The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Repression of Anti-China-Government Speech in San Francisco

From today's long and detailed Washington Post article by Shibani Mahtani, Meg Kelly, Cate Brown, Cate Cadell, Ellen Nakashima, and Chris Dehghanpoor, "How China extended its repression into an American city":
Chinese diplomats and pro-China diaspora groups based in the United States organized demonstrations in San Francisco that harassed and silenced protesters opposed to Beijing's policies, including through violence, during Chinese leader Xi Jinping's visit to the city in November, a six-month investigation by The Washington Post shows.
The events in San Francisco illustrate how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is willing to extend its intolerance of any dissent into the United States and target people exercising their First Amendment rights in an American city. It is part of a broader global pattern of China attempting to reach beyond its borders and suppress parts of its diaspora advocating against the CCP and ongoing rights abuses in Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and mainland China, the U.S. government and human rights groups say.
A number of diaspora group leaders have long-standing links to Beijing, according to Chinese state media, photos of high-level events and interviews, including with Chinese activists, former FBI officials and researchers. These include ties to the United Front Work Department, an arm of the Communist Party which uses non-state actors to further China's political goals overseas, blurring the line between civilians and state officials.
China has stepped up efforts to intimidate and spy on its diaspora, as Beijing's influence grows outside its borders. The Washington Post is investigating a global surge in campaigns of cross-border repression. The series' previous story examined Indian assassination plots in North America….
Some universities have also been going after anti-Chinese-government speech seemingly on their own, see this 2021 Emerson College incident (involving the China Kinda Sus sticker depicted above), this 2021 University of San Diego Law School incident, and this 2020 Fordham University incident. But this situation seems much more serious.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But they get nowhere the hate from the administration that the Jan. 6 protesters did.
Harassing anti-China people is bad — but not as bad as trying to overthrow the U.S. government. (Which is what the people you falsely call "protesters" did. People who merely attended the falsely named Stop the Steal rally and then left got no hate at all.)
Nonetheless, the harassers seem to be suffering no legal action. "Someone else did a worse crime" is not a defense.
The report says the SFPD investigated and forwarded its findings to the FBI which is currently investigating.
"“Someone else did a worse crime” is not a defense."
If that's your issue it's strange you responded to DN and not JB...
Tried to overthrow the US Government, Needledick?
Right....
Strictly speaking it was more of an autocoup, but yes.
Get in, Grandma! We’re overthrowing the US government! Guns? No, we’re gonna do it with fanny packs and cell phones!
I think we have to somewhat defer to the democrats on the subject of coups. They do know their coups. Ask ol’Joe.
Someboty doesn't know what coup means.
Lots to choose from if someboty wants to:
Other types of actual or attempted seizures of power are sometimes called "coups with adjectives". The appropriate term can be subjective and carries normative, analytical, and political implications.[34]
Civil society coup
Constitutional coup, consistent with the constitution, often by exploiting loopholes or ambiguities
Counter-coup, a coup to repeal the result of a previous coup
Democratic coup
Dissident coup, in which the culprits are nominally protestors without backing from any military or police units (e.g. sometimes used to describe the January 6 United States Capitol attack)[49][50]
Electoral coup
Judicial coup, a "legal" coup, utilizing the judiciary as the main instrument.
Market coup
Medical coup, having a leader declared incapacitated by doctors, such as in Tunisia in 1987
Military coup
Parliamentary coup
Presidential coup
Royal coup, in which a monarch dismisses democratically elected leaders and seizes all power (e.g. the 6 January Dictatorship by Alexander I of Yugoslavia)[51]
Slow-motion (or slow-moving or slow-rolling) coup
Wtf are you talking about?
coup
1 of 2
noun
ˈkü
pluralcoups ˈküz
Synonyms of coup
1
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group :
You're being as stupid as someone who says "well, you think the Germans in WWII had a blitz, what about the Minnesota Viking's old defense?"
I would never presume to get between a democrat and their coup. That's when they prosecute you. To save democracy. Or something.
Sure, it's just democracy. Because sometimes in democracy you have to cancel millions of votes, oust the popular choice, and install the party's puppet.
Or terminate parts of the Constitution...
You mean that obsolete piece of paper drafted by dead white slave owners?
