Mediaboss Marketing

Nearly athird (32%) of employed Americans say they personally are worried about missing out on career opportunities or losing their job if their political opinions became known. These results are particularly notable given that most personal campaign contributions to political candidates are public knowledge and can easily be found online.

And its not just one side of the political spectrum: 31% of liberals, 30% of moderates and 34% of conservatives are worried their political views could get them fired or harm their career trajectory. This suggests that its not necessarily just one particular set of views that has moved outside of acceptable public discourse. Instead these results are more consistent with a walking on eggshells thesis that people increasingly fear awide range of political views could offend others or could negatively impact themselves.

These concerns are also crosspartisan, although more Republicans are worried: 28% of Democrats, 31% of independents, and 38% of Republicans are worried about how their political opinions could impact their career trajectories.

Americans with diverse backgrounds share this concern that their employment could be adversely affected if their political views were discovered: 38% of Hispanic Americans, 22% of African Americans, 31% of White Americans, 35% of men, 27% of women, 36% of households earning less than $20,000 ayear, and 33% of households earning more than $100,000 ayear agree.

Some are more worried about losing their jobs or missing out on job opportunities because of political views. Those with the highest levels of education are most concerned. Almost half (44%) of Americans with postgraduate degrees say they are worried their careers could be harmed if others discovered their political opinions, compared to 34% of college graduates, 28% of those with some college experience, and 25% of high school graduates

Go here to see the original:
Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They're Afraid to Share - Cato Institute

Thursday, 23 July 2020, 11:06 amArticle: Eric Zuesse

Eric Zuesse,originally posted at StrategicCulture

Back in July of 2016, I did a two-partarticle, American Samizdat Publication Forbidden in U.S., which went down therabbit-hole of news-suppression (censorship) in the UnitedStates but left, for the future, a more detailed descriptionof the money-track back to the individuals who control thatcensorship in serving the economic interests of the samebillionaires who control both the Democratic NationalCommittee and the Republican National Committee both ofAmericas two national political Parties (and they thusdetermined, forexample, in the Democratic Party, that Bernie Sanders wouldnever get that Partys Presidential nomination, though hehad the highest approval-rating of any politician in thecountry, and far higher than Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump,and Joe Biden ever had yet the billionaires fooledthe majority of Democratic Party primary voters to thinkthat he was too radical to be able to beat Trump, eventhough, in all polled hypothetical matchups against Trump,Sanders beat Trump by far higher margins thanClinton did, and basicallyequal to whatBiden did, so the electability issue wasfabricated by the billionaires press, in order to get acandidate who was acceptable to the billionaires tobe running against Trump).

A dictatorship functions bynews-suppression and other forms of censorship, even morethan it does by its own lying. It functions by deceit, butthe main way it deceives is by prohibiting the truth to bepublished on any of the billionaires (or other rulinggroups) media including all of the media that havelarge audiences.

News-suppression used to becontrolled by the CIAs OperationMockingbird, in which the owners andtop executives of the major news-media took theCIAs orders and trusted it to represent in the mostreliable way the collective interests of Americaswealthiest persons, so as to weaken those individualsforeign economic competitors. However, gradually, after the1976 Frank-Church-led U.S. Senate hearings into the CIAsdeceptions of the American public, Americas wealthiest the same people whom Wall Street firms also represent relied increasingly upon the nonprofits (foundationsetc.) that they controlled, in order to transfer some ofthis censorship-function over to those nonprofits privatize the censorship function. It was done so that thesame people who controlled the U.S. Government would be ableto continue controlling it and would allow into thebillionaire class new members (mainly technocrats) of thenations aristocracy. This would enhance the U.S.aristocracys collective control over the U.S. Government.There is less need, than before, for the CIA to do thecensoring. (So: the group collectively also constitutesits own gatekeepers. They dont rely onlyupon market-forces in order to determine who is us,and who is them, but any misbehaving member willincreasingly become treated as being one ofthem, and this will be reflected in the groupsnews-media. Its an oligarchy here, and not only anaristocracy. It is an exclusionary aristocracy.)

