滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Book Debate Raises Questions of Self-Censorship by Foreign Groups in C]
滕彪文集
·饥饿的中国—写在冯彦伟绝食抗议榆林市政府野蛮暴行的第48小时
·大学生社团的使命
·激 活 宪 法
·孙志刚事件:知识、媒介与权力
·司法的归司法,舆论的归舆论?—从张金柱案到黄静案
·谁能阻止一个人心底的眼泪—日记16则,纪念父亲
·生活是维权运动的源头活水
·虚构的故事
·体制的边界
临沂计划生育调查手记
·蒙河边的抗争—临沂计划生育调查手记之一
·“我家亲戚被抓了22口”—临沂计划生育调查手记之二
·她的眼里没有泪水—临沂计划生育调查手记之三
·到办公室上课去!—临沂计划生育调查手记之四
·不扎也得扎!—临沂计划生育调查手记之五
·学习班—临沂计划生育调查手记之六
·向人性宣战—临沂计划生育调查手记之七
·“盯关跟主义”—临沂计划生育调查手记之八
·人性不曾屈服—临沂计划生育调查手记之九
·野蛮是如何炼成的?—临沂计划生育调查手记之十
·后记:
·有谁战胜过真相
·法治中国需要中国法律人的良知及责任—致世界法律大会中国代表的公开信
·从上书到公开信
·是谁在“严重威胁社会秩序”?—关于游行示威权利的行政复议申请书
·致陈光诚的一封信
·用微笑来面对那些制造恐惧的人——和高智晟在一起的一个下午
·2+2=4的自由
·推倒「新闻柏林围墙」——透视中国新闻自由的前景
·恢复收容遣送制度等于开历史倒车
·陈光诚案凸显中国法治的困局
·暗夜里的光明之舞
·中国维权运动往何处去?
·陈光诚是如何被定罪的?(补充版)
·Crusader in a legal wilderness
·China’s blind Justice
·China's Political Courts
·以公民的姿态挺身而出/闵家桥
·“最可贵的是她有健康的公民意识”——关于公民王淑荣的对话
·“阳光宪政”的护卫者/民主与法制杂志
·要让好人走到一起,才能合力纠错——奥美定事件亲历者访谈录/南方周末
·李卫平: 被迫走出书斋的维权者——著名维权律师滕彪访谈录
·太阳城:写在第三期“名家说法”被命令取消之后
·滕彪印象/法制日报
·Rule of Law requires our consciousness and responsibility
·临沂野蛮计生与陈光诚事件维权大事记(2006-11-7)
·耻为盛世添顺骨
·中国时报专访:盼与政府互动 和平维权
·滕彪博士:精神家园的守望者/刘爽
·司法改良和公民维权——学而思沙龙的网谈
·学术、政治与生活——2006年12月17日做客沧海论坛在线交流记录
·黎明前的见证
·看看我们的朋友——致受难中的高智晟和他的妻子和孩子
·临沂警匪暴行录
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(五——七)
·中国当代宪政主义者的困境和选择/林泽波
·通过汉语改变中国
·茶人滕彪/萧瀚
·崔英杰案:“慎杀时代”的第一个考验
·死刑、司法与中国人权
·废除死刑的中国语境——在第三届世界反死刑大会上的发言
·司法独立,和谐中国——2007年“两会”之际的公民呼吁/许志永 滕彪
·彻底改革司法才能避免滥用死刑
·崔英杰案,在多重反思中寻找契机
·从“两会”看赎回选票运动
·关于尽快将青岛市四方区政府违法拆迁行为纳入法制轨道的法律意见书
·青岛野蛮拆迁:袁薪玉被控放火和妨害公务案一审的当庭辩护意见
·维权书简·戴脚镣的舞者
·被遗忘的谎言——就《成都晚报》事件致中宣部长和教育部长的一封信
·滕彪:可怕的“冤案递增律”
·不是我不明白
·张敏:滕彪律师访美谈中国司法现状与维权
·萧洵:纸包子案记者被判刑引发强烈质疑
·自由亚洲电台:拾荒者遇上联防离奇死亡 孙志刚式悲剧首都重现?
·何亚福 王鑫海 杨支柱等:放开二胎倡议书
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(八--九)
·一个案件的真相与两个案件的正义(附:“聂树斌案”到了最危急时刻!)
·滕彪、胡佳:奥运前的中国真相
·郑筱萸案扇了死刑复核程序一记耳光/滕彪 李方平
·“杀害自己孩子的民族没有未来!”
·关于李和平律师被绑架殴打致国务院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部的公开信(签名中)
·NO FIGHTS,NO RIGHTS——接受博闻社采访谈中国人权现状
·挽包遵信先生
·香港电台铿锵集:扣着脚镣跳舞的中国律师
·那些陌生的人们在我们心底哭泣——推荐一个短片
·关于邮箱被盗用的声明
·《律师法》37条:为律师准备的新陷阱
·保护维权律师,实现法治——采访法学博士滕彪律师/张程
·Six Attorneys Openly Defend Falun Gong in Chinese Court
·李和平 滕彪等:为法轮功学员辩护-宪法至上 信仰自由
·面对暴力的思考与记忆——致李和平
·专访滕彪律师:《律师法》2007修订与维权/RFA张敏
·The Real China before the Olympics/Teng Biao,Hu jia
·我们不能坐等美好的社会到来
·律师:维权人士胡佳将受到起诉
·胡佳被捕 顯示中國要在奧運之前大清場
·人权的价值与正义的利益
·抓捕胡佳意味着什么?
·关于《奥运前的中国真相》一文的说明——声援胡佳之一
·邮箱作废声明
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Book Debate Raises Questions of Self-Censorship by Foreign Groups in C

