Olympics...Brit athletes required to sign a "no China criticism" contract. Will this be a US requirement too?

I am an American attorney in China. I see your question from 2 directions. What can the US do and what WILL the US do. I I will try to just provide analysis points to play the devil's advocate so we know what we are facing when trying to challenge something many find a disgusting wink and nudge to China's cowardice when it comes to discussing its tradition of abusing and subverting the will of its people.

WHAT CAN THE US DO? WHAT IS LEGAL?

From a contract standpoint I think your question is "would it be legal for the US teams to require their athletes to sign this thing." First, the parties: Most importantly you must note that Olympic events are not run as a branch of the government like China. Though athletes represent the US, to the best of my understanding it is not exclusively funded as a government entity. This means that it is not "state action" and the rules regarding the freedom of speech change immensely as a result. We all know that freedom of speech is not absolute. It is even less absolute in non-state matters. Confidentiality agreements, agreeing to limit your freedom to speak, are commonplace. Unless money, funding or state action can be tied to the contract, many of the normal constitutional issues associated with this "content based" limitation to speech simply don't apply. This is important if we want to ratchet up the protections to speech for our athletes.

Second is subject matter. In this case the subject matter involves an agreement to go to China and compete. Is going to China a "fundamental right" or is it a "privilege?" This clearly is not a fundamental right and it clearly is something that is legal to contract for. This means that we don't have a governmental entity taking a fundamental right.

Third is what right is being contracted away. We don't have people agreeing to sell their children or agreeing to be slaves. They are trading the freedom to make some, but not all, political statements about China's hideous human rights tradition. Athletes voluntarily give up many rights to go to the Olympics. For instance, many over the counter medications are completely legal to take but would disqualify them under doping rules. Yes, they can contract to limit what goes into their mouths. It is reasonable to assume that they con contract to limit what comes out of their mouths.

This is not a waterproof argument by any means. If we can tie money and state action to the Olympics and bring governmental action into the contract we can change how courts measure the constitutionality of the contract. But, from a straight-forward private contract standpoint it could pass.

WILL THE US DO THIS?

PRESSURE TO SIGN: Athletes only get one chance in 4 years to get these medals. Many haven't spoken out now, why would they start now? If the athletes represent a true cross-section of the US populace, you will not have a hard time finding a load of people with no genuine interest in international politics or political agendas. Give them 10 pair of tube socks for $1.99 and they won't ask where Walmart got them. They won't have much to say about Tibet or Taiwan, let alone find those places on a map. They want to compete and don't care. That is not a criticism, it is just life. They will sign if they can compete.

PRESSURE NOT TO SIGN: Politically and strategically it is a tough call. The US has taken every advantage to up-play the scourge of defective products and diseased animal food coming from China. China is a competitor and industry has never been shy about using politics to stick its finger in Beijing's eye if given the opportunity. Plus, the athletes have something to say about this, if we let them. Some will resist. These two forces give us a great deal of momentum to refusing to sign an agreement. It would be passing up the opportunity to force the Communist Party in China to face up to its own cowardice when it comes to discussing how it treats it's people.

For China to argue this is a "sporting event" and not a political event is hilariously duplicitous. The Communist Party is dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into staging this event. The government has a monopoly on all television and is running glorious propaganda about the how government sponsored athletes will show the world that China is a "tier 1" society, as CCTV commonly advertises.

Not signing would force their hand. If the US does not agree then Beijing may not approve the Visas of athletes that criticise them. It is their country and we don't have the right to go there without their consent. Simple. BUT, in so doing their cowardice will be exposed and they will have to face what they fear the most - openly discussing the subject. That is why they block the Internet and jail reporters after all - a bone chilling fear of truthful open debate. China has put all its international "face" into this one basket. If they block key athletes and then win medals in that event, their gold medals will always have that shadow of cowardice on them. Ya, they won, but they refused to let the best athlete come and compete because he/she supported the Dalai Lama.

Can it happen the US? Yes, it can. Will it happen in the US? No, probably not.

Can the Communist Party of China actually hold an Olympics without embarrassing themselves? Doubtful. The average citizen is a jewel of a person, many of whom I have come to love like family. The Party, however, is run by power hungry thugs who run the place like the Gambino Family. Though they have already "harmonized" hundreds by placing them in prison until the Olympics are over, there are still enough honest and courageous voices out there to force them to expose their brutality. I just can't see them pulling this off without making fools of themselves.

The Olympics should be a purely athletic event. Unfortunately the modern Olympics have been a stage for political statements. A conduct clause has long been a general requirement in most sports contracts. Whether, or not American athletes will be required to sign such contracts remains to be seen.

I would guess that if the UK has the athletes sign the contract then the US will do the same. I think they want to make sure the athletes are complaining about the conditions when the Chinese have a much lower standard of living. Likely, the Chinese will try very hard to make it nice for the olympics and it's just a matter of being polite.

I can't imagine that US athletes will be required to do this kind of thing. I certainly hope not, anyway.

Pretty telling, isn't it, that someone actually feels the need to protect a country from criticism in this way. Tells us something about that country, all right.

.

No.

So far the US has not made a ruling on these lines.

But, let a politician near the games and it's possible. Hopefully the forthcoming election will keep them occupied.

Ian M

Just heard that the UK is re-considering it's position. Apparently somebody reminded the Olympic Committee that we have freedom of speech.

obvious really

Ian M

Good luck getting Americans to sign that . . . If the U.K. wants to cow tow to China that's their prerogative, as for me, I'd rather not compete.

Yes unless they are willing to boycott they way the USA did it to the Soviet Union,now Russia,in 1980.

I say oil your own machine.