Reluctant support for a nasty gossip’s case against SARFT

“Big mouth” Song Zude

Who do you root for when a government agency attempts to silence a notorious rumor-monger?

Freedom of speech cases are sometimes fairly clear-cut. When Zhang Yihe was specifically targeted by GAPP in early 2007, Chinese intellectuals signed petitions as liberal bloggers erupted in outrage at the censors’ abuse of power. Zhang, a well-known chronicler of the hardships faced by the country’s literati during the anti-rightist campaigns, made an excellent symbol of the light of truth in danger of being extinguished by the government.

Song Zude, on the other hand, is much harder to stick up for. Although he runs a Guangdong-based film and TV production company, he’s generally known as a celebrity blogger who spreads nasty rumors about people in the entertainment industry.

Last week, he drew criticism from a SARFT official who took issue with his claim, close on the heals of the funeral of beloved director Xie Jin, that Xie had died of a heart-attack while in the arms of a call-girl. Director Ren Qian spoke of the need to “eradicate bad apples” like Song from the industry.

Bloggers and media commentators found themselves in the awkward position of having to speak up for Song’s rights to free speech despite their distasted for the opinions he voiced. Here are some examples:

· Zha Jun at Rednet, “There needs to be a good reason to eradicate Song Zude”. Zha evaluates the options that SARFT has at its disposal:

1. Refuse to issue a film permit to Song Zude’s film company, turning his works into awkward “illegal productions.” However, if the film and TV productions that Song Zude invests in are all in accordance with the law and regulations, what reason does SARFT have for shutting him out? Simply because he disrespected Xie Jin and doesn’t show deference to other artists? That is hardly convincing.

2. SARFT could coordinate with parties in Guangdong to put pressure on Song and force him out, but this isn’t really above-board, either. The reason is simple: Song’s name-calling is just that; it doesn’t break the law, and even if he were taken to court for libel, his production company hasn’t broken the law. He may have a CEO and an executive team, and from a legal standpoint, it’s entirely permissible for them to continue business operations. If a company must close when the boss commits a crime, it’s no different from Cultural Revolution-style house searches and struggle sessions. Is that the rule of law?

As for not letting Song Zude speak, that’s even harder to accomplish. Even if he doesn’t have a film or TV platform, he can still speak through other media, and at the very least SARFT has no way to shut down his personal blog.

I’m not trying to defend Song here. On the contrary, I’d like to advise him to be more virtuous in his speech. If people think he’s insulting someone, they have every right to gain restitution through the law. But it’s not an issue that can be resolved merely by calling him a “bad apple” and issuing a few administrative directives.

· Zhou Yun at KDNet, “Does SARFT have the power to eradicate Song Zude?”:

Truth be told, I was already pretty outraged by Song Zude’s tacky, disgusting self-promotion. I believe that anyone with judgment and a normal conscience feels the same way. In this respect, director Ren Qian, of SARFT’s Media Organization Management Office, is probably like me, too. At the recent 2008 Film and Television Industry Development Forum and Program Promotion Conference, Ren expressed his anger towards Song. I heartily approve. However, Ren went on to say, “We are in discussions with the Guangdong Provincial administration and the Program Production Association, and we must eradicate these bad apples.”

Freedom of speech does indeed have a limit: the law. Have none of Song Zude’s utterances crossed the legal boundary? Judging according to my own knowledge of the law, many of the things he has said may have slandered other people’s reputations, his remarks about director Xie Jin being one recent example. Therefore, I strongly hope that Xie’s family can use the law as a weapon against Song, to teach him a lesson while they clear Xie’s name, so that in the future he’ll stay away from such nonsense. If if is determined that Song has committed a criminal offense, then I will look forward to watching the department of justice take immediate action to send him to prison where he can think about what he has done.

However, if SARFT comes forward to punish Song, it is overreaching its authority. SARFT is not the judiciary, nor is it a relative of someone Song’s words have offended. The public has granted this department only the right to manage affairs related to radio, film, and television, not the authority to govern what people say, no matter how wrong those words may be. For SARFT to threaten to “eradicate” Song based on his inappropriate speech is a manifestly improper use of its power. Such an action is frightening, for it could lead to a situation in which anything we say could be pursued by any authority, or anyone in power, for that matter, as potentially harming someone’s reputation. Our space for free speech would shrink down to nothing.

As for Song’s inappropriate speech, my opinion is that he really ought to be punished, but the responsibility for this must be taken up by the appropriate agency or individual. Other people and agencies, even if they are infuriated by Song’s words, can only sit and watch him continue to spew bullshit, so long as no one is willing to sue him and he does not commit a criminal offense. No other individual or organization has the power to interfere with his right to speak. Though SARFT wants to “eradicate” him, it too can only wait until he acts out of line within the industry. This is truly a tragedy, but in an environment where our freedom of speech is still limited, it is all the more important to be on our guard against excessive interference on our rights.

· Xiao Le in the China Youth Daily, “In trying to purge Song Zude, administrative departments have gone out of bounds”:

It may look like Song Zude is in trouble, but I feel that the director has gone out of bounds.

I don’t have any sympathy for people like Song Zude. Taking advantage of Xie Jin’s death to promote himself is really disturbing. I won’t address here how his statements have already been refuted, but I will say say only that death is a time when certain things really should not be said. All people should share at least this basic amount of sympathy. Song’s “big mouth,” it must be said, is a monster born out of today’s commercialized, death-by-amusement culture.

The media would be entirely justified in being selective in its reporting about someone like Song Zude. If the media were to freeze him out, he wouldn’t be as eager to run off his mouth every day. The problem is that many in the media enjoy his mouthing off. He has a reputation and an audience, which keeps him going.

But such a freeze-out could only be accomplished through self-restraint on the part of media workers. There would be no problem if media professionals like Bai Yansong or Chai Jing sent out a call, but an “eradication order” issued by an official agency director is something entirely different, as it begins to involve infringements on the people’s right of free speech. Although Song Zude is repugnant, he has the right to speak freely. If media workers call for a freeze on him, then it’s just a conflict between the rights of two private parties. Modern society has come to understand the force public power has over private rights, so it strictly limits public power’s scope of action so as to guarantee as much as possible the happiness of the individual. Private rights are able to do many things that are impossible for public power.