HughWilfords 2008 THEMIGHTY WURLITZER: How the CIA Played Americadescribed how, starting in the late 1960s, Americassuper-rich began transferring (privatizing) some of theircensorship-functions away from the Government, and intotheir own controlled news-media andnonprofits.

As the former Washington Postreporter Carl Bernstein headlined on 20 October 1977, THECIA AND THE MEDIA, in the wake of the ChurchCommittees report, and described that Senate reportscontext:

During the 1976 investigation of the CIAby the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by SenatorFrank Church, the dimensions of the Agencys involvementwith the press became apparent to several members of thepanel, as well as to two or three investigators on thestaff. But top officials of the CIA, including formerdirectors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded thecommittee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and todeliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activitiesin its final report. The multivolume report contains ninepages in which the use of journalists is discussed indeliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makesno mention of the actual number of journalists who undertookcovert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describethe role played by newspaper and broadcast executives incooperating with the Agency.

Ever since that time,the CIAs direct control over U.S. media has eroded andbecome privatized largely into the billionairesnonprofits, even while the CIAscontrol over the media in U.S.-allied foreignaristocracies has continued unabated, so as to extendyet further the American empire.

At the top in Americaare the billionaires who donate the most to politicians, andwhose tax-exempt foundations collectively carry out whatused to be the CIAs Operation Mockingbird thecensorship-function.

Two organizations especiallyshould be cited here as leaders of todays Americanbillionaire-class and privatized censorship operations, andany reader here should keep in mind that the largest fundersof these two organizations are themselves only hints at thebillionaires who control each one of them, and, furthermore,since these are only two such organizations, there might beother similar organizations that, perhaps in other ways, areequally important as these two determiners of the news thatthe vast majority of the U.S. public are, and will be,blocked from seeing and hearing (such as this).

Firstis a crucial operation that serves the Democratic NationalCommittee, the DNC (for links to sources, click onto theURL):

https://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html

WhatWe Do

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)is a nationally recognized watchdog that leads in-depth,award-winning investigations into the corruption thatundermines our democracy, environment, and economicprosperity.

The Koch brothers and their networkof billionaires are operating with a reach and resourcesthat exceed those of political parties and they are usingthat power to erode the integrity of our elections and saptaxpayer dollars away from investments in publicinfrastructure, education, and healthcare to benefit narrowspecial interests and globalcorporations.

CMDs investigations, publicinformation requests, and lawsuits have ignited nationalconversations on money in politics and the distortion ofU.S. law and democracy at every level of government andin every region of the country. We believe in the publicsright to know how government operates and how corporationsinfluence our democracy and the true motivations fortheir actions. When necessary, CMD litigates to defend thatright and ensure those in power follow thelaw.

Since CMD first exposed ALEC in 2011, morethan 100 corporations have dropped ALEC, including Verizon,Ford, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, General Electric, and Google. Asa result of that ongoing investigation and other reporting,CMD is often contacted by whistleblowers wanting to make adifference. CMD has also researched the array of groups thatare part of ALEC, including numerous Koch-funded entitiesand national and state think tanks that are affiliatedwith the State Policy Network.

CMD files morethan 1,000 public information requests each year. Thisinvestigative watchdog work has broken through in thenational debate. For example, CMD exposed EPA AdministratorScott Pruitt's deep ties to the fossil fuel industry andrevealed lobbyist efforts to hide Chamber of Commercemembers overwhelming support for raising the minimum wageand providing paid sick leave, among other groundbreakinginvestigations.

CMDs work has been featuredin the New York Times, Washington Post, POLITICO, theGuardian, Bloomberg, WIRED, Vice, The Atlantic and Buzzfeedas well as on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, The DailyShow, and Last Week with John Oliver. We also partner withinvestigative writers at The Intercept and ProPublica topublish new reports and findings.