   Book Debate Raises Questions of Self-Censorship by Foreign Groups in China
   NY times
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/world/asia/china-teng-biao-american-bar-association.html?_r=0
   


   By EDWARD WONG APRIL 27, 2016
   
   BEIJING — The American Bar Association has rejected a potentially incendiary book that is being written by the Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao, but others are exploring the possibility of publishing it.
   
   “Now, some publishers in the United States are contacting me and saying they are interested in publishing my book,” Mr. Teng said in a telephone interview. “I have not signed a deal yet.”
   
   With the working title “Darkness Before Dawn,” the book is at the center of a public brawl between Mr. Teng and the American Bar Association, which is primarily a professional organization for lawyers in the United States but also has an office in Beijing that aims to help build up the legal system in China.
   
   The dispute has raised questions as to whether foreign nongovernmental organizations working in China engage in self-censorship. That is an issue that will become more acute if China passes a proposed law putting more than 7,000 such foreign groups under police oversight. The law could be passed this week.
   
   Like some other human rights lawyers in China, Mr. Teng has been jailed and beaten in recent years, and in 2014 he fled to the United States. He lives in New Jersey and has been a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School and New York University’s U.S.-Asia Law Institute.
   
   His dispute with the bar association became public this month when Foreign Policy magazine reported that last year the bar association had rescinded an offer to publish Mr. Teng’s book, which would be an account of his struggles in human rights law and an analysis of the political and legal situation in China.
   
   The notice came in the form of an email sent by a bar association employee to Mr. Teng in January 2015, one month after that same employee, representing the publisher, had sent Mr. Teng an email with a formal offer to publish the book.
   
   In the January email, which Mr. Teng gave to Foreign Policy and later to The New York Times, the employee said the bar association had reversed its decision after the publisher had received “some concerns from other staff members here.”
   
   “Apparently, there is concern that we run the risk of upsetting the Chinese government by publishing your book, and because we have A.B.A. commissions working in China, there is fear that we would put them and their work at risk,” the employee wrote. “It pains me greatly to have to tell you this, but I can only do what my publisher tells me to do.”
   
   “I think this has the potential to be an amazing book, and I wish you all the best in placing it with another publisher,” the employee added.
   
   (Mr. Teng allowed The Times to read the email exchanges on the condition that the employee’s name not be printed.)
   
   The employee gave no details in the email as to who had expressed fears over the “commissions” working in China and what exactly those “commissions” were.
   
   Robert T. Rupp, associate executive director of the bar association’s business unit, which oversees publishing, gave a statement to Foreign Policy that said the decision not to publish Mr. Teng’s book was made for “economic reasons, based on market research and sales forecasting.”
   
   Mr. Teng said he did not believe that. What the bar association had done, he said, was emblematic of a larger problem in China. “Many NGOs self-censor in order not to make the Chinese government angry, so they can continue their work in China,” he said.
   
   The bar association came under criticism last year by some China experts and legal scholars for not taking a stronger stand against a harsh crackdown by the Chinese authorities on hundreds of human rights lawyers and their associates.
   
   The accusations by Mr. Teng have inspired an even greater outcry. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial with the headline “American Self-Censorship Association.” The co-chairmen of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, wrote a letter to the bar association demanding that it tell them whether it had rescinded the book offer because of perceived or real threats to its China programs.
   
   On Monday, the bar association’s two top officers sent a letter in response, reiterating that the final decision on Mr. Teng’s book was unrelated to any bar association programs in China and that the employees of the group’s Rule of Law Initiative in China did not weigh in on any decision.
   
   The letter, posted online, also said the employee’s emails about the offer to publish Mr. Teng’s book and about the reversal were “misguided as well as erroneous.”
   
   
   Mr. Teng said he was now exploring options with publishers that have contacted him since the dispute became public.
   
   He said international groups need to “think bigger” when it comes to China, though the proposed law to control foreign nongovernmental organizations, if passed, may discourage that. “Foreign NGOs will be more conservative,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s correct to be more conservative.”
(2016/04/30 发表)
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场