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
·国际刑警组织前主席孟宏伟的妻儿获法国政治庇护
·中共撕毁一国两制香港没抗争沦陷得更快
·天安門屠殺與高科技極權主義
·极权主义转型之路 中共学到什么?
·精神上的六四倖存者滕彪 投入維權終不悔
·你掉到黑洞就出不來
·特朗普会撼动北京高科技极权的牙齿吗?
·特朗普会撼动北京高科技极权的牙齿吗?
·Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen says Tiananmen crackdown highlights n
·台总统蔡英文会见中国异见人士
·六四临近30周年之际 台湾强调捍卫自身民主
·背靠中共助纣为虐,外企帮习近平建立暴政统治!
·Taiwan's President Meets With Tiananmen Massacre Veterans Ahead of Ann
·西藏团体与中国维权律师在印北达兰萨拉一同纪念六四屠杀
·在政治文明与公民社会方面中国应向藏人学习
· Avec le massacre de Tiananmen, le Parti communiste chinois a promu l
·China Since Tiananmen: Not a Dream but a Nightmare
·Teng Biao – His Tiananmen Awakening
·六四三0
·八九六四與西藏問題/專訪滕彪
·天安门屠杀与集中营
·What It's Like To Live With A Foot In China, Another In The U.S.
·E se Tiananmen fosse agora? Entrevista a quatro ativistas chineses
·China Since Tiananmen: Not a Dream but a Nightmare
·How the Tiananmen Square Massacre Changed China Forever
·Human Rights Lawyer Fled China But Still Feels Its Influence
·HOW HAS CHINA CHANGED POLITICALLY SINCE THE ICONIC STUDENT PROTESTS?
·六四30周年 陸民運人士盼世界助中國民主化
·貿易掛鉤中國人權 西方提聯合戰略
·蔡英文總統會見華人民主書院訪賓
·習近平体制は史上初のハイテク・ファシズム
·Remembering Tiananmen/Straits Times
·自由不是一個禮物,而是一個任務
·世界における民主主義の後退と市民社会
·中國流亡律師滕彪勉「反送中」別退卻
·中國當局拒延維權律師的執照/BBC
·打到中共要害 各國應效仿
·‘I cannot be silent, and I cannot give up’
·China’s Privileging of “Mr. Science” over “Mr. Democracy”
·Don’t Aid and Abet China’s Surveillance State
·在台北616“反送中”集會上的演講
·湖南“校园操场埋尸案”揭示了什么?
·TIBET CAMPAIGNERS LAUD SUCCESS AFTER GOOGLE CONFIRMS: “NO PLANS TO OF
·Teng Biao’s Statement at a media briefing against Google’s Project D
·香港「一國兩制」為何變了調?
·从天安门到香港
·short-term benefits vs. universal values
·Censorship is closing China's young minds
·江天勇李文足連線台北 感謝關注中國律師處境
·臺律師人權界聲援為法輪功辯護六律師
·「綏靖政策」與「惠台政策」的反思
·第三屆中國人權律師節 唐荊陵獲獎
·第二届中国人权律师奖颁奖辞
·「709事件」四週年 中國法治嚴重滑坡
·709四周年:中国法治恶化 香港反弹
· 709大抓捕对维权律师是一个“清洗”
·"Alle sind vorsichtiger geworden"
·中共用校園“七不講”窒息年輕人
·【30張影像、30個故事 — 六四30週年座談會】
·中共的网络主权论与世界人权宣言
·中共指使黑帮祸害香港
·外國企業在中國助紂為虐應充分重視
·新疆模式扩大 粤公安采集「口水样本」 监控时代 2.0来临
·Guangdong Police Take Saliva Samples Amid Fears of Nationwide DNA Prog
·人权活动家接受自由之家采访 见证法轮功反迫害20年历程
·香港下一步 可能從打人變成打死人
·追寻高智晟
·“The Bravest Lawyer in China” – Gao Zhisheng
·L’AVOCAT LE PLUS COURAGEUX DE CHINE
·人權律師建議 以2022北京冬奧向中共施壓
·反送中與六四
·大陆网军抹黑香港示威者 推特和脸书暂停大量中国帐号
·"Ce totalitarisme high tech est sans précédent"
·Disparitions forcées en Chine : un système rodé et institutionnalis
·Disappearing in China
·中共或採取化整為零的屠殺方式嚇退香港抗爭者
·Cambridge Forum 911
· ‘I thought they might kill me’
·China: Arrests, Disappearances Require International Response/HRW
·报道香港抗议持「中共立场」 中国环球电视网遭英监管机构调查
·"El régimen dictatorial de China no durará mucho más"
·The West needs 'collective action' to push China on human rights: expe
·在茉莉花电视谈 “中国国难与香港抗争”
·禁蒙面法会不会让暴力升级?“一国一制”正在悄然实行?
·香港危局破解 中国高科技极权主义
·Decoding the cracks in the Chinese model
·大陆民族情绪泛滥 《灌篮高手》作者挺港运遭网民封杀/RFA
·中共有关香港抗议的宣传战略及局限
·国庆还是国难
·關於香港事態的緊急聲明
·香港运动延烧 大陆人发声为何那么难?
·Newts World: China's rule
·伊力哈木 - 无法祝贺的生日与萨哈罗夫奖
·Tiananmen Massacre, the China Model and the formation of China’s Hig
·茉莉:专制下的“黑色花卉”
·比利时一孔子学院院长涉间谍行为 被禁进入比利时和申根区
·Broken Harmony: China’s Dissidents
·香港廢青與中國小粉紅
·柏林墙的倒塌与“信息柏林墙”的建立
·Panopticism with Chinese Characteristics
·当今中国禁忌话题:猪瘟、猪头、习近平领导能力/VOA
[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