No votes were canceled, nobody was ousted, and the popular choice was nominated (not "installed"). The word "puppet" doesn't even make sense in this context.
Well sure, everyone knows primary votes don’t count, why do we go through this silly formality of primary elections at all? Crazy. And of course, the party allowed a choice. it was Kamala Harris or Kamala Harris. And I also understand your criticism of “puppet” as a descriptor for Harris. Rather difficult to pin any principled position on Harris other than whatever gives her more money and power, which up to this point has been virtually every whack job leftist cause that exists.
Of course the primary votes counted; they elected thousands of delegates. And every delegate chosen in those primaries voted on the Democratic nomination.
(I love how the bot is so well programmed to spout talking points that it makes contradictory ones; as long as someone is saying it somewhere, it doesn't have to be consistent. Harris has no positions and also all leftist ones.)
I do appreciate the obligatory tedious insults that find their way into your otherwise bat shit crazy response, but don’t you have other bat shit crazy friends to play with, or don’t they like you either? Maybe you scared them off with your comments on how it was possible to conclude that certain political rivals being killed could benefit the country?
I brought up the RNC because your standard of what counts as Soviet sweeps them in.
And no, I won't let you switch to your next dumb take that primaries elect a candidate. They don't, as has been explained to you multiple times.
Wrong comment chain little learning impaired Marxist. But I will say, true to Democrat Marxist form, you seem to want to control the response to your witless sarcastic comments. Doesn't work that way. This isn't the democratic party.
Primary votes are for delegates. The delegates selected Harris. I guess you missed that.
Harris gave an interview where there were plenty of policy questions. I guess you missed that as well.
If this level of stubborn angry ignorance is what you need to make your arguments, maybe you're doing something wrong.
Biden, of course, withdrew, so it would hardly have made sense for the delegates to vote for him. (The very same people who are pretending otherwise are ranting that state laws don't allow actual ballot-qualified candidates like RFKJ to take his name off ballots at the last minute.)
Many Soviet elections offered the same kind of “choice.” Candidate A or candidate A.
How many choices did the Republican delegates have this year, Riva?
The ultimate republican nominee was the candidate that actually participated in and won the vote in the primary process, not a last minute substitue by party elites after they cancelled their primary results. But republicans may be a bit old fashioned. Thank goodness Democrats have shown us that you have to kill democracy to save it. Or something.
Sounds Soviets, by your very dumb standard above.
You can try and gallop to a whole new thesis, but that's such a lame move.
Deal with the previous bullshit you said and then you can switch to a new argument.
You brought up the topic of the Republican nomination process you learning disabled Marxist.
So when BLM protestors attacked government buildings and occupied land for much longer periods of time than a fraction of a day were they also trying to overthrow the government?
It's amazing that so many conservatives can't get this. I've said it before, I think it's because they are such authoritarians they are equivalent to color blind people talking about whether outfits match: they've *heard* there are these colors, but they don't get it, so rather than admit it and ask for help they try to bluff.
Attacking a courthouse office that is recording deeds is bad and one thing. Attacking the capitol when it is certifying a Presidential election is bad and another thing.
Think for a minute about how these people don't get this. I mean, there's lots of things they could say. These protestors misunderstood Trump and got carried away. Trump was a political novice and had bad advisors on this. Etc.
But the fact that they *don't* try this line and instead go with *um, well, why is this any different than when, um, say, some hippies disrupt a zoning meeting in Uttica?" is very demonstrative of their lack of understanding of what was and could be at stake. Wow.
'Attack' = let in without guns.
Truly the greatest threat to democracy since Hitler!
Again, want to know the incredible bad faith of someone like Amos: he started this referring to BLM, who generally didn't use guns in taking over buildings.
He really can't tell his red from blues but is spouting off about "well this outfit isn't so bad!"
Mostly peaceful terrorists. Just ask Minneapolis. What's left of it at any rate.
Did any of the J6 protesters use explosive devices or arson, like various BLM rioters did?
Why are you excluding cases like where a career criminal drew a gun on Kyle Rittenhouse?
It is incredible to me that at this late date, with all the footage, you can think 'let in' is a descriptive term for how the insurrectionists got into the Capitol.
