According to Human Rights Watch, the Arab Spring further emboldened the Chinese Communist Party to take action to silence any voices of criticism or dissent within the nation, fearing the possibility of a “Jasmine Revolution.” Additionally, the Chinese Communist Party wanted to send a signal that the leadership transition set to occur should not be seen as an opportunity for increased liberties or fundamental change.

Chinese police took the unusual step early last year of “disappearing” numerous lawyers and activists, including well-known artist and public advocate Ai Weiwei, who was held for 81 days before being released on the condition that he not speak about his experience.

…

It said the latest clampdown came amid growing public awareness of rights issues and widening popular anger.

“More than 100,000 ‘mass incidents’ or protests are estimated to occur annually in China and the Chinese government now budgets more funds for social stability maintenance than national defense,” HRW said.

Among those targeted by the Chinese Communist Party during 2011 was Du Daobin, one of three named plaintiffs in a human rights lawsuit brought by Ward & Ward, PLLC against Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) alleging knowing and willful enablement of the Chinese Communist Party’s harassment, arrest, and torture of Chinese political activists.  Mr. Du, who had previously been imprisoned for posting pro-democracy articles online, was again detained for questioning by Chinese police regarding his involvement in the lawsuit against Cisco and warned that they continued to monitor his online activities.

Unfortunately, it appears the CCP’s increased crackdown in 2011 is only a sign of things to come in 2012:

Last year’s rights record was an alarming sign of what may be still to come as China’s leaders make efforts to enshrine the practice of disappearance in the country’s criminal law, according to HRW China director Sophie Richardson.

…

“The Chinese government’s sharp crackdown on critics—while trying to cover abuses with a fig leaf of legality—is an alarming sign of what the next year could be like for Chinese citizens, government critics, and human rights defenders,” Richardson said.

As we have stated previously, there is no doubt there is more evidence out there regarding Cisco’s ongoing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s continued oppression of its citizens.  If you have any information, please do not hesitate to contact Daniel Ward.  Any such communications will be kept confidential.

Let Cisco Systems know that their continued and knowing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to violate the human rights of peaceful political dissidents like Du Daobin, Zhou Yuanzhi, and Liu Xianbin will no longer be tolerated.  Contact your elected representatives — let them know how you feel.  Finally, if you haven’t already done so, sign the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition– Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!.

These bills and the government’s attempts to police the content of websites has led many to draw parallels with the Chinese government’s “Great Firewall” and its constant vigilance over the activities of Chinese dissidents on the internet.  Many bloggers and activists in China found some humor and irony in the events as they unfolded:

 Watching from China, where Web censorship is practically a national hallmark, some can’t help but smirk and crack jokes about the controversy raging over Internet freedom in the U.S.

“Now the U.S. government is copying us and starting to build their own firewall,” wrote one micro-blogger, relating China’s chief censorship tool to the U.S. plan to block sites that trade in pirated material.

The Relevant Organs, an anonymous Twitter account (presumably) pretending to be the voice of the Chinese communist leadership, quipped: “Don’t understand the hoopla over Wikipedia blackout in the U.S. today. We blacked it out here years ago. Where are OUR hugs?”

While it might be tempting to compare SOPA/PIPA to the Chinese firewall, the reality is they are vastly different devices. The United States government, in seeking these bills, is seeking to combat Internet piracy (often conducted from China), a legitimate cause pursued in a misguided manner. The Chinese government, on the other hand, is seeking to censor its own people and remove any hints of opposition, dissidence, or open debate of politics or policy.

Yet it is interesting to compare the American’s public response to the bill, and their success in opposing it, with the reality Chinese citizens face in being unable to protest the actions or policy of their Government without facing severe consequences.

 ”Only an American company could protest the way Wikipedia or Google has to the government,” said Zhao Jing, a closely followed blogger in Beijing who uses the pen name Michael Anti. “A Chinese company would never get away with that.”

Indeed, China’s Internet sector has no choice but to submit to government pressure -– be it by censoring its own users or implementing whatever happens to be the state initiative of the moment (the latest may require the real-ID registration of 250 million micro-blog accounts despite threats to privacy and the cost burden on Web firms).

Another distinction Chinese activists note is that the proposed legislation in Washington is being debated openly in public and ultimately has to adhere to U.S. law. Chinese censorship, on the other hand, operates in an opaque space where no one really knows what’s banned, what isn’t and who is calling the shots.

While U.S. companies such as Wikipedia and Reddit can comfortably participate in an “Internet Blackout” and American citizens are able, and in fact encouraged, to contact their Congressmen in opposition to a bill, Chinese citizens have no recourse to petition their government to change course. In fact, to do so is to put oneself in the scope of the Chinese government’s police.

One of the companies that led the charge against SOPA/PIPA was of course Google, the largest search engine in the United States and a company that would have found itself having to censor its search results if the bill was passed.  Google has a history of opposing Internet censorship wherever it may be, starting with China itself. In 2010 it declared it would cease to cooperate with the Chinese government’s attempt to censor the Internet, a move that caused much controversy around the world.