The fightto keep our democracy from becoming a plutocracy doesn'thave a scrappier warrior than the Center for Media andDemocracy. Bill Moyers

CMD's scrappycrew tracks the Koch Machine every day, shines a light oncorruption in our democracy, and takes politicians to courtwhen they try to hide their special-interest ties from thepublic. Robert Reich

...watchdoggroup that studie[s] the mechanics of politicalmanipulation." -- Jane Mayer, DarkMoney

[CMD's] requests are of federalimportance. -- Sens. Carper, Whitehouse, Merkley, Booker,Markey and Duckworth

How We ExposeCorruption

CMD puts a spotlight on hidden andunreported activities, forcing those trying to maneuveraround the edges of laws and ethics out of the shadows. Ouroriginal research digs deeper than the 24-hour news cycle toanswer and understand why and how special interests and darkmoney are reshaping American politics and elections. Ourteam focuses on documenting the facts and revealing theeffects on communities and people in areas ranging fromclimate change and education to workplace standards andfreedom of speech.

CMDs groundbreakingexposs are featured on ExposedbyCMD.org.The watchdog also publishes SourceWatch, an encyclopedia ofcorporations, corporate special interest groups and theirleaders; specialized investigative websites, includingALECExposed.org;and its founding website, PRWatch.org.

Awardsand Honors

CMDs investigations have beenrecognized for their excellence and impact. Our recentawards for investigative journalisminclude:

The Sidney Award from the SidneyHillman Foundation in 2018 for the expos Two Faces ofJanus.

The Izzy I.F. Stone Awardfor outstanding achievement in independent media (sharedwith Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous)from the Park Center for Independent Media.

The Sidney Award (shared jointly with The Nation) from theSidney Hillman Foundation.

The annualProfessional Freedom and Responsibility Award from theAssociation for Education in Journalism and MassCommunication, Culture and Critical Studies Division, whosepast recipients include Izzy Stone, Bill Moyers, and MollyIvins.

The Benny from the BusinessEthics Network.

CMD has been honored by theMilwaukee Press Club for one of its investigations intoshadowy front groups influencing elections.

CMDs research was featured in Ava DuVernay's film The13th, which was nominated for a 2017 Academy Award forBest Documentary.

Ground-breaking books bywriters from the Center for Media and Democracyinclude:

Deadly Spin: An Insurance CompanyInsider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing HealthCare and Deceiving Americans

Toxic SludgeIs Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public RelationsIndustry

Trust Us, We're Experts: HowIndustry Manipulates Science and Gambles With YourFuture

Mad Cow USA

Weaponsof Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War onIraq

Banana Republicans: How the Right Wingis Turning America Into a One-party State

The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess inIraq

Governance

CMD was founded in1993 by John Stauber in Madison, Wisconsin. In March 2018,Arn Pearson became CMDs Executive Director, succeedingLisa Graves, who served as executive director from 2009-2018and currently serves as board President. CMDs teamincludes researchers, data experts, FOIA experts, lawyers,and fact-checkers. CMD is a 501(c)(3) tax-exemptnon-profit.

Board of Directors

Lisa Graves, Board President

DeborahBey

Ellen Braune

CosmoHarrigan

Jan Miyasaki

TedNace

Bo Yerxa

Arn Pearson,Ex-Officio BoardMember

Funding

The followingfoundations have provided at least one grant of $5,000 ormore to support the work of CMD since its inception in 1993.Those listed in bold are recent funders.

American Legacy Foundation

Bauman FamilyFoundation

CarethFoundation

CarolynFoundation

Changing Horizons CharitableTrust

CourtneysFoundation

CS Fund

DeerCreek Foundation

Educational Foundation ofAmerica

EttingerFoundation

Ford Foundation

Foundation for Deep Ecology

Foundation forPolitical Management

FundingExchange

Richard & Rhoda GoldmanFund

Grodzins Fund

HelenaRubinstein Foundation

HKHFoundation

LitowitzFoundation

MarislaFoundation

MostynFoundation

Open SocietyInstitute

Park Foundation

Public Welfare Foundation

ProteusFund

V. Kann RasmussenFoundation

RockefellerAssociates

Rockefeller FamilyFoundation

Rockwood Fund

Stern Family Fund

Schumann Center for Mediaand Democracy

SunlightFoundation

ThresholdFoundation

TidesFoundation

Town CreekFoundation

TurnerFoundation

Wallace GlobalFund

WinslowFoundation

Contributions from individuals andnon-profit organizations are accepted. We accept no grantsfrom government agencies or for-profit corporations, exceptfor CREDO, which makes donations to nonprofits based onvotes by its activists and customers.

