A report was recently released on File770 and the Genre Grapevine that begins to hint at what happened with eligible works being left off the 2023 Hugo Awards ballot. At best it looks like the committee exercised self-censorship so as not to run afoul of China’s laws against criticizing the goverment; at worst it appears the goverment itself may have been involved in providing “oversight” to ensure critics of it’s policies didn’t make it on the ballot. Either way, it doesn’t matter what genre you write, if you’re an author, you should be concerned.
It would be easy to dismiss this as being isolated to that specific Hugo Awards ballot given that the World Science Fiction Convention was being held in China for the first time. It’d also be easy if you’re in the US (or I’d argue Canada, Australia, UK, or a European Union country) to say that it couldn’t happen here. Except, if we look at laws and regulations being proposed and passed in various states (Florida and Missouri immediately come to mind), I’m not so sure it can’t.
Already books are being banned and removed from public school libraries for simply mentioning LGBTQIA2s+ topics and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives are being hollowed out or removed all together. Some of the laws and policies being passed would make it illegal to be transgender in public, which means what would happen if, for example, there was a Worldcon in Florida? Would a transgender author make the ballot?
Think about the Texas Library Association “disinviting” Chuck Tingle after he refused to remove his face covering, which he wears as an accommodation. Is this not a form of censorship? (We could also have some long and serious conversations about how in-person author events are often not accessible for disabled authors, but that will have to wait for another day.)
On the surface it may appear as if the two things aren’t related. Yet, I propose that they are. Chuck Tingle’s face covering is often a pink bag that says ‘love is love’. Correlate this with Texas’s attacks on transgender individuals and reproductive freedom, and we have yet another case of censorship due to state actions or policies.
As much as the social media sphere is ripe with “positive vibes only” or “no politics”, authors cannot ignore these things. If an author can, then it is a privilege to be able to do so, one that should be examined in great detail, because many authors don’t have the luxury of blissful ignorance when it comes to state-sponsored censorship, and the more we learn about the policies and proposals being offered by various states here in the US, as well as abroad, the situation with the Hugo Awards cannot be seen as limited only to an event held in China. The censorship may be more blatant, the overtones more obvious, in China and other authoritarian countries, but it isn’t limited to there.
I encourage every author to read the excellent reporting at File 770 and the Genre Grapevine about this situation, as well as the letters from various persons at File 770 to get a better idea of what we know and some possible future steps. This is also a good reminder why independent reporting matters, because these things can happen here.