Sadly, not all U.S. tech companies have demonstrated the same courage as Google, and worse still some have played crucial roles in helping China continue to develop its system of Internet censorship and violations of human rights. Through this all, Cisco Systems has continued to act as a partner and collaborator with Chinese government’s as it pursues the “Golden Shield Project”

Internet companies and citizens alike should be encouraged by their success in lobbying their representatives to change course and protect the Internet from censorship. Likewise, they should continue to oppose censorship wherever it may be and let Cisco Systems know that their continued and knowing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to violate the human rights of peaceful political dissidents like Du Daobin, Zhou Yuanzhi, and Liu Xianbin will no longer be tolerated.  Contact your elected representatives — let them know how you feel.  Finally, if you haven’t already done so, sign the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition– Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!.

Nonetheless, Christian Bale did not receive a hero’s welcome during a recent visit to China to promote the film. Instead, he became the latest victim of the Chinese governments’ crackdown on voices of opposition and dissidence. While in China, Mr. Bale had hoped to meet with Chen Guangcheng, a blind activist living under house arrest for his work in opposition to China’s one-child policy. Instead, according to the Hollywood Reporter, Mr. Bale soon found himself in a shoving match with Chinese police:

Academy Award winner Christian Bale found himself in a shoving match with local police in a village near Beijing, as The Dark Knight star attempted to visit a Chinese activist that he regards as an “inspiration.”

Bale had invited CNN correspondent Stan Grant and a cameraman to join him on a visit to Chen Guangcheng, a blind activist living under house arrest after being released from prison in 2010. Chen was sentenced to four years in prison for damaging property and disrupting traffic during a protest, although supporters say his legal work on behalf of what Chen said are victim’s of China’s one-child policy, including forced abortions and sterilizations, led to his prosecution.

“Why can’t I visit this free man?” Bale asked repeatedly, with Grant translating. Local police, many dressed in plainclothes, pushed the group back as they approached Chen’s village, punched and damaged a camera Bale was holding, and threw rocks at their car.

“What I really wanted to do was to meet [Chen], shake his hand and say what an inspiration he is,” Bale told CNN.

Instead of apologizing to Mr. Bale for this embarrassing incident and trying to put the bad publicity behind, the Chinese government believes it is the American actor who should be embarrassed. Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weiman says Mr. Bale was invited to China to promote the film, “But he was not invited to create a story or shoot film in a certain village… I think if you want to make up news in China, you will not be welcome here.”

The “make up news” Mr. Liu refers to is the well-documented plight of Mr. Chen.

Chen documented forced late-term abortions and sterilizations and other abuses by overzealous authorities trying to meet population control goals in his rural community. He was imprisoned for allegedly instigating an attack on government offices and organizing a group of people to disrupt traffic, charges his supporters say were fabricated.

Although now officially free under the law, he has been confined to his home in the village eight hours’ drive from Beijing and subjected to periodic beatings and other abuse, activists say.

Chen’s case has been raised publicly by U.S. lawmakers and diplomats, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, all to no response from China.

Mr. Bale’s dustup with Chinese officials is just the latest example of the Chinese government’s attempt to silence any opposition and dissidence. It is the same policy that has led to the Chinese Community Party to pursue the Golden Shield Project, with the assistance of Cisco Systems.

Let Cisco Systems know that their continued and knowing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to violate the human rights of peaceful political dissidents like Du Daobin, Zhou Yuanzhi, and Liu Xianbin will no longer be tolerated.  Contact your elected representatives — let them know how you feel.  Finally, if you haven’t already done so, sign the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition– Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!.

The article addresses both the Du v. Cisco and Doe v. Cisco cases, and Cisco’s muted response to the accusations that have been made and substantial evidence support our clients’ claims.  Daniel Ward is quoted extensively about Cisco’s actions and Du v. Cisco:

The writers are represented by Daniel Ward, a partner at Ward & Ward in Washington, D.C., who filed the suit in federal district court in Greenbelt, Maryland. “This wasn’t just Cisco ignorantly selling routers to an oppressive regime and saying, ‘Gee, let’s hope for the best,’” says Ward. “This is them actively marketing themselves as an entity that could help in the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to oppress dissidents.”

Attorney Ward’s goal is changing the way Cisco and other companies weigh market opportunities. China “is seeking American technological know-how to crush dissent, and those American technology companies know it, but the draw of profits is irresistible to them,” he says.

He believes Yahoo made serious changes as a result of being sued. He hopes the suit against Cisco yields similar results. With Cisco, he says, “our goal is to make that cost-benefit analysis shift.”

As we have stated previously, there is no doubt there is more evidence out there regarding Cisco’s ongoing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s continued oppression of its citizens.  If you have any information, please do not hesitate to contact Daniel Ward.  Any such communications will be kept confidential.

Let Cisco Systems know that their continued and knowing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to violate the human rights of peaceful political dissidents like Du Daobin, Zhou Yuanzhi, and Liu Xianbin will no longer be tolerated.  Contact your elected representatives — let them know how you feel.  Finally, if you haven’t already done so, sign the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition– Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!.

