Olympics Stifles Athletes' Free Speech

cross posted from The Dream Antilles and docuDharma

The IOC (the "International Olympic Committee"), the group that runs the Olympics, has figured out how to prevent participating athletes from demonstrating for Tibetan freedom and displeasing their Chinese hosts.  The age old tactic: a "chilling effect" on free speech.

It's relatively simple: the IOC tells athletes that they have a right to free speech, but they don't have the right to make "propaganda."  IOC won't define the line between the two.  But if an athlete so much as steps, even with just one toe, into the latter, s/he's out. of. here.  Goodbye.  Put simply, the IOC doesn't need explicitly to forbid certain kinds of free speech.  It can accomplish the same, desired result by harshly and intentionally chilling it.

Join me in Beijing.

A definition of "chilling effect":

A chilling effect is a term in United States law that describes a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed or limited by fear of penalization at the hands of an individual or group.

And that, folks, is precisely what's going on with athletes' free speech at the Beijing Olympics.  

The Times reports:

Athletes who display Tibetan flags at Olympic venues — including in their own rooms — could be expelled from this summer’s Games in Beijing under anti-propaganda rules.

Jacques Rogge, the president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), said that competitors were free to express their political views but faced sanctions if they indulged in propaganda.

Got that?  Expression of political views: good.  Indulging in propaganda: bad.

But, you're asking, is there a difference between the two? How does one know if one is expressing free speech or propagandizing?  What's the difference?

The question of what will constitute propaganda when the Games are on in August and what will be considered opinion under IOC rules is one vexing many in the Olympic movement. The Olympic Charter bans any kind of "demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda" in any Olympic venue or area.  /snip

The IOC did not specify whether a Chinese athlete or a foreign competitor of Tibetan origin flying the Tibetan flag would be regarded as patriotic or propagandist. A spokeswoman said that there had been no discussion internally or with the Chinese authorities about use of the Tibetan national flag. Asked whether athletes would be allowed to hang the flag in their rooms, she said: "The village is an Olympic venue so it falls under the same rules and regulations of any venue which would mean that anything in there would be judged on whether it was a provocative propaganda initiative."

The fact that the IOC has still not qualified the exact interpretation of "propaganda" means that some athletes remain confused about what they can say during the 16-day event without being sent home or stripped of a medal.

Unfurling Free Tibet banners or wearing Save Darfur T-shirts at Olympic venues are acts likely to be regarded as a breach of the charter, which was introduced after the American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos gave the Black Power salute on the podium at the 1968 Games in Mexico City.

So, as of right now, there's no official definition of what constitutes "propaganda" and how propaganda might be distinguished from "free speech."

The consequences of uttering or otherwise expressing "propaganda," however, are quite dire.  This means that as things stand now, there is an enormous "chilling effect" repressing legitimate, free speech.

No athlete who has trained for his/her entire life is going to jeopardize participation in the Olympics by testing the definition of "propaganda" by hanging a Tibetan flag in a dorm room, by waving the flag on a victory lap, by speaking out about Tibet to the press, by showing a picture of the Dalai Lama, by wearing Tibetan malas, by wearing a Tibet hat or headband or t-shirt. Why?  Because that might be considered to be propaganda by the IOC.  And it might be an automatic ticket home.

So far, the IOC has been very much China's lap dog.  As the Times reported:

A spokeswoman said that there had been no discussion internally or with the Chinese authorities about use of the Tibetan national flag.

You might wonder what this question of definition in the IOC rules has to do with China.  In fact, it has everything to do with it.  The IOC does not dare to step on China's sensitivities about the topic.  In these circumstances, the message to athletes is incredibly simple.  STFU about Tibet.  Or go home.  Free speech be damned.

The IOC doesn't need to enact a gag rule for its athletes.  That would be assailed as a "prior restraint" on free speech.  No, when the stakes are this high, a harsh "chilling effect" accomplishes precisely the same goal.  So much for the so-called "Olympic ideal."

•  Tips for free speech. Tips for propaganda.

  They're the same thing.

  Thanks for reading.

  by davidseth on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:52:23 PM PDT

•  Support Tibet, let China have smooth Olympics

  I've said it before, I think that China is as nationalistic and as dangerous as Nazi Germany so I don't know how this Olympics will play out for them (it was great for Hitler).  But in many ways, letting China have a smooth Olympics will help to shine a light on the government that does not allow over one billion people free speech, nor to elect its leaders, not to mention what they've done to Tibet.

  If the Olympics is used to protest the host country, the event will always be used against every country, no matter the grievance (there isn't a single government that someone doesn't have a grievance against) and tarnish the ideals of the Olympics of peacefully gathering the world together in sport and human achievement.  

  Let the media see China outside of the Olympic stadiums where the real issues are waiting for them, but inside, let there be peace.

  by i8pikachu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM PDT

  •  The Olympics is just another Potemkin Village.

    Athletes have a right to free speech.  They're not automatons.  They should be allowed to speak freely and to wear symbols they want to wear.  The cost in "smoothness" of the Olympics is something people who care about human rights should gladly pay.

    by davidseth on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:09:59 PM PDT

    •  Free speech outside the stadium

      I agree with your sentiment, but I think the approach is better when the athletes don't protest at the events.  They're more than welcome to go protest elsewhere, I think, but maintain the legacy of an event where the world peacefully unites.  This is also what the Dalai Lama wants and he thinks it will be more effective than protesting the Olympics.

      On another note, Chinese citizens are ultra-nationalistic.  Any slight of their party will play into the citizens' master's hands as they whip them into a xenophobic frenzy where already foreigners are called, even in formal conversation, "foreign devils".  There is no real polite word in their language for someone who isn't Han Chinese.

      by i8pikachu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:21:11 PM PDT

  •  Maybe it should be used that way.

    It was in Mexico, reportedly, with good results. Perhaps in Korea too.

    In Vancouver, the host city of the 2010 Winter Olympics, there has been a flurry of land settlement claims with local native peoples since they won the Olympics. Some of the claims go back over a century. Coincidence that they are being resolved now to the general satisfaction of the claimees?

    by sagesource on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM PDT

•  Banning "Save Darfur" stuff....

  ...goes beyond propaganda into surrealism. The only way that could be construed as an insult to the host country would be if said host country has a huge case of guilty conscience. It isn't exactly as if China has ever claimed Darfur as part of its own territory.

  by sagesource on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM PDT

•  With all its other human rights violations

  China never should have gotten the olympics in the first place.  Shame on those who made this happen.

  by Jules Beaujolais on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM PDT

•  Avery Brundage might be dead, but...

  His reactionary, ham-handed attitude is alive and well in the IOC.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM PDT

•  the ioc is kind of a private org, right?

  and china is not a country of rights for the people.

  they never should have been awarded the olympics.  everything that is happening now, with the torch and with tibet, is proof.  

  the leadership in the chinese gov't is stomping on the few rights the chinese citizens do have in order to pull these games off.  

  i am concerned there will not be a lot of happy endings in this olympics.  

  by jlms qkw on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:18:40 PM PDT