Free Speech on Zoom

Zoom was crowned a “Surprise Winner of 2020” by CNN Business. The video-conferencing software hosted everything from online lectures (bad) to family quiz nights (worse). Unsurprisingly, the company’s stock rocketed more than 400% higher in 2020, and the boom looks set to continue into the new year. However, with great power comes great responsibility.

On 18th December 2020, the United States District Court in New York filed a complaint and affidavit against Xinjiang Jin, a Chinese Zoom executive based in the Zhenjiang province. Also known as Julien Jin, the 39-year-old has been fired from his role as Security Technical Leader, but hasn’t been arrested (China does not have an extradition agreement with the US). He faces charges of conspiracy to interstate harassment and conspiracy to transfer means of identification, in connection with the heavily censored anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests.

Mr Jin was responsible for preventing users from violating the law or Zoom’s terms of service, as well as primary liaison with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) authorities. In recent years, the PRC has been hostile towards other US-based tech companies, such as Apple and LinkedIn. Due to the country’s economic bargaining powers, many companies feel forced to comply, or risk having their services taken down in the country. Zoom has a significant presence in China, where it employs hundreds of people.

The government continues to view dissenting political voices as a threat, not only to the interests of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) but to the one-party system as a whole. The anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Protests is one of the most heavily censored events in China. Beijing continually refuses to talk about what happened in the June 1989; it has never given a clear account and or shown remorse. At the time, the CCP-controlled media did not report on Tiananmen Square. 32 years on, searches on Chinese websites (such as Baidu) generate scant and unreliable information. As a result, many people in the PRC know little about Tiananmen Square – especially as it isn’t taught in schools.

In the 1980s, many old communist states were beginning to open up, and China emerged from the Cultural Revolution to introduce market economy. This brought prosperity and moral liberty, but angered many conservatives in the CCP.

In April 1989, Hu Yaobang (the well-liked General Secretary of the party) died, and mourners took to the streets to pay their respects. The crowds included many students, and soon led to protests. On April 26th, the official mouthpiece of the CCP published an editorial in which the party vowed to take a clear stand against disturbances.

Many protestors camped out in Tiananmen Square. They weren’t seeking to overthrow the one-party system. Their main aims were a crackdown on corruption, freedom of press, and to open a dialogue with the government and its Premier, Li Peng. By mid-May, hundreds of students started hunger strikes, and many more protestors gathered to show support.

Although the students finally met with the Premier on 18th May, tensions grew and the discussions soon fell apart. The crowds continued to gather in Tiananmen Square, ignoring a newly imposed curfew.

On the night of 3rd- - 4th June, 200,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army moved into the square, and gunfire was heard throughout the night. They tore down the statue of the Goddess of Democracy, which had come to symbolise the protest movement. Although the death toll is still unknown, estimates run from hundreds to several thousand.

It is still impossible to openly mark the anniversary in mainland China, but vigils are held in Hong Kong and abroad. This year, commemorative events were held on Zoom.

The charges against Mr Jin allege that he and others conspired to terminate at least four Zoom meetings hosted in the US. Due to pressure from the PRC, Mr Jin attempted to collect social media evidence in order to identify participants and gather pretextual reasons to block the online anniversary. He and others also infiltrated Zoom meetings to gather evidence of misconduct. This was unsuccessful. In a last-ditch attempt, Jin and others fabricated evidence of violations of the company’s terms of service, and tasked a high-ranking US-based Zoom employee to terminate the meetings and suspend/cancel user accounts.

Some of the pretextual reasons provided to justify the termination of meetings included that the hosts were involved with a Chinese cult using the software for religious purposes, unauthorized by the CCP. Then, during a commemorative Zoom event on 3rd June 2020, the company’s general complaints system received several emails alleging that the meeting was being used to incite terrorism, violence and share child pornography. According to the FBI, none of the complainant email addresses had actually been present in the meeting.

The meeting organisers restarted the event with a different meeting ID and account, but it was hijacked by accounts showing photos of naked women and Islamic State symbols. After receiving emails from Mr Jin, alleging incitement of violence and pornographic content, the US-based colleague once again terminated the meeting and suspended the accounts.

The anniversary event organisers had bought licenses and subscriptions, and had therefore entered into a service agreement. In this document, Zoom sets out its obligations for content:

Zoom will maintain reasonable physical and technical safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of or access to Content, in accordance with industry standards. Zoom will notify You if it becomes aware of unauthorized access to Content. Zoom will not access, view or process Content except (a) as provided for in this Agreement and in Zoom’s Privacy Policy; (b) as authorized or instructed by You, (c) as required to perform its obligations under this Agreement; or (d) as required by Law. Zoom has no other obligations with respect to Content.

Therefore, Mr Jin’s schemes to shut down legitimate meetings hosted in the US violated the company’s own terms of service – and contradicted the fundamental right to free speech which the Tiananmen Square protestors had sought. These offences were committed at the behest of the PRC, which continues to suppress political dissent and refuses to confront the brutal atrocities of June, 1989.