Du, 48, who was jailed for posting articles under a pseudonym on the Internet criticizing the Chinese Communist Party’s rule, said Western technology companies should not cooperate with a government that violates civil rights.

“This kind of cooperation hurts us as well as the companies’ business,” he said. “The publication of our articles are closely monitored and once they’re published, we will end up in jail.”

Du said he was interrogated by police in early August about the lawsuit, but added that the case was “not only for myself, but also for the freedom of every individual in China, to put an end forever to China’s ‘literary jail.’

As we have stated previously, there is no doubt there is more evidence out there regarding Cisco’s ongoing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s continued oppression of its citizens.  If you have any information, please do not hesitate to contact Daniel Ward.  Any such communications will be kept confidential.

Let Cisco Systems know that their continued and knowing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to violate the human rights of peaceful political dissidents like Du Daobin, Zhou Yuanzhi, and Liu Xianbin will no longer be tolerated.  Contact your elected representatives — let them know how you feel.  Finally, if you haven’t already done so, sign the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition– Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!.

The Human Rights Law Foundation, an advocacy group involved in Doe v. Cisco, an Alien Tort Statute lawsuit brought against Cisco on behalf of a number of Falun Gong practitioners, announced Friday that it has new evidence that Cisco Systems, Inc. specifically tailored its products for use by the Chinese Communist Party to monitor and apprehend Falun Gong practitioners.

This evidence, if authenticated, would eviscerate Cisco’s position (as stated by their General Counsel, Mark Chandler) that  “Cisco does not supply equipment to China that is customized in any way to facilitate blocking of access or surveillance of users.”  and that “We have never customized our equipment to help the Chinese government—or any government—censor content, track Internet use by individuals or intercept Internet communications.”

There is no doubt there is more evidence out there regarding Cisco’s ongoing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s continued oppression of its citizens.  If you have any information, please do not hesitate to contact Daniel Ward.  Any such communications will be kept confidential.

Let Cisco Systems know that their continued and knowing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to violate the human rights of peaceful political dissidents like Du Daobin, Zhou Yuanzhi, and Liu Xianbin will no longer be tolerated.   Contact your elected representatives, let them know how you feel.  Finally, if you haven’t already done so, sign the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition– Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!.

Last Monday, Daniel Ward was interviewed on Asia Pacific Forum, for a segment titled “Partners in the Police State? US Tech Giant Cisco Sued for Aiding China.”  Cindy Cohn, Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation was also interviewed for that segment.

Yesterday, Daniel Ward was interviewed on the Marketplace Tech Report, for a segment titled “Suit says Cisco is helping China commit Crimes.”  John Palfrey, co-director of Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society and a professor at Harvard Law School, was also interviewed for that segment.

The Committee to Protect Journalists recently wrote about Du v. Cisco in a post titled “In lawsuit, Chinese writers allege Cisco aids government.”  That article observes that “The threat of legal action may encourage other businesses to examine any potential negative impact of their activities in China” and provides the following quote from EFF’s Cindy Cohn:

“It’s no longer acceptable for companies to plead ignorance about how technology they sell is used,” said Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It’s incumbent upon experts in the field to create standards to guide companies in making ethical business practices, so that companies like Cisco can’t delude themselves or their investors about the blood-stained profits they derived from their business deals with China or other authoritarian governments.”

The growing attention given to Cisco’s actions in China should give Cisco, and other American corporations working with the Chinese Communist Party, pause and concern over their continued willingness to accept “blood-stained profits” from the Chinese Communist Party.

Let Cisco Systems know that their support of the Chinese Communist Party, and its efforts to violate the human rights of peaceful political dissidents like Du Daobin, Zhou Yuanzhi, and Liu Xianbin will no longer be tolerated by contacting your elected representatives and by signing the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition– Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!.

Most important to this of us involved in Du v. Cisco was the EFF’s call for action (directed at Cisco) to preserve the safety of our clients.  In the post, the EFF writes:

“To clarify, we are asking Cisco to contact their customers and business partners in the Chinese government and tell them not to target the plaintiffs in Du v. Cisco or Doe v. Cisco. We hope Cisco will prove that they don’t condone bullying tactics used to repress free speech and that they believe these disputes should be settled under the rule of law, not the iron fist. We’d be particularly pleased if Cisco would make a public statement about their stance on the continued safety of the plaintiffs – and it would certainly go a long way to improving their public image at this time when the world is watching. But above all, we urge Cisco to use every method at their disposal to ensure that Du Daobin and all of the plaintiffs in both cases make it through the court process, and beyond, unharmed by Chinese officials.”

We couldn’t agree more.  Hopefully Cisco does as well, and will let the Chinese Communist Party know that their harassment of the Du Plaintiffs (and those in Doe v. Cisco) is neither wanted nor helpful.  Time will tell.  I am looking forward to reading “Part II” of this series.

Again, the safety of our clients in Du v. Cisco is dependent, in no small part, on the fact that the world is watching.  Keep watching, and let Cisco know you are are watching by signing the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition– Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!  We also ask that you contact your elected representatives in Congress and let them know that complicity in the abuse of human rights by American corporations should no longer be tolerated.