Yup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0FHVB9LHoE
I don't even need to click to see the one example you've picked.
Predictably, you are going to ignore every other bit of footage.
Which is not what people who care about the truth do. But it is what you do!
But then your main thing is strawmanning what Dems think, so the truth has never really been where you find fulfillment. I look forward to the next crazy leftist saying something dumb so you can lament how all Dems think this.
If you read wikipedia or msm sources you'd think J6 was Dday with the J6 protestors storming the capitol like the beaches of normandy. The fact that video exists with large numbers of people being let in by calm security guards pretty much disproves that narrative.
*A* video exists. which shows people numbering in the teens.
You want to use that to ignore everything else that happened as the Capitol was violently breached.
Because, again, reality isn't your happy place.
I'm still a little unclear on the so called pipe bomber and the mysterious non-functional pipe bomb. Obviously nothing to see here though.
"*A* video exists. which shows people numbering in the teens."
Perhaps we'd have a clearer over-all picture if the federal prosecutors hadn't been so determined to deny J-6 defendants access to potentially exculpatory evidence, and the J-6 committee hadn't been so determined to maintain the narrative of a uniformly violent event.
As it is, we know that some people entered violently against opposition, and other people entered peacefully while being politely ushered in, and really have no idea of the relative proportions. I'll just observe that, if we apply your usual standards for left-wing riots, everybody who can't be proven to have personally done something violent must be presumed to have been utterly peaceful and innocent.
There’s a ton of videos Brett, none are being held back.
Also you are once again co planning about trial practice you know nothing about.
Also, you think the FBI did it.
And yes people without particularized evidence of a crime didn’t commit a crime. But then you think guilty pleas aren’t evidence of guilt, though that only comes up in the J6 context.
Brett has built up a truly formidable fortress of being wrong on the law so he can ignore the facts of J6.
They were holding back videos for literally years, the critical period when most people formed their impression of what happened. I haven’t watched 40,000 hours of video, and I’m pretty sure you haven’t, either. So why you’re so confident it’s only one video, I have no idea.
"Also, you think the FBI did it."
What I have said, is that given known communications, and how full of informants the Proud Boys were, that you could make a better case for the FBI planning and directing J-6, than for Trump planning it. Maybe not a great case, but better. At least the FBI is known to have been in communications with numerous people involved, unlike Trump.
Brett loves to carefully correct you and then say the exact crazy shit, but with more words.
Yes, Sarcastr0, thanks to your abysmal reading comprehension, I frequently correct you, and I use a lot of words doing it, because you've already demonstrated that being succinct doesn't work.
you could make a better case for the FBI planning and directing J-6, than for Trump planning it
This is the exact same conspiracy theory. Couching it as 'you could make a better case' does not change that fact.
And some, being invited through open large brass doors (who opened them again, I forget?), violently and brazen walked between roped barriers, and then just left. Not doing that insurrection thing right. I guess they didn't get the memo.
I really like this analogy and — fair warning — am going to steal it.
Although I think you're giving most of them more credit than they deserve. Most are just pretending not to be able to see colors to trick the small number who actually can't.
According to legal documents disclosed Tuesday, Sharon Bush's lawyers questioned Neil Bush closely about the deals, especially a contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years.
Marshall Davis Brown, lawyer for Sharon Bush, expressed bewilderment at why Grace would want Bush and at such a high price since he knew little about the semiconductor business.
"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown.
"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.
it wouldn’t take much to define this as “Acts of War”…
And don't forget the CCP's "Private Police Stations" in the US...
It would in fact, take much to define this as "Acts of War."
These are not acts of war, but inciting harassment and violence, and engaging in it, is inconsistent with diplomatic status. The consular personnel identified as engaging in this conduct should be expelled, and China should not be allowed to replace them since they are obviously not necessary for legitimate consular duties.
Thank you -- I knew it was *something* and called it the wrong thing. My bad.
Calling something "the wrong thing" in a way that urges war is kind of Ed's thing.
Breaches of diplomatic protocol have started wars...
Better mobilize the truckers.
Just for the record; there have been three divisions of Communist Chinese troops (referred to as 'military age young men') infiltrated into the USA so far.
Citation? Since this is for the record and all.
That would be on the order of somewhat less than 100,000 young men. I would assume at least that many are here on college visas.