CMD doesnot accept funding from for-profit corporations or grantsfrom government agencies. Learn how you can help support andexpand CMD's groundbreaking investigationshere.

Second is a crucial operationthat serves the Republican National Committee, the RNC (forlinks to sources, click onto the URL):

More here:
Who The Democratic And Republican Party Censors Are, For The 'News' You See & Hear - Scoop.co.nz

50% of strong liberals support firing Trump donors, 36% of strong conservatives support firing Biden donors; 32% are worried about missing out on job opportunities because of their political opinions

A new Cato Institute/YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans finds that 62%of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive. This is up from 2017 when 58% agreed with this statement. Majoritiesof Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share.

Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves:58%of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe.

Centrist liberals feel differently, with52%who feel they have to selfcensor, as do 64% of moderates, and 77% of conservatives. This demonstrates that political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank.

Read the full survey report and results here.

Whats changed? In 2017 most centrist liberals felt confident (54%) they could express their views. However today, slightly less than half (48%) feel the same. The share who feel they cannot be open increased 7points from 45% in 2017 to 52% today. In fact, there have been shifts across the board, where more people among all political groups feel they are walking on eggshells.

Although strong liberals are the only group who feel they can say what they believe, the share who feel pressured to selfcensor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020. The share of moderates who selfcensor increased 7points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a7point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).

Selfcensorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly twothirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and nonreligious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

50% of Staunch Liberals Support the Firing of Trump Donors

Nearly athird (31%) of Americans say theyd support firing abusiness executive who personally donated to Donald Trumps reelection campaign for president. This share rises to 50% among strong liberals who support firing business executives who personally donate to Trump.

36% of Staunch Conservatives Support Firing Biden Donors

The survey finds that cancel culture goes both ways. Nearly aquarter (22%) of Americans support firing abusiness executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Bidens campaign. This share rises to 36% among strong conservatives who support firing Biden donors. These results are particularly notable given that most personal campaign contributions to political candidates are public knowledge and can easily be found online.

32% Worry Their Political Views Could Harm Their Employment

Nearly athird (32%) of employed Americans say they are worried about missing out on career opportunities or losing their job if their political opinions became known. Americans across the political spectrum share these concerns: 31% of liberals, 30% of moderates, and 34% of conservatives are worried their political views could get them fired or harm their career trajectory. This suggests that its not necessarily just one particular set of views that has moved outside of acceptable public discourse. Instead these results are more consistent with a walking on eggshells thesis that people increasingly fear awide range of political views could offend others or negatively impact themselves.

These concerns cut across demographics and partisan lines: 28% of Democrats, 31% of independents, 38% of Republicans, 38% of Hispanic Americans, 22% of African Americans, 31% of White Americans, 35% of men, 27% of women, 36% of households earning less than $20,000 ayear, and 33% of households earning more than $100,000 ayear fear their political opinions could impact their career trajectories.

Read thefull survey report and results here.

The topline questionnaire, crosstabs, full methodology, and analysis of the survey findings can be found here.

Methodology:

The Cato Institute Summer 2020 National Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online during July 16, 2020 from anational sample of 2,000 Americans 18years of age and older. Restrictions are put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by YouGov are allowed to participate. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.36 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

Here is the original post:
New Poll: 62% Say the Political Climate Prevents Them from Sharing Political Views - Cato Institute

Poll finds self-censorship on the rise across political groups. A disturbingly high percentage of people polled earlier this month think private political donations should be grounds for getting fired. The number was especially high among respondents under age 30, with 44 percent of the youngest group saying business leaders who donate to Donald Trump should be fired and 27 percent saying the same for execs who give to Joe Biden. Meanwhile, 62 percent of all respondents said they're reluctant to share their political views for fear of offending othersup four points from when the same question was posed in 2017.

