In late 2021, Netflix leadership had to deal with some fierce employee and public blowback after airing The Closer, a comedy special by comedian Dave Chappelle. In the special-the last of six that Chappelle was contracted to make for Netflix-his targets included the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus others (LGBTQ+) community, particularly the transgender and nonbinary segments of that population. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings were caught by surprise by the reaction, particularly from Netflix employees, to the special. While supportive of Chappelle despite his often-incendiary remarks over the years, Sarandos and Hastings knew they had to do major damage control. Had they made the wrong decision in allowing this particularly strident special to air? Should they take it off the platform? What was the future of Netflix's relationship with Chappelle? And-very importantly for a company that prized its workforce and had tried to create a culture of inclusion and diversity-how would they deal with Netflix's many disaffected employees?

In late 2021, Netflix leadership had to deal with some fierce employee and public blowback after airing The Closer, a comedy special by comedian Dave Chappelle. In the special-the last of six that Chappelle was contracted to make for Netflix-his targets included the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus others (LGBTQ+) community, particularly the transgender and nonbinary segments of that population. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings were caught by surprise by the reaction, particularly from Netflix employees, to the special. While supportive of Chappelle despite his often-incendiary remarks over the years, Sarandos and Hastings knew they had to do major damage control. Had they made the wrong decision in allowing this particularly strident special to air? Should they take it off the platform? What was the future of Netflix's relationship with Chappelle? And-very importantly for a company that prized its workforce and had tried to create a culture of inclusion and diversity-how would they deal with Netflix's many disaffected employees?

This note, written to accompany "The NBA, China, and Social Media: What Are the Rules of the Game?" (UVA-E-0459) but useful in tandem with other cases, charts the history of freedom of speech in the United States. The US Constitution did not originally include the Bill of Rights (which contains the 1st through 10th Amendments), but after more than 200 years of legal and philosophical shifts, expression rights receive legal protection on a tiered system, with political speech enjoying the least abridgment, commercial and sexually explicit expression subject to some government censorship, and obscenity and fighting words enjoying no protection. This note focuses on political speech, summed up in the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This protection had its challenges over the years, with the most notable blow being the 1798 Sedition Act, which criminalized any questioning of the authority or laws of the US President or Congress. (Congress eventually allowed this act to expire), as well as some 20th century cases (for example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). The note touches on John Stuart Mill's 1859 On Liberty, which made philosophical arguments for the value of free expression that would come to undergird liberal legal interpretations of the 1st Amendment some hundred years later, as well as the repeated infringements of constitutional rights, including free expression during the US Civil War, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Sedition Act of 1918, and other attempts to suppress free speech. Also referenced is theorist Alexander Meiklejohn, who, in 1949, outlined a highly influential philosophy on the limits of free expression.

This note describes how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), founded in 1949, has attempted to create and maintain an official narrative of the country and regime that tilts toward the favorable and minimizes any negative. A key component of the historical narrative has been China's so-called Century of Humiliation, in which China suffered exploitation at the hands of various other nations. Mistreatment by foreigners resulted in China's being disadvantaged in unequal treaties, being impoverished by outrageous indemnity payments, and suffering territorial losses (e.g., Hong Kong and Macau) and violations of its sovereignty (e.g., foreign concessions). In announcing the founding of the PRC in 1949, CCP Chairman Mao Zedong said, ""Ours will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up."" Reference to the Century of Humiliation and China's refusal to be controlled any longer was meant to inspire and motivate national pride in the Chinese people. In recent years, the influence of the national humiliation narrative has become increasingly apparent in China's international actions. The CCP has aggressively responded to perceived offenses by foreign entities, be they governments or companies, with public criticism and mobilization of Chinese netizens. This note was written to accompany ""The NBA, China, and Social Media: What Are the Rules of the Game?"" (UVA-E-0459), which outlines the Chinese reaction to 2019 social media posts sympathetic to protestors in Hong Kong. It gives background on the national humiliation narrative and its ongoing influence on China's relationship with its own people and with other nations.