Censoring the Censors in the WTO - Southwestern Law School

28 J. Int’l Media & Entertainment Law Vol. 3, No. 1
As indicated in the above discussion of the China — Media case, a
comprehensive set of Chinese laws prohibit the publication and dissemination
of specified types of “content” and a number of U.S. foreign
media products and services have been denied entry into China’s
market as a result. In fact, there are so many examples of banned or
restricted U.S. media products in China that it is difficult to believe
that the U.S. in the next few years will not challenge at least one of
China’s prohibited content laws as constituting a prohibited trade
barrier, 49 and in response to the U.S.’ allegations, China almost certainly
would claim in such a WTO dispute proceeding that the law
is justified under the public morals exception to the WTO rules. The
Chinese Government’s removal of information that it considers inappropriate
that is posted on websites maintained by Google and other
providers has been well-publicized. 50 In June of 2009, Google’s
“[s]earch functions and Gmail were inaccessible for more than an hour
in a move seen by web watchers as a warning shot across the bows by
China’s censors . . . as [e]arlier in the day, the main state and communist
party media—Xinhua and People Daily—condemned Google for providing
links to pornographic websites through its search engine.” 51 The
Dec. 27, 2009) (quoting U.S. Trade Representative Robert Portman to the effect that
“ ‘[w]e may not all be great fans of what comes out of Hollywood these days, but it’s
a comparative advantage we have. But in China there’s very little market. Why Because
you can get it on the street for a fraction of the cost.’ And, he said that the U.S.
has a comparative advantage in music recordings, but cannot take advantage of that.”);
Wunsch-Vincent, supra note at 106 (“The U.S. has a comparative advantage in the
production and export of content products (increasingly called core copyright industries
in Washington DC).”) (internal footnote omitted) (citing Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
2001 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements
Program 2 (2002), available at http://www.ustr.gov/Document Library/Reports
Publications/2002/ Section Index.html).
49. In fact, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative reportedly is considering a
petition filed by the First Amendment Coalition of California requesting that the U.S.
initiate a challenge to China’s internet censorship rules in the WTO. Bridges Weekly:
WTO Rules against Chinese Restrictions on Foreign Books, Movies, Music, Int’l Centre
for Trade & Sustainable Dev., ictsd.org, Sept. 7, 2009, available at http://ictsd.org/i/
trade-and-sustainable-development-agenda/54208/ (accessed Dec. 17, 2009).
50. See, e.g., Edward Cody, For China’s Censors, Electronic Offenders Are the New
Frontier, Wash. Post, Sept. 20, 2007, at A1, available at http://www.washingtonpost.
com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090901979.html (accessed Dec. 16,
2009); Google Move ‘Black Day’ for China, bbc.co.uk, Jan. 1, 2005, available at http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stmGoogle (accessed Dec. 17, 2009); China
Blocks Google Services, guardian.co.uk, June 24, 2009, available at http://www.guardian.
co.uk/world/2009/jun/24/google-china-censors (accessed Dec. 17, 2009); Austin Ramzy,
China’s New Domain-Name Limits: More Web Censorship, time.com, Dec. 18, 2009,
available at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948283,00.html (accessed
Dec. 18, 2009).
51. Jonathan Watts, China Blocks Google Services, guardian.co.uk, June 24, 2009,
available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/24/google-china-censors (accessed
Dec. 27, 2009).
3058-088-3pass-02_Wright-r03.indd 28
6/30/2010 12:01:58 PM