I doubt they are anything like “infiltrated”, though. Almost all would be wanting to learn to better themselves back in that dictatorship, and many would hope to stay in the US permanently with a green card. We should let them.
Well, if that's what he meant, it's wacky imo to refer to Chinese nationals on visas generally as "divisions of Communist Chinese troops."
I'm pretty sure that, rather than Chinese nationals on visas, he's referring to Chinese illegal immigrants. While the WaPo highlights women and children, they ARE disproportionately military age single men.
Some of the incidents EV highlights are likely due to the fact that "Chinese" can refer to the Chinese government or the Chinese people/race/ethnicity. If you say "The French are wimps" it's hard to tell if you are criticizing the French government for its stance on the second Iraq war or saying the French people are wimps.
...or cheese eating surrender monkeys. Can be applied to both; a people and country lead by Pres. Macaroon.
Thanks for supporting my point!
Malika -- the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) maintains that ethnicity equals nationalism -- that all ethnic Chinese are PRC citizens, regardless of where they live, their citizenship, or their desire to be PRC citizens.
This is a scary concept.
The People's Republic of China can say whatever they want; that doesn't mean anything about the actual human beings.
Otherwise, you end up with 'The Chinese government forced me to hate the ethnic Chinese' which no one will buy; you'd just be yet another bigot with a weird excuse.
That belief motivates the CCP to run their infamous "overseas police stations" that got them into trouble for violating quite a few other countries' laws. Malika's claim that "some of the incidents" were about Chinese ethnicity rather than the Chinese government is also totally unsupported by argument or the linked posts.
Are you and Malika paid by the post, or are you strictly volunteer wumao?
I don't see anything in this post that goes against what I said about not assuming everyone of Chinese ethnicity is working for the Chinese government.
You just wanna pick a fight.
You must be very strong, from moving those goal posts all the time. Don't jump in to white-knight a troll if unless you are willing to stand beside the argument you're defending.
Quote to me the argument I made you have issue with.
To start with:
That's not what anybody was arguing, unless you agree with Malika's troll in the first place, and it's still a big retreat from your trailer comment:
Only Malika was making an argument remotely like either of those assertions. If you want to find the bigots in this thread, look in a mirror.
Don't complain that other people are looking for a fight when your trolling gets called out as stupidly wrong.
Why do you think Ed talked about the CCP and 'maintains that ethnicity equals nationalism,' Michael?
What thesis do you think he had?
Because he thought it was scary that the CCP maintains that all ethnic Chinese are PRC citizens? I mean, that's what his comment said.
If there is something scary, it would seem to apply to ethnic Chinese and we're back to the Chinese government forcing Ed to be racist.
Those of us in free countries don't have to believe the same things as the CCP, Gaslight0. We don't even have to pretend we do. And we especially don't have to pretend that if we don't have relatives in China that the CCP will threaten if they decide we are being too outspoken.
Take it up with Ed, Michael.
You're agreeing with me, but didn't bother to read the context so you don't even realize it.
No, Gaslight0, you are too busy trying to pick a fight with Ed that you refuse to understand what he very clearly wrote.
Mr. I Don't Make Things Up speaks!
Is there a meaningful difference between "maintaining" that and otherwise acting like that's what they believe?
https://freedomhouse.org/report/transnational-repression/china
Only one of the three, so not "some." The first was explicitly about "China" and the third was about Tiananmen Square, it didn't mention "China" or "Chinese." A "Chinese ethnicity" only exists as a synecdoche for Han Chinese or as part of attempt by the Chinese government to forcibly assimilate non-Han Chinese.
The second one also was strictly a comment about China's government, as EV explained (I omit the elaboration of why this conclusion is true):
"Some of the incidents EV highlights are likely due to the fact that “Chinese” can refer to the Chinese government or the Chinese people/race/ethnicity."
Huh? Which ones? I don't see anywhere where there's any ambiguity.
"Some universities have also been going after anti-Chinese-government speech seemingly on their own"
I appreciate the "seemingly"; Even setting aside the notorious "Confucius Institutes", a large number of US educational institutions are receiving Chinese funding. One thing you have to give the Chinese government credit for, they are REALLY good at financial subversion.