Skip to main content

Activision Blizzard and The First Amendment

Colten Dudley
Prof. Matthew Hitt
Blog Post 2
October 16, 2019


Activision Blizzard and The First Amendment
As a member of the video gaming community in the United States, the past few weeks have been particularly odd. Activision Blizzard, a publishing parent company for both Activision and Blizzard (apparently smashing the names together makes a new company), is under heavy fire after an esports contestant “Blitzchung” voiced his support for the protests going on in Hong Kong. The winner of the video game competition lost all of his expected payouts, roughly 10,000 dollars in tournament winnings, and banned him from playing in another competition for over a year. In addition to this, the esports casters were fired from their jobs for simply sharing the screen with the player while he voiced his support for Hong Kong. 
This has caused fairly severe outrage amongst American Consumers, who see this movement made by Activision Blizzard as censorship of Free Speech made in favor of appeasing the Chinese Government, as the Chinese market for video games is a sort of ‘Holy Grail” for publishers. In the blog post announcing Blitzchung's ban, Blizzard said "we stand by one's right to express individual thoughts and opinions," but Blitzchung's comments were considered to be too harmful to the company. 
These events beg the question; should American companies violate the norms and laws on their country to appease another? These events come post NBA controversy, where an executive with the Houston Rockets voiced his support for Hong Kong protestors, infuriating Chinese fans and leading to major backpedaling on behalf of the NBA to appease the Chinese Government. However, as the gaming market grows, It is clear why companies are making the choice to appease China.  A Newzoo forecast predicted that Asian-Pacific regions will make up 47% of all consumer spending on games, and if these games don't meet Chinese standards, they won’t be sold to that area. 
The market is massive in China, so it is obvious that companies would want to take advantage of that. But when American Companies are outright censoring free speech in order to secure a dollar, American consumers become concerned.
This situation will continue to play out in the coming weeks, as Developers associated with these publishers voice their own distaste for Activision Blizzard’s actions. The legality of their actions is being called into question, and should have members of the United States constituency thinking about the companies that they support and the intentions that each of those companies have. This case could come to surface in future political news as tensions rise and American companies continue to support an oppressive Government overseas for a buck.
















Sources
Victor, Daniel. “Hong Kong Protests Put N.B.A. on Edge in China.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/sports/basketball/nba-china-hong-kong.html.
Webb, Kevin. “Here's a Timeline of Activision Blizzard's Terrible Week, as It Faces Fan Protests after an Esports Athlete Was Punished for Voicing Support for Hong Kong.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 12 Oct. 2019,
Wilson, Jason. “Newzoo: U.S. Will Overtake China as No. 1 Gaming Market in 2019.” VentureBeat, VentureBeat, 21 June 2019, venturebeat.com/2019/06/18/newzoo-u-s-will-overtake-china-as-no-1-gaming-market-in-2019/.




Comments

  1. KaitlynAndersonOctober 22, 2019 at 11:41 AM

    This issue is very interesting. I had heard about the issue with the NBA last week from one of my other political science classes. I agree with you that it is concerning that companies like this are trying to make money by appealing to the Chinese audience. I do not think that it is right for companies or the government to oppress the first amendment right of companies that choose to voice support for issues like this whether it is to make money or not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Turner ChangOctober 23, 2019 at 8:06 PM

    I have been watching this issue and ones similar where Chinese regulations are affecting how American companies operate and i find this very troublesome. This corrupts our businesses forcing them to adhere to Chinese laws or lose out on billions of dollars in profit. I feel that this will become a more mainstream issue soon because with so much Chinese influence in our economy hopefully our government wont follow suit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eric KrawczykOctober 24, 2019 at 1:50 AM

    Very interesting topic and a good job connecting esports into the political topic. I had heard about the NBA problem before, but the esports connection was an interesting take. It will be very interesting to see how the Hong Kong situation takes place and if congress will interfere.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Two-Party System: Possible Impacts on Polarization & Congressional Policy Making

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 16 Oct. 2019 Blog Post 2 (Two Party System)             The two-party system in the United States of America has been an integral part of our political culture since the country’s inception in the 1700’s. Since then, our country has accepted this system as an inevitable part of how our nation’s leaders are chosen, nominated, and elected into office. Now days, when it comes to our contemporary national congress, both parties have spent an incredible amount of money and resources in an attempt to seize majority control in both the House and the Senate. This attempt to seize majority power in our legislative branch has led to a situation of heated competition. In fact, in recent history, we as citizens of this nation have seen our national Legislator become a partisan battle ground in which both parties and their members are seemingly polarized to an extent that the ...
2 comments
Read more

TABOR and Colorado Politics Post-CC

       One of the more contentious topics within Colorado politics is budgeting and funding for projects, education, and revenue intake. This came to a head in this year's election with Proposition CC. Despite failing at the ballot box, the Democratic Party is pushing ahead with the 2020 legislative agenda that includes drafts to eliminate the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights or amend it to ensure more accessible revenue for the party's policy objectives. What is critical to the debate is the increasing partisan divide within Colorado, the historical shift from Republican control to Democrat trifectas in state government, and the institutional mechanisms that have hampered strategy for the dominant party. Also, in the mix are interest groups that influence local politics which can help uncover party strategy from another perspective.        The Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI) a left-leaning think tank, is a key player in this battle, authoring s everal...
6 comments
Read more

Insulin cap in Colorado

In the United States, the topic of medication prices has increased substantially, specifically insulin. Insulin is a medication used to treat type one Diabetes which typically costs a thousand dollars or more depending on how much you need, and how much your insurance is willing to pay. Colorado changed this with a bill designed to put a cap on the copay for insulin. The bill HB19-1216 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in May of 2019. This bill states that “a carrier that provides coverage for prescription insulin drugs pursuant to the terms of a health coverage plan the carrier offers shall cap the total amount that a covered person is required to pay for a covered prescription insulin drug at an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars per thirty-day supply of insulin, regardless of the amount of type of insulin needed to fill the covered person’s prescription.” This bill will go into effect on January 1st, 2020 and will be overseen by the department of law who will investi...
7 comments
Read more