Those are a few of the findings in a new national poll conducted by the Cato Institute and YouGov.

When it comes to free expression, the "fears cross partisan lines," writes Cato Director of Polling Emily Ekins. "Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share."

There are some differences of degree. A majority (58 percent) of people who categorized themselves as "very" liberal told pollsters they felt they could express themselves freely, while only 48 percent of "moderate" liberals said the same.

"Political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank," suggests Ekins.

The percentage of respondents who felt they could speak freely was even lower among those who labeled themselves "moderate" (36 percent), "conservative" (23 percent), or "very conservative" (23 percent).

Of course, the poll doesn't tell us how much people's perceptions on this front are true to life and how much they reflect distorted evaluations. Maybe staunch liberals feel they can speak more freely because cultural currents do indeed allow it; maybe they just don't realize when their free expression is offending or alienating people. Maybe it's a little of both, plus a lot of other reasons.

On the conservative side, the strong feeling of having to self-censor is likely somewhat rooted in a media and political culture that thrives on peddling its own marginalization. But there's also statistical evidence that self-identification with conservatism and the Republican Party are on the decline, and no doubt that conservative ideas are sidelined in many elite institutions.

It's also hard to guess what people actually mean about their politics when they describe themselves as stronger or less-strong "liberals" or "conservatives" in an era where these meanings are mutable and often bizarre.

Ekins notes that even strong liberals are less confident in their ability to speak freely in 2020 then they were in 2017: "the share who feel pressured to self-censor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020." At the same time,

The share of moderates who self-censor increased 7 points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a 7-point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).

Self-censorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly two-thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non-religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

Not all self-censorship is bad, of course. There are times and places for restraint. So it's hard to know quite how to interpret the results above.

Alas, another part of the study is much more unambiguously depressing: A large number of people think whether someone is employable ought to be tied to their personal politics.

"Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's campaign," notes Ekins. "Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump's re-election campaign." And:

Support rises among political subgroups. Support increases to 50% of strong liberals who support firing executives who personally donate to Trump. And more than a third (36%) of strong conservatives support firing an executive for donating to Biden's presidential campaign.

Young Americans are also more likely than older Americans to support punishing people at work for personal donations to Trump. Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives if they donate to Trump. This share declines to 22% among those over 55 years olda 20-point difference. An age gap also exists for Biden donors, but is less pronounced. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives who donate to Biden compared to 20% of those over 55a 7-point difference.

Respondents also expressed fear that their own political opinions or donations would cost them a job or a career opportunity. "Younger people are also more concerned than older people, irrespective of political viewpoint," notes Ekins.

Examining all Americans under 65, 37% of those under 30 are worried their political opinions could harm their career trajectories, compared to 30% of 3054 year-olds and 24% of 5564 year-olds. But the age gap is more striking taking into account political views.

A slim majority (51%) of Republicans under 30 fear their views could harm their career prospects compared to 39% of 3044 year-olds, 34% of 4554 year-olds, and 28% of 5564 year-old Republicans.

Democrats reflect a similar but less pronounced pattern. A third (33%) of Democrats under 30 worry they have views that could harm their current and future jobs, compared to 27% of 3054 year-olds, and 19% of 5564 year-old Democrats.

You can find the full surveyconducted July 16, 2020, with a national sample of 2,000 American adultshere. The sections on political donations and self-censorship are here. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.36 percentage points.

A couple of (positive) Portland updates:

Twitter is exploring subscription options.

The Malaysian government is backtracking on making people who post videos to their personal social-media accounts get a license.

