathers and the principles of freedom that our Constitution embodies. I respect the American people too much to believe that this is going to work. The appeal to security concerns is clearly persuasive with many but ignores the fact that dispensing with the U.S. Constitution and American values because you believe that Bush knows what he's doing is not only dangerous but will ultimately wear pretty thin with those who have sacrificed to protect those things.