According to the Wall Street Journal, the Chinese government has censored one episode of “The Simpsons” from Walt Disney’s streaming service in Hong Kong or, we don’t know, it may be the company itself that self-censored (Dan Strumpf, “Disney’s Missing ‘Simpsons’ Episode in Hong Kong Raises Censorship Fears,” November 29, 2021):
Yet one episode is missing from “The Simpsons” lineup: Titled “Goo Goo Gai Pan,” the episode from season 16 centers on a trip to China by the show’s namesake family. Along the way they encounter a plaque at Tiananmen Square in Beijing that reads: “On this site, in 1989, nothing happened.” …
It isn’t known if Disney removed the episode under pressure, or whether it decided itself to leave the episode out of its lineup when it launched the Disney+ service in Hong Kong earlier in November. Representatives for Disney didn’t respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for the Hong Kong Office of the Communications Authority, which oversees broadcasters in the city, declined to comment.
The whole thing is rather funny, but of course not for the poor Chinese subject to government censorship. That businesses have incentives to pander to the state or even to sensitive groups of private customers is a real problem for (other) consumers and, in this case, for freedom of speech. The problem, however, is much mitigated if not eliminated by the fact that other businesses have an incentive to compete and cater to neglected consumers. Competition if not repressed solves the problem.
Whether Disney self-censors or accepts to be censored by staying in China, we should not refrain from calling the company’s behavior shameful. Similarly for private companies that cooperated with the Nazi government or for American companies that now crawl before the woke mob. Ethically, it seems that one should not do just anything to keep one’s access to a market; the end does not justify the means. There is a crucial difference, though, between the consequences of shameful behavior by private companies, which are attenuated by competition; and the consequences of shameful behavior by governments, which face little competition because they restrict or ban it. The problem is not self-interest, but competition bans.
READER COMMENTS
Mark Brady
Nov 30 2021 at 10:01pm
You contrast “the consequences of shameful behavior by private companies, which are attenuated by competition” with “the consequences of shameful behavior by governments, which face little competition because they restrict or ban it.” But in the particular case that prompts your post, Disney enjoys copyright in its products (so where is the competition?) and publication in the PRC is subject to censorship by the authorities (so how are other firms able to compete even if there were no copyright?).
Jose Pablo
Dec 1 2021 at 12:00am
You are right, you cannot compete in China in “making clear that Tiananmen happened”, no matter your estimation of the potential market for this type of content.
Pierre Lemieux
Dec 1 2021 at 10:57am
Mark [and Jose]: I of course agree with the second part of your last sentence: there is no competition for ideas and opinions in China. Perhaps I did not express this correctly although I think I got pretty close when I wrote “Competition if not repressed solves the problem.” (I much hesitated on whether I should put commas around “if not repressed,” which could have better emphasized the idea.)
The first part of your last sentence–intellectual property–is more contentious. I have expressed elsewhere the idea that the protection of this sort of (Lockean) property has drifted much too far but that it certainly exists at some level. And note how difficult it is to argue that competition is impossible in a context of intellectual property. For then, you could also argue that there was no free competition against the intellect of James Buchanan, the voice of Juliette Gréco, or the body of Brigitte Bardot. There is always, at some micro level if you go down enough, a market you can define as monopolistic.
ConnGator
Dec 1 2021 at 4:20pm
Apropos: It’s a Woke World After All
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZChpvvLhmI
Jose Pablo
Dec 1 2021 at 7:59pm
“we should not refrain from calling the company’s behavior shameful”
Why so? Pierre. How is this different from calling Disney’s behavior “shameful” if they don’t engage in the “corporate welfare” cause of your preference.
I own Disney shares (not a controlling stake, though … full disclosure) and I expect Disney’s leadership to maximize cash-flow, not to engage in the defense of any particular ideology in China (or in USA).
I can support any ideology or any welfare cause of my choice by myself, using my own resources and to the extend I deem appropriate. I don’t want Bob Chapek doing this with the company’s money (although he is free to defend whatever cause he deems appropriate using his own money).
If censoring this particular episode of the Simpson maximize Disney’s cash-flow in China, that’s what they should do. Even more, they have a fiduciary duty with me to do so.
Pierre Lemieux
Dec 2 2021 at 11:28am
Jose: You are raising a valid question, which has been much debated. I think the answer is not as simple as it first appears. Even Milton Friedman, who held that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits did have some qualifications:
These qualifications open a whole Pandora box. (My square brackets indicate what appears be a typo in the transcription of Friedman’s article.)
I would argue that there would be no justification to force Disney to defend free speech or, say, basic civility; but that it is a defendable moral stance to deem it shameful for its executives or shareholders to follow policies that negate the basic values without which their corporate existence and their profits would be impossible.
In other words, I am consciously making a value judgment but I think it is close to (although not exactly coextensive with) a basic morality without which a free society cannot survive. Note that this stance has nothing to do with arguing that corporations should be “responsive to society” or such nonsense; see my previous Econlog post on “The Politicized Corporation.”
Jose Pablo
Dec 3 2021 at 8:42pm
You are right Pierre; it does open a Pandora box. After all, “ethical custom” is a very shaky concept: free speech is not “custom” in China, weather ethical or not.
It could even be argued that if Disney has to behaved “conforming to the basic rules of the Chinese society, embodied in its customs” (a valid reading, I think, of Milton Freedman qualifications) then self-censoring this particular episode was the right thing to do. Since, very likely, most people in China (and you can say that “custom” is what most people think or do) will see the ironic reference about Tiananmen as an insult to their country.
Following this reasoning I could have found shameful (just for the shake of the argument, not for real) Disney managers “insulting” the Chinese people (most than 50% of them at least) by not censoring this particular chapter.
Very shaky indeed.
Comments are closed.