A new documentary goes inside Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Read the original post:
Is Giving to Biden or Trump Grounds for Getting Fired? New Poll Finds a Disturbing Number of People Who Think It Should Be - Reason

In the weeks since Beijing passed the Hong Kong national security law, political titles have been pulled from public library shelves, a protest slogan has been banned and students have been prohibited from political activities in schools. With lawyers, academics, and journalists expressing concern over the laws vague wording, the future of free speech and expression in the city is uncertain.

Booksellers, like the citys librarians and publishers, fear stricter regulations on the titles they are allowed to offer, creating a chilling effect among institutions which traditionally uphold and safeguard the free flow of ideas, information, and narratives.

Fears for the independent bookselling arena in Hong Kong first arose in 2015, when five staff members of Causeway Bay Books which sold political gossip titles disappeared. Then, in mid-2018, it was revealed that the China Liaison Office in Hong Kong owned the company controlling Sino United Publishing (SUP), which in turn controlled more than half the citys bookstores.

But there are still booksellers in Hong Kong who continue to safeguard against Chinese influence. Albert Wan of Bleak House Books, a local English-language bookstore at the heart of a tight-knit reading community, is committed to resisting any changes in how he runs his business. This includes continuing to stock sensitive political titles that could potentially contravene the law: [These titles] mostly would be books that are not published by large presses. Books that relate specifically to Hong Kong and the law, the Umbrella Movement, or protests from last summer these are obviously the most sensitive books, he told HKFP.

He now wonders whether previously unproblematic titles will become contraband: Under the new law, and based on what we know happens in mainland China, would it be a problem to stock 1984, Animal Farm, or On Tyranny? [What about] general theory-based books [or] academic texts about revolutionary movements that have taken place in China in the past? Who knows?

As a former US lawyer before running his own bookshop, Wan is sceptical about the legal validity of recent government-issued statements about what may or may not be acceptable: Its hard to tell where the red-lines are. Everyones saying it, but its true. It doesnt help when the government willy-nilly comes out and makes statements about the law or how people might be violating it. Theres no official interpretation. What the government says, at least in my understanding of how things work their statements are not the law, he said.

Wan is not the only independent bookstore owner frustrated by the legislation. May Fung of ACO Book a local bookstore specialising in arts and culture also expressed concern: Every publication on any subject is now subject to this national security law. I think it is dangerous and I am somewhat worried, she told HKFP.

If we still lived in a society with rule of law and a legal system we can trust, we can go to court and the court will fairly decide whether or not a certain title contravenes the law. But this new national security agency is outside of the government, so thats not necessarily the case now; we dont know whether or not they will be fair.

However, Fung, like Wan, is committed to business as usual, unless forced to do otherwise. I wont stop operations because [the government] may or may not ban certain titles. We will keep doing what we are doing until we are forced into a corner, she said.

Since the anti-extradition law protests started last June, Wan and his store have taken a clear stance in support of the pro-democracy movement. He says that, especially for indie bookstores like Bleak House, it is difficult to stay apolitical.

I dont think theres anything wrong with being apolitical, its really up to the person who runs the bookshop. I think its a problem to not have a stance personally, but it doesnt necessarily have to translate into what you do for work, he said. [But] its a little hard to do that when youre selling books the books you stock reflect the perspectives and the ideologies of the person or people running the bookshop its harder for smaller bookshops to be in the middle and not take a side.

When asked whether he will obey orders to pull books off his shelves for the sake of national security, Wan gave a tentative answer: We would not go and start pulling books off our shelves just because we receive [an order to do so]. It depends on the nature of the order and what itll look like.

We are very hesitant to go down the path of any kind of censorship, whether its self-imposed or whether its imposed from outside because if we go down that road theres really no turning back.

Fung echoed the sentiment: I dont want to go to prison but I will not self-censor until I absolutely have no other choice, she said.

Despite their commitment to resisting self-censorship, both Wan and Fung said they have to weigh the risks to their livelihoods and the safety of those around them.

My initial reaction will be to tell them to f-off, but I also have a bookstore to run I have responsibilities as a husband and father, Wan said. Its a matter of how muchI feel like I can keep doing [what Im doing] and not be a burden and compromise the safety of my family.

If they do come and tell us certain books can no longer be sold like we saw with Causeway Books, then I will have to stop selling the titles to protect my colleagues from being arrested, Fung said.

Elsewhere in the city, international bookstores are adopting a more cautious approach under the new law. The manager of a bookstore selling books by a German publisher, who requested to remain anonymous, told HKFP their brand has had to self-censor for the sake of business.

Following the passing of the national security law, we do feel that the freedom that once existed has been curtailed. he said. For example, we used to be very carefree and bold in our displays in art fairs in the city, we even put on display a book about Tibet in recent years.

This year, however, the new law has forced them to rein in their displays. We sell lots of books on very diverse subjects. But there is definitely more self-censorship now. At the end of the day, we are a business entity, he said.

This doesnt necessarily mean the international brand will steer clear of every potentially problematic title in Hong Kong: In our shop, we are still selling books by Ai Wei Wei. Its just for higher-profile events, we now have to be less bold.

Under the security law, the company is approaching bookselling in Hong Kong with lessons learnt from its operations on the mainland. While we have healthy business relations on the mainland, we have been careful about the types of books we sell in the mainland Chinese market. For example, we stay away from selling more sensitive books such as those depicting maps or dealing with religion. the manager said.

Beyond preemptive self-censorship, international bookshops in the city may encounter direct censorship as the laws implementation unfolds. If told to remove certain titles from their catalogue, the brand would have to comply: We are a business in Hong Kong and have no choice but to follow the law.

This, however, is a marked change from the companys original intentions when setting up operations in the city more than ten years ago: Its not necessarily what we want since we set up our regional office in Hong Kong as it was a free city and one of Asias capitals with the freedom of publication, the manager added.

We can still run a healthy business even with the tighter controls and with more titles becoming more sensitive. However, we will have to see how the new law unfolds to see if we will further expand in the city.

HKFP also approached other large book chains in the city, including Swindon Books, Bookazine, and HKMoAs TheBookshop, but did not receive any response.

In spite of the rapidly changing political landscape, booklovers are still carrying on as before. Commenting on whether he has seen a change in his bookstores community, Wan was surprised at the lack of immediate change: We thought that people were going to change their book-buying habits after they passed the law because we have books and literature at the bookshop that some people might deem problematic, he said. But people are still buying the same books they were buying before the law was passed.

The manager for the German-based retailer suggested that customers themselves still had the agency to resist censorship and the curtailing of freedoms through their spending: Our customers are using their purchasing power in the same way, they are buying the same titles they did before.

Likewise, despite the pressures, Wan said he believes bookstores too must continue to play their quiet yet crucial rolein facilitating access to knowledge: [Our] duty is just to keep the flow of information going. To keep it as open and as wide and as free as possible. Theres nothing special they have to do. Its not like they have to fight back or say anything thats especially incendiary or provocative, he said.

He said he has this hope for other bookstores: Just [keep] doing business the way they used to before the law was passed. Just maintaining that sense of freedom that is a trademark of Hong Kong society. This is what sets it apart from the mainland. To maintain that atmosphere and that culture is important.

For Fung, keeping her store open and uncensored is a question of keeping knowledge accessible for all.

I think bookstores play an important role in providing access to knowledge in the community. Not everybody has access to an official education so its vital to keep providing a channel of knowledge to society, she said. This is important for me, and I think lots of people also believe in this.

And the future for Hong Kong bookstores? The fate of bookstores is sort of tied to [Hong Kong] as a society thats rooted in law and free expression and transparency. You cannot run a bookstore without those core principles in place, Wan said.

The way Hong Kong goes, bookshops will go. Right now it doesnt look good, but who knows? We just have to stay hopeful and keep doing what were doing.

Originally posted here:
I will continue until I have no other choice: The art of bookselling under Hong Kongs national security law - Hong Kong Free Press